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.
Please do not make a big deal out of this, but why does this article seem so popular in nature? I merely seek to fathom its depth, length and structure more clearly. Please respond if you are willing. Aidoflight (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, let's just say he touched a lot of people's lives. 69.228.222.44 (talk) 07:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's some info that may help the article
Hi, I've used Google Translator to tranlate the featured articles of Adolf Hitler on other Wikipedias. This does mean however there will be many mistakes throughout the text. Though it should be good enough to understand and add information that's on them but not on the EnglishWikipedia.
As a member of the Typo team, I will be doing a spelling (and grammar) check on the article. Notes of what I've changed or added can be found on the history page of the article. I shall send another message when this is complete. Ross Rhodes (TC) Sign! 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
A non-existing word
I noticed in paragraph one of the Beer Hall Putsch section that a non-existing word was used; "programmatical". The closest to that word that I can find is "programmatically". I'm not very good at re-writing sentences, only at sorting spelling or grammar issues, so can someone please sort out that mistake, thanks. Ross Rhodes (TC) Sign! 11:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Wait, what? If programmatically exists, how can programmatical not exist? -toolazytologon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.98.237.5 (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I have checked multiple dictionaries from well-known companies like Oxford and Collins as well as using the dictionaries on the computer like Microsoft Word and Google Chrome, and they all say that the word programmatical does not exist, though all but Google Chrome say that programmatically does exist. Ross Rhodes (TC) Sign! 10:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
"Programmatically" exists in the software development community. I, and many others, use it frequently. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I've asked the question on our Language Reference Desk here [1]. I'm sure we'll get a correct answer shortly. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it's intended to mean that they (the Nazis) adopted some parts of the Italian Fascists' "program(me)" - that is their policies and methods. I've changed it for clarity. Paul B (talk) 14:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Improper Colon
After the discussion of his rejection from the Vienna Art Academy, there is a colon following "He displayed an early fascination with the subject" - I think it was a remnant from a previous edit and should be removed, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.147.13 (talk) 17:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The sentence in the Sexuality section that runs ; 'In John Toland's book (Adolf Hitler a Definitive Biography) Hitler would often visit Geli as though a suitor and restricted her niece's movement unless chaperoned by Hitler himself.' Not being familiar with the book I hesitate to change this but I think it would read better as something like. 'According to John Toland (in his book A.H. a Definitive Biography), Hitler would often visit Geli in the manner of a suitor, and restricted his niece's movement unless she was chaperoned by himself.' 92.16.102.98 (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
You're right, that doesn't make any sense. I changed it to your suggested sentence. Tad Lincoln (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely Change it. No point in having a sentence that is near impossible to understand. Turqoiseturtle (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Death
There are simply to many conflicting reports of Hitlers death for their to be a definitive answer to how he died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyledanderson (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Didn't he commit suicide in his hideout in Germany by shooting himself when he knew he was loosing the war? Thats what I have be told by many people. Ross Rhodes (TC) Sign! 10:38, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes he committed suicide, as any reputable source will say. srushe (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, he committed suicide while in his bunker during the final weeks of the war by simultaneously shooting himself in the head and biting down on a cyanide pill. It's covered here and here. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
My Grandpa is Russian and was good friends with some of the people invading the bunker! they claim of no gun wound! if you show me one CREDIBLE source claiming there was a gun wound then i will probably not believe you but it will be passable for the article. cyanide pill is correct though.Turqoiseturtle (talk) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
In all fairness your Grandpa or his friends are not a credible source against the statement. Matty (talk) 07:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I haven't heard very many conflicting reports. The only reports I've heard is that he shot himself and bit on a cyanide pill. And no, your Grandpa's friends are not a credible source. 98.162.183.190 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Hitler Has One Ball
A few months back it had become fact that Adolf Hitler Actually lost one of his testis. It was a medical document that came out by a German Military doctor and was only let out a few months ago. (He lost his testis in the battle of Somme. on the main page it is not specific and I would like you to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samwildgoose (talk • contribs) 12:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
We need a source to back it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.58.206 (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I've just seen that The Telegraph has published a collection of colour photographs of Hitler that were taken in 1936 by the German photographer, Hugo Jaeger. Would these be out of copyright, and so permissable on Wikipedia and this article and help visually enhance it? Many thanks, YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Popularity of Nazi Party
The beginning of the article says "popularly known as the Nazi Party". I suggest that this be "commonly known" or "generally known". "Popularly" just doesn't seem the right word. Panagea (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree, you should make that change.--Mart572 (talk) 04:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Hitler is a gay
The respected German historian Lothar Machtan claims in his book that Hitler is a gay and this fact should be mentioned in the article. [3]141.217.43.150 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, there are several sources on the net. Here is another one: [4]David123 • Talk • 18:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Direct eye witnesses at the Berghof, like chamber maids, have dismissed those ideas as ridiculous. There is overwhelming evidence Hitler had sexual relations with at least Eva Hitler-Braun. This does not in any way suggest the idea is to be completely ruled out, but it does counter it and the book of Lothar, which I've read myself, goes into the relationships Hitler had with his direct staff, the most famous being openly gay Ernst Roehm. This does just as much indicate Hitler being gay as naming Stalin or Churchill gay, to stay in the period, for having somebody gay in this staff. The book of Lothar is called The Hidden Hitler, to appeal to readers and was also being put into the press as such, with a so called great revelation about his sexual preference. Wikipedia should state FACTS only, and this supposed gay mention only belongs in the footnotes if anywhere at all on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hendriks1965 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Is this a source?
In the very begining of article stands reference#3. I wonder if such a source can be to taken seriously. Reason- take a total number of victims of the WW2, take off the military personal lost by both sides, then the civilian victims killed by allies (just bombing of Dresden estimates at least 300K), and what would remain? (Don't forget activities concerning Japan!)
This one should be withdrawn! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.68.100.224 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
The current lead image.
I recognise the Iron Cross on his breast, but what is the item below it, another pendant or medal? Or is it just a button? SGGHping! 14:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I took a good look at it and it looks a lot like a medal. But I might have to look at medals of similar design to confirm if it is of Nazi heritage. I'm no expert but I've never seen a Nazi medal of that design. Cheers!--Martin (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. It looks like an overly big button, but it certainly looks like a medal of somesort, and it appears he has it on in every clear picture of him in uniform. --SamB135TalkContribs 02:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
The medal below the iron cross could well be a World War I Wound Badge. Google it to compare. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.202.122.223 (talk) 14:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Sounds/looks like a German Wound Badge below the Iron Cross to me (see [5]). I reckon the badge above the Iron Cross is a Nazi Party badge, namely [6]. What do you think? SGGHping! 23:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
In fact I've looked under zoom, and the lower badge is the wound badge, and the upper one is the Nazi Party badge. Thanks guys SGGHping! 23:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I searched WW1 Wound Badge on Google images and I confirm that It is identical to the one in Hitler's photo. Job well done on the confirmation gentlemen! Cheers--Martin (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
German support of anti-semitism?
"he gained support by promoting [...] anti-semitism" - is this actually the case? Was anti-semitism actually so politically useful in the 1930s that it significantly contributed to his political "success"? Honest question. And I'd like evidence by the way. --Jammoe (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, it depends a bit on the period. In the early years, it was in fact a significant part of his rhetoric, and it did attract support. For example, in his February 1925 speech re-founding the Nazi Party, he said that his initial goal had been: "to fight the devil's forces that had plunged Germany into this misery, to fight Marxism along with the other intellectual carriers of this world plague and epidemic, the Jews." That's taken from his speech, as translated in Randall Bytwerk, Landmark Speeches of National Socialism (Texas A & M University Press, 2008, p. 22. I confess to knowing to author of that book rather well. If one goes through his speeches of the period, there is a lot of anti-Semitism, and it did attract those in the anti-Semitic camp. Another example is Julius Streicher, the anti-Semite who turned his personal following over to Hitler in 1922. That almost doubled the size of the Nazi Party at the time — Streicher would not have done that had he not been convinced of Hitler's anti-Semitic credentials.
It is true that anti-Semitism did become a less prominent part of Hitler's own rhetoric after, say, 1930, though it did not disappear. The reason, I think, it is that it had won the support of those it could, and emphasizing it too much more risked alienating the less rabid voters Hitler needed to win elections (although anti-Semitism did continue to have a prominent role in the rest of Nazi propaganda). So yes, it is the case. Bytwerk (talk) 13:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Surame change
The article currently reads as follows:
"In 1876, he took the surname of his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler." Hitler was born in 1889. Someone please verify the facts of his name change and fix this part. Theanthrope (talk) 04:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
That sentence is talking about Alois, Adolf's father. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.94.114 (talk) 05:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Religion
Youtube can't be used as a reliable source. --SamB135TalkContribs 01:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Or feed such a nonsensical argument. SGGHping! 14:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fail troll is fail. And a fucktarded one at that. :D PCE (talk) 03:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
To the 1st poster: you're both rite & wrong. Hitler was a Christian--a roman catholic to b more precise--however he was not a Christian terrorist as u describe 'im & did not take orders from the Catholic Church. Religion did not play a (significant) role when it came to his anti-Semitic views and feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.89.127 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
To the first poster: Yes Hitler was a Catholic and therefore a christian, but he did not do what he did in the name of his religion. In fact it is agreed by most historians that he had more interest in the Occult and other forms of esoteric practice than he had in practicing his Catholic religion. He most certainly can not be compared to the likes of Islamic terrorists who profess to commit the acts they do in the name of their faith. Likewise it is quite mistaken to compare him to the crusaders of the middle ages whose motive was not to murder but to conquer and convert for christendom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquesdemolay92 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hitler and Autism, again
I added Asperger's syndrome in the Health section and two supporting references. I was previously reluctant to add the claim based only on Fitzgerald, but Fries (2009) recently made the same claim in a peer reviewed journal.[7] I also checked the talk archive and read a previous discussion re. Hitler and Autism; it was erroneously claimed that Fitzgerald created a unique diagnosis for Hitler - "Autistic Psychopathy", and therefore Fitzgerald did not diagnose Hitler with Asperger's. In fact, Autistic Psychopathy (Self Personality) is the term coined by Hans Asperger in 1944 for what we now call Asperger's syndrome.[8] --Diamonddavej (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I, like, totally do NOT agree, guys, like, read autism, honest, hitler aint autistic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 20:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many levels of autism. I'd think the psychologists in the referenced articles would be more familiar with the particulars than an anonymous Wikipedia editor. --KingÖomie 15:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What do you know about Autism Tubegirl?
Autism obviously doesnt excuse him from anything he done but he probably did have asbergers from what Ive heard of him.--Joe-Anna
acording to books
according to books it is said that Adolf Hitler wanted to purify germany and exterminate all the jews —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.254.200 (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
That's already in the article, actually. Several times. It was kind of his 'thing',yeah. --KingÖomie 15:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Addition of group killed by Hitler, Freemasons
Article states,
In addition to those gassed to death, many died as a result of starvation and disease while working as slave labourers (sometimes benefiting private German companies). Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles (over three million[citation needed]), Communists and political opponents, members of resistance groups, homosexuals, Roma, the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war (possibly as many as three million), Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists and Neopagans, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed.
I suggest adding Freemasons:
In addition to those gassed to death, many died as a result of starvation and disease while working as slave labourers (sometimes benefiting private German companies). Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles (over three million[citation needed]), Communists and political opponents, members of resistance groups, homosexuals, Roma, Freemasons,Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref> the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war (possibly as many as three million), Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists and Neopagans, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed. < —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoxbar (talk • contribs) 14:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I deleted the word "neopagans" from this list, although another editor restored it (with "citation needed", which is fine for now). I not only question whether neopagans were systematically killed in the Holocaust, but I also question whether the word "neopagan" even existed in German in the early 1940s. It's hard to see how you could systematically try to exterminate a group that doesn't even have a name.
And offhand, the only neopagans I can think of during that era were Erich Ludendorff and Heinrich Himmler. To be clear, I am not claiming that all Nazis were neopagan (Himmler was one of the few), or that all neopagans were Nazis! It just seems odd that Himmler would be simultaneously promoting neopaganism and exterminating neopagans. — Lawrence King(talk) 04:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Neopagans
By chance I've noticed that you've stumbled upon the issue that I encountered under the title "Persecution of Germanic Pagans": There is a persistent modern myth among certain groups of Neopagans, that their kind was persecuted in Nazi Germany. This myth has almost no substance. One rune occultist Friedrich Bernhard Marby managed to get the negative attention of Himmler's personal occultist, another one, Ernst Wachler (author), died from a disease in a concentration camp after the war, when German civilians were detained there for a short time. Neopagan associations also faced difficulties, but all groups and organizations except those from the NSDAP did. If you encounter a source that alleges that Neopagans were persecuted in Nazi Germany, that is most certainly a fringe one. I think I've cleaned up the worst examples of wp:fringe, but feel free to point anything out that I've missed. Zara1709 (talk) 05:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
In an additional note: There was a Neopagan fraction within the Nazi movement, with Himmler and Rosenberg being the notable proponents, but there also was a fraction with can be described as at least nominally Christian and a third fraction that was anti-clerical and secular. If you are interested in this, I added at least a little on it to the article Religious aspects of Nazism. Zara1709 (talk) 05:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
I completely agree with your "three groups" comment here. The reason this is contentious is pretty obvious: Christians would like to believe that no Nazis were Christians; Neopagans would like to believe that no Nazis were Neopagans; secular Darwinists would like to believe that no Nazis were secular Darwinists. Sadly, they are all wrong, for Nazism managed to attract people from all these groups. I say "sadly" as a Christian myself, but my personal preferences don't change the facts. Indeed, all three strands can be found as early as Mein Kampf, which contains a mixture of praise for pre-Christian German warriors, praise for the formidable German empires in Christian Europe, and a view of history as a struggle between different "races" in a Darwinian struggle to annihilate each other. — Lawrence King(talk) 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Look I know...
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This discussion is going nowhere. The arguments are generally poor and unsupported on both sides. When it descends to personal attacks, it's a sure sign that the curtain should be rung down. Given that "atrocities" might be considered to be covered by the Nuremburg indictment charging "crimes against humanity" and "genocide", I think strong arguments would be required to displace that term in the face of the historical evidence. However, a discussion based on some evidence would be welcome. Please start again, from a historiographical perspective, and leave your prejudices at the door. Rodhullandemu 23:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I know Hitler killed many people, but this is an encyclopedia. Referring to what he did as "atrocities" is not in the correct style and is biased. It should not matter how brutal or evil the topic is, Wikipedia should be neutrail. Yo.
