Talk:Adolf Hitler

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

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, Adolf or Adolph Hitler's Sexuality

"Hitler Putsch" is the German name

In English it's called the "Beer Hall Putsch". The Germans call it the Hitlerputsch. 217.245.8.95 08:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. Should we get someone in to make that change for us? Agathoclea 12:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Let native speakers decide.

A bit of historical detail: at first, immediately after the event, it was called the "Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch", since Ludendorff was both the figurehead and the most prominent leader, while Hitler had been a merely local celebrity. It was this coup and the subsequent trial that propelled Hitler to national prominence, so much that later Ludendorff was dropped from the name of the event alltogether. "Hitlerputsch" certainly gives a more accurate description, as Hitler was the moving force of the attempt after Kahr, Lossow and Seisser (representing government, military and police) had withdrawn their support.

But again, current usage should decide which term to use, so "native speakers to the front!"Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A word from a native speaker: I have never heard someone say "Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch" - that expression might be found in history books where the author goes to extra lengths to sound reputable, but pretty much anyone would either use "Hitlerputsch" or alternatively "Marsch auf die Feldherrnhalle", which is the event's name as I learned it back in school (mid/late eighties). The "Putsch" name was not used while I was in school - as our history teacher explained, calling it a "putsch" would imply a successful attempt to overthrow the state, and it would then be necessary to call it "attempted Hitlerputsch" or something to remain accurate which would be unnecessarily complicated, so the more neutral "Marsch..." was used. From my reading, it seems that "Hitlerputsch" is used by a number of historians, and people will definitely understand the term. For what it's worth, the article on de.wikipedia resides at de:Hitlerputsch -- Ferkelparade π 14:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ferkelparade, am I right in supposing that you are German. So am I. With "native speaker" I was addressing the native speakers of English, whose usage should determine the term to use. I agree that Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch is used very rarely, for the reasons given above. "Putsch" however doesn't necessarily denote success. In the vast majority of cases, simply "Hitlerputsch" is used without explicitely saying that it failed. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I assmued you were looking for native Germans to decide current usage in German :P You're probably right that "putsch" does not necessarily imply success, I only repeated what I was taught in school (and what seemed quite reasonable back then). Meanwhile, I am so used to the term "Marsch auf die Feldherrnhalle" that I actually have to spend a couple seconds of thinking before I realize what is meant by "Hitlerputsch" when I hear the term -- Ferkelparade π 14:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

11 Million Killed in Genocide

What is the basis for this total sum? What constitutes a "genocide" killing? Is this an assertion, a claim, a shot in the dark, a bolt from the blue? It does not appear to be sourced, and in as much as it features prominently right towards the front of a very long article, it should be a well established figure. I notice there's quite a dispute going on over at the Stalin discussion page over how extensive the Soviet genocide was, yet here the article is stopped dead in its tracks and we calmly accpt this figure. Muttley-Media 22:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

By 'Genocide', I presume what is meant is the mass killing of people by the Nazis - in other words, the Holocaust. It is a widely accepted fact that anywhere between 5 to 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust between the years 1942-1945 - the main period of the Nazi Genocide. Before this, there had certainly been deaths, but not in those numbers - it is estimated that by 1942, 500,000 Jews in Poland and Russia - areas which contained a much larger number of Jews than Germany - (not counting any other denominations of people) were murdered by the Nazis - a relatively small amount compared to the huge number killed post-1942. The reason for the huge number of people killed in the 1942-1945 period is down to the fact that Hitler decided in 1942 that it was the time to start the extermination of Jews in Europe; as recorded in Joseph Goebbels' diary:
"The Fuehrer... expressed his determination to clean up the Jews in Europe... Not much will remain of the Jews. About sixty per cent of them will have to be liquidated; only about forty per cent can be used for forced labour."
This time was when concentration camps were used to their full effect - in the implementation of the 'Final Solution'. Killings outside the concentration camps were not at all as large in numbers, so the Genocide usually refers to the concentration camp killings. Of course, it was not only Jews killed in the Holocaust, but many other denominations of people deemed 'undesirable' by the Nazis.
Finally, the reason why the 11 million is indeed a very ballpark figure is because it is impossible to tell just how many people were murdered by the Nazis (mostly in the concentration camps). They (I believe) did not keep records of all the people, if any, that were murdered - the camps were set up to rid the Third Reich of those that the Nazis stood against, and so for this reason records were not kept. The dead bodies were either buried in mass graves, and some were burnt in large furnaces - thus making it impossible to tell exactly how many people were killed, but it is still possible to get a rough idea. Hope this clears things up for you. --LeFrog 09:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I think muttley-media is looking for the figure to be sourced.--Shtove 20:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, a source would seem necessary for any such absolute figure. Also, my question revolves around the definition of a "holocaust victim". Would an American or Soviet soldier qualify as such? Frankly, I've never seen this statistic before, certainly not stated as fact. As victims of genocide rather than casualties of war, the sum would argue that on top of the "six million" there were another five million who died in concentration camps or were shot on the edge of burial pits throughout Eastern Europe. I think this is untenable according to what I've read. If it includes people who died of disease and who were inadvertant civilian casualties (e.g. from bombings), it is an entirely false category unto itself and should be removed or broken down into more definitive categories. Muttley-Media 01:15, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A few concerns

