Talk:Adolf Hitler

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

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 Also as Jayjg says, the 32k limit is arbitrary and is becoming more and more out-of-date.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)

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 [[%C1satr%FA#Modern forms|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)

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).

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.

Hitler - birth/death dates and places
AH was leader of Nazi Party.
AH was a political figure (see below)
AH became Führer und Reichskanzler during Third Reich
established dictatorship, but said less judgmentally and more firmly as "authoritarian regime"
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)

Hitler and the church

I find it odd that the material about Hitler and German churches is in the legacy section, but the content is helpful. I propose creating a new section in the article (just before or after the holocaust section) or... maybe a link to a new article, Hitler and the church would be appropriate. Thoughts anyone? Wyss 16:52, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and the Churches is certainly a very interesting topic. Some of that should be in the Gleichschaltung article. But the churches in the Third Reich, especially the Catholic Church, e.g. the agreement of Hitler with the Pope is a topic that deserves special attention. ben 05:26, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

the Hitler article is already overloaded with the story of the Third Reich and WWII. There could be some comments on his religious beliefs (actually there are already some), but not about the official policy with the churches. ben 15:28, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think so too. Maybe a separate article then... Wyss 15:47, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The german wiki has an article on the subject, see de:Religion während des Nationalsozialismus. Also, there is de:Ariosophie and our Nazi mysticism, a separate, but related topic. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm... ready-made maybe. Wyss 20:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote my thesis on this subject. I will be happy to split this off if that is okay with everyone Jprismon 03:16, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please! Wyss 05:20, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a policy against original research. —ExplorerCDT 06:01, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, let's wait 'till we see it... AH had some well-documented interactions with the church and one can always strip out any stretchy inferences. Wyss 10:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Noted. I am planning on staying inbounds on the generally accepted view of Hitler's relation with the church and the neo-romanticism and cult of Hitler topics. I will split this out this weekend. Jprismon

Starting to work on it here: Hitler and Religion (Bad timing, computer crashed and I lost a good chunk of the work). Still working on it. --Jprismon 05:18, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I have a big chunk to do I usually write it in a text editor (and save a lot) to avoid that sort of unhappiness but you've likely thought of that by now [grin]. Thanks, btw. Wyss 10:34, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it was msword. Curse it all. --Jprismon 23:07, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reviled

Someone asked why the word's been called redundant... it's also used at the end of the article. I'd noticed it before and decided I didn't care, although normally an adjective like that shouldn't be repeated in a single article. Maybe substitute loathed or hated for one of them? It's certainly accurate. Wyss 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that "reviled" was used again at the end. The lead section, acting as it does as an introduction to and summary of the rest of the article can repeat some of what follows. I don't have a problem with the repetition of the word "reviled", and "loathed" or "hated" are not quite synonymous. Paul August ☎ 13:56, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

I not only dislike the redundancy and repitition, but feel that the placement in that particular sentance is poor prose. Neutrality is also an issue, no matter how unpopular the individual in question (and Hitler is arguably the most unpopular individual in history) we should strive to present them fairly, allowing the reader to form their own opinions. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 14:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree, also regarding keeping a steady neutrality. The results of his efforts do speak for themselves (as noted above etc). Wyss 14:58, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am having trouble finding concrete information on the defeat of Hitler. The information I do find is sort of beating around the bush, and I need a soild answer, quick (the due date of the project I need this for is in 2 days). If you know of anything on the internet that states the exact way and aprox./exact(exact preferred) date he was defeated, can you please tell me? If you read this after February 20, 2005, don't bother, because I need it before them. I have one more question. I had never heard of this site before, and just found it yesterday while using a search engine to research about Hitler. I am a little speculative about the authenticity of the information on this site, seeing as how basically anyone is offered a chance to start an article about a subject that has not been used before. Is there someone who reviews the information and insures that it is not just a bunch of made-up stuff? Dana 16:33 February 20, 2005

Yes, there certainly is, and his name is apparently Dana? Would you like to form a user account? Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:57, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, his name is not Dana, that is my name, and I am a she. Do you have any information on the defeat of Hitler. Why should you have a user account (ie: necessary)

Hi Dana, welcome to Wikipedia. If you're looking for information on AH, you might want to read the article. After comparing it with other sources you should be able to decide for yourself how accurate it is, and how helpful it might be to you. Wyss 23:16, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have read other information, and ithas said was repeatedly beat as a child, yet this article says that he just didn't like his father and his upbringing was normal for the time, was it normal for the time to give your child daily whippings? And then some say his whole family was also beat by his father, do you know if this is just an overexaggeration? -Dana

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. We all peer review each others work here, and since you are now involved this far, you have just as much right to verify information as anybody else. You don't have to form a user account, but it helps alot if you want to do stuff like edit. As far as your questions, I have no idea, a good % of what I know about Hitler is already in the article, the rest is mainly conjecture, as any stories about his upbringing are certain to be. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 23:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About AH's relationship with his father Alois, it was "normal" for boys at that time and place to receive punishment in the form of beatings (this sounds odd and cruel to most of us today). While young Adolph had arguments with his father, and was teased by him (again, not unusual) drawing any sort of causality between the sort of parental discipline he recieved and his later behavior is utter speculation. In principle, it's probably more significant that Alois died when Hitler was on the cusp of his teens but again, drawing a relationship between that event and AH's later life is ultimately guesswork. Taken as a whole, the disarray of his family and the early deaths of his parents probably played their part, and the article includes the documented facts pertaining to that. Wyss 00:18, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally I take the word of Hitler himself, and his doctors. Hitler claims that he was inspired to believe as he did by observing the Autro-Hungarian empire, by reading tracts and opinionated newspapers, and by being suprised to discover Jews were an ethnicity as well as a religion, and that some of them were not German in his eyes (I think he may have been refering to hassidim, as he remarks that previously Jews had looked much like any other german, but that the Jews of the city did not). Also, his doctor suggests that he had syphillis, and regularly recieved methamphetimine injections. See Hitlers medical health for more info. I seriously doubt his upbringing was of any great import. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 01:14, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The drug aspect may be significant, starting at Pasewalk, the field hospital where he recovered from temporary blindness as the Great war ended. It appears he regularly took methamphetimine and cocaine through the 20s and 30s and 40s, both prescribed by doctors. Moreover, the essentially toxic "treatments" his personal physician Theo Morell was giving him by 1942 almost certainly had an effect on his behavior during the 39-45 war. There's a story that on July 20, 1944, a young doctor treated AH immediately after the bomb explosion with cocaine (swabs in the nose, as I recall), and was subsequently shocked to learn that one of the daily "drugs" Morell was giving Hitler was bella donna (a poison). By any account I've ever read Morell was a quack (not an assasin). So one can assume a likelyhood of some influence on his behavior but again, aside from that context, it's speculation. Wyss 01:34, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word allowed

I mistakenly thought there had been a consensus for that. I prefer encouraged since promoted sounds like he was selling soap (which he was but that's another story). Let there be no doubt he was behind it... they obviously avoided a paper trail at the time and/or burned it. I also removed a repeated sentence, artifact of the rounds of editing this AM I guess. Wyss 13:42, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My recent edits

I removed the Krockow paragraph about secrecy over Hitler's life, as it smacks of original research (a wiki no-no) and reads like a badly written college sophomore's term paper.
I removed the statement that Hitler was born "around 18:30 LMT" - who knows that? is it on his birth certificate? I find it speculatory and vague, and I doubt it will ever be verifiable.
I reorganized some of the section divisions in the article, as we had one title saying "biography", which had nothing to do with biography...just original research interpretations. I organized Biography into the section entitle "early life" putting "Childhood" "Early Years Vienna and Munich" and "First World War" as subsections.