--McPooBalls (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. It is biased and not neutral. 76.16.251.180 (talk) 05:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It's not biased at all. What he did is almost universally regarded as an atrocity. 98.162.183.190 (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Calling it an atrocity is still bias. Look up objectivity and subjectivity, then go back to school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.123.189 (talk) 03:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Can any of you think of a better example of what the dictionary refers to an atrocity? Also, if billions of people consider it an atrocity than it's a notable atrocity. --68.41.80.161 (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Atrocity is one of many right words here. Wikipedia has lists of disasters--that's POV by the same reasoning. An encyclopedia can have bias towards basic things like human life; otherwise, we're shirking the very real mandate of calling a thing by what it is. Also, why would you get on a Wikipedia talk page and 1. pick a specious fight, 2. resort to patronizing another user by saying they should go back to school? How about this: grow up. 69.94.192.147 (talk) 02:45, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Just because billions of people think it doesn't make it so. Above commenter has just admitted wikipedia is biased, but that it's ok to be biased.
71.198.77.211 (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the terms "crimes" or "human rights offenses" are preferable. These terms connote objective social and moral condemnation, while the term "atrocity" reflects only subjective moral disapproval and is thus less appropriate for an encyclopedic format. When I read the word "atrocity" I tend to think that an opinion is being asserted persuasively, yet when I read the word "crime" I am more inclined to regard the assertion as an objective presentation of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.226.28 (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I think readers can realise for themselves that the crimes were atrocious without being told. Changing/Removing the word would make the article seem more neutral to some people, and do no harm to anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.134.162 (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
'human rights' weren't even spelled out before the creation of the UN, and much of what Hitler didn't wasn't a crime in Germany, basically because he was the law. thus, crimes and human rights offenses don't cut it. his actions are universally and objectively regarded as atrocities. anyone who would think otherwise would be the one who is bias and subjective. --Bernard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.120.158 (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Woo!!! Go Bernard!!! you are talking some sense!!! :) I dont really think that murder can NOT be atrocious and if you think the word shouldnt be there then you must be biased! Anyway do you think one biased word is really anything compared to the millions of people murdered which is atrocious anyway so how can it be biased.
SAYING WHAT HITLER DID WAS ATROCIOUS ISNT AN OPINION, ITS A FACT!!!
So please stop confusing me! Im a natural blonde so confusing me is mean! Kay! -- Joe-Anna —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.131.153 (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I'm of the opinion that using the term "atrocious" (or derivitaves) is VERY opinionated, without a source to back it up. Saying something is an 'atrocity' without actually backing that up is like some backwards violation of WP:PEACOCK. --KingÖomie 20:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
And if my neo nazi friends believe his actions where noble that makes it correct... ? Wikipedia is neutral, we don't pay favor to the majority, we list facts not opinion. His actions where not crimes, because he was the law. A better example of what he did would be actually telling the reader what he did, but at no point was it declared a fact his actions where atrocious, just a widely accepted opinion. so a big Sieg Heil to you my fascist brethren 74.190.1.29 (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
You are confusing the act itself with the action as directed, your "neo nazi friends" might feel differently if they were subjugated with such atrocities. The acts in-themselves are heinous, it does not matter whom they are directed at or who directed them. 98.64.242.215 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)usemasper
While I agree Hitler committed atrocities, it is inappropriate to use the term in an encyclopaedic context. It's a judgemental term that doesn't reflect everyone's opinion. By using the term the article is adopting a viewpoint on the subject which is not desirable. Personally I would replace "atrocities" with "deeds" or "undertakings" or "actions" - something that doesn't cast judgement: ::During the war his forces carried out the systematic killing of as many as 17 million civilians[3], an estimated six million of whom were Jews targeted in a genocide known as the Holocaust.Betty Logan (talk) 13:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The common sentiment at the time was that atrocities were taking place, just quote-cite some of the many news articles and reports during the time period and the term can be left in the article. 98.64.242.215 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC) usemasper
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Removing minor matters and dubious sources
I removed the matters in question for two reasons: first, the article is long enough and I don't think the material adds enough value to be worth the space, and second, because the sources were not exactly the best. Bytwerk (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Top image
There seems to be some edit warring over this at the moment, which is a bit silly because they are both perfectly adequate images. Can you resolve the issue here please? Betty Logan (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't even know what's the problem? The close-up portrait was up there for ages and someone replaced it for some reason with a full picture of Hitler. I realize this is arbitrary, but the old image seems more appropriate for the infobox. --DIREKTOR(TALK) 16:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you really need to contact the other editor and ask him to explain his reasons for changing it here. The onus is on him to explain why he's changing a long-standing image when he hasn't obtained a consensus to do so, but you also have to show you made an effort to resolve it diplomatically before any action can be taken against him. Betty Logan (talk) 16:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I like them both. Here are the two images. I would slightly favor the right-hand one as it has been there a while but don't feel strongly enough about it to revert. Other voices, please? --John (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
A change is as good as a rest, they are both ok, at the moment the lede pic is duplicated in the article, which is over exposure, so that needs changing. Off2riorob (talk) 09:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Definitely overexposure, needs to be reverted. Jamespoky (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the duplicated picture from the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Also the picture on the left is from commons and free and the picture on the right has copyright issues. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Adolf Hitler as a painter
I suggest more information be added on this topic, given that the pictures of the paintings attributed to him are readily available on the web and that the interest in them may be renewed from time to time by the events such as the recent auction (see [9]). He is said to produce >3000 paintings, mostly watercolors. The referenced critical opinion on his style and technique would be appreciated. Also, did he continue painting even after his rise to power? AlexNB (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hitler and Mormonism?
I don't expect this to actually make it into the article, but I just wanted to share something interesting that someone told me online.
He thought Mormonism was a good religion because it kept one away from booze and drugs (My friend's grandfather was in the German army and Hitler personally had this conversation with him lol)
Do you believe this? I'm not sure... it sounds like something Hitler might have actually said, though.--66.177.73.91 (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, even if you have a citation for it, I don't think it is important enough to go in this article. Perhaps it could be mentioned in Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs, if you have a citation.
Also, it's important to recall that Hitler's formal education ended in the year 1905, and he didn't really do a whole lot of general reading and studying after that point. In 1905, Mormonism was mostly unknown in Europe and even in England, being noted -- if at all -- either for polygamy or for its avoidance of alcohol (two things that Europeans found odd, and therefore noteworthy). I'd be very surprised if Hitler knew much more about the LDS church than those two points. — Lawrence King(talk) 01:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with your assertion that Hitler "didn't do a whole lot of reading [after 1905]"—many accounts, from both German and non-German sources, and both in the context of official and more casual encounters with Hitler, referred to the astonishing level of detailed knowledge he had about many subjects, especially armaments, art and art history, and so on. His formal education did end early, and much of his learning showed the weaknesses of an autodidact, but to state that he didn't engage is "general reading" [a phrase which is itself problematic—how are you defining it? Simply in terms of studying forms of indigenous American Protestantism?] is incorrect. Historian932 (talk) 04:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Who was the Doctor who treated Hitler for his blindness?
Hysterical in origin or not, Hitler's blindness was real -he couldn't see.
A German doctor treated him, using new psychological techniques that created in him a sense of awesome power. He got his eyesight back, and from there on there was no stopping him.
I read the name of this doctor, but I forgot to write it down. I understand that he was murdered later on Hitler's order, to keep the secret of his transformation. The doctor may have been a Jew, which makes the thing still more tragic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.68.125 (talk) 10:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Really? Hitler was blind? Do you really believe that yourself? And do you think he would have let a Jewish doctor treat him? Is any nonsense plausible, as long as it involves Hitler and/or "Nazis"? (According to his valet's memoirs he had a mild cocaine solution put in his eyes during the war for ocular pain, and always wore a hat with a brim because his eyes were very sensitive to light—but this is a *far* cry from being "blind".) Historian932 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
typo
i noticed what i think is an omission and i cbf creating an account to chg it, between cite note 166 and 167, "no plebiscites to held in the transferred districts". frankly i don't think i've ever used the word plebiscites in a sentence, until now, but i think there should be a "be" there. i suppose a grammar nazi joke would be out of order.
220.235.153.230 (talk) 01:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else feel that this article is one sided? It seems to document lots of bad things about Hitler so maybe we can add some good things about him to balance the article out? Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree. Maybe we should talk about how he improved the condition of Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.89.127 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
The economic revival is often cited as a good example of Hitler's successes as a leader, along with his talent for speaking and cultivation of support. SGGHping! 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
The economic situation in Germany both before and after he first came to power is probably central to the rise of the Nazi party. It should also be pointed out that a large part of this economic revival however was due to the state creation of jobs in both the military and the manufacture of military hardware. Therefore while this did lead to substantial growth in the German economy it was also unstainable and the only way it could be sustained was to utilise the investment in this military project in the form of conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquesdemolay92 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I would also consider that German wealth per person also increased by converting a substantial percentage of its citizens to non-citizens and transferred the wealth of those peoples to the state. 98.64.242.215 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC) [usemasper]
What good things did Hitler do (What I'm really trying to say is that I just couldn't think of anything).
There are many things that could be expanded upon. There is substantially more to the man than genocide, he was also a visionary too:
Recognised how the automobile would become an integral part of society so initiated the building of the autobahn, and the volkswagon with the goal of making cars affordable to the average German.
Initiated the rocket research that ultimately put man on the moon.
Initiated large building projects to provide young German families with their own privately owned houses, with mortgage relief dependent on the number of children.
Approved a vegetarian lifestyle and brought in animal protection laws.
Discouraged smoking.
Funded the world's first nationwide research project into the causes of cancer and its prevention.
He continued the building of the autobahn, he did not initiate it. It was there already during the Weimar Republic. 201.240.87.171 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Trim
guys, this article's too LONG. plz, cut it down a bit, erase what we dont need; sides, kinda useless to habve it, anyways...my point is, its too LONG. plz do something, i know he seems...popular on wikipedia, cuz theres so much about him, but...plz... like, the religius believes section, its called MERGE, ppl. (sigh...TOO long...need cleanup...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Hitler is an unbelievably important figure in modern history, and there's an absolute abundance of recorded information about him. Thus, the article is gonna be long. --KingÖomie 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
What specific suggestions would you make towards cutting it down? --John (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
yes, yes, obviously 'article gonna be long' (and they call ME fanboyish on his talk...note the sexism), but, really, NO pg on wikipedia is, like, 'untouchable'. no matter how many ppl ignore this, that still doesnt mean we should keep so much info. like, is it that important to have so much info about his life BEFORE ww2? should we HAVE to have link to the stub 'poison kitchen'? and religiues beliefs, and pop culture is just...ah, well, leave it up to u. tahnks. Tubesgirl (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I for one agree with the OP of this paragraph, there's *way* too much detail, especially (IMO) about his actions during the war, summarizing what he did and general themes to his behavior is possible without listing every single foreign-policy and domestic political decision he ever made… Historian932 (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.. and Hitler did have a life before WW2.. all of his life if significant, building up to the events of WW2 TigerTails (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Imho: I have no problem with long articles, I like detail, and since articles are generally 'sectionised' one can find ones way around relatively easily. I guess it depends on the article. In the case of complex topics it is more ideal to direct the reader to the more salient points, however with a relatively simple topic like a biography, what's the problem (apart from download time ofcourse:))1812ahill (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
One option, that we're kinda doing already, is to make this article a summary, and put the details in sub-articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed that tendency in this and many other articles. Excellent way to proceed! Keep up the good work everyone:)1812ahill (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
recent edits
This edit is uncited and not really good english} also this large edit looks a bit like a copy vio and is imo excessive conspiracy theory, isn't there a page for that kind of thing? Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Removed the highly suspect entry and additional clean up was done in follow up by Dchall1.Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello people! Well yes Adolf hitler was a feauture in the 2nd world war, and yes he promiced the germans they would get money and their jobs back but any other infomation? I need to know because i'm very interested, and I'm doing it in school!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.123.O (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Is the article somehow inadequate for your purposes? Rodhullandemu 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think he just doesn't want to read it.