Firstly with regards to the religious debate, there are far too many assumptions about Hitler's religious convictions. The article should only contain verifiable facts such as dates and actual statements by Hitler himself or those close to him. Too much speculation and poorly sourced claims are asking for trouble.

Secondly, I have never read anywhere Hitler or any other Nazi claiming Jesus was an Aryan, and any Christian who claims Jesus was a jew, half jew ect. obviously needs to read his/her bible more carefully. It states Jesus was not conceived through the natural means and that his mother Mary was a virgin and died a virgin.

My last objection is the part which explains the "means oppression" and describing the SS as a mere tool of oppression. What exactly is oppression and by who's definition? One man's oppressor or blasphemor is another man's hero/savior. We can see this double perception even in Christ and his jewish opponents. To some the SS were a deathsquad, others they were knightly soldiers, a sort of modern day Teutonic knighthood valiantly defending their country against the Communist invaders. You cant take one side over the other, that is a POV. I also agree with the complaint with regards to the 11 million figure, it seems like that is just pulled out of thin air. This has always been curious to me as I can surf through 100 different holocaust sites and find different figures on a sizable majority of them, in one demographic or another and there are still holocaust websites to this very day maintaining the Nazis boiled down their jewish victims to use their body fat to make cosmetic products, soap, et nausium. The problem is history and its mainstream perception is all too often influenced by irrational emotion, prejudice and a desire to glorify or vilify, particularly when we're dealing with a tragedy in the magnitude of WW2 and its fallout. Its all too easy to vilify someone you despise regardless of whether its completely factual. The Allies imprisoned hundreds of political dissenters, Nazi supporters, German citizens and thousands upon thousands of Japanese Americans for the duration of the war. The Americans set up a commitee called "the house committee on un-american activities" which oversaw the arrest and imprisonment of countless people, and is actually very little different than the German efforts to weed out dissent in their ranks. Its funny how you never read about any of that in the articles about the Allies during WW2 yet we all seem to go out of our way to ensure the Germans remain the ultimate villain.

Nazrac π 19:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Please set up a user page.--Shtove 21:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Nazrac, I officially declare your polemic to be a troll. Replying to you would only give unwarranted credence to your diatribe. DJ Clayworth 21:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Jesus not a jew?

I just had to write something about that point. Jesus' mother was jewish- so therefore he was too. Judaism passes through the maternal line, so if someone has a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, they are not considered Jewish. Jesus' was clearly a Jew. He preached to other Jews- and no-one else! He preached in the temple in Jerusalem. People proclaimed him King of the Jews. It was only after his death, the people starting preaching his message outside of the Jewish population, and an idea of christianity as distinct from Judaism, rather than just a branch of Judasim, didn't exist for decades after Jesus' death. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.196.239.189 (talk • contribs) .

hitler's name

I recolect hearing once that Hitler was not his last name of birth, if this is the case than that should be stated in the article, Stalin's page has his original name. Yev900 03:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yev, your were misinformed. Hitler was born Adolf Hitler - it was his father, Alois Hitler, who was born Alois Schicklgruber. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I recommend the Hitler Page be removed from wiki altogether. There is clearly bias in the interpretations of his intentions and many people find discussions of Hitler to be offensive as well. I don't think it is fair to have a double standard: the creators of other goups' pages have been removed because some people don't like the activities of that group. It would be nice if there was no bias in the data presented on the Wiki, but since this will never be the case, all offensive pages should be removed.

New Infobox

I have changed the infoxbox to match the other German presidents and to more clearly show the crossover between his time as Chancellor and Führer. However, I don't know what to put in the profession field. Should it be artist or soldier or simply politician? Philip Stevens 11:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

And Asia

I think the introduction text should be changed to include Asia if we are talking about Axis Powers to "Germany and the Axis Powers ruled much of Europe and Asia..."

