Talk:Adolf Hitler

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Adolf or Adolph Hitler's Sexuality

'Occupations' Category in Profile Box too Limited

Currently the occupation category in the 'profile' box to the right of the article is too limited in scope. (And the word 'occupation' should be made plural)--

Hitler is referred to merely as an activist and a painter. It should be noted that Hitler was also a soldier, an author, a politician, a head of state and a military ruler. Tempting though it may be to minimize him by omitting these occupations it is instead important for the world to understand that a multi-talented and versatile individual in service of the wrong principles can do great harm. Therefore the full range of Hitler's significant occupations should be thoroughly noted in his profile box.

Sean7phil 13:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

A profile box is just a quick overview, not meant to be all-inclusive. That's what the article is there for.Civil Engineer III 19:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

In politician infoboxes, the custom is to mention occupations before entering politics, thus head of state and military ruler are out. Politician is also out since he did seek out and attempt to make a career of several pursuits before entering politics; we only use "Politician" in the infobox if the person was a career politician (i.e. they entered government almost immediately upon entering the workforce). Soldier is also out because he was not a career soldier (like, say, Dwight D. Eisenhower or Kurt von Schleicher were): he only served in the Army as a soldier (rather than the head of government) during a war. Author can be legitimately included, if one is willing to separate it from his activism (I wouldn't, but it's not my decision to make), so I'll include it. Lockesdonkey 22:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Those occupation catagories may be standard, but they make no sense-- it's misleading to summarize Hitlers occupations and leave out the fact that he was a Dictator and an elected Chancellor, not to mention a military leader. This is like calling Ghengis Khan a 'horse enthusiast'.

Never underestimate the sheep-like limits of convention.

71.208.219.6 19:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Most famous for

As with many biographic articles, this one starts off too dry, giving posts and dates. It should begin by stating what this person is most known for (i.e. leading Nazi Germany in WWII and the ratial extermination of millions of noncombatants, more than half of them Jews). Take a look at the Einstein article. It doesn't start by listing employment positions and marriages.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anerbenartzi (talk • contribs) 11:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Origin of Hitler's name

There is no German word Hittler, translating as one who lives in a shack. (UTC)

It was actually a misunderstood name of Hitler's father, Alois Hiedler but someone thought the name was "Hitler." Here's the section from the page:

"Alois Hitler was born illegitimate with his twin Maniel they merried together and they adopted 2 kids there name was edward and lemuel. Edward and Lemuel conquered the world and decided to kill Maniel. For the first 39 years of his life he bore his mother's surname, Schicklgruber. In 1876, he began using the surname of his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler, after visiting a priest who was responsible for birth registries. The priest declared that Johann Hiedler was Alois' father (Alois gave the impression that Georg was still alive but he was long dead). The name was variously spelled Hiedler, Huetler, Huettler and Hitler and probably changed to "Hitler" by a clerk. The origin of the name is either from the German word Hittler and similar, "one who lives in a hut", "shepherd", or from the Slavic word Hidlar and Hidlarcek.

Those dates are off. He could not have begun using the name in 1876 since he wasn't born until 1889. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.97.193.130 (talk • contribs).

Hitler's father

Reverted back vandalism by Jonwillig. Action taken, vandal reported Matthew 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's official address

The headed paper on that site looks fake to me - for one thing, I would have expected the old German character set. I think this is likely to be one of many fake product sites for gullible Nazi-lovers and SS-wannabees. MarkThomas 20:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Did some more checking. The site is registered on NIC to a fake address and uses a phony name as the site owner unlisted on all Canadian public information sources. I removed the above text which is obviously intended as a site advert. MarkThomas 22:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but I am not affiliated with this site, I genuinely want this information. If anybody knows hitler's official Nazi party address during the 2nd world war please let me know. Thanks (MarkT39 22:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC))

Hitler's wartime conduct

We need to get rid of the Iron Cross award 'fact'. The Iron Cross was the highest honour and he never received it, he forged one after the war for political purposes and made up the story. There isnt even a citation for the 'fact' on the page.

I think it is important to acknowledge Hitler's bravery during the first world war. While not considered as a candidate for leadership, Hitler carried out his orders with enthusiasm and haste. Im not a Nazi, but i do believe in the facts and the facts state that Hitler was a brave soldier, risking his life on numerous occasions and i think that this fact should be recognised in the interests of accuracy. Especially given that the only account of his wartime intestinal fortitude reads : "He was a slovenly soldier". Many accounts of his efforts in the great war have advised me otherwise. Venaleschatology 14:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Ozzy

If you have good sources for your claims, go ahead an be bold. Parsecboy 14:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The accounts I've read (including authoritative French, German, English and US writers) all concur that he was a cowardly soldier during WW1, doing what he could to avoid the frontline and playing a conniving role with senior officers. He was reported as such in his military record. Then there was his feigned bout of illness. Ach, the Fuhrer was not vot he voz reported to be in Nazi ideological spin, vich still has it's victims apparently. MarkThomas 22:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Wonder why Prof.Ian Kershaw, hardly a "victim of Nazi ideological spin", doesnt reference these "authoritative French, German, English and US writers"? Kershaw writes: "On 3 November 1914 Hitler was promoted to corporal. It was his last promotion of the war, though he could certainly have been expected to advance further, as least as far as non-commissioned officer. Later in the war he was in fact nominated for promotion.. and the regimental staff considered making him Unteroffizier.. Hitler actually refused to be considered for promotion." All presently appearing in the article and perhaps demonstrating the articles heavy reliance on Kershaw (at least for that period).

Having read his work I do get the impression Kershaw might have mentioned shirking/feigned illness. He is thorough. Thorough enough to mention a supposed wide acceptance of such facts but no Kershaw doesnt and even goes beyond Venaleschatology's suggestion; "From all indications, Hitler was a committed rather than simply a conscientious and dutiful, soldier, and did not lack physical courage. His superiors held him in high regard. His immediate comrades, mainly the group of dispatch runners, respected him and, it seems, even quite liked him.." and so on. p88 onwards, Hitler Vol.1. These sentences are about as close as Kershaw comes to praise in his two volumes. He is not what you would call a "sympathetic" biographer.