How was the worl war 2 with Adolf Hotler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.232.42 (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Loaded statement
The following has appeared in the lead over the last few days:
Note, I have changed the reference into a url link for the purpose of the talk page. This is an incredible loaded and generalised statement that is almost completely unqualified. It is a blanket assertion that, no matter how common a viewpoint it is throughout the world, cannot just be written point-blank in the opening lines of a Wikipedia article. If the lead is going to common on popular, social and cultural perception of Hitler, (which I'm sure the article does) it needs to be tied down and not just be some outright, unsubstantiated statement like that, IMO. Also, referencing a simple URL to a google book page isn't suitable. Several citations from several reliable sources would be required. Regards, SGGHping! 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree with you about the cite, it seems fine to me. It doesn't seem loaded to me, he is , and forever will be associated with evil, I don't see what you have taken it out for, it is clearly citable. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article, at least not in the lead. The last time I checked Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a forum of opinion which means its purpose is to relay facts, along with qualified and verifiable analysis of those facts. Opinions come into that but only in relation to it. Equating Hitler with 'evil' might be a common association, but that association must be grounded in the facts, and analysis and opinion should only follow from the presentation of the facts. That means such a statement doesn't belong in the lead, but in a retrospective of how his deeds have shaped the various perceptions of Hitler, among the allied powers, Jews, Germans and contemporary neo-fascists. You can qualify the statement so I am not going to remove it, but it does violate WP:NPOV and doesn't document a fact or form any part of coherent analysis. This is symptomatic of the whole article really which adopts a very unencylopaedic bias which is the main reason why such an important article isn't star rated... Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The notion that "Hitler is often associated with tyranny and evil" is a loaded statement is utterly ridiculous. Maybe neo-Nazis would agree with you, but when over 99% of the global population (and I don't need to source that, that's just common sense) agrees that Hitler will be forever associated with those concepts, it would be untenable were we not to point it out in the lede. Evil, after all, is Hitler's most substantial philosophical legacy. TheFix63 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Evil isn't a legacy, it's a particular point of view on his legacy. Hitler's legacy is one of eugenics, socialist reform and imperialistic ambition. The problem with the article is its democractic approach to adopting a point of view and then passing it off as fact. It is not objective and it is not neutral. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
We're not claiming that it's objective, hence the use of "often." We're claiming that it's merely a major point of view held by the vast majority of people. The cultural image of Hitler as evil is so ubiquitous that we must put it in the lede. It's merely saying that such a view exists, not that it is endorsed by wikipedia, if you really want to argue about this. TheFix63 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice you have re-added this contentious statement to the article, on the grounds that the other editor had no consensus to remove it. The onus is actually on you to gain a consensus to add this to the article. As it stands it currently violates WP:NPOV because you have made no effort to offer a contrasting or alternative view. I'm going to wait and see what some of the other editors have to say, but I very much doubt there is going to be a consensus to include such a statement in its present form. Betty Logan (talk)
Come on this is getting silly, it is not a very good edit and it really messes up the lede, it needs to go. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't Fox News, no fake "counter balance" is required in Wikipedia. That being said, calling Hitler evil is like calling water wet, it really doesn't add much to the lede and is tantamount to name calling. Ronabop (talk)
This is ridiculous. What do you want me to say as a counterbalance, "Neo-Nazis think Hitler was a great man"? Come on. The prevailing view of Hitler's legacy warrants inclusion. TheFix63 (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This isn't a Marvel comic book and it isn't August 1939, either. The "prevailing view" is clear. No one can read the article and come to a different conclusion. The talked about addition only states the obvious. There is no need for such a stilted inclusion.Kierzek (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
This point is going nowhere, as it always would. The primary statement "He is often associated with tyranny and evil" is irrelevant, because throughout history, such subjective statements could be applied to many people, depending on your perspective. Hence such a description is unhelpful. This article, and related ones, set out Hitler's policies and the results thereof, and they have been comprehensively documented, analysed, and reviewed over the last sixty years. Accordingly, we do not need to tell our readers what to think: all we should do is present the evidence and allow them to draw their own conclusions. That is the nature of a encyclopedia
Courtesy Section-break
Hey, what is going on? There is clearly a consensus to remove the statement and yet it is still there ? Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - this is just my opinion, but the desire to have this phrase included--whether intended or not--is a disingenuous way of legitimizing the over-the-top comparisons of Barack Obama (or, say, a gay Jew) to Hitler and the Nazis. Whether Hitler is a symbol of tyranny and/or "evil" is loaded. Nazi/Hitler analogies are classic examples of over-evoked analogies that dilute the horrors of what actually happened during that time period in Germany's history. Whether it was intended or not I agree that inclusion is POV and loaded. -->David Shankbone 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Your argument seems rather bizarre. I have no doubt it is not remotely a "disingenuous" way of making comparisons with Obama, Bush, gay jews, straight muslims or anyone else, since no specific comparisons follow (and it's impossible to be disingenuous unintentionally!). Its "subjectivity" is simply irrelevant and btw equating value judgements with 'subjectivity' both confuses matters and leads to moral relativism. It is simply a fact that his name is associated with the idea of evil in modern western cultures, as evidenced in phrases like "X a little Hitler". It's become a byword for dictatorship and extreme brutality. There is no POV in that statement, since it is a fact about his reputation not an assertion that it is objectively true that he is evil. That is encyclopedic. Whether it deserve to be in the lede, however, is debatable. But it's relevant to his reputation. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The statement that Hitler is associated with tyranny and evil isn't even POV or non-POV--it is that the sentence is utterly and irredeemably trite. In one obvious and non-specific way, it's trite because you're stating the obvious. But even the grammar is vague and weak: he "is associated" is really a weaselish phrase, like saying "Many say Hitler was a bad man." Yuk. The source doesn't even use the word. Now, the "evil" part is interesting--it sounds like a sixth-grader writing an essay, and it is worth nothing that the source goes on immediately to discuss the problems with the term evil. No, there are lots of good reasons to cut this phrase from the lede, the main being that it is simply bad writing. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The quality of the writing is a minor matter, since it can be improved. The central issue is whether it's worth noting that Hitler has become the symbolic incarnation of evil in modern western culture. I think it is. Hitler has become a kind of secular version of satan, and has a similar fascination in popular culture, in a way that other murderous dictators - notably Stalin - do not. His role as a form of anti-god has become increasingly notable feature of the west. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely, actually. Hitler is very much a secular Satan figure (thought not to the extent that parents terrorize children with threats that they'll meet him if they don't behave). Godwin's Law should be mentioned here. 'Hitler' and 'Nazi' are go-to insults, unlike countless other dictators and war criminals. When was the last time you were called Pol Pot on a forum? --KingÖomie 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with these statements as well; I was making the point above in reference to inclusion in the lead, not in terms of not mentioning a concept for which there are ample sources. -->David Shankbone 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I chime in with David. The reality of Hitler as a go-to guy, as King aptly put it, surely is notable--but it offends my sensibilities to have this popular use of Hitler in the lead, as if he's little more than a punchline or an artificial closer in a political debate. Godwin's law surely has a place in the article, but placing it (or any other "popular use" of Hitler) in the lede is not done--it suggests that it is on the same level as the Holocaust, for instance. Would you want to include in the lead that he's great fodder, under the pseudonym "Mr. Hilter," for British comedians? And that also is what I mean with "trite": it is not just a matter of finding the right words, it's the triteness of the very thought in comparison with the other material in the lead. Maybe Hitler will be a punchline in a few centuries or so, but not yet. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
How about something like "He remains an oft-cited figure today", and then work the rest (with the sources) into the article? --KingÖomie 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
You mean "cited" as "he is cited" (which he isn't, as far as I know) or as "referred to"? I wouldn't feel comfortable with it, in part because it seems so obvious, but it is better than "he is often associated with." I think it's putting the cart before the horse a bit: I would much prefer to see a stronger "Legacy" section first, something that does more than refer to "Consequences of Nazism" and mention a few notables who spoke of Hitler. A stronger "Legacy" section might be a better starting point for a one- or two-sentence addition to the lead--but this is just my opinion. Writing on a character like this is a difficult job, which is why I'm sticking to the talk page for now.
I'm sorry if I come across as harsh, that is not my intention; I have very strong and very mixed feelings, some of which in relation to a phrase or two found also on Holocaust trivialization debate. Especially the debate on the uniqueness of the Holocaust weighs in here. If the Holocaust was indeed extrahistorical, then Hitler was extrahistorical also, and that should be a part of both "Legacy" and the summary thereof in the lede. You see, I think the original statement, which offended a number of editors (in my opinion, they were right to feel this way), is simply too simple--and I don't know who added that statement so I apologize if I'm offending anyone in this present discussion, but I prefer to shoot straight here: I aim to criticize the writing, not the writer. Thanks to all for your patience in reading and responding to each other's comments so thoughtfully and for what I think so far is a very useful debate. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Holocaust trivialization debate contains a number of misconceptions, particularly that the word holocaust has been "trivialised". Until the 1970s it was an ordinary English noun used to refer to many things, not specifically Nazi mass murders. It could reference a "Nuclear holocaust" or someone burning documents (as a 70s book I have on Freud says - he made a 'holocaust of his papers'). Part of the so-called trivialisation is simply the continuation of historical usage. Paul B (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I would like to come back and reaffirm my original statement. I am not disputing that 99% of the world thinks Hitler was evil and tyrannous, however I would say that a Wikipedia article on Hitler can't make such a sweeping comment in a lead paragraph, regarding the multi-faceted, extremely complex topic that is world-wide perception of Hitler. That topic requires significant amounts of information on the main (and they are numerous) works done on the subject, highlighting all the major contributions by third party reliable sources. The sentence I removed stated "he is associated (i.e. world-wide viewpoint) with tyranny and evil, here is one source which cites this one line as truth, no other thoughts have been made" without any scope of discussion. I'm not saying that the scope of the subject needs to all be in the lead, but the lead can't suggest that it is as clear cut as that. SGGHping! 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Actualy, I think it is pretty clear cut as far as western culture is concerned. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I disagree. SGGHping! 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Trying say that Hitler's association with evil isn't that clear-cut is a similar argument to the one that evolution is not really proven. The anti-evolution argument is created by people who fear that evolution is a threat to their beliefs. Its actually a sign of weak faith. The anti-evil argument is of exactly the same nature: By trying to say that there is no such thing as evil, it demonstrates fear as well as a lack of confidence in ones own ideas: In this case the fear that the belief in the existence of evil will destroy modern intellectual thought: Which just isn't true.
I'm afraid that has nothing to do with my motivation. I simply believe that the entire perception of Hitler shouldn't be summed up in that way in the lead - it is too complicated. I am amazed at the number of responses on here that seem to imply I have some fear of evil, or I am a Nazi sympathiser or just an idiot - I'm actually just a skilled historian. Please remember why we are here. SGGHping! 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the Opening Paragraph Describe him as a "Genocidal Leader?"
This would be factual and not mere opinion.
Perhaps even "one of the most violent genocidal leaders in recorded history".
It seems inaccurate and insufficient to merely describe him in the opening as "a politician".
I would concur. The introduction seems to be based on the false assumption that we have to bury the lede to have NPOV. Blowfish (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but in all of history he definitively wasn't one of the most violent genocidal leaders in recorded history. See any Assyrian leader, Babylon, Rome v. Carthage, the Catholic Reformation, treatment of Anabaptist's, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.27.117 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there any proof he was involved? Can anyone show me a signed document by Hitler that confirms he ordered the genocide of any race? McDonaldsGuy (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You are correct but..Recently Discovered Documents
The recent discoveries cannot be called a written decision (which, if it ever existed, was almost certainly destroyed by the end of the war to preserve Hitler's stature), but they are certainly unequivocal confirmation that a clear decision was taken by Hitler as early as 1939.
The two recent discoveries are:
1. The first is a diary entry by [[[Joseph Goebbels]] of December 12, 1941. It runs as follows:
Hitler
Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.
Hitler
With respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would live to see their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence.
2. The second is a note in his own handwriting by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in his soon to be published diary of a meeting he had with Hitler at the latter's Headquarters (Wolfsschanze) on December 18, 1941. The notes are simply and suggests a verbal order was given. Himmler notes the following was said by Hitler:
Complementing the task already assigned to you in the directive of January 24, 1939, to undertake, by emigration or evacuation, a solution to the Jewish question as advantageous as possible under the conditions at the time, I hereby charge you with making all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.
Insofar as the jurisdiction of other central agencies may be touched thereby, they are to be involved.
I charge you furthermore with submitting to me in the near future an overall plan of the organizational, functional, and material measures to be taken in preparing for the implementation of the aspired final solution of the Jewish question.
Hitler
There is no dough he was an architect behind the Jewish question,,it is well documented that he was intending to solve the so called Jewish problem. .... but As shocking as it may seem, no official order for the extermination of the Jews singed by Hitler was ever circulated. But what he said about the Jews is well published (see links bellow). Most experts have agreed that an action on the magnitude of a mass genocide, with the resultant possible ramifications, could not have proceeded without Hitler's personal verbal approval.
Documents of the Holocaust - Germany and AustriaDocuments of the Holocaust - PolandSoviet Union
This section needs additional citations for verification
Ok ..i see many of this citation needed banners..WE should be using {citation} in proper place, so we know what needs citation (referances) and can help with the section ..or a {disscus} if you disagree with statement. Putting a Tag at the top of every other section is not very helpfully specially, when it may not be clear to all what needs citation. A fact from this article is that it was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page on January 30, 2005 and January 30, 2006. It also falls into the 50 most-viewed Wikipedia article category in 2009 and 2008, Yet for some reason in April of this year all this citation tags (full size banners) were added. I believe this is a FRIVERLESS act on an article with a high view count..i would say it almost a case of vandalisms to deface (de-credit) the article. You may not think it de-credits the article - but studies have shown it does affect someones positive view of the articles content as a hole and not just the section that has the banner. This is a B class article and let alone its view count, it should get much more care to its edits ...thus not allowing a rampage of banners. Has wikipedia standers gone up since April 2009? As you can tell i am not a fan of people just adding banners without reading the content properly or taking the time to really help, by adding {citation} for individual statement were needed or even better yet taking the time to verify (Google search is not hard) and adding in a credible reference. Ii falls into the Hidden categories sectionArticles with unsourced statements multiple times It is also a semi-protected page so really only experienced editor will help and they can see this Hidden categories if they wish.
I believe we have a tag spammer that hit this article...i see no real effort in trying to point to what is wrong in the sections by the user. The criteria for placing the banners seems to be less then 4 referances in a section.
I believe the over size (discrediting) banners should be removed and replaced with individual {citation} for the needed statments. If a section is that unbelievable ( I see none here) it should simply be deleted. DAME YOU Banner spammers.!!!!
Overly subjective and otherwise questionable statements
"…the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, causing the United Kingdom and France to declare war against the Third Reich…"
"Causing" the U.K. and France to declare war? The U.K. and France *chose* to declare war (I'm not judging their decision as right or wrong, just whether it was done as involuntarily as the article seems to imply).
"The treaty re-created Poland, which even moderate Germans regarded as an outrage."
The outrage, insofar as that word can be used, was not because Poland was recreated as a nation, but that Poland was made up of sections that had traditionally been German and/or Prussian (especially Danzig); this was upsetting because Germany had surrendered believing in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which decreed that Germany would be treated fairly and borders would be redrawn according to the principle of self-determination (there isn't anything self-determining about putting places with German majorities under Polish or Czech rule, no matter how you slice it).
"He also used the "November Criminals" as scapegoats, although at the Paris peace conference, these politicians had had very little choice in the matter."
The signatories at Versailles were vilified long before anyone heard of Hitler—the first post-war German chancellor resigned rather than sign, and I believe at least one of the men who did sign thereafter was assassinated after returning to Germany. (The sentence sounds to me like Hitler invented blaming the Treaty's signatories.)
"Prior to removing Blomberg, Hitler and his clique removed Fritsch whom they denounced as a homosexual."
Actually I believe they *threatened* him with being publicly outed as a homosexual, but did not actually do so (it turned out, and the Gestapo knew it, that the Prussian officer in question who had been implicated in a Berlin bathroom encounter was actually a colonel named Frisch (not Fritsch).
"From 1905 on, Hitler lived a bohemian life in Vienna on an orphan's pension and support from his mother…"
I don't see how this is possible, since one of the most well-known aspects of Hitler's childhood was that his mother (who had protected him from his father) died an early death. (The family doctor, who was Jewish, later wrote that he had never seen a child as distraught over the death of a parent as young Hitler.)
"During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers declassified over fifty years later, Hitler's valet Heinz Linge and his military aide Otto Gunsche said Hitler had "pored over the first blueprints of gas chambers.""
I just finished reading Linge's book and I don't recall anything along these lines; I could have missed it but I don't think I would have. (It didn't mention anything about Gunsche testifying to that effect either, IIRC.) Perhaps a footnote is in order for whomever asserted this? During "interrogations" by Soviet intelligence most people would admit to the moon being made of cheese, which creates further uncertainty.
