Talk:Houston Stewart Chamberlain

Untitled

Direct citations and attributions should be left in the article especially if made by people at the time who knew Chamberlain and had significant knowledge of his writings. David Lauder 21:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Content

Hello David,
regarding the following edit: [1], I would humbly submit that you consider good faith considerations before assuming that a contribution is POV. While I am have no interest in initiating an edit-skirmish, I would like to make the following points:

1. He was an anti-Semite, a proud and archetypical germanophilic anti-Semite, as is primarily remembered for providing pseudo-scientific fuel to racial hatred in Germany. One may omit that fact from the lead, but to deny him status on Category:Antisemitism, a place where the far less intellectually influential figures of Cartman and Borat have found a cozy home, would be an insult to his memory.
2. In what ways is he a "natural scientist"? In his anti-Einsteinian mystico-passionate defense of the aether? In his contributions to anthropology and astrobiology? In his contemptuous dismissal of Darwinism? (see his admirer's page - which, incidentally, nowhere called him a "scientist" - here for choice tidbits). Call him a political philosopher if you will, but by no means a "natural scientist". (His brother, in contrast, contributed some really nice enthographic material on the Ainu by the way).
3. To say that Grundlagen sold millions of copies despite it's anti-Semitic content is akin to saying that Uncle Tom's Cabin sold millions of copies despite it's abolitionist content.
4. "Whether or not nazis or anyone else liked his book 25 years after it was written is immaterial" would be true if nazism were some sort of a fringe fad and the book were noteworthy in any other way. Grundlagen remains an "philosophical" cornerstone of an ideology of historically enormous importance, and it is for this much more than his interpretations of Kant that Chamberlain is primarily remembered and clings to any encycolpedia-worthy notability. As a point of comparison, Encyclopedia Brittanica offers the following very succinct lead: "HSC: British-born Germanophile political philosopher, whose advocacy of the racial and cultural superiority of the so-called Aryan element in European culture influenced pan-German and German nationalist thought, particularly Adolf Hitler's National Socialist movement."
5. "Huge book" just doesn't seem very encyclopedic. not even War and Peace gets that kind of endorsement.
6. His relationship to the Wagner family is probably lead-worthy, no?

Like I said, as a working "natural scientist" I have better things to do than worry about the wording in an article on a (brace yourself for some real, uncut POV) contemptible, pseudo-intellectual bigot with a disproportionately distateful impact on world history.

First celebrity to support NSDAP

[HSC's letter] ...that the magnificent Ludendorff openly supports you and your movement. [Wiki] Chamberlain's letter—which made him into the first celebrity to endorse the NSDAP—caused a media sensation in Germany...

His letter references Ludendorff. So Chamberlain could not have been the first celebrity to endorse the party. Valetude (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me

HOW THE FUCK YOU WRITE THIS MANY WORDS AND NOT MENTION THAT HE THOUGHT HE WAS POSSESSED BY DEMONS. According to William L Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. I mean, just even mention it as mental illness yo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.129.222.101 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

That is a very easy question. The answer is here: WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Too detailed

This is an extremely thorough article that also repeats itself many times. There is also a high number of direct quotes from Chamberlain's writings in proportion to other articles about historical figures. I wonder if it could be edited to be more concise. Asiaperdue (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts are that anyone looking up Chamberlain is going to want to have all of this information. Daydreamdays2 (talk) 01:25, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Bethmann Hollweg

I updated the main paragraph referencing Bethmann Hollweg & annexations to remove some significant exaggerations and factual misstatements: 1) The Septermberprogramme's aims did not even come close to "annexing much of Europe and Africa"; the much more modest goals are laid out in the document cited in the footnote; 2) There was nothing resembling a military coup in 1916, just significantly more influence on the military's part. The reference I cited to Bethmann refusing to endorse the generals' annexation demands at Kreuznach is one proof of their (non-dictatorial) limitations; 3) The Reichstag Peace Resolution was not a response to Bethmann Hollweg being forced to resign. It had been in work before then; see the Bethmann Hollweg article, last paragraph of "Prussian electoral law reform"; 4) I reluctantly removed "the Chancellor and" from the Field p. 388 citation because it makes no sense in the temporal context. Where the quote is used, the chancellor is the new one, so there is no reason why the military would be at war with him.

Anyone have any objections to the update? GHStPaulMN (talk) 02:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is he a Hue-sten or a How-sten? 99.228.43.228 (talk) 22:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)