Given the recent firing of 'Essjay' (for using bogus credentials to add weight to TalkPage discussions and edit conflicts), can some detail on the secondary source material mentioned be given? Thanks. And btw, Venaleschatology was right, articles should aim, at the very least, to include basic facts like awards in battle, when they were awarded etc. — it is supposed to be an encyclopedia afterall. Dee Mac Con Uladh 15:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

For verifying if Hitler was a brave soldier or a coward, just consider that he was awarded the iron cross first class. In spite of this enormous decoration he has just never been promoted to the rank of Unteroffizier due to the opinion of his CO regarding Hitler’s personality and character as inadequate to have power over other people. „Never ever I shall make this hysteric a non-commissioned officer!" (Konrad Heiden: Hitler I, Das Leben eines Diktators. Zurich 1936)--AuthorDionysos 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was one of the bravest soldiers during WWI. I'm not a NAZI, but you do have to acknoledge his bravery. The proof is The Iron Cross, awarded by a Jewish commander. His rank was only Corporal, but he was pretty brave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.200.65.152 (talk • contribs).

I highly doubt Hitler was one of the bravest soldiers … . He was brave to a certain degree and therefore awarded the iron cross first class. We may leave it like that.--Dionysos 14:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Very slight violation of POV policy

This: and as Waite points out, this fact is more important than whether he actually was. [copy & ctrl-f in article for location], while interesting and probably apt, is, in fact, an opinion (albeit vicarious) and should probably be cut. Or, a milder edit might be to reword thus: [...]; Waite suggests this fact is more important than whether he actually was.

Any objections?

Sugarbat 22:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem with the sentence as it stands, and your edit doesn't really change anything. I'd say leave it as it is. Parsecboy 22:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is rubbish anyway - the idea that Hitler was scared of himself being Jewish is a VERY minority view, not in my opinion relevant to this article. Thedreamdied 15:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my edit is subtle, which is why I called it "mild," but it does, in fact, change the wording -- removing the POV phrasing. Again, the issue (in the copy-edit context) isn't whether Hitler was Jewish or not, or was afraid of being Jewish or not afraid of being Jewish -- the issue is that the sentence I cite above is an example of an opinion -- the opinion being that of the person citing Waite. Opinions of the author(s) of an article aren't allowed in the article -- because those opinions would be subjective, and we want to minimize (if not eliminate entirely) subjectivity in Wikipedia articles. Please see the Wikipedia Manual of Style for more info about POV. I'm going to go ahead and edit the sentence as I suggested above, since it's been several days and the only comments/objections have been opinions themselves, and don't actually reference Wikipedia/encyclopedia style issues, which is sort of what I was asking for.

Sugarbat 00:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempts made to kill Hitler

Is there a specific Wikipedia article where notable attempts to kill him are listed? Half-Blood Auror 17:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, only articles on specific attempts like July 20 Plot. MarkThomas 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A categorical summary of attempts on his life merits inclusion. It speaks of the disparate [and desperate] concerns reaching [sadly too short] for his elimination. --Free4It 23:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 17 known attempts on his life. How many articles are there? --LtWinters 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Sadly none of them succeeded. I hope he's rotting in hell where he's being subjected to worse kind of torture for all eternity.

A little harsh..? olly

Accuracy of WWII European Death and Casualty Count

To date the article quotes: By the end of the war, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 11 million people, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust. In total, the war in Europe cost approximately 45 million people their lives. Do I understand correctly that Hitler's racial policies accounted for not only the 12 million of the Holocaust, but also, an additional 5 million, for a total of 11 million? If so, may I ask what is the authoritative sourcing for the 5 million figure [such a huge number: what were the other races]? Also, did Herr H. not have any non-racial policies of aggression [read political ambitions] that were directly contributable for WWII deaths? If so, may I ask why they are not given as respectful a mention, as the deserving racial count? Finally [for now], the war in Europe costing approximately 45 million lives is, again, based on what sourcing? I believe a nation-by-nation, authoritatively cited, tally is required as a link, if not article specific. --Curiouscdngeorge 00:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

? This was already being discussed in the archived segment - did you just pull your comment out of the archive and repeat it without the followup comments? MarkThomas 20:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you know what has been discussed in the archives, you know the answer to your own question; unless, of course, being sarcastic is your surreptitious intent [hopefully, not]. This has already been discussed in the archives? I have searched the archives and see no aspect that sheds any light on some of the concerns I've expressed. Yet, I yield to your greater discernment; would you be so kind as to assist me? Where in the archives does it cite the authoritative source stating 5 million deaths, apart from the Holocaust, were due to racial policies? Where in the archives does it cite the authoritative source stating there were appoximately 45 million deaths in Europe? As my previous remarks demonstrate, what are the foundations for what would be, otherwise, the indiscriminate [read misleading] use of statistics. --Curiouscdngeorge 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Note some of the people were killed for being homosexuals or Jehovah Witnesses, not because of the race History of homosexual people in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust & Persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses Nil Einne 22:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I could not agree with you more. Hitler's motives were far broader than stating them as "racial policies." However, the encyclopedia's article content is not always well served with the truth; often it is better to read the discussion page to learn anything of merit. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

== Hitler's ho

My textbook says he did not marry Eva Braun. Can you cite that he did marry her? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eat-the-kids (talk • contribs)

What textbook? Every biography on Hitler in existence states that he did. Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Last Days of Hitler is the earliest solid source for the details. More up to date is Kershaw's Hitler: Nemesis Paul B 00:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't you know?? He voz marries to ze Reich, dumbkofps! MarkThomas 21:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's Jewish ancestor