We really have to pare down this bio...it's out of hand and just tries to accomplish too much...including aggrandizing insignificant detail. —ExplorerCDT 06:12, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I saw that you again ignored that I asked for discussing some points and you just undid my changes. I wonder whether the talk page tells us more about dictatorship and democracy than the article. I saw in RequestedMove you called somebody an "annoying little gnat" 2 times with no reason, just because he/she asked for a discussion. Anyway, I take a time out, I was very upset to see the page two weeks ago because it was just so bad and I did a lot of changes. I see the page got better a lot. A lot of more changes are needed and I wanted to see for some, but I don't see a positive atmosphere and I don't have the time to just argue with some people who don't have the necessary understanding of democratic procedures or just culture of discussion. You can change whatever you like, I am in time out. ben 07:01, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)

That kid has been annoying for the last three weeks. Not just twice. Discussion is o.k., I like discussion. But when things are glaringly wrong, I have no compunction whatsoever about making them right. —ExplorerCDT 07:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Two remarks... it's a historical fact Hitler was secretive about his genealogical origins, that they were rather more incestuous than "average" and took documented steps to research and "erase" parts of his past (whatever the reason, although the most recent scholarship tends to limit any possibility he was 1/4 Jewish, the existance of a doubt was political fodder for his opponents etc). Meanwhile, I'm all for paring down the article where possible, keeping in mind this is a way significant topic that merits a somewhat longer than average, but succinct bio/article. Wyss 02:57, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be mentioned, but the two paragraphs I removed at the head of the bio article were poorly written, smacked of a sophomoric effort, and in my mind, were more an attempt to bring publicity to these two historian's theories rather than promote serious analysis of Hitler. Something should be mentioned, just not that way. —ExplorerCDT 15:21, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ExplorerCDT, I agree with your reversion of the first paragraph back to what was agreed upon last week. Wyss 03:29, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the kid who was editing is supposedly an admin...some admin not even bothering to see the discussion page to see we talked about it. He finally apologized. —ExplorerCDT 15:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- P.S. Are you going to vote at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, I need your vote to save Requested Moves. —ExplorerCDT 15:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paring down the Biography

As some of us have agreed, the bio needs to be pared down...not with regard to content, but in superfluous writing, awkward construction and insignificant detail. I'm more than happy to start, but I'd like to seek your guidance before embarking on what may be perceived as too disruptive an endeavour. Comments? Suggestions? Things you'd like to see added or removed? —ExplorerCDT 15:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

203.36.44.13

why his edits were reverted? i think his edits were fain. --Haham hanuka 15:44, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

203.36.44.13/203.36.44.14 stated that Hitler's sexuality became ambiguious when he started gymnastics especially after experience on the pommel horse? And that his "famous comover (sic...comb-over, i think) had its origins from the gymnastics days? Are you smoking something? What the hell is fain? —ExplorerCDT 16:00, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- [1] what's wrong with this edition, he worte about some speculation about Geli's death and worte something about Hitler's autopsy... where did he write about his sexuality?? --Haham hanuka 16:31, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Hmm... if you'd look yourself, you would see: [2] where he incorrectly replaced "british empire" with "french empire", [3] where he mentioned the sexuality issue, and [4] where he mentioned the comb-over after RickK reverted his earlier vandalism. The section on Hitler's alleged participation in Geli's death is still there and "autopsy" remain, as I should remind you they were not added by 203.36.44.13 or 203.36.44.14. If you think his/her contributions are worthwhile, you are sorely mistaken. —ExplorerCDT 17:52, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comment, the bizarre edits by 203.36.44.13 regarding a "combover" along with gymnastics and pommel horses in elementary school have zero basis and were simple vandalism. Haham hanuka, fain is an adverb, not an adjective. As for Geli, the documented evidence indicates she killed herself, probably because she felt trapped in a suffocating sexual relationship with a politically powerful uncle (keep in mind, AH's mother was his father's niece as well, so having that sort of interest in one of his own nieces probably wasn't much of a psychological stretch for him). Various rumours swirled around at the time but that's all they were. I removed the bit about AH spending many subsequent Xmas eves in Geli's former room in the Munich apartment not because I don't believe it (for all I know he may have done), but because it's not documented other than as anecdote and seems too granular for an encylopedia article. Wyss 06:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the kid who was editing is supposedly an admin...some admin not even bothering to see the discussion page to see we talked about it.

I haven't been a "kid" for almost two decades and you can check Wikipedia:List of administrators to see for yourselves that i am indeed an admin - aside from that yes i didn't look at the talk page and yes i should have before i acted. PMA 23:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The word infamous

I don't think the word significant implies "love" at all, no way, and the word infamous would inevitably throw the factual credibility of the entire article into question. AH was one of the most significant leaders in world history and effectively murdered tens of millions (including millions of the "aryans" [sic] he was supposedly trying to help). Wyss 20:45, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

infamous (în´fe-mes) adjective

1. Having an exceedingly bad reputation; notorious. 2. Causing or deserving infamy; heinous: an infamous deed. 3. Law. a. Punishable by severe measures, such as death, long imprisonment, or loss of civil rights. b. Convicted of a crime, such as treason or felony, that carries such a punishment. Famous for a negative reason basically.

Excerpted from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from INSO Corporation; further reproduction and distribution in accordance with the Copyright Law of the United States. All rights reserved.

