Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Quid pro quo for Reichskonkordat still missing(censored)

Going thru the history the one diff I saw for the 13 above was unusual. The generality has been that the businessmen supported Hitler/NSDAP and also' wrote a letter. All a bit off-hand considering the massive import, but perhaps we are only writing a kids magazine or simplistic history. "Also wrote" about them is technically correct but is used as massage in a way that massage is used at Ludwig Kaas and Centre Party Germany. It is in fact a POV to write thus. Now- where's the quid pro quo and where's the Reichskonkordat, and does the massaged Kaas link yet- now he finally does-so who finally acceded to my civil request? The Reichskonkordat quid pro quo is not there at all, thus the scandal is POV'd out of sight.The 15 december hypocritical edit removing the bargain/kick-back/quid pro quo stands. There is no need to directly mention the vatican, despite everything, and so we can sleep more peacefully, eh, Lacatosias ? EffK 09:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Umm,.... well to be honest, I am impressed to see that this statement is, in fact, very prominntly diplayed on the page of Reichskonkordat, EffK:

"On the significance of the Reichskonkordat, Guenter Lewy, author of The Catholic Church and Nazi Germany, has written: 'There is general agreement that the Concordat increased substantially the prestige of Hitler's regime around the world. As Cardinal Faulhaber put it in a sermon delivered in 1937: "At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with cool reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.' " and the presnetation almost seems one-sided in favour of the anti-Pius XII POV. I have not looked at Kaas and the others yet. But, not that I think on it, why do you insist on having a biography of Adolf Hitler turn into a long article about Pius XII and the Catholic Church's unacceptable silence (my POV which is still debatable), unless you really do believe that the Church has an INDISPENSABLE and COLLOBORATIONIST role in the life of Adolf Hitler. I will have nothign to do with such theories as that.--Lacatosias 11:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You Lacatosias don't HAVE to have anything to do with anything. nevertheless the source that supports all the thesees itemising collaboration via quid pro quo-which I remingd you was suggested and defended at the Nuremberg trials, is repeated by Shirer onwards. that you do not wish to have anything to do with that is entirely up to you. I am concerned that even the quid pro quo for the centre dissolution is forbidden, hypocritically as I prove, and I am concerned that this organ disallows via biased editors in concert the entirely NPOV grouping from avro manhattan onwards that indeed pacelli was deeply implicated , with Kaas his tool, in precisely being a part of the Conspiracy to Institute totalitarian power. This is no POV as this is perfectly aligned to the facts of every timeline. I myself am thoroughly au fe with all that has been written concerning this as POV or as presentation via NPOV. I state categorically that the Shirer and everyone's conclusion is sure , due to the evidence, that a bargain was made. That the bargain invloved a volte face by the hierarchy in germany, by the publicly aligned organs of catholicism throughout germany, involved clear approbation by the Vatican from pius XI on 10 april 1933, by kaas vatican approved statements of approbation fllowing and widely publicised in germany, by the Fulda bishops volte face, . That Kaas is indeed worthy of the comment required, for his solo intervention on 6 March, for his solo negotiation for the tipping letter of guarantee from Hitler, assured through him solo,persuading the Centre and thus institutiong, quite illegally(deputy arrest unconstitutional), the acceptance of the Enabling Act,and for his private repeat private meeting with Hitler on his return from the vatican of 2 April, for his part in arranging not only the oncordat but its resulting crucial importancve in persuading german voters to align wholescale with nazism like the vatican itself had done. if this is not collaboration at bringing Hitler to power, Kaas is well known and sourced to have been the effective tool of Pacelli, and I sourced that separtately fom all others to Mowrer. Either way the suggestion is NPOV by me in that I demand a full treatment be accorded rather than this childish naivete or otherwise massage which ignores the evident relationship and bargaining maneuver , as the Trials said, intended to deceive. You are entitled to withdraw, or personally advocate your horror, by all means , but please dont come at me saying that I am presenting a POV of mine or anyone's. The quid pro quo I tried to insert on 15 december is so entirely uncontroversial that the massinging excision was made by an acceptor of that quid pro quo. it is more , and further, monstrous of this editor and his supporters to insist on the complete eradication by dismissal of all who have followed the trials , from Shirer onwards, in riting of the clear linkage throughout the Enabling act negotiations towards the Concordat. if this is not presented as sourceable, then it is massaged censorship. The article remains a POV, and does neither justice to Wikipedia nor to the history.This is of cardinal importance in the trajectory of Hitler, as are the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. This article on Hitler is really sub-standard given the history and the history of the history. Your saying that I want to turn this into a long article about Pius XII is not a good faith reaction, I have to tell you. I may understand why you should distance yourself from the speeding train, though. I speak in metaphor. If you say these things to me to undermine me again, I will have to put you entirely straight. I can do without your approbation, but will not suffer your accusation that this a theory nor that it is what you say I wish to do. The article is grossly deficient in what I know, and apparently deficient in may ways. It would appear that Wiki editing means is not capable of manageing , or is susceptible to a continuous POV infection from those with a POV. I have no need to re-source anything. I have done my bit and the inadmission of verifiable source is a wikipedia crime, no less.EffK 12:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Monitoring vandalism