Which one of Hitler's ancestors was Jewish? This is probably the most blatent lie I've ever heard. His Grandmother was raped by a rich jew henceforth the possibility he was Jewish. It is also a reason why he detested them so dreadfully.--70.243.83.33 19:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Christ via Mel Brooks. Also Rubie Wax. MarkThomas 20:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's Grand Mother (father's mother) was Jewish. --207.58.231.154 19:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No she wasn't. It was alleged by Hans Frank that she had slept with a Jewish man named Frankenberger, who fathered Hitler's father Alois. There is no evidence of this. Paul B 20:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Who-ever-you-are, why not read a few books on the subject such as those by Ian Kershaw and then come back and share with us what you know, rather than relying on rumors you heard in pre-school. Although I do of course accept that knowledge of a subject is not required to talk nonsense on Wikipedia! MarkThomas 17:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, MarkThomas: " Although I do of course accept that knowledge of a subject is not required to talk nonsense on Wikipedia!" May I add, articles, included. --Free4It 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's mother worked for a Jewish family and Hitler never know who his father was and some people said it might have been someone his mother worked for. Hitler never know if he was every really Jewish or not and nobody really knows or has proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.169.36 (talk • contribs)

Umm Hitler's father was Alois Hitler. Hitler was an Austrian with a slight alpine ancestory. I don't even know why people use the "Hitler was a Jew!" propaganda lie, wouldn't that mean a Jew was trying to exterminate all Jews? McDonaldsGuy 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was never a Jew. He was not the product of Jews. I know this because Im a Hitler (albeit my Family has not went by the name since the 50s).

Actually all that has to be done to find out for sure if hitler had a jewish grandfather is to get one of adolf hitler's nephew's y-chromosome DNA tested to see if it is a middle eastern y-chromosome. If hiter's nephew has a haplogroup J y-chromosome then adolf hitler is a jew. - UNSIGNED

Hitler's half-grandnephews have no interest in submitting to genetic testing; if they would provide a specimen, the results would only provide suggestive evidence in choosing between putative grandfathers (Hiedler, Rothschild or Frankenberger): there's no such thing as a genetic marker for Jewishness. - Nunh-huh 16:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is a genetic marker for jewishness. There is a difference between germanic y-chromosomes and jewish y-chromosomes so you could tell if hitler had a jewish grandfather with a y-chromosome test.

No, you could only associate him with Jewish ancestry, but not demonstrate it. The nearest thing is Y-chromosomal Aaron, and most Jews don't have that! All of this is purely academic. Paul B 02:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To sum this all up, some think his grandmother was raped by a Jew others that his father is a Jew. If any of these things are correct then he has a Jewish ancestor but is in no way a Jew as being Jewish is passed down via the maternal line. --Snelleeddy 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violations

The lead image is a copyvio. It can be replaced by freely available image on commons titled "Adolf_Hitler.jpg" [1] which is from an election campaign poster. Another suitable image also exists on commons [2]. The other copyright violations should also be removed. Dee Mac Con Uladh 09:51, 13 March 2007 (U

Added Television sub-section

Hitler appeared on German TV during the period. This is common knowledge. If you dont know this then leave wikipedia, go pick up a HISTORY BOOK on the period and dont come back until you understand it.

Naturally since everyone can have a bash at wikipedia, someone reverted the edit. lulz! I have reinserted it and made a clear distinction between the documentaries made which portray Hitler during the 3rd Reich and those made after. Also included mention of things called newsreel which represent a form of documentary film and were quite popular at the time (a major source of news).

Please think about WP:CIV when making edits which remove basic knowledge from articles. This is guaranteed to drive away contributors who know the subject. Dee Mac Con Uladh 18:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

World War I injures

could someone change the part that says "temporarily blinded by a poison gas attack" for "temporarily blinded by a mustard gas attack".thanks to anyone.User:Nachomanco

I did. Lotrtkdchic 17:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Animated GIF

Personally I find it very distracting and it doesn't lend itself to printed publication, etc. I don't care a great deal but I thought I'd comment on it just in case somebody has a better static portrait somewhere.

Gabe 00:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I've put a static image there instead. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 01:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The animated picutre is

File:Hitler.gif

_→AzaToth 13:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

It sure is distracting, even here! Paul B 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's childhood

Okay so I read in the book, HITLER by Albert Marrin, (http://www.lamppostpublishing.com/history_albert_marrin.htm) that Klara Pölzl was in fact Alois's former maid, not his second cousin. I added that to the hitler article, but someone deleated it. In this book, it says, "His mother, Klara, was a peasant girl who'd worked as Alois's maid before the marriage." I do not know where the idea of them being second cousins comes from. Lotrtkdchic 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

She worked in the house as his servant, and she was also his second cousin. "Peasant girl" is a rather vague concept, her family were farmers, so it's not inaccurate, but gives the false impression that she was from a completely different social world. Alois was himself the son of a "peasant girl". See the Alois Hitler article for details. Paul B 14:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But I have looked online everywhere and I have not found one single place where it says that Klara was Alois's second cousin! Please tell me where this "information" was found. And by the way, the Alois article says "if!" Nothing has proven this information. Knowing that ANYONE can write Wiki articles, it is easy to see where a mistake could be made. Lotrtkdchic 14:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Alois was now legally (and likely in fact) Klara's uncle, too close to marry. He submitted an appeal to the church for a humanitarian waiver, not mentioning Klara was already pregnant." As far as the church was concerned and the law was concerned she WAS his second cousin (see this plan of cousin relationships). That's why special dispensation had to be made. Legally she was his second cousin. Very probably she was genetically too, but was can't know for certain anyone's genetic parentage from this period. All we can say is that she accepted to be his second cousin. Paul B 15:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Paula his sister, was connected with the nazi thing.

