Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 29

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

→

The Small f

This is like with Lacan and the petit a (a silly joke - never mind.)

As someone else noted above, Fascism as a state ideology is different from fascism as a set of characteristics that are revealed after the fact, ie after the fascist government in question takes control and does stuff that has little to do with the nominal ideology (democracy, communism, etc). In this sense it is correct to label the Nazis a fascist regime, as was Franco's regime, etc - see Robert Paxton's recent book on the same (Anatomy of Fascism, if I remember the title correctly). However, it is a 'loaded' word that only entered general use after the WW2 period, so I would avoid it if possible. It clearly connotes the Italian regime and since we are talking about the Nazis, who became nearly synonymous with the Fascists in their opposition to the Allies, it's best to avoid any potential confusion for the general reader. In the header the word totalitarian more than serves its purpose.

Totalitarian is not a loaded or connotative word at all. It's like the common words autocratic or despotic or oligarchic - it's a very general word that can be applied to any context that has a certain common set of characteristics (strict censorship, crushing of dissent, etc) - it only becomes loaded in debatable contexts like with the current state of the USA (is the USA now totalitarian or not? Clearly most Americans would disagree though it fits the bill in many ways). However, the totalitarian nature of Nazism has never been disputed seriously.

I have edited the paragraph to keep it concise (ex. deaths of 11 million people --> 11 million deaths; it's understood we are talking about people and not flora and fauna) and retain almost every point that (I think) was key before all this other stuff cropped up. -- Simonides 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The very conceptual model of the theory of totalitarianism is disputed, which makes it unacceptable in an encyclopedia article unless the term is itself subject to discussion. As an objective label its best avoided for its charged ideological usage, and its failure to provide any meaningful understanding of the nature of the movement it purports to describe other than a superficial identification of features that the labels Nazism and fascism already connote. Giovanni33 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Simonides, how does making no distinction (in the article) between Nazi totalitarianism and Soviet totalitarianism help to "avoid potential confusion for the general reader"?

What is your response to the fact that Wikipedia is currently out of line with both Encarta and Britannica (cited above) in its failure to record, with even a single word, the fact that Hitler's regime was Fascist, or even "fascistic"? While rejecting the term, you yourself give two notable reasons why it should be accepted. Camillus (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The word totalitarianism is very broadly in use and can be applied to almost any state that employs certain methods, without any reference to ideology, which is the whole point of using it in the header - as objective language as possible. There is no confusion with Soviet totalitarianism because it's a word like 'monarchy', describing a state of affairs rather than an ideology (the ideology is sketched with the references to anti-Semitism, nationalism, etc.) As I already stated the word fascist can lead to confusion with Fascism which is a particular ideology rather than a mere state of affairs (like totalitarianism, oligarchy, monarchy etc) though I certainly don't disagree with its applicaton to the Nazis; we are simply trying to inform the general reader here with as much clarity as possible. -- Simonides 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You say that you "certainly don't disagree with its application to he Nazis", but in practice, remove any mention of the "fascist" nature of Hitler's ideology from the article, not even just the the introduction. The general reader may well be confused when he goes to Britannica and sees Hitler described squarely as a Fascist, with a capital F, and then comes to Wikipedia, and sees not even a single word mention of the fascistic nature of Hitler's ideology. Any number of reputable books also describe him as such, yet Wikipedia shys away as it may be seen to be "pejorative". Poor Hitler! In Giovannis' word: inexcusable. Camillus (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The good news is that most editors will favor its inclusion in keeping with the majority view and Wikipeadia will be kept up to the high standards of the other non-free encylopedias. And, I disagree with Simonides equating the well accepted descriptions of a Monarchy, which is form of government in which one person has the hereditary right to rule as head of state during his or her lifetime, with the theory of totalitarnism, which contrary to what he says also involves a description of ideology. In my view, the organic, idealist conception of the State that this theory rests on is deeply flawed. Giovanni33 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems you missed my comments below and are new to this Talk page. As others will attest I am no defender of Hitler and to the best of my knowledge there are no 'camps' on this page. My only concern is for clarity - most Americans didn't even know where Kabul was until the Afghanistan invasion started, so (without meaning to be superior or condescending in any way) I think we are overestimating the understanding of the average individual who does their research online, by relying on their knowledge of modern scholarship to distinguish between fascist and Fascist. As Giovanni himself noted (or was it someone else) and I repeated, the small f word only entered general use after a study of these regimes, which reinforces my point about confusion between ideology and a state of affairs. Totalitarian itself has been around only slightly longer, since about the 20s, and it was a word made popular by the Fascists themselves, but please note that while the word does include the use of ideology it does not connote any specific ideology which puts it in a different category from words like Nazi, Fascist etc. -- Simonides 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I presume the above post was directed to me, and not Giovanni? I have never accused you of being a defender of Hitler - far from it! And I have never used the word "camps" - there appears to be a "group" of editors in favour of a mention of the "fascist" nature of Hitler's ideology, and a "group" against such a mention, but I do not believe in cabals, and I don't go "investigating" other editors to see what other edits they have made. I am perfectly aware that people can come from quite disparate viewpoints, and yet agree on particular issues. While I may be new to this talk page, I wasn't born yesterday either ;)