This tool may be useful in monitoring the success of semiprotection and deciding whether to lift protection. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Excisions made of large portions of relevant history regarding Hitler's rise

Even, I think, Tony Sidaway may be aware of the disappearance of the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates question. Now I see that the following text, whilst not accused of being POV, is thru Off-topic removed by another( seemingly related) editor, Str1977, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nazism_in_relation_to_other_concepts#Off-topic_content,[in relation to other concepts].

I rather think I included this material which clarifies the situation in Gemany at the time. I suggest that the clarificatory passages be incorporated into either here of the NSDAP article, so there is the link to the text excised. No one bothered to prevent the expanding link into the Magnates from disappearing into the ether, despite the enormity of the magnates' influence and the brevity of mention of this enormity here.

I am more noted as some sort of Troll here regarding the Pacelli influence upon events, however I do also note that those whom I see confessing to their efforts to silence such connections, also curiously have, throughout, shown concerted action to also minimise the plain conclusions here within this text. I sense a wish within WP articles on this period for a presentation of the history in a manner soothing towards certain other sensitivities too. However an alternative rationale would suggest that the purely vatican embarrassment at its own(canonically prohibited) condonations of Hitlerism, requires an un-balancing of the entire surrounding Wikipedia history.

A dilution of even general condonation leading into conspiracy for assisting Hitler- from such as the banker/Magnates is apparent, as it is with the other lesser vested interests. I have in fact sourced the remaining political effects into today's German politics and the part played by the Junkers, the Army Officer Class( not Schleicher ), and the "gentry" are all rather washed out or minimised, and the activities of the Centre Bloc and the rest of the Middle class is either fought over due to Pacelli questions, or equally washed over. At times it is, where convenient, suggested that the other parties of the middle classes balanced in Reichstag proportion that importance of the centre party. I consider this rather out of statistical proportion.

The essence apparently of the Rolf Hochhuth allegations, echoing Avro Manhattan and preceding John Cornwell and Ian Kershaw and the several other contemporary writers, is precisely related to the investments (howsoever true or false I cannot say) made by Pacelli/ Pope Pius XII in German Heavy Industry though the period. I have by no means concentrated upon this , and have openly shown that there was general war-mongering investment made by others. The most remarkable was the corporation that invested in armaments in both France and its future enemy Germany equally- a perfect scenario to such as George Bernard Shaw who have also as playwrites dealt with the irksome reality of capitalist war profiteering.