I think this is one of the few cases where "infamous" is actually justified. "Significant" can imply a certain favorable notion, I think, and makes me at least a bit uncomfortable (and I don't think I'm odd on this account). Howabout instead portentous? --Fastfission 23:49, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

AIDS is significant too (does that imply a favourable notion?), and I wouldn't call it an infamous auto-immune disease in an encyclopedia article. Portentous is even worse. AH didn't show up in the 1920s with a Future Infamous Dictator sign hanging around his neck, which is one reason why he got as far as he did. Wyss 00:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "significant" is technically neutral but it sounds too positive to me. That's why I tried to balance it by adding "and reviled", but it got edited away. Paul August ☎ 02:45, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

The article makes it clear this person was a political sociopath who murdered millions. The term reviled appears at the end of the article and was edited out from the opening partly because it was being used twice, partly because it's a summary of opinion (well-documented, accurate and IMHO more than reasonable to mention there). Wyss 03:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is moot, IMHO. Neither term contributes to good style. See Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Avoid_peacock_and_weasel_terms.
Sebastian 04:21, 2005 Mar 6 (UTC)

We have negative superlatives like "infamous," "heinous" and "enormity" exactly so we can apply them to people like Hitler and events like the Holocaust. Who is infamous if not Adolf Hitler? Demi 09:13, 2005 Mar 9 (UTC)

irrelevant links

i think that the History of Gays during the Holocaust is not related to this article, someone oppose for removing this links? also the external link "The Straight Dope: Was Hitler part Jewish?" should be removed (Rotten.com was removed). --Haham hanuka 16:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm neutral on both, not thrilled, wouldn't have picked them, but since they're external and seem reasonably accurate I'm ok with them either being there, or not. Wyss 00:59, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the History of Gays during the Holocaust should go, and the "was hitler Jewish" should stay, since the 1st isn't about him, and the 2nd is. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 03:06, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Sam. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:51, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok i'll remove only the links to the "History of Gays during the Holocaust". --Haham hanuka 11:36, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told I do agree that the link about gays may be a bit gratuitous when one uses Sam Spade's reasoning. Comment: It's been my impression that one of AH's biggest issues with homosexuality was that he perceived it as an impediment to baby production (necessary for his vision of pan-Germanic expansion and redemption). It's also interesting that the leadership of the SA was populated by many gays when Hitler purged it, although his reasons for doing so seem to have been political. I imagine he also viewed "gay culture" (as we might call it today) as intrinsically subversive to what he was trying to accomplish. Wyss 11:47, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, homosexuality wasn't a big theme of Hitler's at all, but he was of course perfectly happy to have them sent off to the camps along with whoever else public opinion made it expediant to be against. Its very telling that he waited until the last possible moment to purge Ernst Röhm, whom he personally liked and respected a great deal. The purge of Röhm and other "homosexuals" (I'm far from convinced their was anything more to that allegation than slander) had far more to do with the working class nature and leftist leanings of the SA and other Strasserists within the Nazi party than anything else. It was a power play, rather than a crackdown on homosexuality, IMO. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 13:15, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Whether or not homosexuality was common in the SA leadership by the time of the purge (I infer it was, from various accounts, aside from the scandal-mongering before and after), while assertive/visible gays obviously had grave difficulties like any divergent group, I'd say we agree AH never seemed to focus on the issue. Wyss 04:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

external links

Why were these links deleted? (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 19:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They're Hitler-bashing, distorted, seem to contain mis-statements of fact and stuff presented out of context. The Internet is replete with sites like these about AH, unhelpful because they're not instructive. Wyss 20:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah thanks, I was just curious. They seemed of rather poor quality to me as well, but I wanted to know why they got cut. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)

Color Photo

Why in the world was thec olor photo removed at the start of ths article? It was one of the best pictures of Hitler I've seen. C an we bring it back? -Husnock 8MAr05

It was a great character study with lots of interesting detail and added something to the article. Unfortunately, it seems to have been a copyright violation. Wyss 02:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alois Corrections

Having extensively re-written the article on Hitler's father Alois Hitler (mostly for syntax and style), I realized that there were some minor errors about Alois in the main article. It was Alois who appeared before the priest, making an affidavit that his step-father was his biological father. I've also clarified the language about this in general: Hitler's grandfather was likely one of the Hiedler brothers (one married Alois' mother, the other played a huge role in raising him). The Frankenberger story (from which the "Hitler was Jewish" rumours have come) is now presented plainly as an interesting rumour with no basis in documented fact. Wyss 18:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Paula and the orphan's pension

I've inserted a brief mention of this because it may provide some interesting character (or family) insight, and gives more context to his constant financial struggles in Vienna after his mother died. Wyss 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and the church

I've at last taken this content out of the legacy section (where it certainly didn't fit) and created a new article for it, Hitler and the church, as previously discussed here. I suspect this new article will get filled out and cleaned up over time. Wyss 20:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

An Uncontrolled Experiment - AH's Paintings

Presented only for the amusement of readers of this talk page...

Ever since I was about twelve and saw a few paintings by AH in some book for the first time, I thought he had mild talent as a painter... above average, so to speak, even pleasing with buildings, landscapes and plants but oddly inept, even "creepy" when drawing people (maybe I wouldn't have said it that way when I was twelve, but I remember thinking it). Anyway, along with working on some of these AH-related articles during the past week, I stumbled across a website (linked from the main one here) with lots of AH paintings I'd never seen before. As usual, I found myself "sort of" liking some of them, but was slightly uncomfortable with his drawings of people (bear in mind, it's always hard for me to mentally disassociate AH artifacts from images of the camps and so on).

I should add that for me, most painters don't paint people with the convincing, stirring flair of a Waterhouse, Rockwell, Draper, Hacker or Dali, to name some broadly put "contemporaries" of AH with whom one might even begin to draw some sort of comparison.

So I chose a few scans of AH paintings that didn't involve people (flowers, buildings and landscapes), arranged them on the monitor display, made sure his name wasn't showing anywhere and called out to my friend who graduated from a respected European college with a four-year degree in fine arts... as a painter.

Me: So what do think of these?

Friend: Hmmm... wow!

Me: You like them?

Friend: These are great! Super!

After looking at them together for a minute or so, my friend paused, and said,

"These are by Adolf Hitler, aren't they?"

"Yep."

"They were crazy for rejecting him from art school."

I opened a few scans of architectural sketches by AH. The response was similar... talented and so on.

I brought up some portrait sketches of heads by AH.

Me: They're ok, I guess. About like any decent sketch artist at Montmartre...

Friend: Oh, better than that.

Finally, I brought up an AH nude (which I find slightly creepy), and while my friend liked it more than I did, we agreed the head was too small, among other details.

Either way, I think I can understand somewhat why he felt resentment at being rejected (twice) from attending a major art school. I think I can also see why someone told him he should try architecture. As his sister Paula said after the war, would that he had... Wyss 22:28, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Acronyms in opening

I'm not sure what's with the back-and-forth on the opening, leader of the National Socialist German Workers (Nazi) Party.

Let's discuss this before changing it again, since some consensus editing was involved in getting it into the current form (remembering the need to keep the opening paragraph crisp).

The acronym NSDAP is certainly not too familiar to most English-speaking readers (not to say it's obscure, but it's certainly not "better known as"), for example and I can't remember one time when I've heard AH's political party referred to as the NSDAP in verbal conversation. I've seen it now and then in English texts, more so in German ones maybe.