Beer Hall Putsch

in the beer hall putch section it states that hilter spend over 1 year in prison when really he only spent 9 months —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.225.189 (talk) 04:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

That is true. Someone should change that. Lotrtkdchic 15:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay I did. Lotrtkdchic 16:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The original version of this sentence was accurate. It stated "Including remand, he had served just over one year of his five-year sentence". At some point someone has deleted the reference to the time spent in jail on remand. Paul B 14:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

listen, dude. You are really starting to annoy me. I do NOT know where you get your information from. Lotrtkdchic 14:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not remotely interested in whether you are annoyed or no. What matters is accuracy. Paul B 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that would depend on who's idea of accuracy that is. *snickers ominously. Lotrtkdchic 14:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was arrested on 11 November 1923. He was released from Jail on 20th December, 1924. His trial was three month after his arrest. So he served 9 months after conviction; three months on remand.Paul B 14:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait I am confused. Remand means to send back a case to a lower court from which it was appealed, with instructions as to what further proceedings should be had. So do you mean he acually went back to JAIL or was on probation? Lotrtkdchic 14:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

See Remand#Action_at_arrest_or_arraignment.

Strange Picture

some joker put an altered photograph of Hitler and some officers at the bottom of the page. i wish i could remove it, but I'm new on this wiki, so can someone do it? thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 190.49.132.91 (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

I did. That was funny though :) Lotrtkdchic 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Suicide

Was this confirmed or presumed?

confirmed. Lotrtkdchic 17:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

this has not been confirmed, as no confirmed remains of Hitler have been found. At this point it is (probably will always be) based on word of mouth. While it is probable, it is not confirmed.

It is an accepted fact in the historical community that Adolf Hitler commited suicide. Also, please sign your posts! Lotrtkdchic 14:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the by, Hitler's remains spent (are spending?) the post-WWII time in an "archive" in the Soviet Union, and this is throughly documented. In 1973 (I think, I can't remember off hand) Juri Andropov -- while head of the now-defunkt KGB -- disposed of most of the remains. Hitler's teeth, however, are still to be found. This is record. --82.181.48.38 14:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

User: BAZKEIRA - Be advised. Since the Statute of limitations has expired in the Soviet Union, archive material is now publicly avaialble., This has spawned a plethora of books on this subject, of which I have read most. The remains of this man were never transpoprted to the soviet Union at all, but instead were retained and buried in the then East German town of Magdeburg, on a Soviet Military base. These were indeed exhumed and destroyed by incineration in 1989 and the ashes discarded in a nearby river. Along with Hitler's remains were also the remains of Eva Braun and Josef and Magda Goebbels.

6 Million?

Just a side-note. As it is widely accepted that Hitler did kill and put Jews into horrible living conditions, 6 million is still quite a high number. As this number has diminished over decades, it is still uncertain as to exactly how many Jews were killed directly by Hitlers orders(Concentration Camps, Executions, etc).

Auschwitz had an original number of 9 million alone in that one camp, however, has diminished to 135,000. Just be weary of what numbers are posted. However, that does not leave out that the Jews were put into horrible conditions, and in many cases executed.

Lest we forget.

Change Holocaust, then try changing here. I doubt you'll get far. --Golbez 15:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is interesting. First, let us realize that Hitler bears personal and ultimate responsibility for every death that occurred in Europe. Does anyone, in good conscience, attribute otherwise ? For those who stumble over that thought, may I add a sobering question. How many deaths would have resulted from a war that Hitler chose not to participate in ? But, I needlessly digress. Extermination of Jews is indisputable among knowing minds, but what are the real numbers ? What authoritive sources cite the six million figure ? Moreover, what source posted nine million and which the 135,000 ? The article yields to six million, so how did the editors submit to that as the truth ? Yup, very interesting. -Free4It 23:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it has been said that only one supply train in four hundred was necessary to supply victims of the deportations to the East during the alloted timeframe. This combined with the on-site liquidations could of easily provided a number near or around 6,000,000. Still what does it matter? Being if it was 1,6,14 or 25? I think it can't be argued that any amount would of not of been out of Hitler's scope of "reason".

Yes, 6 million is a high number. but the sad fact of the matter is that it's a true number-pirateonthehighseas

Yes, it's simple and easy to write things and believe them. But the sad fact of the matter is you have to substantiate what you say here citing sources that provide facts. Me saying "There weren't even 6 million Jews in all of Europe at the time" doesn't make it so. No matter how hard you want to believe it. Even if it is true and is the accepted number that's not proof as far as the needs of this article and encyclopedia are concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.162.111 (talk • contribs)

This pic should be included in the article

Bias?

After reading this artical, there were some slight things that looked like Bias. Someone might want to check that...

Template:sofixit. --Deskana (talk) 01:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Such as? Paul B 08:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

PWNED!!! Lotrtkdchic 14:33, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And learn to spell ARTICLE!!! Lotrtkdchic 14:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

ANTE PAVELIC

There should be something in this article mentioning Hitler's ally and friendship with Croatian war leader Ante Pavelic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.229.210.49 (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Downfall

"Hitler's declaration of war against the United States on December 11, 1941 four days after the Empire of Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, USA set him against a coalition that included the world's largest empire (the British Empire), the world's greatest industrial and financial power (the USA), and the world's largest army (the Soviet Union)." This is terribly worded, it implies that the war only started when the USA entered it and before that everyone was at peace, could we have a rewrite on that please? I would do it myself but I'd rather someone with more experience did it Birddrz 18:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Invasion to Czechoslovakia

I believe that Germany invaded Czechoslovakia on March 15 1939 and not March 10. (Vonkad 15:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC))

The current picture of Adolf Hitler.

I think there are way better pictures of AH than the current one that is depicting AH in an awkward pose but also making him look somewhat of a mad man. Not saying that he wasn't, but one shouldn't be able to draw such a conclusion from looking at the picture.

What's wrong with just having a neutral looking picture, like this as an example: http://proveniens.ifokus.se/Sites/c80ff87d-4498-4973-b3fe-13aeef924297/Svena5.jpg but with AH looking older and thus being more recent.

Opinions?