Those who wish to see from Wikipedia some educational benefit, please assist in re-introducing the text into a more central position. EffK 21:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I will not go into all you said, EffK, but only this:

• Hochhuth is not scholarship but fiction
• On "Concepts", I moved the Hitler's rise stuff to the talk page after weeks, if not month of protestation that it was off-topic. A section "Nazism and conservatism" is valid and should be included. I would write it myself but I don't have either time or energy left for that. But what the text was about wasn't "Nazism and conservatism" but Hitler's rise to power including the role of conservative and other politicians and elites. That was off-topic there. It's not off topic elsewhere. The basic issues are included here, on Hitler, and on other pages. The concepts section should be about ideas and concepts, e.g. longing for national greatness, a strong state, law and order, anti-party and anti-democracy, authoritarianism, militarism, anti-communism - there are loads of issues to be raised there. I hoped by flagging the section that someone would amend it but unfortunately no one stood up to the task and I currently cannot do it.

Str1977 00:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I have clearly there shown that which is necessary for reinclusion. I am sure that were I to be doing the job-you would excise it , or your sidekicks even. There are important points which are vital backgroung for the understanding of the conservative and counter-revolutionary allainces. I note you try not to actively deny this, but my experience of you is that you can appear consensual now, and yet challenge the same material as POV error another day. Your edits of 15 December are the clearest such case of your ability to sustain contradiction. I do not accept that you r the articles deal with the basic issues at all. In fact Schleicher at concepts was used entirely erroneously . here there is an Article which is visibly sub-standardised by amongst others yourself. What is reductive consensu alone informs the Wikipdia article here. All the inter-related Wikipedia nazi articles are infact reductive and erroneously slanted away from even slight apparence of historical reality. The effort is made to present Hitler and the NSDAP as the sole culpritys for the Conspiracy I refer to above, and yet when there is analysis of the nazis , their culpability is weakened towards those of unspecified collaborators. The overall effect is a pathetic mish-mash far underneath serious history-whatever your vaunted claims to historiography. Certainly all clarity I included, such as this latest Concepts excision , is fought against by you ( and you win). I protest your actions in the strongest possible manner and here I request that you stop excising and massaging articles completely until such time as I have finished with you and you have finished with me. I, in good faith, as you well know, am constrained by your pure intellectual dishonesty from editing in any article itself. It is pure constant dispute, and I have presented the reasoning of verifiability only still to be trapped in your intellectual glue. I really suggest that you now show equal good faith and do no further editing on Wikipedia inter-war history until the Arbitration case is settled once and for all. You will note that your presentation of evidence in the case that is technically started against me, brings yourself into full consideration and study. There will be irksome necessity for the Arbitrators to make adjudement as to your editing as well as mine. I have loaded your recent statement as to how you are actively guarding Wikipedia, and at The Great Scandal I ask you direct relevant questions resulting from that statement. I copied these to my talk, as it only takes one supporting vote around here to VfD things. I repeat that which I just wrote to your side-kick McClenon about himself. I say in all good faith that I believe that you firstly, Str1977, represent still, because you always have been, a clear and present intellectual danger to Wikipedia. I find you quite charming otherwise, and commend your abilities on several levels. I cannot accept your apparency of good faith or claims to understand my sincerity. These are contrary to your contumate hypocrisy - so I can only ask that you repent from your attacks and characterisations made of me as slanderous impious intellectually substandard extremist POV pusher. If you do so, I believe there would be a great future, as it would represent a sign that the long era of clerical denialism is waning. All your denials of source, source not of interpretation, but of consensus, stand ill against your protestations of good faith. If you are busy in Wikipdia I fear for Wikipedia.To any passing would be editor, I say that I claim the right through my user experience to suspend the assumption of good faith with this user. But not of good manners. EffK 12:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Excisions saved to Hitler's rise to power

I believe the Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates , who are the red link from financial interests still at Weimar Republic, as they were deleted with only one supporting vote recently, need to be re-recognised. At the very least Robert McClenon should have the courage of his convictions in having that Article deleted, to now re-adjust the redundant links within Wikipedia. Fortunately the Magnates are saved upon the new page Cberlet put up called Hitler's rise to power( And perhaps that should be capitalised as with book titles?) I therefore suggest that a direction be interposed into this and all articles at the appropriate point, and not simply a link at the bottom.