Anyway is there some specific reason why it doesn't work as it is? Wyss 08:45, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

i think my version is better, (Nazi Party and National Socialist German Workers Party redirect to the same place. --Haham hanuka 11:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We can de-link one of them. I think that Wyss is correct,the acronym is helpful to include, as it was as the NAZI leaader that Hitler became notable. Thanks for bringing your concerns to the talk page. Cheers, -Willmcw 13:00, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Willmcw that works for me too. Wyss 15:25, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think National Socialist German Workers Party should be interrupted with the parenthetical "Nazi" as it currently written. Parentheticals belong after the terms being qualified, not in the middle. For all it is worth (given the etymological nature of the acronym), the parenthetical "Nazi" could logically belong as such: National Socialist (Nazi) German Workers Party. I prefer seeing it as National Socialist German Workers Party (better known as the Nazi party). —ExplorerCDT 16:31, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From a stylistic perspective, I don't think it's a problem. I think the alternate of putting the acronym in the middle of the name is a false dilemma and that "better known as " isn't necessary. There does seem to be some sort of a concern with how this reads, though, understandable with such an incendiary topic. My thoughts continue below under AH was a Nazi. Wyss 05:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Visits abroad

Is this section of the article really necessary...after all, despite omitting the rumoured trips to England in 1937/38 the drives through Prague, the trip to Italy, and a few others I can think of off the cuff, the section only has one entry that would probably be placed better in the WWII writeup and not as an autonomous section. —ExplorerCDT 16:32, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping someone might bring this up. No, I don't think this section is helpful. AH never visited the UK. His half brother lived there for a time (and passed some of it in prison for theft). The author of the book with that claim was an in-law and she later admitted to a family member most of it was made up, she was trying to spice up the book to make money- it didn't work btw (I remember playing a game of Trivial Pursuit and seeing a card that erroneously said he'd spent time in Liverpool). Hitler went to Italy and I think Spain (I've forgotten where that humiliating meeting with the wiley Franco was) on a very few state visits, he was in Belgium during the Great War along with France which he of course visited in 1940, too. That's about it... his famous, heavily secured eastern headquarters "Wolf's Lair" was in Poland... Grossdeutschland [sic] as far as he was concerned... I'd say remove it... Wyss 16:49, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the section is a waste of space. Recent scholarship had alleged that Hitler journeyed to England in '37 or '38 and personally met with Chamberlain in private meetings discussing appeasement. Churchill's son has found some of his father's private papers mentioning "rumours" that selected British noblemen were key in perpetuating this treason, and that he knew of some of these meetings at the time. Whether or not those rumours are true are up to historians to substantiate, but more and more the rumours are sounding like they are. Hitler's going abroad was common, especially after his armies invaded. But in his encyclopedia article I don't think there should be a bullet-pointed travelogue...after all this isn't Ho Chi Mihn going to Paris in 1919 to try to corner Woodrow Wilson on the issue of Vietnamese self-determination. —ExplorerCDT 18:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I also think that if this section stays, we should have a section entitled "Famous Prison Bunkmates" with links to some of my heroes, like Erich Mühsam. —ExplorerCDT 18:14, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

AH was a Nazi

Bluntly put, "half" the time when one sees a reference to Germany's mad, ruinous dash to rule the world during the late 1930s and early 40s, it'll speak of Nazis, not Germans. The reasons for that are clear and Hitler by all accounts invented and unleashed the Nazi Party in his own image (never mind he started by taking over a tiny political group he'd orginally been sent to spy on). The full name in English was National Socialist German Workers Party and "everyone" called them The Nazis or the Nazi Party. Hitler and Nazi are linked like DeSade and masochist, Einstein and relativity, John Lennon and Beatle (no relative value judgements should be construed by the association of all these people in the same sentence). To omit the term in the opening para is to be incomplete or even misleading. Putting Nazi in parenthesis after the party's full name is self-explanatory in the extreme. Why the fuss? Wyss 05:00, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the parenthetical, I just don't think that interrupting the flow of the party's name with a parenthetical is appropriate. Content bounded by a set of parentheses qualify a thought after it has been completed, not before it is finished. —ExplorerCDT 05:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For me, the word party is rather generic and not part of the thought (just explaining why it doesn't break the flow when I read it). Wyss 05:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- But it is a component of the official name. You wouldn't call the American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation, as the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Corporation just because you thought the Corporation part of the name was a throw away. (Though, the AT&T article isn't the best example because of the improper use of a parenthetical in the article...IBM and GE are a better examples: International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and General Electric Company (GE)...not International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation and General Electric (GE) Company). Style manuals decry such interruptions. —ExplorerCDT 05:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree with decrying the parenthesis. It's made even more heinous by forcins us to change the link wording. Does anyone object to changing it to [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi Party). ? DJ Clayworth 14:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't object. My only hesitation, as a matter of pure style, was repeating the word party, which at a minimum adds a problem that doesn't apply to the examples given by ExplorerCDT (it's IBM, not IBM Corporation and so on)... but so be it if the inter-parenthesis method doesn't work for some editors... this way is also ok by me. Wyss 15:08, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't object, but I think it is awkward to put it simply as [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (Nazi Party). While I don't think it awkward to repeat party (as the guideline to never repeat a word within a sentence both is broken often and doesn't apply to parenthetical statements), when I reverted Nathan Ladd's removal of the fact, I put "(known familiarly as the Nazi Party)." I think there should be some better known as/also known as/known familiarly as to qualify the use of the parenthetical otherwise it would appear as an awkward construction. The other opportunity is to avoid putting in a parenthetical qualification here, and make the association later in the article. However, with the translation of Führer und Reichskanzler in the opening paragraph, the Nazi Party parenthetical statement belongs. —ExplorerCDT 16:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I strongly agree with that last sentence. Wyss 17:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've tried to implement the two above suggestions. IMO it would also work with the parenthesis replaced by commas, that is... [[National Socialist German Workers Party]], also known as the Nazi Party, ...that might look stylistically cleaner (while I prefer the parenthesis in terms of thought-flow), but either is utterly ok by me. Comments are welcome (please)! Wyss 17:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Strunk & White like parenthetical clauses continuing the flow of the sentence being sectioned by commas. But, the a.k.a. statement is a break from the direct flow of the sentence and I would be inclined to use parentheses. However, I'm not going to bitch about it if it were changed that way. I'm o.k. with that. —ExplorerCDT 17:50, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the parentheses too, as above.Wyss 18:24, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've contracted the whole thing to Nazi Party; the Nazi link explains the meaning of the word, and the interior of the article is the place for detail. The intro shouldn't be full of nitpicking. I have also added a sentence about the expansionist foreign policy and the genocide, and its effect on Hitler's public image in the modern world--his "most hated leader" status. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, please discuss on the talk page first. The first paragraph hasn't evolved to where it is today by accident (and no, I didn't write it). Wyss 19:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well now I've discussed it. Any comments? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That last sentence you added about the "most hated leader" status is definitely not NPOV, though any reasonable human being already accepts it as a given, it smacks of smug bias. Secondly, Nazi is an abbreviation...abbreviations aren't appropriate at first. You qualify the abbreviation (as we have done), and then afterwards using the abbreviation is o.k. Thirdly, there are objective nuances that are not just overshadowed but trounced upon simply abbreviating it to "Nazi Party" from the get-go. The intro paragraphs are where they are because of consensus work. They also have been nitpicked in order to have the maximum dynamic without resorting to the all-too-easy POV statements you tried to edit in. —ExplorerCDT 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(P.S. Wyss...don't be modest, you did write and contribute to a lot of what is today the introduction...not to mention the rest of the article.) —ExplorerCDT 20:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Tony's additional sentence, I belive that something additional is necessary to balance two favorable sentences in the intro: A charismatic orator, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders in world history. The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and for a time controlled the greater part of Europe. While we should avoid smearing biography subjects in this case more is needed. For the introductory paragraph to paint a full picture of Hitler it is necessary to include the very large warts. He is not famous because of his economic policies and the war he began led to the ruin of Germany, so any economic benefits were shortlived. I don't think that it violates the NPOV rule to point out in the intro that legacy includes the Holocaust, etc. -Willmcw 21:38, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely. Demi ^T/_{C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)}