SwedishPsycho 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. It is often possible to find an unflattering picture of a given public figure, but it proves nothing. People's conclusions should be drawn from the facts that we present — not from the picture, as you say. How about commons:Image:Adolf Hitler.jpg? — Alan^✉ 11:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Face it, Hitler ALWAYS looks like a madman, because he WAS!!! Lotrtkdchic 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

People reading the introductory section can already draw their own conclusions from the millions who perished as a result of war and genocide. The picture adds nothing serious, and I'm going to change it. — Alan^✉ 10:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it, but it seemed to come up as a link rather than an inline picture. I don't know why. Some technical assistance would be appreciated. — Alan^✉ 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ach, ze prezent picture is so luverly. I luv zeeing ze fuhrer again, in zis, von of hiz most famuz postures. Heil Seig! A tear coursed down my cheek vhen I remembered how marvellous it voz to be listening to him at ze rally. Ach, nein, nein, enough, I cannot speak. MarkThomas 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha that made me crack up MarkThomas!!! Nein danke SwedishPsycho!!!! Dis new picture is muuuch less flatterung zan ze last posture!!! Perhaps ve caan cum to an agreenment...lol Lotrtkdchic 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

mein gott!! ok, ok this is kind of weird and offensive(above) but oh well, very funny. seig heilEddisford 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opnion Hilter was a great leader. (or atleast could have been) He could have taken his advantage of the people following him and turned it into something good. I think it was good that he started a genocide. Not because i dislike the Jewish religion, but because if he hadn't it could happening in our society today. I also believe that another genocide will scome if we don't rember the last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.156.74 (talk • contribs)

I agree...our world will fall soon. The End is near. Know where you are going to end up... User:Lotrtkdchic 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

In case this deabte is still going, how 'bout this one? It's got more detail in the face, and if there's a seirous debate about how it portrays him, the shadow does make him look a bit ominous... --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Birthday

Someone's been mucking about with this page. The infobox says his Bday was the 20th April, while most of the Article says its the 23rd. Can someone check which one it is and put it right? Thanks. Kilbosh 07:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

April 20, 1889 --Svetovid 13:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a well known fact it was the 20 of April 1889. Enlil Ninlil 06:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate flag by birthdate/place in the infobox?

Currently, the Civil Ensign (the flag of the merchant marine) is used. Austria-Hungary did not have a unique official flag. The empire had a Civil Ensign as well as a War Flag, and other than that, none. Rather, individual flags of the Hungarian and the Austran royal houses were used within the two domains comprising the empire. So, is it appropriate to use the Civil Ensign here? It seems to be a dubious fit here, as the merchant marine banner hardly represents a country, other than at sea, flown by merchant vessels. --Mareklug ^talk 11:44, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting rid of the death toll and what not in Hitler's intro

if there is nothing in Stalin's intro, then why should there be nothing in Hitler's? Add some stuff in Stalin's and then we might consider adding the death toll, understood? Zoola 03:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That's one of the most flawed arguments on Wikipedia. And if you continue talking like you're the boss, you probably won't be very popular. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And who's "we"? Bishonen | talk 03:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

I found this interesting. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

That is rather interesting, Deskana. Someone needs to make up his or her mind. We might also look to the discussion a couple months back where a consensus was reached to include the death toll in the opening paragraph. Parsecboy 03:53, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted it already anyway. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 03:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoola doesn't sound like the boss to me. More like a hit man with a baseball bat. Bishonen | talk 03:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Thus why I don't think people would appreicate the "I'm the boss" tone :-p --Deskana (fry that thing!) 04:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

wow, so you guys still have not learned.....Have *YOU*? Look this is no joke people, I am going to keep on reverting the my edit, if I get banned I'll just contact the creater of Wikipedia myself, have him add the death toll, and get whoever banned me, banned. Is that understood? Look you guys got 72 hours to add the death toll, or that's IT..I WILL. Zoola 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I found this quite funny. You don't have a chance of actually pulling off what you threaten to do. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 04:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Zoola is now indefblocked for trolling per a (now deleted) inflammitory edit to someone else's userpage. --Deskana (fry that thing!) 04:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sort of confused here. He wanted us to remove it, and now he wants us to add it? Did I miss something? :\ Parsecboy 07:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

From the "you guys will get it" tone, I wonder if Zola was perhaps channeling Hitler or Stalin? MarkThomas 07:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"Scandal: Hitler edits Wikipedia biography from beyond the grave" --Deskana (fry that thing!) 12:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Parsec, it's something called "reverse psychology"...the latter of those two words being something the poster definitely requires :-) SmUX 15:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm.....Zoola, your arguement has more holes in it than George Bush would have if he went into a room full of Iraqis. (I apologize to anyone who finds offense in that.) If you want a death toll, look at the article about the war/s Hitler was in....or, as you seem to have changed your mind, look at Stalin's war/s. Just what are you asking anyway? Your threats are hollow. Really, do you think you're right against so many people? Do you REALLY think that the Wikipedia Senior Editors are going to take your side? I think not. Step off. NIN 18:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Trolls, socks, and sleeper accounts

Hello there, Windmaker999. I notice you're a sleeper account. That's to say your account was created more than a week ago ago[3], but you didn't make your first edit till yesterday.[4] That of course is the reason you are able to edit a semiprotected page like Adolf Hitler. You also seem to be the same person as Zoola (I'm brilliant!), since you talk just like him ("... IS that understood???"[5]). Deskana and others, I'm thinking of blocking all abusive sleeper accounts on sight at Adolf Hitler, since the purpose of "aging" them is so obvious. I repeat, only abusive ones. What do you think, everybody, would this be proper? It would save fullprotecting the page. Bishonen | talk 18:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Halleluja! Paul B 19:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Obviously the right thing to do, thanks for your help Bishonen. I've also removed the obvious troll text from "Windmaker999" that was posted above. MarkThomas 10:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Curious

Does anyone actually read through even a few of those archives? Can you imagine anyone reading through the whole thing, for heaven's sake (0:- ? And yet, there might even be something useful in all of that......infinite pile of words. Fascinating. This is probably the most talkative talk page I have ever seen in my life!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 15:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Title of Book

The supposed firtst title of My Stuggle looks like vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.110.221.182 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Are you referring to "Mein Kampf"? That's the title in German, and is what the book is widely known as. Parsecboy 21:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Son?