I suggested above that it would be helpful to include some mention (even a single word!) of the Fascist/fascist/fascistic nature of Hitler's ideology and wikilink it to the section describing the similarities/differences in the Fascism article. I can't see how this wouldn't help the reader. You yourself say that "totalitarian" does not connote any specific ideology, so how does this help the reader, if we only use it in its non-specific meaning, without any distinction? I have no problem with the use of "totalitarian" in the article, as Hitler's (and Stalin's) regime were the epitome of the term. But can't we make a distinction?

Could you please respond to my question regarding how WP is currently out-of-line with Britannica, Encarta and many other reputable sources with its failure to mention, even in passing, Hitler's brand of "fascism"? Camillus (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing both you and Giovanni. Let's make this very simple:

Totalitarianism has variants, one of which is fascism. Totalitarianism is the 'higher' category however because its usage is broader, and more appropriate over here (explained below).
It is not merely a 'theory' or a 'concept' - it pretty much describes a certain state of affairs or set of methods - basically, total control, ie of every aspect of life. (Although of course there are various theories which are about totalitarianism, or totalitarian in nature, or the products of totalitarian regimes, etc.)
Most readers, and the Wikipedia article itself, don't clearly distinguish between fascism and Fascism. The current wikilink takes us to Fascism, a single article (not two - Fascism vs fascism), which itself makes the word synonymous at some points and comments on differing definitions. I fully acknowledge that fascism in current scholarship has a broader definition than Fascism and includes Nazism, Franco's rule, Pinochet's rule, etc but my only contention is that we want to make things easier for the reader, not tougher. We make it tougher by allowing for the potential confusion between Mussolini's regime and the accepted scholarly usage. The word has not yet reached the point where people can distinguish between the two usages as they might be able to between republican (in the 19th century French usage, for ex.) vs Republican, or democratic and Democrat, etc.
Wikipedia (which I'm highly critical of, btw - you'll see some links to debates on my Talk page) doesn't follow the same standards as other, non-free encyclopediae. It tries to set equally high standards, but not the same ones (which can be very frustrating.)
By not connoting any specific ideology, we make specific reference to Hitler's methods and not just his beliefs. His beliefs/ideology are also mentioned separately in the references to nationalism, anti-Semitism, militarism etc. Basically, we are able to round out a description of Hitler's rule without being redundant (by explaining its various aspects to readers) instead of just sticking the label fascist (which overlaps with stuff that is already stated) and leaving readers to figure out its meaning in this context.
We can certainly make room for explaining the difference between fascism and Fascism later in the article, but IMO it clutters the header which must be brief.