Haffner quote

I have observed that a quote by Sebastian Haffner has been added and removed from both this article and the fork article on religious beliefs. My take on this is that while Haffner is a reputable writer and quite quotable, the view expressed in this quoted is based on dated scholarship, as primarly expressed in the Hitler biography by Allan Bullock. From what we know today it can now longer be upheld. The only possibility of including it would be in a footnote about "misconceptions" alongside of Hitler the occultist, or Hitler the esotericist, or Hitler the neopagan, or Hitler the Catholic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Archived unfinished issues

I'm not sure why the discussion was archived while the issues remain unsettled. It seems premature so I posted one part of the archive that is an ongoing discussion, about one such issue regarding some continued points of contention. Each objection that Str1977 raised and its answer also seems to have been unsettled, as well? Or was it settled? In anycase I noticed that Str1977 has recently reverted to the old versoin that was opposed, which removed all the MeinKauf quotes. I would hope that he would talk about the changes here first so as to avoid another edit war that will only end up with this article being locked, again. Giovanni33 01:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gio,

first of all, I did the archiving because the talk page was huge and because no one responded anymore to the points raised (and hence reposting something from the archive without having anything to say to it is no way to go).

Not that you ever actually responsed to the points actually raised. Instead you prefer to respond to things not done, not said, not posted and to edits not made, even here above by saying "which removed all the MeinKauf quotes" - the quotes were not removed but integrated into the text. BTW, very high (and unreasonable) demands have been placed on me in regard to verifiability, up to skimming through two tomes of Kershaw to contradict a careless, unprovable statement about what he didn't say, while you include Mein Kampf quotes without giving any reference. Now, I am not inclined to be bitchy and remove them all because of your failure, instead I looked at the valuable info they contained and integrated them into the text. You obviously are not inclined to care for the quality of the article.

Regarding the dispute, I have provided a detailed list of objections to "your" version, so maybe you may care to do the same in reverse.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, and please don't just remove tags you don't agree with. It might be considered vandalism. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Until you agree to stop removing my comments from the talk page, I won't waste my time posting long arguments here, except to say that you did remove the MK quotes and not they were not integrated into the article. You made massive changes and you failed to get conensus for them among editors here first. The standards that are applied to you are reasonable standards and required by NPOV, V, and OR. They apply to eveyrone equally. The issues on the talk page are still relevant because the disputes have not been settled yet. I think the issue is that your objected were soundly answered and your points were refuted so that is why we now see you hiding it and starting as if nothing happened, all over again. Is this your tactic because it won't work.Giovanni33 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, Gio you are unaware of this, but compliance with Wiki-rules is not conditional on another user's behaviour. Especially since I have not removed your comment but only the appended reposting of part of the archive. Neither have I removed the MK quotes (still unsourced, so much for standards). Another thing, contradicted does not equal refuted and just because sound is a word from the field of accoustics it is not the same as high-pitched or loud. Gio, I want to invite you once again to state your objections to "my" version (which was in fact a collaboration of many). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Merger

Merged Hitler's Religious Beliefs since the content was the same when I looked at it. Any complaints let me know. Themillofkeytone 20:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It is not merged, since Gio prefers to disallow the accurate, NPOV, structured version of that section. Hence I have reposted the merge notice. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please try and keep a cool head! This is not about what content is the "correct" content. This is merely a discussion about where the content should be located. If we want it as a separate page, then we should summarize and let it be a separate page, and we can discuss and NPOV it there. If not, we should change that page to a redirect and keep the content on the Hitler page. Personally, I think the Hitler article is getting a bit long, so I think we should have the separate article, at least for now. That way, the discussion you two are having can be focused on a talk page specifically designed for it, and other Hitler issues can be discussed on the main talk page. Themillofkeytone 18:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The_Jew_of_Linz

I would like to add a link in this Hitler article to the Wikipedia article "The_Jew_of_Linz", which contains interesting matters concerning Hitler's schooldays. Would someone let me know the procedure, given that the Hitler article is locked?

Yes, of course; you need to create an account to edit partially locked pages. You also have to have been editing for a little while, just to see that you're all right. So if I were you, I'd create an account right away. And, where would you like this link to be placed? -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Since I haven't been "editing for a little while", it might be quicker and easier if someone who knows what they're doing does it. Just before the heading "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich", I would appreciate someone adding the folowing sentence: "A recent book makes much of the fact that Hitler and Ludwig Wittgenstein (later the famous Cambridge philosopher)jointly attended the Linz Realschule in the school year 1903/4." followed by a link to the Wikipedia article The_Jew_of_Linz.