"For Hitler, Danzig was just a pretext for aggression as the Sudetenland had been intended to be in 1938…"
Again absurdly subjective—just because war *did* break out doesn't prove Hitler's preexisting motives, and decades of asserting that by his erstwhile enemies don't make it so either. Mind you, I'm not claiming this was not in fact his (primary) motive—just that it's such a ridiculously subjective assertion to make that it doesn't belong in an allegedly unbiased article on the subject. (Patrick Buchanan's recent book on the outbreak of WWII, for example, argues that Poland rebuffed German efforts at negotiation because they believed themselves to be safeguarded by the British guarantee of defending their sovereignty.)
"In late 1942, German forces were defeated in the second battle of El Alamein, thwarting Hitler's plans to seize the Suez Canal and the Middle East."
This is grossly overstated. Hitler only initially sent units to North Africa to help the beleaguered Italians, who were getting schooled by the Brits. Asserting that Hitler had any genuine intentions or plans of "seizing the Middle East" is both hyperbolic and factually indefensible IMO. Perhaps it's time to start questioning the reflexive "Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world" school of history?
"Hitler ordered Himmler's arrest and had Himmler's representative in Berlin Hermann Fegelein shot."
According to Heinz Linge's memoirs Fegelein deserted the headquarters and was captured at home by police in civilian clothes preparing to flee Berlin. If this account is accurate, it would create a very different reason for his execution.
I would state that I found the article overly detailed, especially during the war years, it goes into way too much minutiae and is virtually unreadable at times. I would improve the writing, but the article is locked (for obvious reasons). Historian932 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
100 % agree, the article must follow the truth as far as we know it. Very good points, that must be corrected.
An other point is that "Hitler was born in Austria"
This implies Austria 1919-1937 or todays Austria. But in 1889 Braunau am Inn was just north of the border between the German Emipre and Empire of Austria and Hungaria, a total different nation compared with "new Austria". Hitler also immigrated to Munich, Bavaria, German Empire in 1912 - and thereafter he never sat his foot in Austria again - with only exception after "Anschluss" - when Austria no longer was a country, but a part of Germany.
/Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.37.1 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Graz, Footnote 8
In the ancestry section, the following appears:
" Ian Kershaw dismisses the Frankenberger story as a "smear" by Hitler's enemies, noting that all Jews had been expelled from Graz in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until well after Alois was born.[8]"
However, in the wikipedia article on Graz, Austria, the following appears:
"The thriving Jewish community was destroyed by the Nazis and their grand synagogue was burnt."
"Immediately after the Anschluss [union with Germany] (March 12, 1938), the Jewish cemetery was desecrated. Teh [sic] members of the community board were arrested and released only after prolonged negotiation. Local functionaries were anxious to make Graz the first town to be judenrein [pure of Jews, Jew-free]."
Perhaps Mr. Kershaw's comment could be replaced with a reference indicating there was a Jewish community as the Graz article states?
I understand that an article like this often gets vandalized. I therefore do not change the error in the start, but hope
someone soon corrects it.
It is claimed that Hitler was born in "Austria" - this is incorrect. Hitler was born in the old Donau-monarchy that at his time of birth officially was known as "Empire of Austria and Hungaria" - a nation that had 50 million inhabitants at the beginning of the great war 1914. As it now stand it is implied that he was born in the 100% german speaking Austria of today or the almost same sized Austria of 1919-1936 (as today) wich still today just has about 8 million inhabitants.
Hitler did never ever live in the new Austria, since he moved to Munich, Bavaria, Empire of Germany in 1912. It is utterly wrong to claim him as an citizen of the new small Austria formed after the great war. During 1912-1933 he was without
citizenship but was counted, and counted him self as a german. If articles like this starts getting wrong in details (and for instance demonizes Hitler out over what is the truth ) - then it will ,in the long run, benefit dark elements only.
Specially since just writing the exact truth, as much as possible, about this man certainly is enough.
/Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.37.1 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I though he was born in Linz ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Capitalism created Hitler
Has anyone said that Capitalism created Hitler & WW 2? Because the economy only improved after Hitler started "creating jobs" making weapons, building military jobs, automobiles, etc so the Germans thought he was good for ending their poverty by giving most people a wage job? That's also why Americans thought Capitalism (wage slavery) was good because creating negative jobs like building weapons, military & automobiles looked good, but they don't care that the jobs are doing negative things that kill people (& the earth), even causing wars? Stars4change (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
It does not say Capitalism but I guess one would imply it by the statement in the article The political turning point for Hitler came when the Great Depression hit Germany in 1930. The Weimar Republic had never been firmly rooted and was openly opposed by right-wing conservatives (including monarchists), communists and the Nazis...Adolf Hitler#Brüning Administration ...However it is covered some what (But could be expanded on) in this article...Adolf Hitler's rise to power....Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
This is a debate that is ultra vires here, but if any reputable historian or body of academic opinion has come to this conclusion, that should be given its appropriate weight. Meanwhile, speculative analysis doesn't really belong here. Rodhullandemu
I see it has been talk about before ...but i dont see y it is here??/
Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
skull proven not to be Hitler's
DNA testing done by scientists have proven that the skull claimed by the Russians to be Hitler's actually belonged to a female. Details on this program.
I believe this info should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.113.2 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Yep, it's true, the skull didn't even belong to a man, it was a woman's skull. I definately think this should be added to the article, this pretty much discredits the entire notion of the Russians being in possession of Hitler's remains. –Nahald (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
No. The link provided says nothing about it not being Hitler's skull. It *is* written in a sensationalist manner though to provoke interest. Clearly a reputable source is needed. srushe (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess that isn't OR. but basic common sense that there was also the remain of a woman under 40,t hat Eva Braun (born 1912) and in absence of details on the confidence degree of these tests, one can't exclude also that magda goebbels (born 1901). Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (P.s. I'm of Hebrew heritage & background, and writing in a NPOV manner was really hard, so if there's lack of NPOV, please feel free to notice me, pointing to the (hopefully understandable) lack of NPOV,
It's good for one of the conspiracy pages but of no value here. There have been no tests at all and it is nothing but scandal. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I´m sorry to inform you, but probably this news is nothing else than a misinformation:[11] (unfortunantely in German): The boss of the Russian state archive, Vladimir Koslov, indicated that Bellantoni, who spread this information, has never been in the archive for more than 4 years and the Russians never officially indicated that this skull fragment war really Hitler´s. Probably somebody of you can translate the entire article into German. Mr Koslow said, "Nobody said it was Hitler´s skull: In our books we wrote: Presumably Hitler´s skull. It is a misinformation to say that this fragment, which was discovered 1 year after the cremation, belonged to Hitler, according to our opinion. One should not argue that this skull was the only evidence of Hitler´s suicide" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.95.194 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
The so-called skull info. needs better sourcing and verification. Not enough hard evidence yet from any real reliable sources. The article should not fall prey to poorly sourced information like a TV show, news report or tabloid entry; as it has recently both here and the "Death of Adolf Hitler" article.Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Just got done watching an interesting show regarding the death on the National Geographic channel called "Hitler's Skull."
Among the facts discussed:
- The skull fragment is the back left portion and contains a bullet exit wound; the trajectory is consistent with an entry through the mouth from the right hand.
- The teeth were also saved by the Russians, not just the skull. The teeth, when compared to the historic X-rays are a 100% match per a forensic biologist Mark Benecke due to the unique bridging and gold replacements.
- DNA tests on the teeth portions and skull should not be deemed conclusive as the items have been handled heavily for over 60 years.
- The mouth of the burned remains of Hitler contained glass shards suggesting that he used cyanide prior to shooting himself
I would edit the material myself but due to the controversial nature of the topic, I will not. I urge someone more experienced to incorporate the information though.
I refer you to this article:
http://wiki.benecke.com/index.php?title=National_Geographic_TV:_The_Identification_of_Hitler%C2%B4s_Head_(Hitler%C2%B4s_Skull_%26_Teeth)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjgarris7 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Category: German Vegetarians
Given what's written in the article about Hitler's vegetarianism (that he used to eat ham, caviar and sausages among other kinds of meat), I don't see why he is in the category of German vegetarians. Ben Gershon (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the book "Contrary to Popular Belief..." Hitler wasn't intentionally a vegetarian, per se, but instead he modified his diet to self-treat a stomache problem. Then after a few years it just ended up that all his diet consisted of was non-meat foods. I suppose that technically makes him a vegetarian after a certain point in his life... and he was German... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
According to the sources quoted in Hitler's vegetarianism, in no point in his life he was fully a vegetarian. Some kinds of meat he never stopped eating (sausages and more). So he wasn't a vegetarian and he should be removed from that cateogry. Ben Gershon (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Editorial changes
I've made some editorial changes with an eye to making the essay more concise and less bulky. I hope I have not run roughshod over anyone's ideas. My goal is to make the entry short, more precise, and economical with words. Rexroad2 (talk) 17:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
A very sound principle, but I do prefer 'declared goal' to 'aim' - it suits him better, don't you think? Rothorpe (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hitler suffered from shell-shock
Hitler clearly was suffering from PTSD for his days spend on the front-lines of World War I. It was also known as shell-shock and the thousand-yard stare. He covered it up by busying himself during his rise to power, but the ailment eventually caught-up with him after Nazi victory over France.--76.19.133.38 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
Proposed edit to "Childhood" section
{{editsemiprotected}}
Change "Hitler became a Christian at age 15. He was confirmed on Whitsunday, 22 May 1904 at the Linz Cathedral.[15]" to
"Hitler was confirmed at age 15 on Whitsunday, 22 May 1904 at the Linz Cathedral.[15]"
Columbojazz (talk) 01:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
There are subtly different implications betwixt the original and suggested. The former implies Hitler became a Christian when he was confirmed, whereas the latter implies he could have been a Christian before the date of his confirmation. There may also be other discrepancies, but it's very late where I'm at. If the source says the latter is more correct than the former, then I'll change it. Intelligentsium 02:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
just to add a note ..if an atheist or anyone for that matter is not familiar with Christian. Ｊust leaving the word confirmed does not tell me anything. confirmed ｆｏｒ ｗｈａｔ ａ ｂｌａｃｋ－ｓｍｉｔｈ． confirmed ａｓ ａ atheist．．． ａｓ ｙｏｕ ｃａｎ ｓｅｅ ｉｔ ｉｓ ｉｎ ｐｒｏｔａｎｔ ｔｏ ｌｅａｖｅ ｔｈｅ ｗｏｒｄ Christian．Buzzzsherman (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
I understand the issue with simply using the word "confirmed" without having a background/context to understand its meaning. Therefore, I suggest the line reads, "Hitler received the Catholic sacrament of confirmation at age 15 on Whitsunday, 22 May 1904 at the Linz Cathedral."
Being confirmed in the Catholic church is a ritual which does not necessarily mean that a person is becoming a believing Christian or Catholic.
Columbojazz (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Escape
I a documentary film that told about the possibility that Hitler escaped, because both germans and russians ( Zhukov) said that his body was not found and he may escaped to somwhere to America (possibly to Argentina). Can someone confirm it, or mention it in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr nonono (talk • contribs) 22:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
The above is tabloid BS as to Hitler escaping. I suggest reading: Joachimsthaler, Anton (2000). "The Last Days of Hitler: Legend, Evidence and Truth", Cassell (reprint), ISBN0-304-35453-8; Kershaw, I. (2001). "Hitler: 1936-1945 Nemesis". W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN0-393-32252-1; for a start. Kierzek (talk) 03:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Sexuality
"All three women attempted suicide (two succeeded), a fact that has led to speculation that Hitler may have had sexual fetishes, such as urolagnia, as was claimed by Otto Strasser, a political opponent of Hitler. "
What??? How the heck does 3 women (1 of whom he didn't even have a sexual relationship with) attempting suicide, provide evidence that he was into urolagnia? Either there's some missing information here and/or something needs rephrasing, because right now this sounds really, really far-fetched. Senor Vergara (talk) 07:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
It's explained, albeit concisely, that this was claimed by Otto Strasser, who asserted that Geli Raubel had told him this. The suicides have led to speculation. Paul B (talk) 09:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
NPOV!
The NPOV please in the section were says:
"He was the authoritarian leader of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945."
Let's make it:
"He was the leader of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945."
–Radu Gherasimdiscussion 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Let's not. He wasn't just occupant of a constitutionally established role in government. He was authoritarian leader - a unique position defined as such by him. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Hitler and his friends
I doubt this. There are a vague theories, but nothing substantial, and if "Mort Heldenberg" had this influence I'm sure he would turn up in a Google search- but he doesn't. However, please feel free to cite sources but prepare for a tussle. Rodhullandemu 19:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
The strippers template has nothing to do at the begining of the article, in front of Hitler's childhood and ancestries sections... The proper place are the Holocaust section, the WWII section, or it could even be a bottom template, with the template fascism and the others. Why is it placed before the introduction?---89.226.117.72 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Hitler's Remains
I know that there is doubt about the skull fragment that was long-believed to be from Hitler, and that is mentioned in the article. However there is no mention of Hitler's jawbone that was matched to dental records, supposedly. Perhaps someone more educated on the matter than I could either educate me here or add to the article that perhaps there are indeed verified Hitler remains in existence. --Stivo (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Can you provide a link to your source? - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
wounded
Hitler was hit in the groin, as a result leaving only one testicle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaman2110 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
(Response) this was speculation and was created for the purpose of the Spoof/parody of the colonal bogey march.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.117.172 (talk • contribs)
Correct spelling in sentence please?
"By 1940 however, it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianty."
That should be "Christianity." Thanks.70.182.224.139 (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Asperger's syndrome
Michael Fitzgerald writes: „Adolf Hitler meets the criteria of autistic psychopathy“. (Autism and creativity S. 27) There is no diagnosis für Asperger by Fitzgerald. --UnGestoert (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion for fixing a simple typo...
The word "had" appears twice in a gramatically incorrect way in the following sentence:
"Hitler, for his part, was to use the words of an aide, highly “furious” with the perception that he had been forced to back down by the Czechoslovak mobilization, and warnings from London and Paris, when he had in fact had been planning nothing for that weekend."
Suggested corrections:
"No man on earth has proved how evil the human mind can be, how much of a devil incarnation one can be than Hitler; he was evil to the bone" should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.107.27.67 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
"Hitler, for his part, was to use the words of an aide, highly “furious” with the perception that he had been forced to back down by the Czechoslovak mobilization, and warnings from London and Paris, when he had in fact been planning nothing for that weekend."
or
"Hitler, for his part, was to use the words of an aide, highly “furious” with the perception that he had been forced to back down by the Czechoslovak mobilization, and warnings from London and Paris, when he in fact had been planning nothing for that weekend."