It seems to me that an article needs to be constructed concerning Hitler and Finance, or else the entire, with the Magnates, reside in a large part of "Hitler's Rise". The which will be explosive, as dirty deals underlie the Third Reich. The Magnates are only the most apparent parties. The American connections are hitherto in the preserve of apparently extremist writers. I believe they have things to say, that are not solely the vaunted POV of 'conspiracy theory', upon underlying financial and political forces. Some were under open scrutiny at the end of the War on both sides of the Atlantic. I believe that there is a financial history behind the popularly visible facade the knowing of which will elucidate 'popular' history. Explosive- because the interests remain discrete. Sourceing these undercurrents will involve much heavy weather in Wikipedia, but success would certainly be beneficial to world order.

Yes- I am of the opinion that uncovering truth is beneficial, and that if there is truth sourceable, we need it. I believe that hypocrisy does not allow us in the first world to make demands of the less fortunate whilst we continue in denialism. Only honest good will will further mankind and no one will be able to suggest future constraints whilst profitting from hypocrisy. I have hitherto concentrated upon the mysterious political death of Weimar, but I always stated that I expected all the interests to be verified, even the academic interests. Since these last would perhaps attempt to direct attention away from the more explosive financial realities, they are themselves of relevance as world factor. I personally do not know where the truth begins or whether it ends, but certainly the roots of financial involvements are as deep as the roots of National Socialism. Many writers suggest that they however go back beyond the 1783 philosophical roots sourceable unto American Independance, and far beyond in Europe. This could cause a frenzy, as the next book out on this will doubtless sell its author another 40 million, and rightly so.EffK 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Picture

It is quite clear, that the Hitler-picture propaganda fraction is egerly working on shifting contributions to the Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive archives. So when once they have done this, they hope to be free off good argumentation and reasoning. But this is too cheap a trick and too easy. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (24012006)

Header

The header seems to do everything but fawn on Hitler and has been modified at some key points.

• "charismatic leadership" - Hitler may have been charismatic to some of the masses, but this is different from characterizing his reign as 'charismatic leadership'. There is plenty of evidence that many Germans, whether intelligentsia or commoners, found him crass; further, his 'leadership' was based on totalitarianism; that is not called 'leading' a population, it's more like harnessing. This language does not reflect the reality accurately; it's a bit like rating the quality of a Hollywood movie on its box office numbers.
• "dominated" - changed to occupied - dominated has a glorifying ring to it, and occupied is accurate and objective terminology, and in use by scholars.
• "massive number" - changed to 'immense number', but you can suggest otherwise; "massive" sounds teenagerish.
• added "across Europe" to make it clear that the 11 million deaths were not in Germany alone.

--Simonides 05:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer avoiding the word "dictator" in the opening. It's just as POV as "charismatic leadership". Use it anywhere else, but let's not slap people in the face with such a word at the start. --Golbez 06:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

If Adolf F***ing Hitler was not a dictator, then the word itself no longer has a use in the English language and must stricken from all dictionaries and from all books ever written which use the word. But this is wacko post-modernism.--Lacatosias 16:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Everyone knows Hitler was a dictator, and there is no more objective word to describe his rule; even the article further on says as much. Are we going to be apologetic and prudish about history? PS "emerged from depths of defeat" is very editorial, also removed so intro is more concise now. -- Simonides 06:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think "dictator" is too bold of a word to use in an article that is trying to give a nonpartisan informative approach at describing a historic political figure. Jelligraze 16:27, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is an example of taking the NPOV idea WAAAAAAAAAAAY too far. How should a non-partison approcah to Adolf Hitler actually go. Of course, we wuld have to air the claims by Holocaust denieres that the event never really happened!! We can't take sides, you know!! It's just your opinion againt mine and your opinion that the Nazi's were not really all that bad as they were made out ot be is just as valid as my opinion that they were fundemnatlly evil. Someone elseìs opinin is that the Nazi party really did a FAVOR to all those disgutsing vermin. Shoudln't we let neo-Nazi skinjeads have a voice and a sy in the process. That would be the only true way to be non-partison and NPOV. So who's going to advoate the Nazi's side of the picture. And , on the Holpocaust page, what abou the deniers?? Have they been fairly represnted or not?? What about those who think the eartn is flat???--Lacatosias 17:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course, even an article on Adolf Hitlershould be NPOV and non-partisan. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call a spade a spade. I have my own problems with the word "dictator" sometimes (given its etymology and given that it is used too often to denote monstrous evil - no doubt a dictator can be just that (and Hitler was), but that isn't part and parcel of the word), but Hitler undoubtedly was a dictator in the modern sense of the term. Goebbels called Hitler in his diaries "a born tribune of the people and the coming dictator". Str1977 23:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you allow one single person to treat you like supplicants ?