I did a search around but I can't see a mention of Jean Marie Loret, an alleged son fathered during WW1? See this article in Time. No idea if it is true but should it be mentioned? - SimonLyall 13:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We could include "Historian Werner Maser alleges that...", or something similar. German Wikipedia has an entry at de:Jean Loret. --h2g2bob (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would also reccommned seeing what other sources confirming his suggestion are available. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Numbers dead

Are those figures verified at all. I thought it was 33 million in the European War and 27 elsewhere. Londo06 14:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{helpme}} Hello, I just was looking at the recent changes and noticed this page had been changed. Somehow, I suspected vandalism, so I looked into it. Surely enough, I was correct.
Could an admin please assist me in reverting the page? Thanks a lot. Curran (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's very sad how these pukes and jokers find the motivation to vandalise and ridicule on the historical record of a subject who stood out above all men or his era for the virtues of his energetic statesmanship, political cunning, self-determination and ideological commitment. It's called getting up by tearing others down - and inevitably choosing those others who aren't in a position to respond. For sure such elements need to learn a few lessons from what the subject did to effect the transformation and revival of his culture and his nation in the 1930s. It starts with having a Vision, a Purpose and a Plan. Add to that at least a concept of personal honour, self-respect and principled initiative ... all sorely lacking in their own demonstrations. NI4D 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Hitler is one of the worst people that ever lived. The only reason I brought attention to the vandalism is simply out of pride for Wikipedia, and that I don't believe in vandalism of any kind on here, whether I get a kick out of it or not. Curran (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think, NI4D, that your attempt at glorifying Hitler is far more pathetic than a bout of vandalism. Hitler was one of the worse kinds of evil's to have walked the Earth. Any kind of hate he gets is less. I personally think that he should be condemned in everyway and form. I hope he's suffering the worst kind of eternal torture in hell along with you, ya nazi bastard.. --- Da Main Event

No personal attacks, please --h2g2bob (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange intro

Adolf Hitler (listen (help·info); April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was the German Chancellor (Reichskanzler) from 1933 until his death, and, from 1934 until his death, he was the Führer ("Leader") of Germany. Unofficially he was known as the "German dictator" during most of the same period that he was Chancellor and Leader of Germany.

The intro says that he was The Fuehrer and was referred to as "the German dictator". Isn't it more accurate to say that he was the German dictator (compare Stalin, who gets the same description in his intro) and he was referred to as The Fuehrer (regardlesss of what his "fuehrership" meant in practice)? --91.148.159.4 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is POV and unacceptable to say that he was 'the German dictator'. Think about it this way: did HE ever represent that or did the Nazi state? No. He operated within a system of responsibilities and constitutionalism (with some suspensions in effect from the incident of the burning of the Reichstag). So giving due credit to official stylings he was the German Fuhrer and Reichschancellor although 'referred to' (by some, outside Germany) as "the German dictator", but more frequently simply as Germany's 'Head of State','Fuhrer', 'President', or 'President and Chancellor'.

From another perspective and to aid better understanding of this important point if I were to say "George W Bush is the 'dictator of America' but known as 'President of the USA'", then you'd know I was being POV and deliberately an ass who puts facts in the backseat to propaganda and a personal agenda or mischaracterisation/misrepresentation. Wouldn't you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CreditToGreatness (talk • contribs)

Any mainstream historian would agree that he was a dictator, unlike the case of Dubya. You seem to espouse a fringe pro-Nazi view. --91.148.159.4 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If his official title wasn't "Dictator" the article shouldn't state that it was. It should state what his title and office was. "Dictator" has come to mean "tyrannical autocrat", it is a judgement not an office or a title and any judgement is POV, no matter whether one agrees or not. Let's not be too jumpy and look for Nazis all around us eh? Lucius Domitius 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Dictator has a very objective meaning, namely, more or less, "an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state". Hitler was one, just as Stalin was one, despite and quite apart from the offices that they formally held; BTW, unlike Stalin, Hitler would have been proud to admit he was a dictator, as would all of his followers and even many of his Western sympathizers; that was part of the essence of his ideology. The only reason why "dictator" may sound like an offense today is because the generally accepted view today is that democracy is a good thing and dictatorship is a bad thing. And it should be obvious to anyone that the statement of CreditToGreatness was as absurdly pro-Nazi as to verge on trolling. --91.148.159.4 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro as it stands right now is both misleading, and grammatically incorrect. For example,

"Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum (living space). This triggered World War II when Germany annexed Austria and the Czech lands and invaded Poland, much of which was also annexed to form the Großdeutschland Reich ("Greater German Reich")."