Nice catch, I was WP:BOLD and changed it. Ronabop (talk)
Sounds like nonsense, there were never many black people in the Rhineland. Its useless to ask you for sources, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.206.61.239 (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's useless to ask Me for sources. I didn't write the article. ParasiteNetwork (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Adolf's ancestry
It was quoted by Discovery Channel, that Adolf Hitler had Jewish Ancestory through one of his parents.
The identity of his paternal grandfather is unknown. Some say Alois Hitler's father could have been a Jew, but there is no proof. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Cabinets of Papen and Schleicher
I've commented out this section per the "unsourced" tag. Please feel free to replace, with sources. Rodhullandemu 02:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
FIlMS
theres a bunch of films with "hitler" in it, like inglourious bastards, that probably should be added to the films section —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.0.55.143 (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Hitler Article improvement
extended content hidden for ease of navigation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hitler's ideology also relied upon Nietzsche's "Superman" which Hitler was trying to create.
Form a Philosopher's point of view, Hitler's ideology was near the bottom of the slippery
slope Kant initially put German Philosophy on with his overemphasis of the "Will" in
moral philosophy.
The daughter (or granddaughter) of Nietzshe a member of the Nietzshe society wrote to
the leading Kantian Philosopher/Political Author, that she doesn't understand why he
stopped supporting Hitler. Intially he did. She wrote that Hitler was promoting the
same values that Kantian Philosopher/Political Author promoted in his recent book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk • contribs) 13:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Someone needs to find a place for this stuff. It is highly relevant to any discussion of the Nazis, Hitler, and Pope Pius XII.
First or second rally at Madison Square Gardens starts here:
Al Smith Speaks At Big Protest Gathering
Says To Drag Anti-Semitism Of Hitler Governor Out And Treat Like Ku Klux Klan
Boycott Threatened
German Officials Threaten To Retaliate For Campaigns In Other Parts Of The World.
By The Associated Press.
An anti-lie campaign was started Monday night by the German government as mass meetings were conducted in many parts of the world in protest against alleged mistreatment of Jews in Germany.
Chancellor Hitler’s Nazi party threatened imminent boycotts against Jewish business in the Reich in answer to similar threats against German goods.
“Sharp counter-active measures” were announced by the Nazi minister of propaganda against those responsible for reports of Jewish atrocities.
Eleven anti-Hitler meetings were conducted in Warsaw, and a score of gatherings were held in other Polish cities. At Lodz Orthodox Jews fasted.
Despite statements that there were no atrocities in Germany, thousands of Jews in New York met to express their sorrow and indignation over the reported developments in the Reich.
New York, March 27 –(AP) Alfred E. Smith told thousands of Jews, massed in Madison Square Garden tonight in protest against anti-Semitism of the German Hitler government, that the “only thing to do is to drag it out in the open sunlight and give it the same treatment we gave the Ku Klux Klan.”
Joining representatives of the many races and creeds at the indignation meeting called by the American Jewish Congress, Smith said “it makes no difference to me whether it is a brown-shirt or a night-shirt.”
The former governor elbowed his way through the throng outside the garden shortly before 10 o’clock and mounted the speaker’s stand to the accompaniment of long rounds of cheering.
“I have come to Madison Square Garden many times, mostly to speak in behalf of the political party to which I belong. But I don’t believe I ever came into it with greater satisfaction than I feel tonight to raise my voice against intolerance, bigotry, and against the suppression of freedom of speech and the press and the abridgement of the right of public assembly.”
“It is not because of present happenings. I would be glad to raise it in Russia, in Mexico, or in the United States, as I did in Oklahoma.”
Admitting frankly that he did not know “what it’s all about” in Germany, Smith said, “all I have to say is that where there is a good deal of smoke, there is some fire.”
In a reference to the recent advice from the State Department in Washington, Smith said: “Now speaking for myself, I don’t know what it is all about, but, if I am going to be guided by the Secretary of State of my own nation, I have got to hear him say as recorded in the public prints, for a short time, there was considerable physical mistreatment of Jews by the Nazis. This phase may be considered virtually terminated.”
“All right. Let’s hope that that is true. We can’t put ourselves in the position of being unwilling to forgive after we get the assurance that that is the end of it.” (…)
The keynote of protest was sounded by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, honorary president of the American Jewish Congress.
“This protest is not against the German people whom we love and revere,” the noted Rabbi said, “it is not against the political program for Germany, for Germany is master within its own household, but solely against the present anti-Jewish policy of the Nazi government. We are not against Germany and it is an unforgivable calumny to declare that we are “Deutschfeindlich.”
Reaches Congress
Washington, March 27—(AP)The world-wide clamor over persecution, real or alleged, of Jews under the new German regime of Adolf Hitler, invaded today the precincts of the capitol with a resolution by Representative Skovich (D. N.Y.), to abrogate all treaties between the United States and Germany unless the abuses charged come to an end.
Hitler's response to foreign protests starts here:
Organize Boycott
Berlin, March 27—(AP) Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party answered foreign threats of boycotts against German goods today by announcing a movement to boycott Jewish business establishments within the Reich.
The purpose of this movement will be to retaliate against foreigners who have made protests based on allegations of anti-Semitic outrages in Germany.
Government toleration of the movement was seen in a communique issued by the Telegraphmen Union which denied that the boycott would have official support but admitted the administration would “tolerate these measures so long as foreign governments take steps against atrocity propaganda.”
(Gainesville Sun March 28, 1933)
Caption March 31, 1933 Gainesville Sun: Thousands of New Yorkers filled Madison Square Garden, New York, in a protest meeting against the alleged anti-Semitism of the Hitler government in Germany. Among the speakers were Senator Wagner, Alfred E. Smith, Bishop William T. Manning***, Bishop Francis McConnell and Rabbi Stephen S. Wise
German Jewish response to planned boycott starts here:
German Jews Protest Boycott Move; Einstein To Quit Citizenship
Berlin, March 29—(AP) Leaders of German Jewry appealed to President Von Hindenburg, Chancellor Hitler, cabinet members and the Berlin police president tonight against the Nazi anti-Jewish boycott which begins throughout Germany on Saturday.
The appeal expressed confidence the president and the government will not “let our rights and means of existence be taken from us.”
Declaring that German Jews had successfully put forth their utmost efforts to counteract reports abroad of Jewish persecution and foreign boycott campaigns, and pledging that they would continue to do so, the document asserted that “despite this, German Jews, as allegedly the guilty party, are now to be ruined.”
The appeal was signed by members of the general council of German Jews and the board of Berlin’s Jewish Community.
It was pointed out in the message that 12,000 of Germany’s 500,000 Jews died in the World War.
Direct-action repressive measures by Chancellor Hitler’s Nazis got under way against Jews in many parts of Germany today as a prelude to the nation-wide boycott.
It was learned meanwhile that Prof. Albert Einstein has taken steps to renounce his Prussian citizenship.(…)
The anti-Jewish boycott, the deadline for which was set by Nazi party authorities at 10 a. m. Saturday, already has begun in many sections of the Reich. There were numerous reports of the picketing of Jewish stores and other repressive measures, but Berlin heard of no serious clashes.
Chancellor Hitler was quoted by the Deutsche Aligemeine Zeitung as having declared at today’s cabinet that it was necessary to take measures against the “atrocities campaign” as otherwise popular indignation might take undesirable forms.
The newspaper quoted the chancellor as saying the situation now is under control and that violence by individuals must be prevented under all circumstances, but Jews must understand any Jewish campaign against Germany would react most sharply upon Jews in Germany.
The purpose of the Jewish boycott as explained by Nazi party leaders, is to retaliate against protest movements abroad based on reports of atrocities against the Jews in Germany.
One of the principal anti-Semitic outbursts today occurred at Goerlitz, where about 1,000 persons massed before the courthouse, demanding the removal of Jewish judges and lawyers. Nazi storm troops occupied the building and 35 Jews were placed under protective arrest.
At Muenster, Nazi occupied the courts, declining to permit Jews to enter. They also confiscated knives used in Jewish butchering rites.
In Berlin the municipal government ordered that from April 1 all supplies for municipal projects and offices must be purchased from nationalist merchants. Forty-eight Jewish shops which were picketed by Nazi storm troopers were quickly closed and a number of retail establishments, operated by non-Jews on money borrowed from Jews, were posted with pickets.
Boycott ended by Hitler but added new legislation-begins here:
Jews Are Banned From Leaving Germany
Restrictions Provide That Police Must Okay Passports;
Protestant Meeting Held.
BERLIN, April 3 --(AP)--Reports that numerous Jews are fleeing
from Germany were followed today by a government announcement
that after midnight no one may leave German soil unless special
permission has been stamped on his passport by the police.
The government did not explain this action, but for several days
there have been reports of a Jewish exodus.
Freed of the anti-Jewish one-day boycott business appeared to be
going on in Berlin as usual. Jews in the professions, however, began
to feel new restrictive measures. In Berlin the number of Jewish
lawyers permitted to practice was limiteed tentatively to 35, and at
Frankfort on the main the number of Jewish brokers was
tentatively cut from 33 to eight.
Protestant Nazis organized in the "German Christian movement"
met at the nation's capital for their first naional convention to
celebrate 'God's victory over the satanic forces of the underworld"--
meaning the Nationalist revolution.
We must not simply be Christians--God wants us to be German
Christians," said the Rev. Mr. Peter who delivered the principal
lecture.
St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans about the equality of Jew and
Greek, he declared, applied to things spiritual and the world beyond
but not to this world, where racial purity was ordained by God.(*)
This meeting of church people had an unusual aspect in that
several speakers began their addresses with the Nazi salute while
many in the audience instead of clapping their hands raised them
in salute every time some utterance appealed to them especially.
(Gainesville Sun April 4, 1933)
Boy did Britain and France guess wrong begins here:
Four Power Pact Is Signed In Office Of
Premier Mussolini Yesterday
ROME, June 7--(AP)--Premier Mussolini of Italy and the Ambassadors
of France, Great Britain and Germany signed a four power pact promising
Europe a decade of peace and pledging the achievement of
disarmament even if the Geneva conference failed.
Etc.
(Gainesville Sun June 8, 1933)
Regarding third attempt on Cardinal Pacelli's life starts here:
BOMB EXPLODES IN VATICAN CITY;
4 INJURED
VATICAN CITY, June 25- (AP) A holy year crowd in St. Peter’s was thrown into panic at noon today by the explosion of a bomb in the portico of the Basilica which injured four persons one seriously.
An unknown visitor left the bomb in a small valise at the booth used for checking umbrellas and other property within the portico just outside the main door and 30 feet from the holy doors.
The explosion occurred at 13:15(?) o’clock when a large crowd of people, including many pilgrims-of whom some were Americans-was surging in and out of the main doors. The last mass had just finished.
A panicky rush of persons to leave the portico followed the explosion but the exit is so large no one was hurt.
Alessa???ro Sartorio, a Pisa engineer, was injured in the knee. He was sent to the hospital. The other three injured were less seriously hurt.
The Papal gendarmerie and Italian police launched a joint investigation **, questioning a number of persons in detail, but tonight had been unable to establish a motive or to find the guilty person.
The Papal gendarmerie having ushered every one outside the Basilica, closed the cathedral, later they reopened it for a large pilgrimage from Central Italy which had just been received in audience by the Pope. The arc of the explosion however was roped off.
The Cardinal Pacelli, High Priest of the Basilica, notified the Pope of the outrage and the Holy Father sent his blessings to the injured persons, all of whom are Italians.
Beside Sartori the persons hurt were Ambrogio Giani, a policeman of Padua Francesco Luardi, a north Italian businessman, and a Miss Fannati, a stenographer.
From fragments of the explosive machine collected after the affair, gendarmes concluded it operated by clockwork.
A man who came to the checking booth after the explosion to receive a package he had checked containing paper similar to that found in the bomb package was detained by the Italian police.
Today’s was the third bomb attempt at St. Peter’s in less than two years; and the first actual explosion.
An explosive package was found in the Basilica in the summer of 1931. Another, likewise unexploded, was discovered in the vicinity of the central altar February 13, 1932.
In neither case was a motive established nor were the guilty parties apprehended.
[Gainesville Sun June 26,1933]]
The subsequent investigation revealed the NAZIS were the main suspects in two of the attempts. Since the explosion missed killing Cardinal Pacelli by about ten minutes due to mass ending earlier than expected, he should be regarded as the likely target. Cardinal Pacelli would become Pope Pius XII after World War II had already begun. The investigation revealed Cardinal Pacelli was the intended target and this one missed him by ten minutes. The reason it missed him by ten minutes? He had an important meeting so he omitted his customary ten minute homily. Otherwise, the Nazis would have got him.
Von Hindenburg falls ill; Hitler takes advantage begins here:
Summary Of Events 06/23/1934-07/10/1934
German and US Press Report President Von Hindenburg falls ill.
Hitler doesn't move immediately because Von Hindenburg is more
popular than himself.
When the Press states Von Hindenburg on his deathbed Hitler makes
his move to purge all possible opponents to his ascendency to
complete power in Germany.
Von Hindenburg recovers before Hitler is done, but not before key
political figures in German politic have been executed.
Von Hindeburg's recovery saves the life of Von Papen, but after the
purges by Hitler, Von Hindenburg's power reduced.
With Von Hindenburg's key allies in the government dead or under
house arrest, and Von Hindenburg weakened by his illness,
Hitler now has more power than Von Hindeburg.
Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Nazi Revolution Feared; Hitler Maintains
Power After Smashing Coup
Former Chancellor Von Schleicher Is Killed
Was Charged With Plotting With A "Foreign Power" To
End Regime of Hitler
BERLIN, June 30--(AP)--Chancellor Adolf Hitler, ruthless and
uncompromising, smashed a revolt in the third Reich today with swift
retaliation that took the lives of high oppositionists to his rule.
Over all Germany tonight, however, --with troops and machine
gunners, rifle carrying police and guards on patrol--there was suspense,
fear, apprehension over a civil war or at least a revolution within the
ranks of the National Socialist (Nazi) party.
For the present, Hitler held undisputed power.
In a day of summary punishment for those who challenged his
authority--the denouncement of the crisis of recent weeks, hastened by
the disclosure of immoral orgies indulged in by leaders of his own Nazi
storm troops--the Chancellor "liquidated" leaders of a threefold
opposition: the reactionary monarchists, the "Catholic Action" group
and the left wing storm troopers who plotted his end.
Two of the dead were charged with plotting with a "foreign power"
to end the Hitler regime.