-- Simonides 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Wys is stil pushing her POV. But, I thank Simonides for his efforts, despite that we disagree on the theory of totalitarianism (its really a theory that is highly disputed). I agree with the current version that addresses editorial language, but includes the correct usage of fascism and imperialism, instead of the loaded term, totalitarianism, or the less than satifactory term expansionism. And it doesn't matter if other readers are not aware of the small f, capital F difference--its moot: Nazism is properly termed fascism. I agree with the analysis of Giovanni, John K, and Camilus, and disagree with Str, and most of all, Wyss. BelindaGong 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

~~Belinda, was there ever an issue you didn't agree on with Giovanni?~~

Personal attacks are verboten at WP. -- 68.6.73.60 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite in contrast to what he is saying: there is (or was) a debate about whether N. is a form of F. or rather of T. - and there still different views on this. Hence including F. in the intro is POV (agreed, including T. becomes POV as well). At best, both equations are disputed.

Also, "Fascist Totalitarianism" doesn't work as this states the two opposing views. And we don't need to distinguish the two Totalitarisms here, as it is clear in the article that Hitler was a Nazi and no communist.

No one is talking about Hitler without mentioning F., as Mussolini certainly was a model for the early Hitler and later an ally, but whether N. equals F. is another question. And we can quite well talk about Hitler and N. without calling it F. We could include (if it really isn't included) a short phrase about parallels to Italian Fascism in the "early party" section, but it has to be short, as this article is about Hitler the man.

~~Name-calling doesn't help the discussion either, Giovanni, and~~ whether F. is seen as a negative (I think we share at least that much) is irrelevant - what Wyss pointed out is the term is used to label all kinds of political views. Nazi is a better term as Hitler actually called himself a Nazi.

Giovanni did not call anyone names. -- 68.6.73.60 03:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The preference of many people for labelling N. as F. is motivated in some cases by ideological preference (the so-called Antifascism), in other by linguistical (longish Nationalsocialism, German: Nazismus vs. Narzismus).

Last but not least, even if it were undisputed to label N. as F., it still wouldn't be all right to include it into the intro, as the "regime passage" in the intro is not concerned with labelling the political affiliation of Hitler (that is dealt with in the first paragraph by clearly calling him what he was, a Nazi), but the nature of the regime. To say it was F. is absolutely redundant. The whole passage becomes pointless and should better be removed completely.

Str1977 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I do understand the F-f distinction but I don't like it, though it is unfortunately a part of the English language, an ugly scar on a beautiful face. Str1977 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify one thing more, echoing Simonides. If T. is used along the line of the theory of T. it is a contentious point, but so would be F. However, when using T. more broadly, as Simonides argued, it is not contentious. F. however always remains redundant and pointless in the "regime passage". But I am open to any alternative word that might do the trick of avoiding the contentious side of T. while including the broader, non-contentious side of T. The problem is that most words are too weak to properly describe N. (e.g. authoritarian, dictatorial). Str1977 10:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand Simonides's argument that "fascism" is confusing, but that "totalitarianism" is perfectly acceptable. "Totalitarianism" just isn't a neutral, descriptive word. Use of the word means that one is endorsing a particular ideological viewpoint, which states that Nazism and Stalinism are essentially similar. As Str has noted, there are some scholars who hold this viewpoint. But it is very distinctly a minority viewpoint, and it is particularly so among scholars of Nazi Germany - I can't think of any major currently working historians who endorse the totalitarian model. That is to say, totalitarianism is a word which is used by a small minority of scholars and represents commitment to a particular ideological model of what Nazi Germany is. Fascism, on the other hand (with a small "f") is mostly agreed upon by historians as a useful model for understanding various European political movements of the interwar period, and the regimes they established, most notably in Germany and Italy. There are numerous useful scholarly works about the phenomenon of European fascism in the interwar period, and every single one includes Nazi Germany. Some scholars don't like to use the term, but I don't think that fascism studies can be said to represent a single ideological viewpoint in the way that "totalitarianism" does.