The last sentence makes it sound like Germany annexed Austria and "the Czech lands" and invaded Poland, all at once, starting WWII. This article is supposed to be imparting information, not speaking to an audience that already knows what happened and has the knowledge to parse this sentence into what it really meant to say. Further, one does not start sentences with "This" and then leave it to the reader to guess what it refers to. Drogo Underburrow 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the passage waas very confusing, and the phrase "the Czech lands" seems like a Czech nationalist formulation to avoid referring to Czechoslovakia. As for 'dictator', that's a fairly straightforard description of his political function. It's not a technical term in the sense that it is used in the history of Rome, just a descriptive one. Paul B 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Psychology

Hey. In the second paragraph, wouldn't it be better to say that he appealed to the economic and psychological needs...? Mentioning only the economic thing jumped out at me as looking like it was missing something. - Electric Larry

Failed GA

I've (quick) failed this article, as it has multiple {{fact}} tags and the "Health and sexuality" section has an unreferenced tag. The article itself also needs trimming - 105kb is way too long for a biography. CloudNine 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Führer und Reichskanzler

A small point, but is the 'und' in 'Führer und Reichskanzler' really correct here? If that was his formal title, then fine, but if he had two separate titles they should surely be separated by 'and' in an English article. Very possibly a rookie question... 81.151.33.104 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is correct when we refer to his formal title after Hitler's accession as head of state (after Hindenburg's death). Note that he in fact combined the powers of three positions: Führer of the NSDAP, Chancellor and President, though formally the office of President was declared held up (supposedly to honour Hindenburg, but actually more because a) one could not hold both offices according to the constitution, b) a President would have to stand for reelection after seven years while the Chancellor could hold office indefinitely. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can truly say I learned something today! Thanks! :-) Vacant Stare 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's appointment as Chancellor

This is also just a small point, but General Von Blomberg was in effect a Nazi. Though this alliegance was unofficial and by implication, secret, it was still very tangible and may be worth noting.

Nonsense is not worth noting. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Eduard Bloch

Why no mention of Hitler's only Edeljude...noble Jew...Eduard Bloch? SmUX 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, the whole thing was invented by his press or whatever, although he was told by his doctor to have a vegetarian diet for a cure for chronic flatulence. Just thought I should clarify... Dungeonmaster 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "Hitler was a vegetarian beginning in the early 1930s until his death (although his actual dietary habits appear inconsistent and are sometimes hotly disputed)" is sort of meaningless. If he ate meat semiregularly than he wasn't a vegetarian. --P4k 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean I guess this isn't an issue that matters to anyone other than a few vegetarians, but some more clarity would be nice. --P4k 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. Paul B 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that a more accurate article exists, but that doesn't really solve the problem with this one. --P4k 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are any. We can't go into details of every argument. He described himself as a vegetarian. He was a vegetarian most of the time in practice. It's not clear whether any lapses - if that's what they were - were intentional on his part or a result of chefs sneaking meat products into his diet, or mistakes in statements by sources. What is clear is that the "chronic flatulence" explanation above is simply silly derogatoriness. Paul B 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also several categories of vegetarians, ranging from Vegans, to those who merely don't eat red meat, but will still eat poultry and fish. If you wish to further clarify the section, go ahead and be bold. Parsecboy 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have just changed it in the first place. Paul B, I'm sorry for being rude. --P4k 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not wishing to enter into any form of disputatious contumely with DUNGEONMASTER, but it is definitively documented that after the death of Hitlers Neice, Geli Raubel, he nevber touched meat again in this life. His personal cook, Constance Manzialy, who was with him until the end in the bunker, clarified his dietary preferences in depth after the war. In short, it is beyond doubt that Hitler was indeed a Vegetarian. (ie: Not eating meat). BAZKEIRA

IPA

Could someone possibly put Adolf's name in IPA. I would do it, but I'm not 100% sure of the German pronunciation. -- Nodoubt9203 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I found the following [6] from a reputable historian, PaulB thinks it is "utterly silly" [7] and contains a misleading use of "concentration camp". This is in fact where the term concentration came came from, and this historian thinks this is relevant to Hitler's failure in school, and I think it is quite an interesting and relevant fact about him. I would think that any further understanding of what formed this man's mind would be important and it really does seem to relate to, or at least offer an interesting comparison with, his later thinking and acts. At any rate, I'll submit this for the review of usual editors of this article. I'm not going to get into a dispute over it. Just thought it was interesting.

Part of the explanation for his declining performance in school may have been that Hitler was no longer respected as a leader among the students. Hitler had liked to re-enact battles with his fellow classmates, particularly those of the Boer War. His favorite scenario was playing the role of a commando rescuing Boers from the English concentration camps.

Respectfully -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate sentences here. One says he wasn't respected. The other says he liked to reenact battles. There is no obvious connection between them. Is the author saying that fellow students did not respect battle reeanactments? Perhaps his fellow students were pro-British and did not "respect" imaginary Boer commandoes. As far as I can see these are simply two loosely linked comments about Hitler's school days, not a cause-and-effect. There is simply no good reason to include what games Hitler liked to play as a child. Paul B 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that the author didn't intend to link his decline in popularity with his withdrawl from school, I just read that as part of a list of the reasons why. At any rate, isn't it interesting to know that his favorite game related to saving people (presumably women and children) from concentration camps? It's totally up to the editors of this article; I don't have any strong opinion about it, I just felt it was a curious piece of his story. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and Christianity

Hitler was vehemently opposed to Christianity. He hated it for its Jewish origins. He was instead a sort of Teutonic pagan, propagated by Rosenburg. Please change the section about Hitler's religion as it is misguiding and leads to people (cough* Dawkins*cough) claiming Hitler to be a Catholic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.34.98 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 June 2007.

He was a Catholic, but then again, so was Mussolini - and Al Capone for that matter. It doesn't mean anything much. Paul B 21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Hitler was raised a Catholic but as an adult life he was no Catholic in any meaningful sense - neither were Mussolini or (I guess) Al Capone. But neither was Hitler an adherent to Rosenberg, whose blurps he privately ridiculed. No need to stir up this issue again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Str, a "Catholic" is one who is a member of that religion. It has nothing to do with beliefs of that person. A person can believe anything he likes and be a Catholic, the Church considers people as Catholics when they have been confirmed Catholics, which Hitler was, regardless of what they later believe, or even do. Even being excuminicated doesn't make them not a Catholic, it simply seperates them frome the church in certain ways. Hitler was a Catholic, this is a simple factual statement. We have been through this before, and the fact that you try to make being "Catholic" mean something other than a person is a member of that religion breeds endless arguments. I wish you would stop. - Drogo Underburrow 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Drogo. Of all religions in the world, it is Catholicism where most certainly not everyone can believe what they like.