Done as requested. -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you.

Der Untergang

I think it would be useful, in the section on films about Hitler, to have the British and American name for the film, Downfall, in brackets after the name Der Untergang, as readers are unlikely to be aware of it's German name and may therefore miss it.

Done.Giovanni33 04:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

-"I am just a small physicist" Perharps, you need to cover Einstein's mega involvement in the two world wars, and I still do not know German.I am sorry to say this but with aspect to the gigantic scale of World War II. You have to trace the facts of World War II, the important thing about the Jews, no racism dude, and the immense vandalism of the German leader's Adolf Hitler's part, I think you have to study this in breadth and details and you will have to ask how FDR teleported the cruisers and the transport ships to Europe via the TItanic routes. I think there is teleportation in it, there is laser I suppose.The lessons to learn from this is this man, history will repeat itself if the situation is allowed to repeat itself. I know it is controversial, but do you know he was flunked unforunately? The thing about magic, the dungeons, the dragons, the Jews are true, sorry my friend.

Possible copyvio

I was looking for a source for the "Heil Schicklgruber"-airdrop when I found [1]. The first part of the text matches almost perfectly with the first part of the Wikipedia article. This leaves a few situations where this could happen:

• The article is a WP:Copyvio.
• Wikipedia had permission to copy it, bu I see no evidence of that.
• The article was taken from Wikipedia and put on the site, in which case their copyright notice on the bottom is wrong.

- Dammit 10:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was a Propagandist

The use of referencing "The Holy Reich" as an authority on Hitler's religious beliefs is highly questionable. The basis of the argument in "The Holy Reich" was that the pamphlets distributed to the German people were Christian oriented, which doesn't mean anything as to Hitler's actual beliefs. It merely shows that Hitler was willing to understand how to pull people's strings. Any passive observer of Nazism can see the incorporation of Christianity, Catholicism, the occult, Eastern philosophies, and Marxist-oriented ideas of class-warfare (in Mein Kampf Hitler frequently rants about the bourgeosis and proletariat). So to use one book "The Holy Reich" as the basis for calling Hitler a Christian is intellectually irresponsible. German Christians were really just pawns in Hitler's game to kill the rich non-Aryans, so to speak.

The issue of Hitler's religion is basically the foundation for calling Hitler a "right winger." Hitler was neither "left" nor "right." A right-winger tries to unify people based on religion, race or nationality. A left-winger tries to unify people based on economic status. Hitler was in effect doing both. Hitler unified the German people on the basis of being Aryan which was a term popularized by the occultist, Helena Blavatsky in her book The Secret Doctrine, against what Hitler saw as the embodiment of the bourgeosis, the Jewish people. Hitler did so with a two-pronged propaganda attack to get into the hearts and wallets of the German people; by blaming the Jewish people and Allied powers for the economic devastation in Germany, post World War 1, and by invoking the blood of Jesus to galvanize anyone that wasn't impoverished. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.185.57.48 (talk • contribs) .

This begs the question of what were 'Hitlers actual beliefs" as if that were something you could know. You can't read his mind. Ofcourse he was a propagandist. This doesn't mean he didn't believe in his own propaganda. Hitler did carry out and do a lot of the things he said he would do, as he wrote in MK. George Bush is a propagandist. Does this mean that Bush is not really a Christian, either? We can only go by both his public and private statments, what he wrote and what he said, what he did--and then let the reader decide about what they think Hitler really believed. The record, to me, indicates Hitler was a Christian, typical of the right-wing Christian fascists we can still find today.Giovanni33

The record to me, quite clearly indicates two things:

• Hitler was not a Christian (in any meaningful sense) and not a Catholic (in any sense), based on his private statements (and so far we have no such statements from Bush indicating a distaste for Christianity, which GWB espouses in a way Hitler never came remotely close) and his actions (or failure of actions)

Personal attack by Str1977 removed here. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAdolf_Hitler&diff=59338411&oldid=59327401]Giovanni33 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as your claim that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaninful sense, this is easily refuted. All one has to do is give some meaninful definition of Hitler's brand of Christianity falls within a definition of being a Christian. To say that is not possible is to produce a very narrow, bigoted, definition of a Christian. I wonder if you can even come up with a defintion that would work to exclude Hitler as a Christian and yet not excude all the other Christians in history by the same token. No doubt you will fail to do so given your bias that such a person regarded as evil by most people can not be a Christian.Giovanni33 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)