They were:
Kurt Von Schleicher, former Chancellor who wanted to restore the
monarchy. He was killed with Fray Von Schleicher when they resisted
arrest at their country home near Babelsberg, outside Berlin.
Captain Ernst Roehm, the commander of the storm troops (SA),for
years Hitler's close friend. He was arrested, deposed, accused of
immoral practices that brought shame to the Nazi movement. He
committed suicide.
There was no further statement on the "foreign power."
Representations came to the German foreign office from at least
one embassy, asking that the conspiring power be named so that
other embassies in Berlin might no longer be under suspicion.
In the crushing of the revolt 7 storm troop leaders were shot to
death in Munich.
An untold number of other brown-shirted storm troopers were
killed resisting arrest or committed suicide.
Heinrich Klausmer, leader of the 'Catholic Action" group was
shot to death.
Count Wolf Heinrich Helldorf, Nazi police officer in Potsdam,
ally of Roehm and other storm troopers who plotted to seize
control, wa killed ostensibly while resisting arrest.
With Hitler at the helm of power, unchallenged as his chief
aide as a result of the day's developments, was Premier
Hermann Wilhelm Goering of Prussia.
The "iron fist" of the Nazis carried out Hitler's orders. He
sent his police into the streets, keeping the busy traffic from
congesting with crowds. He mobilized the Reishwehr, the
regular army.
He called in storm troops from Munich and other
headquarters. He dispatched Hitler's own guard, the black
shirted Schutz Staffel (SS), to take command at Nazi
headquarters.
He had the "liquidation" well under way by the time Hitler
arrived by airplane from Munich--where, since early hours of
the day, he had directed the counter movement to quell the
mutiny.
With Hitler on the air return was Minister of Propaganda
Joseph Goebbels and Heimrich Himmler, chief of the
Bavarian police.
He was greeted on the street of Berlin with newspapers
giving long accounts to "der fuehrer's thorough action in
removing Roehm."
Frequently, during the tense day, there was heard
conjecture that Hitler's action was designed to shuffle off
the "wild men" of the Nazi movement.
Apparently, it was said in reliable sources, Roehm and
other storm troop leaders realized the possibility of a coup of
some sort and decided at last moment to stir up mutiny in the
ranks.
The mutiny came just before the storm troops were to leave
for a month's furlough, during July.
On previous occasions, Hitler has shown the utmost
reluctance to depose a friend from power. But it was
presumed that the orgies participated in by Roehm, which
Hitler learned of on his trip to Bavaria, forced him to action.
(Gainesville Sun July 1, 1934)
Germany Presses Drive Against “Enemies”
Campaign Persists Today With Renewed Energy; Secrecy Marks
Action of Officers.
BERLIN (AP)-The grim, silent struggle by the Nazi regime to exterminate all alleged anti-government tendencies in social, religious, athletic, commercial and student organizations of the third Reich persisted today with renewed vigor.
The chief characteristic of the under-cover movement on a nation-wide front was a widespread screen of secrecy, illuminated fitfully here and there by brief flashes of information.
Informed sources said that perhaps the most significant among the recent disclosures was yesterday’s announcement that district governors henceforth would take orders from the Gestapo, the secret state police.
This was interpreted as an indication of an immediate carrying out of the promises by Nazi leaders for more ruthless, more determined action against enemies within the Reich.
Rhineland points were systematically silent after the recent raids against Catholics.
[article from the Gaineseville Sun Feb 13, 1936]
Notice the last line "Rhineland points were systematically silent after the recent raids against Catholics."
Historian and Legal Philosopher (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:TLDR: Detailed though this information is, I think it would be better introduced by a clear statement of how it could be used to improve the article, followed by some examples. To ask editors to take in such an amount of data without a fairly specific context is asking perhaps a little too much. Since it seems to be addressing several issues, perhaps they could be factored into neat bullet points for the benefit of others. Rodhullandemu 00:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
atrocities violent acts
In the opening section of the article, I have changed atrocities to violent acts. This improves the neutrality of the article. Wipkipkedia (talk) 09:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
That page looks like it's headed for either deletion or merger. I just added a sentence here so once the discussion is closed, it can be merged by simply creating a redirect. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Hitler's financiers
Hello, I miss Hitler's financiers in the article. I've made a summary here:
That's fine as it stands, but your own website is your own original research, and for the content to be usable here, you'd have to cite the original sources. However, looking at it, that does not seem to be much of a problem. On the other hand, to add such a large piece of research into an already large article suggests to me that a separate article should be considered, and I invite you to make such a proposal. Rodhullandemu 02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
It does feel a bit synthesis though. I doubt these "Financiers" care who is in power as long as they can keep financiering. Same with the industrialists (look at the influence of Krupps and the Franco-Prussian War of 1870). To claim they could stop this "fool" then that claim would have to be very well supported. The pivotal role of the Catholic politician, Ludwig Kaas, on the other hand, we already have in the article. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The site itself is clearly self published, and has COI issues. It also seems POV pushing, as are the editors comments on this talk page. If he can be objective, use WP:RELIABLE, WP:VERIFIABLE sources (i.e. not his own site) then there won't be a problem including a short summary in this article. Hohum 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
catholicism
I dont think there is any evidence that Hitler was any other religion then Roman Catholic. Yes I know, the Catholic church says that he would have been excommunicated ipso facto by his actions. However, he considered himself a Catholic up until his death and even had a marriage the day before he died. Ipso Facto excommunication is nothing more then an after the fact technical excommunication. But for all practicle purposes he was a Catholic his entire life. This is why I believe that it should say Catholic in the religion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
You have some reliable sources that say that he was practising Roman Catholic his entire life? Hohum 22:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
His catholicism is common knowledge and available in most encyclopedias. He was an alter boy and they have pictures of him leaving catholic churches while he was dictator. It is so well documenented it is suprising that it is not more widely known. I can only guess that many catholics would rather it be the case that he is an atheist so they contend that he was an atheist even though there is no proof he was. That there are so many more christians I suppose they just want to dump off their worst on atheists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
It's both common knowledge, yet you are surprised it isn't widely known - hmmmm. So you won't find it a problem to provide a reference that he was a practising Roman Catholic for his entire life. The burden of proof is on you: WP:PROVEIT. Hohum 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Two approaches here: A) one view is that it'll always remain an "ontological reality" in how baptism leaves an "indelible" mark (CCCC 1272) so I don't know how relevant that it is that you have to be practising Roman Catholic for your entire life to be a member "of the Body of Christ" and incorporated "into the Church" (CCCC 1267). He must have read CCCC 1268 a little too much if that section was in there then. B) We use the oft-cited phrase detailed by John Toland in book called Adolf Hitler by Anchor Publishing, 1992 p507 which quotes Hitler "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." which is pretty clear on the timescales. It's a hard one really - do we pander to the un-erasable ontological reality idea promulgated by the Catholic church or do we consider that to be utter drivel and the entry of the holy spirit into a person makes no difference and in reality it is simply what the person believes themselves to be from what they say or C) do we then ignore what they say and define some complex and strict criteria based on some physical practice that the person has to do all their life until the day they die ?. If we ignore the A) and B) and use criteria C) as you suggest then I suspect that there are very few Catholics in the world. Ttiotsw (talk) 03:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
This is common knowledge. Everyone who has researched Adolf Hitler knows this. If you had researched Hitler you would know this. The reason it isnt known. It because people like you call him an Atheist instead of a Roman Catholic Christian which he was. In the box it needs to say right next to religion 'Roman Catholic' and not point to another article. Period. By linking to another article you are hiding the obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have told you what you need to do. It is your choice not to. Without WP:RELIABLE sources, it won't be included. Also, note that "common knowledge" and "anyone who has researched it" are mutually exclusive. If it's so easy to prove, do so, or stop wasting your own time. Hohum 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
You have a very bad attitude and poor research skills. Here is a link of photos of Hitler practicing his Catholic beliefs. It is even stated so in the article about his Religious Beliefs that the link points to. However in your ignorance you choose to blame me for the fact that the worlds worst murder was a catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.140.10.102 (talk) 20:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I have bad research skills? I'm not the one who refuses to provide "easily found" evidence. I don't care if he was a Catholic or not. I'm an atheist.
In fact, even if you find a reliable source, I am sure someone will find conflicting reliable sources which say he wasn't, which would lead to an infobox entry of "Disputed" - which doesn't really tell anyone anything useful. This article has been around this loop several times over the years - so I can see why there is a link to an article specifically about his religious beliefs. Why you think that this means it's being hidden, I don't know. An entire, well sourced article on the issue one click away is hardly hiding it.
In the meantime, if you honestly want to contribute to this encyclopaedia, I suggest that you do a little research on how to be productive. WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE are great places to start. If you don't want to help, then I won't stop you digging. Hohum 21:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Tone of this article
Honestly, I find the entire thing very negative and POV. Perhaps someone with a more balanced, dispassionate view of history could parse through this thing and do a re-write? Remember, guys like Hitler in Germany had some legitimate beefs after WW1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.26.197 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
I believe that there are truly evil people, evil acts, and contrivances with truly evil design. It is hard to write a balanced article about imbalanced people like Adolf Hitler.
Recently I tried to write an honest Wikipedia entry about SpyHunter (an EXTREMELY DANGEROUS malware program that mascarades as anti-malware). I based my article on the vast majority of people (including people in Wikipedia discussions) who were hurt by the program. Apparently Enigma (makers of SpyHunter) wrote puff pieces about it on the internet so that they could sell their program to unsuspecting customers. The Wikipedia article on SpyHunter is more like a glossy company brochure (full of lies) than an honest description of the product, and it is apparently written by the Enigma company (makers of the SpyHunter malware). How does one write positively about a product that destroys people's computers? Wouldn't kind words entice more dupes to buy the EXTREMELY DANGEROUS product? Isn't Wikipedia an accomplice in the crime of spreading horrible and dangerous viruses? I even let Wikipedia management know about the harmful product, but they refused to do anything about it because they believe in balanced articles that do not cast people (or things) in harsh light. Couldn't a court issue jail sentences and stiff fines to Wikipedia owners for spreading computer malware that harms computers and exposes private information (such as credit card numbers, and passwords, and gives access to online bank accounts, as SpyHunter does)?
How would one extol the virtues of Satan? Are his horns cute? Does his red pointed tail look good with his tux? How can one write both positive and negative things about a negative entity?
Hitler's countrymen were avid fans, though many later claimed that they did not know that he was torturing and killing millions of Jews. Even today, many follow Hitler's ideas (neo-Nazis blew up the Murrah Federal Building, and the Murrah bomber in the white hat with purple flames, 6 months later, derailed the Amtrak Sunset Limited at Gila Bend (Hyder, Arizona), and 12 years after that, the same Murrah bomber, by internet, motivated Cho (Virginia Tech Massacre) to shoot innocent people (Cho's body was found with the Son's of the Gestapo, Gila Bend info written on his arm, in compliance with requests from Sons of the Gestapo).
Terrorists, today, find people who don't fit in, and motivate these marginalized people to do acts of terror. Terrorists claim that it is easy to find people who are willing to blow up their own bodies while destroying the bodies and property of others. Cho was one such person. Nazi Germany was filled with such people--people who cheered as Hitler attacked nation after nation.
Hitler made the trains run on time. Hitler refused to pay back the WW I reparations (payments that were harming the German economy). Hitler made Germany a super-power (militarily and economically). But, by praising him, we risk drawing terrorists, lunatics, and fanatics to his cause.
Jews (especially Jews who had relatives die in Nazi concentration camps) take this matter very seriously. Shouldn't we try to tactfully write articles that don't offend those who have already suffered so much?Improve (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
History should not be altered to save feelings or to 'keep the lunatics' away. Lunatics have always existed and were Lunatics before they stumbled upon Wikipedia. All history relating to Hitler should make it into the article negative or positive withour personal or cultural prejudice. Napoleon for example re-instated slavery even after the Haitian revolution, does anyone question the feelings of Haitians? Should the article change the facts? Should it all be negative and omit all good even if the man was without a doubt a brutal Tyrant, no. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.189.213 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Everything should be recorded rationally and without emotional involvement or bias, sorry folks. For such a "big" article this page is disastrously poorly-written and incomprehensive. There is evidence of little stated and in fact much of it seems to be based upon little more than age-old rumours! "Geli, who was believed to be in some sort of romantic relationship with Hitler, was 19 years younger than he was..." as an example. Believed by who? Some American tabloid? Seriously folks. 216.185.250.92 (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The example you give appears to be cited to Bullock, A. (1962), Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, not an American tabloid. Hohum (talk) 00:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
As Wikipedia claims to be, the articles should be rational. This is a site which is supposed to give information and not the views of someone OR everyone. The truth is, Hitler succeeded in many things which were considered as impossible. His acumen in different fields like economy, politics should not be ignored. I repeat, Wikipedia is all about 'Facts' and not 'Views'. I honestly feel that there is a difference between other knowledge sharing sites and Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingjog (talk • contribs) 16:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that Adolf Hitler was a man with many "issuse" this resulted in him being very unstable. I also think that he was amazingly clever, think about it this man out smarted a whole democracy, remeber every thing he did before he became dictator of germany in tearms of how he over threw the goverment was perfectly leagle. I think that people don't give this man enough credit, I know he killed many inocent people, but he also did a lot of good... remember before he started the war he did sort the shambles of a german econamy out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.130.12 (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Date of Christening and First Holy Communion? (edited)
Neither here nor in the Adolf Hitler's religious views article, I find a precise date for his christening nor his First Holy Communion. Being of Roman-Catholic upbringing, infant baptism has likely been practiced a few weeks after his birth. In the main article, it is only mentioned that "he became a Christian" at age 15. Followed by: "He was confirmed on Whitsunday, 22 May 1904 at the Linz Cathedral." This is a bit imprecise. Probably it is meant to mean that at age 15 he received his First Holy Communion (which would be more precise than confirmation). The phrase "becoming a Christian" is potentially unnecessarily controversial and could be dropped. Best regards, jan Trinitrix (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hitler: not "right-wing" and not "left-wing"
Before I even begin, let me make mention of the fact I am not speaking out of personal bias or political interest. I am neither a "Conservative" or "Liberal", and do not affiliate with the political "right" or "left". I also do not support either mainstream political party in the United States.
This article states, implies and attempts to reinforce several times that Hitler was, in some way, a "right-wing" extremist or "Conservative".
"The Weimar Republic had never been firmly rooted and was openly opposed by right-wing conservatives (including monarchists), communists and the Nazis."
...that also seems to imply that communists and monarchists are also "right-wing", which is untrue.