I have often found the following claim at the top of this article:

"As a result of recent vandalism, editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled. Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection."

while no "vandalism" had taken place at all. There it says: "editing of this page by new or anonymous users is temporarily disabled" -- while only well-known editors contributed to this page. And then it continues: "Changes can be discussed on the talk page, or you can request unprotection." -- "or you can request unprotection" -- And I ask all you readers: Who is the one, that I have to "request" to to the "unprotection" of this article ? Is s/he someone special ? Is s/he someone who thinks: "I can block this free encyclopedia named Wikipedia, since I feel free to do so." Do not forget that the writer of these lines (I mean the lines: "you can request unprotection") is no more than a single person, who might have the notion of being more (or more powerful) than one person. So kick him or her in the ass and let us continue to work on a free encyclopedia. The Free Encyclopedie Wikipedia certainly deserves to be worth its name, not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (240120069

To see who and why someone has protected the article, see the protection log. This article gets vandalised alot, and if I may add, your never-ending edit-waring over the image isn't helping in keeping it unprotected either. Shanes 12:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I protected the article. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 13:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Charismatic Abilities

Er, no. It was not charisma that got or sustained the totalitarian government.It rather worked against him with his backers, who could equally be argued, delayed the condonatory arrangements eventually made. The actual obtention is classed as conspiracy or common purpose. And not just Nazi purpose. I think your wish to use charisma bases itself in reality, but linking this to the former is un-supportable and to the maintainance without adding and the Gestapo etc, seems a bit off. Yes he continued to seduce the people after the obtention (and no I do not find acceptable your interpretation as to when Dictatorship began: source says 23 March 1933 exactly- you said not). I'm at least glad that it is only about charisma here, not the nature of the obtention. To suggest that a dropping of the charisma quotient would have affected things is a new thesis or can you source that? EffK 15:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Read it carefully: I doesn't say that his charisma was the only means of gaining or retaining power. But they were essential in both cases (more important of course for gaining power than for retaining it, but even in that Hitler ruled by "consensus and terror" and his charisma played an important part in the former element. Str1977 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler^ⓘ (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was Chancellor of Germany from 1933 and Führer (Leader) of Germany from 1934 to his death by suicide. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party, and used his charisma and rhetorical abilities to gain and to stustain totalitarian power over Germany.

A big claim . Especially interesting as the other monetary and politico-religious factors are downsized and excised. A dictator isn't like Elvis, as good as his last performance! So why suggest it? More to the point is Haffner and the lack of any AH speeches after Stalingrad ,huh? What a Wiki/ but tant pis. I am keeping cool, as this editor is continuous in his afforts. Maybe this link want's to be pushed, or wants pushing. Perhaps its a POV fork or something. Other information is struck out quick as you please. OOOH. EffK 22:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