In terms of broader meanings, I would dispute that wikipedia should concern itself with that, especially if we are giving a link. If we say "totalitarian," we are going to link to the "totalitarianism" article, which is a particular theory which is mostly rejected among scholars. The popular meaning of the term is simply a derivative of the scholarly theory, and it seems to me that it's impossible to assert a clear decision between the two meanings. With "fascism," on the other hand, I agree that it has become something of a pejorative, and that, if the popular meaning is intended, it could be misleading. Fortunately, though, a link to the fascism article would clarify matters. I would accept, though, if we were to agree to use neither term in the intro, although fascism should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article. john k 16:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Too Long?

Let's put this one to bed, the idea that the intro is to long, and would collapse under the weight of a single word addition. Comparing the following articles:

Article	Word count
Stalin	454
Mao	392
Lenin	206
Hitler	179

And Wyss even now wants to zap the word "totalitarian" as "too loaded"!

Note that the German language Wikipedia adds Hitler to the "Faschismus" category (and incidentally, uses the more neutral photo which has been proposed for this page, rather than the glorifying picture used here.)
Britannica calls Hitler a Fascist (and with a capital F!). Encarta calls him a fascist!
And I'm still waiting for someone to say how Wyss's "preferred" dicdef does not fit Hitler.
I maintain : "the reluctance of some to consider the fascist elements of Hitler's ideology makes me suspect a potentially misleading PoV". Camillus (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you review this talk page you will find that I support the inclusion of totalitarian and have never said it is loaded (someone else said that). (Actually, you did :[1])

No no no... don't you read these posts? I was trying to compromise with John Kenny. I did not assert that totalitarian is loaded, I was trying to be open about finding a common solution. (I think you ackowledge this further down) Wyss 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's how I understood what Wyss said too. Str1977 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

John K stated his preference for "fascist" as a description for Hitler's regime. I hardly think it's likely that he would think it a "compromise" to remove both "fascist" and "totalitarian". Camillus (talk) 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

That's beside the point. I suggested a compromise and that's the context of my suggestion that the word totalitarian be avoided too. People skim these posts far too wontedly, then get wound up about what they've misread. Boring. Wyss 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editor 1: "We've got 5, I want 10." Editor 2: "Compromise? How about I give you nothing?" . End of transmission... Camillus (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Camillus, it is rather "We want to have 10 for us and you want to have 10 for us so let's give 5 to each." Not saying that works, just pointing out Wyss' reasoning. And, before you ask, this is only about the intro. Adding references to Fascism or Totalitarianism in the article is valid. Str1977 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we're getting somewhere - "adding references to Fascism or Totalitarianism in the article is valid". That's promising. I don't see, however, how proposing to remove both ideas is giving something to both sides...you've lost me there...but I'm prepared to draw a line under this as I'm more interested in your proposal that both be mentioned in the article. Camillus (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should draw the line. Just a last attempt at explanation. One side wants F. and opposes T., the other side wants T. and opposes F., so leaving out both in the intro would have denied both sides their wish but also spared them to put up with what they didn't want.

Sure, I never denied that F. can be mentioned in the article (if I came across as such I am sorry), as in the article he have more space than in the intro. If there is no mentioning yet, this not the result of any conscious decision. The question is where to put it. We could include a reference immediately before the putsch of 1923 (as Mussolini is mentioned anyway) or before that in the early party organisation phase. For another proposal re the intro see John K below. Str1977 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did suggest avoiding both fascism (or fascistic) and totalitarian as a compromise and still support that. I'm also ok with the use of the word totalitarian and alternatively, a minimalised intro but the latter is not a popular suggestion here and I'm ok with that too.