"Another candidate was a Communist and member of a fringe right-wing party."
...here we go again...
"Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler."
...now I have to question the idea that Hindu Shiv Sena is actually a "right-wing" party. It all depends on who's writing the article I suppose. If it's a "Conservative", he'll turn out to be a batty commie. If it's a "Liberal", he magically turns out to be a far-right, racist koo-koo.
Other articles all throughout Wikipedia have the same "spin" attached to them, but it's outside the scope of this appeal for the most part. However, if you go to the "far right" article, you are bombarded with the idea that "Far Right" means such things as racist, authoritarian, totalitarian, militant, etc. This is simply untrue, just as untrue as saying the "Far Left" is all about creating Soviet-like, autocratic states and domestic oppression.
The whole concept of wrapping all political ideals (and politicians) into the simpleton's explanation of politics we call "wings" is misleading and inaccurate. The definition changes from person to person, viewpoint to viewpoint and even country to country. Therefore, I think it wise that Wikipedia stay clear of treading this ground except where it is absolutely necessary. Here it is not. We need only describe what Hitler believed, what happened and what he did. There is great debate among political scientists about how Hitler, Nazism and "fascism" should be classified; or if it is even possible by conventional means. The very concept of "left-wing" and "right-wing" comes from the French Revolution, where the "right" meant those who sat on the right and supported the king (monarchists). This was obviously not a good thing to be at the time. The definition of "right-wing politics" grew out of that, and has never been defined neutrally. When you define the position of your opponents, you tend to set up a straw man. The spectrum itself is inherently flawed to begin with; no real political spectrum could be linear. It totally ignores the complexities of political science and makes no attempt at explaining how particular groups can be identified with one "side", yet interpolate between the "wings" on particular issues. If it were presented to Wikipedia today to be verified, it would be rejected.
So I STRONGLY suggest we remove ALL talk about what "wing" people were from the article. It will only serve to confuse, mislead and even offend. It contributes absolutely nothing to the article and its information; save possibly advancing the political positions of the writers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.163.29 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Well put. The word only appears 3 times in the article and contributes little except over-simplification. Let's change it. Rumiton (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, by the usual definition, Hitler objectively classifies as far right, I don't think there is much debate on that, except from some people who advocate doing away with the traditional definitions of right and left and adopting new definitions. The far right means traditional conservativism (i.e. absolute monarchy, feudalism, theocracy) on the one hand, and fascism/Nazism on the other hand. That doesn't mean modern western conservativism (conservative liberalism) is any way related to traditional conservativism or fascism- they're simply different political traditions. But if you split the apple in the middle, Nazism is the most extreme segment of the far right, and conservative liberalism is the moderate right.
The political spectrum goes like that (from the left to the right):
- The far left: anarchism and Communism
- The center left: democratic socialism, social democracy, social liberalism
- The center: libertarianism/classical liberalism
- The center right: conservative liberalism (US conservativism, Christian democracy, Gaullism...)
- The far right: traditional conservativism (i.e. absolute monarchy, feudalism, theocracy, etc), and fascism (Nazism being the most extreme form of it)
Confusion with the political spectrum, I think, happens primarily because of the way Communist practice has been so radically different from Communist theory, making the far right and the practice of the far left very similar in many ways. Reasonable people then tend towards one of the centrist trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Whitsunday/Pentecost
It is my opinion that the word Pentecost should be placed in ( )
behind the word Whitsunday in the paragraph about when Hitler became
a Christian at the age of 15. The reason for this is that while
Whitsunday is the common name for this Sunday in the UK and Commonwealth countries, it is universally known as Pentecost Sunday
in the U.S. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.230.247.191 (talk) 05:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Hitler's religious views' section needs to be more fair and balanced?
May I suggest that ANY of the following quotes and points be entered into the article to give a fair and balanced account of Hitler's views. There seems to be a shockingly sparse mention of his anti-Christian and Chrisiphobic views.
The book Hitler's Secret Conversations (1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953) contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title 'Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944', which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)
27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)
It is already balanced, shows his anti-christian views, and is already too long compared to its relative importance. Additionally it links to an entire article about the subject. Hohum 22:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
The position of Holocaust template/infobox in the article
In the present version of the article there is a Holocaust template/infobox at the very beginning of the article. I believe that there is a strong necessity of the Holocaust infobox in the article but I would like to discuss if the Holocaust infobox, in a collapsible form, can be put in the section regarding the incident. The article is a biographic one and Hitler has been responsible for Holocaust as well as many other atrocities, he was also the main reason for WW II. I would like to refer to some earlier discussion on the issue that I found in the talk archives, in March 2009 there was a discussion on the inclusion of the template [12], it was decided that the template should be placed in the article but no position was discussed. Waiting for your views. LegalEagle (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
No Suicide
I know it is contested by most and probably not true but many people think that Hitler may not have committed suicide. Why is there no mention of this in the article? There is a mention of the fact that he might have been homosexual, even though he probably was not. So long as somebody can find an RS that says he may not have committed suicide, or even that states some people think that - I think it can and should be in the article - possibly with its own section. As an aside, I think the fact that he may have been homosexual should also be expanded to at least a few lines, if not its own paragraph. DegenFarang (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, if you can source these things you can edit the article accordingly. Britmax (talk) 11:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Surely the suicide thing has come up before and been shot down for some reason... DegenFarang (talk) 12:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the crucial phrase in what you originally wrote is "So long as somebody can find an RS that says...." is perhaps the reason you are after. Ttiotsw (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Ok two people now said I can add it with an RS so nobody get their panties in a bunch when I do it :) DegenFarang (talk) 07:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
No don't misrepresent what I said; I just echoed what you said with... "So long as somebody can find an RS that says....". The need for reliable and trustworthy secondary sources applies to anything in Wikipedia but more importantly extraordinary claims are going to have to provide extraordinary evidence. Ttiotsw (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you and I did not misrepresent what you said. Both of you are saying that if RS's can be found there is no reason it cannot be included. All I said that you said was that no other reason exists why it should not be included. I assumed such a thing would have been debated heavily on this talk page but it appears that it has not. DegenFarang (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have added a paragraph at the end of the defeat and death section. I think this is deserving of its own section but wasn't sure how to name the heading or what size to make it etc. If somebody agree's it should be it's own section if they can please do that. I'm also not set on my wording feel free to edit it as you please - though I believe I have found reliable sources that conspiracy theories do exist and there is some evidence to lend credibility of some of them (though I believe the theories to be most likely false). DegenFarang (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I removed the section. As I said, it can't be taken seriously if you bring up theories that he went to Antarctica or the Moon. Also, a tabloid like The Sun hardly qualifies as a source, of any kind. Fred8615 (talk) 14:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I undid your revision, I cited multiple sources and added several sentences, you removing them all because you don't like one of the sentences or one of the sources is a bit lazy. I was not aware The Sun was a tabloid but I believe The Times and The Telegraph are RS's and I know the New York Times is reliable and they all discussed the theory he is not dead in light of the discovery of the skull not being his. Please edit what I wrote that you do not like, don't simply remove it all, as much of it is clearly backed up by RS's. DegenFarang (talk) 14:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It is WP:FRINGE drivel, and has no place in the article:
The Telegraph article is titled "Adolf Hitler alive: weird conspiracy theories" - so it admits that's it's a fringe theory.
The Sun simply isn't a reliable historical source.
The NYT concludes the article with: "There were no major discrepancies in any of the accounts, so suggestions that Hitler did not commit suicide and had escaped from Berlin represent nothing but gratuitous sensationalism. It is just another attempt to exploit the nightmare conspiracy theory that the source of unparalleled evil lived on somewhere, in secret."
What he said. I've been through this before on the Patton article with that stupid Wilcox book claiming Patton was murdered. That didn't belong there, and conspiracy theories that Hitler escaped, when the overwhelming evidence is that he did die in 1945, doesn't belong here. If you really want to push this, create an article about these theories (if there isn't one already) and put a link in the See also section. Fred8615 (talk) 21:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning that the skull fragment isn't Hitler's does raise the question. Further, according to the History Channel's documentary on the subject, if memory serves, it was not possible to hear the gunshot outside the room Hitler was in. If this is so then there is, indeed a discrepancy. Personally, I'm convinced Hitler committed suicide in 1945. The History channel's piece failed to mention important caveats:
1. The veracity of soviet sources. Up until the demise of communism, no scholars could have examined the skull and it's not likely that there was any way, at the time, to determine if the bones were actually his. There were plenty of reasons for the Soviets to lie. Oddly enough, the traditional story is that Hitler and Braun commit suicide and are then taken out and burned; so how could the Russians have found a corpse? Yes could have beenn a double as the show intimates or a fake to disenchant any remaining Nazis or to appease their political bosses.
2. No chain of custody: He was buried with others and moved at least once. Could it be that after the remains were dumped, they get word that someone wanted a "trophy" so to speak. A quick thinker picks a skull fragment realizing no one would know the difference. Spiker_22 99.11.5.151 (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.11.5.151 (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It would seem highly unlikely Mr Hitler was actually buried after his death. There are conflicting stories of how he met his end. One story has him being shot by a sniper while above ground for some reason, but the most likely seems suicide. The reason his body was burned was that Mr Hitler and his staff had read how Mussolini's corpse had been dragged through the streets and publicly degraded. It was decided he would be burned to prevent this happening to him and Eva.Johnwrd (talk) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
The word "Führer" in the infobox
Shouldn't it be italicized? The Sartorialist (talk) 20:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
The second paragraph states that Hitler was a police spy (Verbindugsmann), however this does not seem to be entirely true. A verbindungsmann is more a communications adviser, a referent, someone who gathers information openly. Hitler was assigned to attend a DAP meeting and advise on what the party was up to. This was not spying.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide references at this time. I'm just fresh from a lecture by professor of history at the Moscow State University and thought this was worth sharing. The professor has devoted a great deal of his historical research activities to national-socialist movement in Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knavehearts (talk • contribs) 08:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
spelling error
ancestrythere is a minor spelling error at the beginning of the ancestry section that i cannot fix.
Could you please explain why you changed "Hitler" to "Aldof"? The change does not appear constructive. UserVOBO (talk) 19:22, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I have very serious doubts. I don't believe either Adolph Hitler or Adolf Hitler ever visited the USA, and certainly not after either of them had come to power. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
It's a fake - funny as well. More interesting is whether he ever visited England. I have heard rumours he visited Liverpool but I think that's probably not true as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquax (talk • contribs) 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Seriously? This was taken from an episode of Star Trek Voyager. Erikeltic(Talk) 19:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Well written article
I would like to nominate this article to be featured on the front page. --BoJackson34 (talk) 22:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't qualify because it is not a Featured Article. Please feel free to make it so, however. Rodhullandemu 22:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
You'll also have your work cut out - it's already been demoted from Good Article back to B class, and it's a very long article. It would need some teamwork to get it back to GA and then to FA.--Kudpung (talk) 04:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Section: Austria and Czechoslovakia
In the section Adolf Hitler#Austria and Czechoslovakia I have corrected a typo in the German, and corrected the translation for accuracy. However, <ref>{{harvnb|Murray|1984|p=183}}</ref> is provided as a source for this citation, and the errors may be in the original source material; I have no way of checking--Kudpung (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2010 (UTC).
More errors
I have corrected several grammatical errors. However, <ref name=Marrus-37>{{harvnb|Marrus|2000|p=37}}</ref> is provided as a source for this citation, and the errors may be in the original source material; I have no way of checking. --Kudpung (talk) 06:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I just searched 44th President of the United States, (not the "44th president of the united states of america") and it directed me here. I have no idea how to fix that but it needs to be fixed right away! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.165.188 (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Done Fixed. Goodvac (talk) 06:14, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Hitler gained so much popularity because of his Anti-Semitism?
Please clarify this issue.--79.111.122.137 (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Ancestry
Why is there no mention in the Ancestry section of the fact that the canard of Hitler's having a Jewish grandfather was conclusively disproven with genetic testing in 2008?
It is mentioned in the Wikipedia entry about Jean-Marie Loret. But that's not going to be read by very many people. The fact ought to be posted here.
The ancestry section also states that Johann Georg Hiedler testified before a notary in 1876, which is impossible since he was dead for over a decade at that date.
75.75.128.156 (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Many blacks from the Rhineland and the 'rhineland bastards' as they were termed by the Nazi state were sterilized under Nazi rule.
How come they do not appear on the other victims section?
We could also add gypsies and many others as well. Get a source and add them.--Paddling bear (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Because there weren't that many. 400 people oppressed compared to several million murdered and oppressed of larger ethnic groups, hmm, which deserves more note? Wiki's not suppose to be a collection of just random info. There's an article on the Rhineland Bastards, so I think that's plenty acknowledgment if anyone cares to look it up. 97.104.75.54 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Inaccurate figure for gypsy death toll
A recent edit in the lead-in to the article put the figure for the gypsies killed by the Nazis at between 500,000 and 1,500,000. That seems inaccurate. According to this overview -- http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second -- estimates range from a quarter million to more than a million. Likewise, the range for the number of Jews killed by the Nazis is not exactly known. Different scholars have estimated death tolls ranging from 4.7 to 6.3 million. If the lead is not edited to more accurately represent the different estimates, at least it should be made more accurate by including the lower bound of a quarter million gypsies killed. --92.116.6.112 (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
It is not known precisely how many Roma were killed in the Holocaust. While exact figures or percentages cannot be ascertained, historians estimate that the Germans and their allies killed around 25 percent of all European Roma. Of slightly less than one million Roma believed to have been living in Europe before the war, the Germans and their Axis partners killed up to 220,000. (emphasis added). The USHMM is a more scholarly source than the web page I cited earlier.
I therefore ask that a registered editor bring the figure for killed gypsies down to the "up to 220,000" cited by the USHMM.--92.116.6.112 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Hitler's Mistresses
The section of the article on Hitler's sexuality correctly notes that the three women he is commonly alleged, upon varying degrees of evidence, to have had sexual relationships with all attempted to commit suicide and that two succeeded. However, what it fails to highlight and indeed implies to the contrary of in the following sentences is that the last, Eva Braun, did so with Hitler himself; the following sentences imply, on the other hand, that she too took her life, in effect, to escape from Hitler. This is misleading and, in my opinion, should be rectified. 86.136.124.30 (talk) 23:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
She attempted to take her own life once and failed. She then did so again, with Hitler, and succeeded. Neither Eva Braun or Mitzi Reiter tried to kill themselves to get away from him, but because he was ignoring them. Paul B (talk) 01:13, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
By clicking "browse this newspaper" you may choose different dates. You get much more detailed information from reading newspaper articles from the time period.--Remingtonhill1 (talk) 04:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Awarding of Iron Cross
He was reccomended for the Iron Cross by a Jewish officer. While this is not an integril point, it is a fact relevent to the subject and somewhat ironic. I think it would be worth the 30 seconds to include it in the World War 1 section in the paragraph of his awards.DerBarJude (talk) 22:03, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that the text "... in honor of Hitler's 50th birthday, featuring military ..." (from the section "Economy and culture") should be linked to the recent article Adolf Hitler's 50th birthday.