I don't think my wording can be fairly described as POV. "...he is now widely regarded as one of the most hated national leaders in history." It's a factual statement and one of the most significant things about Hitler. His name is a by-word for brutal, inhuman barbarism. Note that I'm describing the legacy of the man, it's a fact that he is widely viewed in this light. I'm not saying he does or doesn't deserve that reputation, I'm observing a highly significant fact about the man.

I feel it's POV, and I try to give a lot of latitude on that one. As to being "most hated" that's a judgment call, but coming out and saying he was among the most reviled is still stating an opinion of the man. A good portion of the world, for some stupid reason, reveres him something like a God who was right in massacring Jews (or those who don't think the Holocaust took place at all) and don't think he was brutal, but just. While whitewashing him is never acceptable, making blanket statements that Hitler was the epitome of evil incarnated into man is just a little too much...even if it is generally regarded true. Ask yourself, what would Brittanica or Funk & Wagnalls do? —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Neutral doesn't mean "balanced;" it doesn't demand the incorporation of every crank perspective. If Hitler is not one of the most reviled leaders in history, then there is no one that would fit that sobriquet. Demi ^T/_{C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)}

On "Nazi", it's the English name for his party, whereas "National Socialist German Workers' Party" is simply a literal translation of the official German name. In practise his party is known as the Nazi Party. This familiar word should appear in the introduction. Save the nuances for the interior of the article and the link.

No, Nazi is just an abbreviation. Before he became the "enemy," most American papers (especially Hearst papers) refered to him as the National Socialist leader. National Socialist German Workers Party is the full name of the party. The familiar word does appear in the introduction as a parenthetical qualification to the National Socialist German Workers Party. In practice, anything can be known by abbreviations, but the fact remains the party had a full name, and it is standard stylistically to mention that full name before going off and using the abbreviation. The nuances are properly placed, here, we lay out the facts and the fact is the Nazi Party was the National Socialist German Workers Party. —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Finally we can't let the introduction to Hitler go without a mention of the Final Solution. That really would be POV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree something ought to be mentioned, but yours was way too POV. And besides, you didn't bother discussing it here first. Because a lot of people have put a lot of effort into rendering the introductory lines just so, it's a courtesy to hash it out with them/us before going off half-cocked. —ExplorerCDT 22:53, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- The idea that Tony's edits are "half-cocked" is misplaced. Consensus is good but this is not someone unthinkingly spewing garbage on the paragraph. Something needs to be mentioned and reverting it is not good. Rephrase it if you wish and we will approach something mutually agreeable. Demi ^T/_{C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)}

The result of all those months of discussion appears to have been that the introduction somehow managed to omit the two most significant facts about Adolf Hitler: that he waged genocide against the Jews and Gypsies (and Slavs), and that his name is synonymous in the minds of most people of post-war generations with brutality and barbarism. Those are facts, and significant ones. To state the latter is not to state an opinion, but to state a fact about an opinion. And a highly significant one. As WP:NPOV puts it: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."

The article introduction as it now stands is hopelessly POV, falsely depicting a world statesman who is remembered only for his charisma, his political acumen, and the fact that he was on the losing side in a big war. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Where does it call him a statesman? Where does it say he is remembered only for his charisma? The article concludes characterizing him as "reviled" by most historians. It also clearly places responsibility for the holocaust on his shoulders, summarizes what that was, calling it industrial scale genocide, and links to the main article. By starting the article with an evaluation of legacy, one reduces the murderer to the level of a cartoon, making it more difficult for people to learn how to spot the next one who comes along. Wyss 23:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually the wording is mealy-mouthed and passive "encouraged..." and racial policies "which reached their peak..." as if the policies themselves were doing something while Hitler was just hanging out. Tony is attempting a mild edit here, and the article is improved as a result. Demi ^T/_{C 23:37, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)}

Why do the assertions about his charisma and economic savvy need to be in the intro anyway? All of those are also listed in the main text. To sum up his legacy by mentioning his leadership without, in the same breath, mentioning his faults furthers a particular point of view, IMO. If the destruction of Germany does not belong in the intro then neither does his economic achievement. -Willmcw 23:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Reviled

Wyss, we're talking about the introduction to the article, the part that's supposed to provide a summary of the article. If you agree that he is widely reviled, let's put it in the intro.

I said the intro implied he was remembered only for "his charisma, his political acumen, and the fact that he was on the losing side in a big war." I say that because that's what the intro says. It mentions "racial policies", but it doesn't mention genocide. It says he "encouraged" racial policies, but it doesn't say that he, Adolf Hitler, as his country's leader, was one of those who planned and executed the killing of millions of people on grounds of race (and for other reasons, such as eugenics). Again you appeal to detail in the article that reveal highly significant facts that aren't presented in the intro.

Finally we're here to write an encyclopedia article, not to write a didactic piece or a polemic. The introduction should contain a mention (not an evaluation) of Hitler's legacy, because that is the most significant remaining thing about his influence in the modern world--whether rightly or wrongly--as a symbol of evil, often a caricature. That's a highly significant fact about Hitler that doesn't (remarkably) attach itself so readily to butchers whose deeds were probably the equal of, or exceeded, Hitler's. Mao and Stalin pale into insignificance in the public mind, it's Hitler we remember as the terrible architect of genocide. That fact belongs in the introduction. We can make it as neutral as possible, but we shouldn't weasel it away. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:06, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As it's written, here are the most significant facts about Adolf Hitler:

His lifespan.
He led the Nazi party "during the Third Reich."
He was a charismatic orator.
He was one of the most "significant" leaders in world history.
He "fostered" a military-industrial complex that caused Germany's economic recovery
The military-industrial complex for a time controlled Europe

Tony's right. Not only are these not the most significant facts to mention in a summary, they assert a passivity in Hitler's life and career that are very apologist. "During the Third Reich" makes it sound like that was something external happening while Hitler happened to be in charge. Saying he was "significant" (though accurate) puts him there with Roosevelt, Churchill, the better Popes and Emperors, etc. Saying he "fostered" (an interesting word implying caring parenting) a military-industrial complex is a doublespeak way of saying he militarized Germany, and saying the military-industrial complex controlled Europe is just inaccurate, when it was being controlled by people, chief among which was Hitler.