An introduction for Hitler, without mentioning the Holocaust, or the war that Hitler threw the world into, as you propose, will not pass, just as an introduction for Stalin without mentioning the millions of deaths in the Gulags will not pass, or an introduction to Mao without mentioning the madness of the Cultural Revolution will not pass. Camillus (talk) 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that 100%. If you're going to find traction by arguing that I'd like to diminish the importance of the Holocaust to this topic, forget it. Want to expand the Holocaust section in this article? I'll help you. They murdered most of the Jews in Europe. It's one of AH's most enduring legacies. Wyss 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Legacy" seems a strange choice of word to me. Something handed down from one generation to another? Camillus (talk) 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

As for those other lengthy intros which have been cited, flaws in other articles shouldn't be used as justification for introducing flaws in this one. Wyss 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is opposing the F. word for overblowing the intro - it is opposed because of accuracy.

In what way is this definition of Fascism inaccurate as a description of Hitler's ideology?:

1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

And not just the intro, but not a single mention of Fascism in the article as a whole? Camillus (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was Giovanni that argued for the T. word being loaded.

Not only Giovanni, Wyss too:

~~"I also don't really like totalitarian; that is a politically loaded word "~~

Please cite the diff on that one, I know I didn't say it, and the string doesn't even show up in a search, thanks. Wyss 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies - it was MikAm who said that...but...

"Is it possible that both totalitarian and fascist are too loaded to be descriptively helpful in this intro?" [2]

The difference being, Giovanni wanted to replace totalitarian with fascist, while Wyss apparently would prefer to omit both words. The idea that Hitler's regime cannot objectively be called totalitarian has no scholarly credibility whatsoever. Camillus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just Giovanni but a number of other users have stated the same preference, incluiding John K. MikaM 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As above, I'm more than ok with using the term totalitarian, you definitely misread someone else's post as mine. Wyss 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

...one right, one wrong. The diff shows you said that "totalitarian" may be too loaded. Camillus (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You see it that way, I don't. I think totalitarian is helpful, fascist misleading in an intro. Discussing it in the text is more than ok by me.

Also.. I'm more than ok with aggressive exapnsionism, which spot on describes Sept 1 1939. Wyss 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. Expansionism is vauge and less precise than imperialism which covers the meaning of expansionism but gives it an historical basis.MikaM 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't enter into debates about the picture, as those editors acquainted with this article have too many bad experience with one Mr RoHa.

I mentioned it in parenthesis, as I'm aware that a long debate has taken place on this issue. Although I have only recently started commenting on this talk page, I have been following it for some time.

Wiki articles are not proper references and even Britannica can be wrong. Even if it's right, F. is redundant and pointless in the intro.

Not only in the intro, but not even a single mention throughout the article? Brittanica is not the only reputable source that characterises Hitler's ideology as fascist. The idea that it is not accurate is a fringe view. Camillus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Camillus is correct. The idea that its not accurate is a fringe view, usually by right-wing ideologues who want to hide the class nature of fascism being akin to capitalism and smear the authoritarian socialism by using a disputed and bankgrupt theory instead.MikaM 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No one (AFAI can see) is denying that some elements of Hitler's ideology is fascist, but you probably could make Stalin a Fascist that way.

This is nonsense. No one seriously makes out Stalin to be a fascist in any way similar to how Hitler is infact a fascist. To even make this argument shows a profound ignorance of the use of these terms. No wonder there is confusion here about calling Nazi Germany fascist. I suggest that you don't rely on your own understanding (flawed) but instead refer to the mainstream view on Nazi Germany, which does describe Nazi Germany as fascist. Show me where in the mainstream Stalin is tagged with this term? I bet you won't find anything outside of extreme fringe POV's.MikaM 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

How does Stalin fit Wyss' "preferred" dicdef, more than Hitler? I do not deny the similarities between Stalin's totalitarianism and Hitler's. But "fascist" is wholly appropriate to Hitler, while only marginally to Stalin.