EffK, stop trolling around. This article is about the person Adolf Hitler. Among the most important features of this person were charisma and rhetoric talent (I know you prefer "mesmerizing" for reasons unclear to the world). My edit was merely an attempt to include these features without sounding "endorsing". The former wording certainly could be understood in that way (and mesmerizing wouldn't have changed that). Yes, his charisma wore out as he got older and the war got worse, but my statement is nonetheless true. It also doesn't exclude the possibility of other factors contributing to his rise and these are mentioned further down. But these were not part of Hitler's personality. Of course I can't hinder you from "seeing ghosts" behind my "afforts". Str1977 23:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the wore-out is a novel interpretation. haffner has a thesis, whose is this wore-out thesis?And this leader of a party sounds like Maggie Thatcher, say. Did they have cabinet consensus do you suppose? Not quite a normal party perhaps? They had Fuhrerdom from 1920 wasn't it? the party was Hitler was it not, au fnd. yes the Fuhrer principle empowered the cabinet out of the cabinet, but this presents a normality at odds with all text, at least written in English. This Wikipedia presentation of Hitler seems all a novel interpretaion of texts, if there are any texts as base for this sort of playground.

I have mentioned to this user str1977 some several millenia of edits ago, that really the church could accept for itself a bit more of the odium falling upon the hapless German nation. And now I see massaged suggestion in here that this was a political party with a leader, with progressively less pointing towards the totalitarian Fuhrerdom, or its absolute nature. Is this related to the other issue- that of those seeking to evaid taint from their dealings, who desire that the Hitler and the government with whom they dealt be portrayed as normally and legally as possible? this evasion is a novel interpretation of all the texts, and made by this editor in particular. Does anybody care? Do people read the Wikipedia in expectation of such novelty or do they expect sound textual rationality?

Withdraw Trolling Around, which is a personal attack unworthy of these pages. EffK 23:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The "wore out" is my interpretation but based on common observations. You can only "mesmerize" someone with words for a while, but if the going gets tough, formerly successful rhetoric will lose its grip.

Before you shout "original research" - I will not include it into the article.

I will not withdraw my characterisation of your actions. Recently, you hang around articles and post comments like "why isn't this included ...", and now you seem to be drifiting into a world where words have different meanings than they do here. I mean, more than before. I say, if you want to live in dream land that's fine but please don't talk in sleep.

I don't think these were personal attacks but a rather a all too fitting qualification of your recent behaviour.

Anyway, when will you retract all these accusations, insinuations, claims, suspicions etc.

Str1977 00:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we can do completely without mentioning such vague, elusive and subjective things as "charisma", particularly at the beginning of the article where it lacks context. I'm changing it to "popularity" which is objective and verifiable. -- Simonides 00:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

But this has been an issue in the past - I merely tried to include it somehow. In the current wording it no longer fits very well where it stands. Str1977 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has spent a considerable portion of his life in Germany, I can empathetically say that the article needs to mention his personal appeal to a large number of Germans. This appeal was described as magnetic by some and it included a wide cross-section of the population. Hitler was also highly perceptive, especially when exploiting xenophobic undercurrents and other fears present in Germany at the time. I believe that both charisma and perceptivity are common attributes exhibited by many successful politicians. Hitler passed as a politician, albeit as an extreme one, before turning into a dictator. This process was much more gradual and organic than one is led to believe with the benefit of the hindsight. You might want to look at the intro in the German article, which gracefully sidesteps all the issues discussed here at such length: Jbetak 06:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jbetak, please scroll down to "Final Words" and other sections where this issue has been meshed out further. We agreed on including charisma but it was the implications and importance of the word we were wrangling over. -- Simonides 18:59, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Bar Color

Since the bar is no longer red I’ve decided to change it back to the long-standing light blue, which I feel is better than leaving it blank or making it red. Please note objections here. Jelligraze 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's possible parkinsonism