For the record: we are here talking about the everyday meaning of Catholic and according to this you can very well go from being a Catholic to being something else. As for the Church's position (which requires much theological knowledge) you even got this wrong: a Christian becomes a Christian fully by baptism (or in a way already by requesting it) and if that happens in the CC the person is a Catholic. A Christian cannot go back to being a non-Christian, he can only go forth to being an apostate. Of course, he can become a non-Catholic. A Catholic is someone who is in fully communion with the Catholic Church. Would you add Martin Luther's religion as Catholic in a user box? He certainly did not die a Catholic. Would you classify a Catholic who became a Buddhist as Catholic? Would you classify all infants as Muslim because Islam thinks so?

In any case, I have discussed real arguments and your pseudo-arguments bazillion times and I have no intention of going into your discussion again. It is your pseudo-arguments that make Catholic mean something different from an adherent to Catholicism. I wish you would stop. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a Catholic "has nothing to do with beliefs of that person."

"A person can believe anything he likes and be a Catholic."

I'm speechless! ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Both sides make this way too much of an issue. Hitler was a Catholic in the sense that he was a member of the church, like lots of people who are nominally members of the religion in which they were brought up. We don't have a problem saying that in most cases - even with notorious criminals. His private views are difficult to be clear about, but certainly towards the end of the war they seem to have become strongly anti-Church. As for Mussolini, his personal views are unclear, but his policies were strongly pro-Church, for political rather than theological reasons (since he wished to create a unified Italian culture). Al Capone probably just didn't think about it much. Paul B 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply seemed too harsh but to see the same stuff rehashed again and again without any argument after a pause of a year ...

The difference between a normal criminal like Al Capone and Hitler is that the latter had his religious, theological disagreements with the Church, whereas the former simply was a criminal, who, as Paul says, didn't think about such things much.

As for Mussolini (off topic here), his policies were not "strongly pro-Church". Sure he signed the Lateran Treaties but that's about it. All this in a deeply Catholic country like Italy. IMHO.

But the point is that we shouldn't be listening to the same old content-empty arguments put forth by Drogo. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler used Religion, like many before and after him, to justify his brutal policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.226.20 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 June 2007.

'Neither of the denominations - Catholic or Protestant, they are both the same - has any future left... That won't stop me stamping out Christianity in Germany root and branch. One is either a German or a Christian. You can't be both.' - Hitler 1933 I found the quote in a history text book by Geoff Layton. Indeed if you looked in any decent book about Hitler then you would notice his anti religious, and specifically anti Christian, views. You want further evidence? His closure of Church schools, undermining Catholic youth groups, campaigns to discredit and harass clergy. One of the basic tenants of Nazism is anti-Semitism. Jesus was a Jew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.145.195 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 June 2007.

We have no idea whether or not Hitler actually said that. It comes from Hermann Rauschning's book Hitler Speaks, which was written in 1939 as an anti-Nazi tract based on what Rauschning claims he remembered Hitler saying. Rauschning was a former Nazi turned anti-Nazi. A lot of it is widely believed to be totally made up. The problem is that a lot of "Hilter said" quotes come from unreliable and biassed commentators. That's not to say it's not true, just that we can really be sure. Even if it is true, it's difficult to know what it means about H's real opinions. Hitler lied to people all the time. He said what he thought would go down well with the person he was talking to. BTW, according to Hitler Jesus wasn't a Jew, he was an "Aryan" Celt (or at least that's what Bormann says Hitler said...) Paul B 11:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Shitler

I notice that Shitler redirects to Hitler, even though it should be a separate article, as it is the, (perhaps colloquially), used historical term for Hitler's alleged faecal fetish behaviours (involving glass tables and women). If it remains as a redirection, these details should be added to the main article by someone who won't just make it an immature anti-Nazi rant. IamYossarian 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually on closer inspection, 'Shitler' should redirect to the article about Hitler's sexuality, which does in fact note his Shitlerism.IamYossarian 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Having to source "Hitler = evil"

Would Rotten.com's biography on Hitler be enough of a source for this statement?:

"Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil."

Would additional sources be required to back this up? Is Rotten.com even considered a reliable source in this aspect? I thought I'd mention it as I saw they used it on Shoko Asahara. If consensus calls it unreliable, I'll try to remember to remove the statement from there or add a verification tag. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That quote in my opinion is flawed by itself with the phrase "Since the defeat...", seems like a form of Victor's justice. Granted, killing million's goes beyond most people's moral codes, I think stating that he is evil may make it drift from the NPOV. I'm not trying to completly destroy your opinions, in case my post seems that way. --GTPoompt(talk) 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my statement. Nevertheless, it does seem somewhat relevant, as only after the war did all the evidence of the Holocaust reach the general public outside Germany. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

The German Church

If Hitler hadn't burnt down the German Church, a family (Strodes, Pesolds, Ancels, and soooo....many more) would have been living in a German Castle, and be very rich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.146.193 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 June 2007.

Err, what??? Paul B 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Appearance?

Perhaps there could be a section on Hitler's appearance, i.e. his square moustache, his hairstyle and the fact that they were both popular styles in Germany at the time? Also, it is relatively known that he wore glasses when he needed to, but never in public as he feared it would affect his image. This could be mentioned. Another thing is that Hitler would abandon his brown military uniform in favour of a suit when around the Conservatives he had to work with early in his 'political' career in the Reichstag; not even a swastika could be seen on him, obviously because he wanted to downplay anything he felt the Conservatives could feel threatened by. Perhaps this could be mentioned? Crazy Eddy 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential for image abuse today...

Today's Candorville comic ([8]) shows a page similar to this one with Hitler's image replaced by a picture of one of the comic's characters. If the images aren't already protected, perhaps today is a good day for at least a temporary protection (much like is done when articles are featured on the Main page). Slambo (Speak) 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This nice image should be included.

File:Kukryniksy-razgromim.jpg

World War II cartoon by Kukryniksy