Assume good faith. Str1977 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed - my comment on "PoV" was a paraphrase of Wyss. Perhaps you should direct your comments to her. Camillus (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A couple of things: I don't agree with Camillus's "paraphrase" of my take on PoV. Moreover, Stalin was as much a fascist as Hitler, but we don't say that in scholarly contexts because a) the term is insufficiently descriptive and b) it would more or less be op-ed. Wyss 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hardly surprising that you "don't agree", but how is it any less accurate than your assertion? We'll ignore the "Stalin was as much a fascist as Hitler", as you say, it's not "scholarly". The idea that Hitler's ideology was not fascistic is a fringe view, and the idea that Stalin was a fascist is a fringe view too. Franco didn't "perfect" Fascism, Hitler developed it into "Super Fascism", ie. Nazism. 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Happily, there is no need to mention these things in the intro, never mind we have some polite disagreements as to historical perspective, definitions and semantics. Ĩndeed, I glark this discussion is likely a symptom of why these terms are not helpful in an intro on this topic. Wyss 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Editorial language

Firstly, I think it's important to make something clear because Talk pages have a tendency to degenerate into camps - there aren't any real 'sides' in this article and I am not on anyone's 'side'. Any newcomer to this Talk page should go through the past five archived pages to realise that I have found previous versions of the header too much of a whitewash and argued at great length and sometimes vehemently with Wyss and to a lesser extent Str1977, Golbez and others - we're no cabal.

That said, words like "ultimately", "aggressively", "at the height of their power" etc are all very editorial, and this is the same concern that is driving some of the other editors to replace 'fascist' with 'totalitarian'; let's please try to use facts when we can as it sounds much more formal and provides more information (ultimately can be replaced with 'eventually' or 'by 19xx', or height of powers can be given an approximate time period, and so on.) -- Simonides 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep some of this editorial language, especially "at the height of their power" -it is hardly longer and we don't need to place exact dates into the intro. Str1977 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sad to say, almost nobody editing WP reads archived talk pages and I've run into admins exercising their admin powers who've actually told me "I'm not going to wade through x pages of archived talk..." The result is constant repetition of the same issues over and over again. Wyss 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's sexuality - is a side-issue and a diversion from more substantive issues

This Talk page is 145 kB long. I created a sub-page for this "side issue" of Hitler's sexuality, and moved the "discussion" above into it., see: /Hitler's Sexuality. However, Str1977 reverted it. To be frank, I'm pissed off that this stupid speculation has been allowed to get us away from the real issues. I couldn't give "two hoots" if Hitler was gay or not - I'm more concerned with the discussion of the fascist nature of his regime, whether the intro should be expunged of mention of the Holocaust, Hitler's imperialism/aggressive expansionism/"reclaiming of former German lands".

Str1977, pleas don't revert these remarks without discussion. Camillus (talk) 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please assume good faith. I certainly will not remove your comments from the talk page. I was merely adding my signature which (via the glitch) restored the section. I will restore your move now, though I don't think the topic merits a page of its own. It should be discused and archived in due course (but we can always turn the "Hitler's sex" talk page into an archive). Str1977 11:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took my comment as lacking respect for your "good faith". I allowed my annoyance at this "diversion" to spill over. My apologies. I think that the discussion does merit a separate talk page, as I imagine that this will come up again and again - just as there is a separate talk page for Adolf or Adolph, another perennial. Camillus (talk) 12:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

And I am sorry for counteracting your move and for overreacting a bit. Last night was quite tense on WP (first this issue, later a sockpuppet controversy) and some of this spilled over to today. I agree that it will probably result in enough to fill a talk page. Some times, big issues are settled quickly, and small issues take ages. Str1977 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I blanked this whole section as it had been copied to /Hitler's Sexuality (see below) and I feel a duplication can lead to confussion in the discussion - ie people carrying on commenting in both incarnations of the subject. Agathoclea 11:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The topic is wholly unsupported. Lots of codswallop about AH has been published. Wyss 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)