Omitting the Holocaust from this summary, or any implication that people might have a negative opinion of him, is POV in the extreme. Demi ^T/_{C 00:38, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)}

I had no problem with discussing these points. I would have been happy to cooperate with both of you in working these concerns fully into the text. However, your editing tactics are too unilateral for my taste. Wyss 11:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My changes

Here I will explain my changes. Give me a few moments. -- BRIAN0918 00:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"regarded" -> "widely regarded": This isn't totally necessary, but turns the text from appearing POV into a fact about opinion.
"reviled" added: It is a fact that he is widely reviled and is already stated near the end of the article. The intro is a summary and should... summarize.
removal of economic crisis part: Until someone cites economic historians on this issue, it shouldn't be included, as it is disputed. Economic crises eventually end because the market adjusts to the shock; the relationship to increased employment isn't necessarily causal. They're both determined by other things. (I thank my math/econ friend for clearing this up) "Things like technology shocks, terms of trade shocks, and monetary changes are the drivers" [for increased employment and economic crises], but one does not necessarily follow the other. -- BRIAN0918 00:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
primary cause in europe: "War began in Europe on 1 September 1939 with the German invasion of Poland." (from the WWII article) Just because the events of the war are lumped together under one name "WWII" doesn't mean it is useful to lump all of the causes and regions involved together. For Germany, WWII was primarily in Europe.
encouraged->instituted: Hitler was not on the sidelines; these were policies, not opinions, and they were enforced. -- BRIAN0918 00:51, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"a" Holocaust -> "the" Holocaust: Because the term is capitalized in the text "genocidal Holocaust", it is referring to the Holocaust of WWII, instead of a holocaust. This is not just my opinion, but is regarded as proper usage among scholars on this subject (I'm taking a course on The Holocaust right now and both of my textbooks on the subject support this distinction).

"founder of" the 3rd Reich (change added by Tony Sidaway): I support this change. How could something like that be left out??? -- BRIAN0918 01:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

These are good edits. I'll point out that as the "cause of war" sentence reads, it is "Hitler's desire to create a Greater Germany" which was the cause, and is correct as it stands. Demi ^T/_{C 05:21, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)}

I believe BRIAN0918 's edits are historically incomplete to the point of being misleading and unhelpful. He has attempted to use his role as admin to intimidate me from asserting my opinion that discussion and consensus on this talk page should precede material changes. Since this article is so "hot", however, I recognize that an accurate, realistic and scholarly portrayal of the sociopathic monster that was AH may be difficult if not impossible to achieve by communal editing (unlike most other articles). This is a well-understood aspect of WP, and I've enjoyed having some first-hand experience with it here. Thus, I defer, and will not be editing this article any more. Wyss 11:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- If you were intimidated, I'm sorry, I didn't mean that. Please specify what changes of mine you disagree with. -- BRIAN0918 15:35, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed a few things. Hitler didn't invent Nazi Germany's racial policy, so I changed "invented" to "implemented." Anti-Semitism was in Europe long before AH was born, and all he did in his speeches and in Mein Kampf was crystallize some of it. Most of the policy making fell on his subordinates throughout the Third Reich. Globke, Eichmann, Himmler, Goebbels (esp. developing the propaganda), and a whole bunch of scientists (including pseudoscientists like "eugenicists") and statisticians. —ExplorerCDT 16:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hm. I don't think I saw the edit that was "invented"--I think it was "instituted" and then I changed it to "established;" but I like "implemented" better than all of these.
- My bad, it was "established" not "invented." —ExplorerCDT 16:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes, I support them. -- BRIAN0918 18:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also just wanted to note that the time and attention Wyss has spent on this very difficult article are really appreciated: its overall quality was one of the things that attracted me to Wikipedia. Demi ^T/_{C 16:26, 2005 Mar 19 (UTC)}

Thanks. One of my hopes for the article has been that through rigorous objectivity, it might simply and plainly reflect how a talented demagogue/salesman can disasterously exploit human weaknesses and fears. This would be helpful to readers in learning how to spot them when they come along (rather than looking for mythical, strutting characatures of evil). Wyss 16:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments by Wyss on my changes

Here are Wyss's comments on my changes, copied from his talk page:

The removal of the brief mention about his perceived economic influence utterly distorts reality. Germans not only thought he was saving Germany, they thought he'd improve their quality of life (although living standards was the wonted term back then, I believe). They supported him because they thought he'd helped turn the economy around (in the 1920s, people carted wheelbarrows filled with nearly worthless paper currency to buy groceries- at the worst of it, people sold pianos for sausages), never mind this happened as a result of many complex factors including massive spending of borrowed money on military re-development.
- Germans may have perceived him as ending the economic crisis, as you state, but it is not necessarily factual. Your version didn't make that distinction ("The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis..."). See my statements on the talk page about this. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perception is way important to voters and supporters, and he did foster a military-industrial complex, and it did help to pull Germany out of the post-war depressions. Hitler's perceived economic role in Germany is essential to understanding his political successes during the 1930s.

A charismatic orator, Hitler is widely regarded as one of the most significant and reviled leaders in world history.
- Sure he's reviled. However, for the alert reader, words like beloved or reviled in the opening paras of a bio reveal bias, and bring the accuracy and "spin" (if you will) of the remaining content into some question. The use of such terms should be carefully qualified, as is the use of the word reviled at the end of the article, where it should be (now repeated, not at all a clean thing to do). Also, there is a moral issue with human revilement/hatred (as AH's politics themselves demonstrated), never mind when it's extended beyond a personal scope as in an encyclopedia article. Finally, from reviled it's not too far to "strutting dictator with a funny little mustache." The people who allowed him to gain power and consolidate it didn't see him that way. The article should reflect that, it's one of the reasons why the horror happened.
  - As supported on WP:NPOV and reiterated a few times on Hitler's talk page, phrases like "widely regarded as reviled" are facts about well-documented opinions. From WP:NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". It is not biased, as is stated on the talk page.