I just rememeberd a theory which I have heard with increasing frequency with regard to possible causes of Hitler's......destructive lunacy, for lack of a better term. During WWI, there was a massive outbreak of so-called "sleeping sickness" which was actually a form of encephalitis lethargica. This strange illness manifeted istelf in very different ways in different people: some people would freeze up into a kind of catatonic trance which lasted for years, other would get hyper-active, restless and violent. In still others, it kind of remained latent for a period of years and then showed up in strange behavior of various kinds. I was just wondering if anyone here had heard of this, and, if so, what do they think of the speculation that Hitler may have suffered from this illness. --Lacatosias 16:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Lacatosias, I only know that he was temporarily blinded in WWI by a gas attack. Of course it might (and I am doing a wild step in the dark) also have had other effects. During his later years suffered from parkinson. In the movie "The Downfall" (I think that's the English title) is quite visible, or in the original footage of his last public appearance. It was edited out for the "Wochenschau". Str1977 22:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but is the Freudian analysis of his disturbed personality not presented, that resulting from the barbarous father ? EffK 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Quoi? Str1977 00:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish I had your memory. More BBC stuff, long analysis that his very curious nature was analysed by a special American operative, in charge of a team. They worked with the freudian professor (or more than one) and reached clear conclusion as to the determination and likely developement of his behaviour/mind. This should be googleable, and being such an official war effort study, should be source. EffK 02:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Some issues

Currently the opening includes a reference to the eleven million victims of Hitler's racial policies, including six million Jews. However, nowhere is the body count of the war included. Someone tried to include 50 million, but that was quickly reverted. Anyway, it has to be clear that 50 million is the overall number of dead, including the shoa. If these figures are correct that'd leave 39 million for the war. Any suggestions on how to include this? Str1977 23:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I always worked with you on the basis of 40 out-side of the german -russian, and russian on russian opportunistic prior and post war(ie Hitler/Stalin/Vlasov/latvian etc over-all 40) which is 80. I don't think it could have jumped 10. Unless of course the ten is the german-russian area, and the 40 is the western theatre including the Shoa. Where does the far-east come in at ? that'd be your other 10 wouldn't it? Not Hitler, but Japanese theatre.we need Roman terms don't we?

There was something about 8,ooo towns razed in Russia, which small as doubtless they some were, is a lot of towns. No wonder we are all looked at askance by the rest and no wonder there is a burgeoning linkage into present reality. They're finally putting it all together, as they can read same as you and me. Except for the filthy Google Chinese deal, they can. Oh- lets get Google to save the world, from ourselves. The rate were going there's gonna be hell to pay: a Palestinian says on the radio today -"Why should we suffer for the Sins of Europe?", as indeed they do. You might say , what's new, but they may feel the Romans are too distant to remember as precedent. It's pretty clear the Americans have forgotten they're few dead, relatively, bearably few. Haven't learnt a thing. EffK 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unfair to slap people with what happened in the greater war in the intro of this article. For one thing, not all those 50 million were in the European theater, and secondly, putting it in there implies that Hitler is responsible for all of them, unlike the Holocaust which he actually was responsible for. --Golbez 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. Say Euro/russian casualties 34 + 6 Shoa , leave out East of course but counting, all the same,is it the case that it was 10 in the Japanese theatre? Stalin was opportunistic in adding his internal figure-we know he relished the war inside and out. The failure altogether cost 90 million as a conjunct of history and how it dealt with/in Communism. [ off-topic ? This will become increasing news. Pacelli broke double effect, though, in giving us Hitler, and his body owes a bomb as they say,in reparations, what? Do you not feel the Palestinians could move to the vatican in compensation for Jerusalem? The Romans could move to Germany as payment? The Germans could move to Texas. Now do you see the chicken, Str1977, homing to the roost? Off-topic to who-the Palestinians? . Vlad the impaler only has to flick us a coupla switches here: did you not know that Thomas, wasn't it, said that the north land was to be the land of the saviour, the land of the everlasting fire? Or is that because the Artic is burning ? Answer yours is 40+10 in East, Hitler-Stalin tie, and Jews in the hard place, as ever. still, what do we hear from out-there in the south? : The cops beat the men, so the men beat the women, so the women beat the children, so the children beat the animals. EffK 03:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And Golbez, they say at Holocaust that it was nazi germany and its collaborators, not Hitler. Go and object, I have til I'm blue in the face. the word used was not generally same old Str as here..responsible is a very definite word. Do you need to prove it? they took it out, as the article is a bit more general!. EffK 03:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)