Yeah, but I don't think they should go in the opening paragraphs, for the reasons I gave above. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- - Also, I see no problem with the same word being used twice in the article and think you're pulling at strings with that specific argument. Introductions and conclusions often involve repetition. In this case, the intro is supposed to be a summary, whereas the end is about his "Legacy", so it belongs in both sections for different reasons (although now I'm pulling at strings :)).
    - Heh heh. We don't agree :) For me, it's sloppy writing. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      - Ok, I've changed the 2nd usage to "reproved" which is very close in meaning. If you would like a different word in the "Legacy" section, please change it, but the use of "reviled" in the intro is supported by several, so please leave that alone. I'll respond to the rest later, time for food. :) -- BRIAN0918 23:08, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Who are the several and why aren't they participating in this discussion? Can you document their user names, for example, and their statements specifically supporting the use of the word reviled in the opening paragraphs? Wyss 23:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- - As for your statement: "Finally, from reviled it's not too far to 'strutting dictator with a funny little mustache.'" I really don't know how to respond to that, it seems like a truly odd line of reasoning. Maybe if I had used "villainous" I could understand, but reviled simply means "assailed with contemptuous language" which is a well-documented fact. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, reviled is a strut or two away from Darth Vader. Keep it for the closing, by which time the reader's trust and confidence has been gained and the term in conclusion will drive it all home. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He implemented the racial policies of Nazi Germany and instituted the genocidal Holocaust of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs.
- First, the term Holocaust really only applies to the genocide of European Jews during that period (although I imagine some might argue that point, it's easier just to apply it to the crimes against Jews).
  - From the first line of Holocaust: "The Holocaust refers to Nazi Germany's systematic genocide of various ethnic, religious, national, and secular groups during World War II starting in 1941 and continuing through to 1945." If it had said "Final Solution" then I might suggest changing it, as the Solution only applied to Jews. In any case, the genocide of the Jews is the most notable. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Final Solution is worse, since it's ultimately a propaganda term (and should IMO be qualified as such). As for what the Holocaust was, widening that term beyond genocide of the Jews is fuzzy and doesn't derive from the original post-war use. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- He enabled those racial policies, but this wording gives him credit for inventing them. Truth is, he spent his twenties reading (not writing) virulently anti-semetic magazines that would make an iman blush. Have you ever seen the cartoons? Germany, especially Barvaria, was ripe for genocide by the end of the Great War. AH had the political saavy to grok and run with it. There's another tricky problem and perhaps it's only one of form because we all know he was behind the authorizations for industrial scale slaughter in the camps but there's no paper trail (it was obviously either avoided or burned in the spring of 1945). We know the Holocaust happened, we know for sure he wanted, enabled and encouraged it but we don't know exactly how, except that for the most part, planning and execution were handled by others (Himmler and Heydrich, for example). The Holocaust section of the article is accurate by the way, and links to the larger main article on that topic.
- It is more accurate to say, He enabled (or encouraged) the racial policies of Nazi Germany which culminated in the genocide of millions of Jews along with gypsies, slavs and other ethnic groups. Wyss 21:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm against "encouraged" for the reasons mentioned on the talk page, and even "enabled" sounds very passive. As he was on top, "enforced" might be better, it's passive in that it doesn't suggest he originated everything (although most agree he did), but it suggests he went out of his way to answer the "Jewish question", thus his Final Solution (something which I still think should be added to the intro). Right now, though, I'd suggest leaving it as is. More people support not using "encouraged" than using it. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's not use enforced at least... he didn't enforce the law, that was the job of the SS (for example). Enabled doesn't sound passive to me, but I understand how it might to others. That's why I liked encouraged (ties in with his oratory and so forth)... really, even though there's no paper trail, I'd say he is believed to have ordered rather than instituted. It is important however, not to leave wiggle room for Holocaust deniers. Wyss 22:48, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...believed to have authorized... may be even better, if encouraged seems too passive for some. Wyss 23:22, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

~~"Can't write an intro to Hitler without mentioning genocide"~~

~~Should we mention the "Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki" in the beginning of the article when we write intro to Harry S. Truman?~~ --Haham hanuka 13:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Doesn't the current article on Truman do so? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

83.109..

An anonymous user using various IPs starting with 83.109.*.* keeps readding the same content over and over without first consulting or replying on the talk page, and despite repeated reversions. -- BRIAN0918 12:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Shoah

I had a discussion with Tony Sidaway on IRC, and it seemed his problem with the intro saying "the Holocaust" was that it left out "genocide", which according to him is "the most important word". Another problem for him was that the word "holocaust", according to him, didn't come into popular usage as being the word for the 1945 genocide until the 1970s, and the word was popular before then. My problem with his version was that it didn't link directly to The Holocaust, leaving out an important link. So, we agreed that the best way to clear this up would be to use the term which is accepted by Jews and by the Catholic Church as being the proper word for "The Holocaust" (they don't prefer "holocaust" because its original meaning, as is used in the Bible, is that of a "burnt offering [to a god]", implying that the Nazis was in fact doing the proper work of the Judeo-Christian God.) Since "Shoah" is accepted by two major groups (and arguably the most important groups in this event as far as religion and the origins of anti-Semitism are concerned), and since Shoah links directly to The Holocaust, it is probably the best choice, despite the term not being commonly used among laypeople. -- BRIAN0918 21:26, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have become a party to what may seem odd--a discussion on IRC that is cited as influencing an edit on Wikipedia. I just told Brian that I didn't find Shoah, which was Brian's suggestion, an unreasonable word to use, although I think it's not as common a word as Holocaust, and that in any case I think the word genocide should be specifically included in any introduction to Adolf Hitler. The word holocaust, although it has specific meanings with respect to the Shoah, also has a more general meaning. I'm presently trying to perform a wikipedia-wide disambiguation of the two usages. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:08, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: A conversation from last week, copied from my user talk page. (something I said should be done, and I never got around to it) —ExplorerCDT 05:57, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because the term is capitalized in the text "genocidal Holocaust", it is referring to the Holocaust, instead of a holocaust. This is not just my opinion, but is regarded as proper usage among scholars on this subject (I'm taking a course on The Holocaust right now and both of my textbooks on the subject support this distinction). -- BRIAN0918 22:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This usage ("the" Holocaust) is also supported and explained at Holocaust (disambiguation) -- BRIAN0918 22:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But the disambiguation proves there is a need to differentiate between this and other Holocausts...many of which as the disambiguation page proves, uses a capital "H." As there are many holocausts in history (and several in fact, regarding the genocidal treatment of the Jewish people) it is inappropriate to use a definite article to describe one of those many. Not all scholars agree on this point, as you so naïvely assume...just take a quick look at the German historians who are still afraid to broach the subject boldly. —ExplorerCDT 23:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a minefield of polemics. The holocaust deniers inevitably push scholars to distance themselves from any possible mis-interpretation that there's any room for doubt, hence a redundant, circular term like genocidal Holocaust. Wyss 23:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

- Those holocausts are prefixed with terms (eg Chinese, or Black), whereas the Holocaust is not. The only reason they're capitalized on the disambig page is because they're talking about specific incidents. If they were talking about a generic case, it would be "a holocaust of the Chinese", for example. Please point out where I assumed that all scholars agree on the subject. -- BRIAN0918 02:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Both usages are acceptable, but it is probably more sensible to refer to the Shoah as "a holocaust" since the term long precedes the Shoah and has historically (and in my personal experience) been used in multiple contexts. Anyone who thinks there is one "holocaust", or that the Shoah is "the holocaust" obviously hasn't lived long enough or has insufficient knowledge of the classical Greek origins of the word "holocaust" and its usage throughout the modern age. If you want to make the Shoah unique, do as fr.wikipedia does and refer to it as the Shoah. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"the Shoah" is definitely an acceptable alternate. (not "the genocidal Shoah", that's redundant maybe) -- BRIAN0918 02:13, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't think "the Shoah" is an acceptable alternate, because most people don't know what a Shoah is (since not everyone is familiar with the Hebrew nuances of the word), but everyone knows what defines (or connotes) a Holocaust.

Calling it "the Shoah" would be so accurate, but I agree most people don't know the term. Wyss 16:53, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with its accuracy. It is a remarkable word when you look at it from its usage in Hebrew. But, aside from Spielberg's oral history, and occasional utterances of it, there's really no means by which it has been imparted to the larger audience...unlike Holocaust. However, when I first hear the word "Holocaust," I don't think of the WWII genocide. Thought it is a second thought, my primary thought is of "nuclear holocaust" but that's mostly from my focus on Cold War military matters. (Which thankfully, I don't badger people with here...I have enough of it outside Wikipedia that bringing it here would make my time here miserable). —ExplorerCDT 16:59, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think that it's only in the last 10-15 years that holocaust has, in popular usage, become so synonymous with the industrial scale genocide of European Jews during the 1940s. Wyss 17:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Correct, it's common usage is a by-product of the Historikerstreit (Historian's Quarrel) in Germany that happened in 1986. However, it was used early in connection with the Nazi atrocities as early as the late 1950s (in works, I might add, by the recently late George F. Kennan, for one). —ExplorerCDT 17:52, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(We should copy this discussion on the talk page for AH) —ExplorerCDT 17:57, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Be bold? (grin) Wyss 18:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just speaking with an eye towards posterity. I'll be glad to do it once the discussion ends. Though in the middle of it all, it may provide confusion ;-) I know you and I won't get confused by such a move, but Brian0918 may. —ExplorerCDT 18:10, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umm... okay? -- BRIAN0918 15:58, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you post all over my talk page on the subject, consensus apparently seems to be as the page is now (referring to it as a genocidal Holocaust), and yet you persist in thinking a.) it isn't enough, and b.) your minority opinion over using a greatly unrecognized word should trump. Consensus is compromise, and there's no use being a pedantic jackass about it. Why don't we call it a day and put "Hitler is Evil" in capital letters ten feet high and erase the rest of the article? Would that suffice? —ExplorerCDT 16:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I should probably not feed the troll, but I need to defend my position. I was alright with "genocidal Holocaust" provided that "Holocaust" linked to "The Holocaust". Tony Sidaway, however, was not, which is perfectly acceptable. Shoah is the preferred term of notable Jews and is the accepted term of the Catholic Church, and so is not a minority opinion. Mine was a compromise with Tony Sidaway; we both agreed on the current version. He is currently planning on writing a separate article for holocaust which will explain the origins of the term, its usage, and how it came to be associated with The Holocaust, so right now is disambiguating the words throughout Wikipedia. How's the business trip going? -- BRIAN0918 17:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Business trip starts tomorrow, probably could last a good 4-5 months. Spent most of this weekend configuring my laptop and trying to locate wi-fi hotspots in various cities I'll be going to so that I won't be too far out of the loop and that my watchlist wouldn't suffer from my absence. As for Shoah..."notable Jews" isn't the whole world...just a small segment of a smaller ethnic group (a few million people worldwide) and that further proves the inclusive nature of the word's impact. If it weren't for the documentary oral history Steven Spielberg made after making Schindler's List or my friendship with several Jewish intellectuals, I wouldn't have heard of the word "Shoah" in the first place. It's just not used by the majority of the world. The Catholic Church isn't much more credible either because Pope Pius XII had a swastika rosary given to him by Der Führer, did nothing to stop the madman, endorsed his efforts, and they'll do anything now to patch things up and make themselves look good (though I do think Pope John Paul II's concilatory efforts are genuine, the church itself is mired in a hypocrisy that knoweth no bounds). I was thinking the same thing about feeding the troll when I responded to you, so touché. —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I've been hostile you though, whereas you have been from first contact. -- BRIAN0918 18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alright, it seems Tony is fine with "the genocidal Holocaust", so I'll change it back to that since it's what everyone else seems to want anyways. -- BRIAN0918 17:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have always admired Tony's efforts. Despite whatever disagreements I have had with him in the past, I respect his judgment. You, on the other hand, are a work in progress in my book. (I assume the feeling is mutual) —ExplorerCDT 17:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think Tony and I were just completely confused by eachother. I thought he was against "the genocidal Holocaust", but I guess he was only against "the Holocaust" because it left out "genocidal". -- BRIAN0918 18:22, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article Treats the German Populus unfairly

The article portrays the German populus in an unfairly bad light, particularly in the section om repression pre-war. Mention should be made that a) Anti-Semitism was by no means a uniquely German phenomenon and b) The public did not for a very long time give ACTIVE support to Nazi measures: One could mention the resounding failure of the April Boycott or the fact that Krystalnacht and similiar lower level violence was carried out almost entirely by the SA before the propaganda really started to hit home about 1938. Also, this section also seems to seek to create the impression that pre-war Germany was a pure terror state, which is simply incorrect. User:KharBevNor (sig added by (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 09:17, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC))

Hmmm. How the heck do you read this out of the article? Where does it explicitly say Anti-Semitism is an exclusively German phenomenon? And this article, as well as other Nazi Germany articles convey that Hitler's party never was really a majority party in its existence. And how was pre-war Germany not a terror state? I guess bashing a man's skull in, branding a swastika into his forehead, ripping out hair from a guy's beard, etc. don't count as instruments of terror (See Erich Mühsam for more) when the world media were reporting them week after week before Hitler showed up in Prague in an open car. —ExplorerCDT 06:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Sign your comments, please. —ExplorerCDT 06:08, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Archives

Proposed article split

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

NPOV

Bal Thackery and Hitler

Hitler's testicles

Disambiguation notice

question

Hitlerjugend

Wannsee/Final Solution

Poetsch

Disclaimer

Hitler's New World Order

"Seriously, people …"

"I removed line …"

"Black hand society"

Jewish ancestry

Major Changes

Article was biased, neutrality questioned

Edit block

The Painter Hitler

section "Biography"

Really over the top opening sentence

Hitler and the church

Reviled

The word allowed

PLEASE VOTE

My recent edits

Paring down the Biography

203.36.44.13

The word infamous

irrelevant links

external links

Color Photo

Alois Corrections

Paula and the orphan's pension

Hitler and the church

An Uncontrolled Experiment - AH's Paintings

Acronyms in opening

Visits abroad

AH was a Nazi

Reviled

My changes

Comments by Wyss on my changes

NPOV

83.109.*.*

Shoah

Article Treats the German Populus unfairly

83.109..