200.179.59.4 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Done, thanks! SpigotMap 16:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Your point?? 24.87.73.39 (talk) 02:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
I think he wants it to be added to the "in popular culture" section. This would be a valid addition, however many movies have featured men portraying Hitler, and it would be extrememly difficult to add all of them.DerBarJude (talk) 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Machtergreifung
One section ends with the claim that The Nazis' seizure of power subsequently became known as the Machtergreifung. I don't know much German beyond how to order a beer, so could somebody please translate this term into English? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
See Machtergreifung! I'll link it from this article if it's not already done. Barnabypage (talk) 17:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I added Machtübernahme as an alternate though without any wiki link. The Machtergreifung article, of course, gives that name too, but I think it should be stated here as well because - at least outside Germany, and possibly even there - it's definitely the more well-known word.
By the way, the issues of whether the act was constitutional or a kind of coup (he became chancellor without decisive parliamentory support), and whether the rise of Hitler and his party was in some sense a revolutionary process, are intensely controversial and key issues in defining the character of the Nazi regime and its place in German history. The mid-80s Historikerstreit was, on one level (though often implicitly), a battle over just that question: did the Nazis gain power through a revolution (a ferment beginning on the streets and finally overturning the old order) or were they simply evil schemers who needed a coup (trickery) in order to take over? I suggest the import of the event to this kind of discussion should be indicated, Strausszek (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Toothbrush Moustache
I believe that it should be mentioned in his legacy that the toothbrush moustache fell out of fashion due to it's association with the fuhrer. I've put this in the article, sourced, but it's been removed for being 'trivial' even though most people call it the 'Hitler Moustache' these days. I believe he's referenced in that article, but I see no reason not to mention it here. There's much worse trivial information in this article. Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Real year.
Adolf Hitler became leader in 1933, not 1934. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.132.44.115 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
He became chancellor in 1933, but assumed the title 'leader' (i.e. fuhrer) in 1934. Paul B (talk) 23:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
He became Chancellor in 1934, became head of state in 1934 but the title "Führer" was way earlier as it always referred to him as leader of the Nazi party. His title as head of state was "Führer und Reichskanzler", the two offices in party and government he already held. Str1977(talk) 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The ancestry section states that "in 1876 Johann (spelling his name Hitler) testified before a notary and three witnesses that he was the father of his stepson Alois." However, the WP article on Johann Georg Hiedler, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_Hiedler, states that he died in 1829. This is obviously an error of significant magnitude. Based on what I see here, it appears that either the source used for that statement is flawed, or, (more likely) was misunderstood by the author of the Alois Hitler statement. Based on my reading, it appears that three relatives of the long-dead Johann Georg testified that he confessed to them that he was the father of Alois, but Johann Georg was obviously dead when they gave their testimony. I recommend that the quoted selection be replaced with a modified selection of the ancestry section on Alois. "As a rising young junior customs official, Alois used his birth name of Schicklgruber, but in the summer of 1876, 39 years old and well established in his career, he asked permission to use his stepfather's family name. He appeared before the parish priest in Döllersheim and asserted that his father was Johann Georg Hiedler, who had married his mother and now wished to legitimize him. He apparently did not disclose to the priest that Johann had been dead for almost 20 years. Three relatives appeared with Alois as witnesses, one of whom was Johann Nepomuk Hiedler's son-in-law." (Qtd. from Alois Hitler).
Partly done: The "Ancestry" section of this article cites The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but the book only seems to contradict the claim made here: "Five years before the marriage, on June 7, 1937, Maria had had an illegitimate son whom she named Alois and who became Adolf Hitler's father. It is most probable that the father of Alois was Johann Hiedler, though conclusive evidence is lacking. At any rate Johann eventually married the woman, but contrary to the usual custom in such cases he did not trouble himself with legitimizing the son after the marriage." (page 7) Your interpretation makes sense, but unfortunately the Alois Hitler article does not offer any citations for its description of events. Given the degree of speculation here I'd like to see at least one citation for it somewhere. I'll modify this article to be consistent with Shirer's book, but I think Alois Hitler should also be updated to take this into account. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Ugh - just found the full text of that page, which confirms the "three witnesses" claim and contradicts Johann Heidler's death date. I will make the appropriate corrections. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Shirer's book is fifty years old, Ian Kershaw's biography of A.H. appeared in a new revised edition in 2001. It seems odd to prefer an outdated biography to the much more recent one. 84.176.116.105 (talk) 23:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you all for helping me make an effort at making this article better. I guess I'm not as concerned about the specifics of how things happened then I am concerned that the ancestry section states that Johann Georg was testifying 19 years after his established date of death! I have a book at home that does an excellent job of explaining Hitler's ancestry. It's called Hitler: the Pathology of Evil by George Victor. I'm still unfortunately not autoconfirmed (I'm working my way into the wikipedia world slowly!), or I would do the edit and cite a good print source myself. As it is I think I need someone to help me out (or somehow grant me editing rights to the article). Again, thanks, but we still have work to do to make this right I believe.Dgwingert (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Page length
The article is more than 100 kb. Should this be fixed? His history is covered in alot of detail. Perhaps we should have a page named 'History of Adolf Hitler' Sir Stupidity (talk) 10:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
As of the completion of the merge of Adolf Hitler's health article into this article, the page is now 242 kB. It might be necessary to break something out. Safiel (talk) 19:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Edit request. Documentary film to be added to appropriate section of article
Please can consideration be given to including, in the list of films, Hitler, a Career?
Hitler, a Career, is a 1977 documentary film by Joachim Fest and
Christian Herrendoerfer. The film was made with the aim of presenting the origins and history of Nazi Germany to a young generation of Germans. I believe the film to be a balanced and clear account of Hitler's rise to Power and hope that, if consideration could be given to including it in an appropriate section, persons interested in the period would find it very useful.
Thank you.
(p.s. I don't know whether I can just edit the article or have to suggest the amendment, in this manner?).
Please include the inheritance of his last name "Hitler" from his uncle ????? before the time frame of 1913-1918 if it would be historically appropriate to insert the changing ancestor of Hiters
This issue was discussed briefly a month ago but not brought up again. The wiki source of this article now exceeds 240K. Just the "readable prose" as defined in Wikipedia:Article size is now longer than 160K by my estimate -- half again as long as the 100K length that is usually considered a rule of thumb for "almost certainly split this article".
I agree wholeheartedly that very important articles like this one may warrant an exception to the article length guidelines, and I am not insisting on a strict 100K limit, but it seems worth discussing a little more before deciding that the article should not be shortened. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
If I may point out, it would help to reduce the size by linking the Holocaust (since this is a biographical profile not a full expose' on the topic), instead of the "in your face" block that leads to redundant material about the Holocaust, which already consumes space in numerous articles through-out Wikipedia, and is a subject matter that is fully covered by it's own article and by numerous other WWII articles. 74.243.182.87 (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I cant find it in this huge archive, but there was a talk in the past (few years ago i remember well) that dividing up the article a bit ...We could do the same now.... make a sub- article and moving most of Early years (before WWI) to its own article...same with most of the over sized sections ...if i recall correctly from the past discussion this is what was done at the time with Beer Hall Putsch and Mein Kampf section...perhaps its time to do the same for other sections like Rearmament and new alliances - Austria and Czechoslovakia and Start of World War II as i am sure we could move most over to there own articles and write a good lead as is done for Adolf Hitler#Beer Hall Putsch and Adolf Hitler#Mein Kampf.. anyways just my 2 cents. Moxy (talk) 04:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that there are probably sections that should be moved to separate articles, but I respectfully disagree with Moxy...I think Hitler's early years should remain a part of the main article, because it contributes to the biographical nature of the article. If somebody want's to learn about Hitler, they don't want to have to look at multiple articles just to hear the full story of his birth, life, and death. I do think that Beer Hall Putsch, Mein Kampf, portions of the Holocaust material, and some of the sections that Moxy mentioned that are more about general history than they are about Hitler (Rearmament and new alliances' - Austria and Czechoslovakia and Start of World War II) should be removed from this article with perhaps a brief summary and a link to the main articles on the subjects. Dgwingert (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry i was a bit unclear..i think hes early life should be bigger/contain more stuff so much so it should be its own article ...as should hes WWI service...I think this 2 things have always been pushed aside because of the size of the article.... As for the rest once the Third Reich is established... i think this time period is clearly a suitable candidate to have many articles on the different stages of his rule. A great example of this is Alexander the Great a guy that only lived 32 year and ruled for only 13 year... when he becomes king things get realy detailed because of the main articles to read...i think this is great...Moxy (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
whatever it is somethign has to go, and this debate ran dead a month ago. So unless someone objects soon consensus cant wait forever and it can/should be divided.Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
... so sayeth the barely literate (read his post above) moron who just came back from making the article even longer by squeezing nonsense into it, with telling edit summaries such as "hitlers a jew (+african)". I would revert him but I'm only an IP. Ah, the fun and games one can have here.--82.113.121.55 (talk) 11:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
World War One
There is repetition in the first paragraph which needs fixed. The claim that a British Lance Corporal is equivalent to a US Army PFC is inaccurate A British Lance Corporal is an experienced soldier who would have commanded men and a PFC is just a moderately experienced private with no command authority. The Gefreiter wiki page does not say it is equivalent either. 92.41.196.87 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Twiggynazi, 25 August 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
on the 24th august 2010, an article in the sun newspaper that a DNA test showed that adolf hitler was part jewish from his fathers side.
Declined 1. See above conversations; there is no consensus to include this at present and 2. The Sun is not considered to be a reliable source for such matters. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I have already possessed you of our consensus (above). The newspapers are making more of this than can actually be extrapolated form the findings. The findings do not imply that Hitler was of Jewish ancestry, or indeed of any ancestry. I,E•Wouldst thou speak? 12:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I don't know where your information is coming from, if the articles mention that Hitler has Jewish and African DNA, why are you criticizing the journalists yet playing an amateur scientist yourself? You are making assumptions on what the scientists know, however it is not your job to do that, and really we only need to report what the mainstream news reports in this case. For all we know the Y-chromosome was sequenced in a more detailed way to show that Hitler has Jewish and African ancestry, and for simplicity the articles only mention the haplogroup E1b1b1. There is no consensus by the way on this issue, see the below discussions.
cheers,
Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 07:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
It wasn't sequenced in a more detailed form, apparently. Otherwise nobody would claim that Hitler had 'Jewish and African' ancestry, because Jews and Ethiopians have utterly different subclades of E1b1b, as different from each other as they are from the exclusively European subclade that is found in fair amounts among Austrians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.29.4 (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Edit request from Cendres, 26 August 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
Under the heading "The Holocaust" it says Traudl Junge testified that Hitler knew about "death camps", but her wikipedia page doesn't mention this or any testimony. So I think a citation is needed.
simple propaganda, isn't it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.107.212.111 (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It would be if he wasn't one. But he was. Britmax (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Yep, he served in WWI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.59.198.226 (talk) 06:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Objective, verifiable facts should not be dismissed as 'propaganda'. Hitler's bravery during World War I is not in dispute. 211.26.198.136 (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
A rather silly article. Hitler won two iron crosses - fact. So he was a message carrier? That's long been known. He wasn't responsible for the job he was assigned by the army. Did the Nazis play up his war record to excess? No doubt, but it does not change the facts. Paul B (talk) 10:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
DNA of the Hitler-family
Under "Ancestry", consider adding that DNA-tests of the Hitler family indicates Jewish - and African - roots.
Saliva samples taken from 39 relatives of the Nazi leader show he may have had biological links to the “subhuman” races that he tried to exterminate during the Holocaust.
A chromosome called Haplogroup E1b1b1 which showed up in their samples is rare in Western Europe and is most commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.
Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.210.46.118 (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We have discussed this. The findings are not indicative of anything.
Utterly irrelevant non-sense; does not need to go in this article. Mootros (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I see references to a discussion of these findings by User:I, Englishman, could you point me to a link? This story was reported in major newspapers, ie. the telegraph, and I saw no mention of it being "irrelevant nonsense", the report appeared to be taken seriously by the newspaper writers. I think there are privacy issues with sampling Hitler's Y-chromosome DNA, especially the method done without consent of a relative possibly. However it has been done now, and is part of scientific history and should be added to the article.
cheers,
Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 06:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
The discussion is right above your comment, under the heading "Hitler's DNA". To summarise:
Hi,
The journalists sent the DNA to geneticists to do a scientific analysis. Please re-read the articles as your point "Journalists are not geneticists" is misleading and makes it seem that the journalists are experimenting with genetics, when in fact, as geneticists have studied this DNA and determined the results. These investigative journalists are reporting on the findings of the geneticists. I see a lot of bias in your statements, "the findings are not indicative of anything" and "it has no place in the article". Why you think the findings are not indicactive of anything, when the articles indicate very clearly what the geneticists have reported? Which is the Y-chromosome (paternal ancestry) of the subject of this article.
cheers,
Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.137.227 (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
How very Jewish-African:
Hi, if you are adding images or text to the discussion page, please sign your post.
cheers,
Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.77.192 (talk) 06:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
.jpg)
Not done: more information on the Thule Society itself should probably go into the Thule Society article. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Partly done: The "Ancestry" section of this article cites The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, but the book only seems to contradict the claim made here: "Five years before the marriage, on June 7, 1937, Maria had had an illegitimate son whom she named Alois and who became Adolf Hitler's father. It is most probable that the father of Alois was Johann Hiedler, though conclusive evidence is lacking. At any rate Johann eventually married the woman, but contrary to the usual custom in such cases he did not trouble himself with legitimizing the son after the marriage." (page 7) Your interpretation makes sense, but unfortunately the Alois Hitler article does not offer any citations for its description of events. Given the degree of speculation here I'd like to see at least one citation for it somewhere. I'll modify this article to be consistent with Shirer's book, but I think Alois Hitler should also be updated to take this into account. Tim Pierce (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Declined 1. See above conversations; there is no consensus to include this at present and 2. The Sun is not considered to be a reliable source for such matters. Rodhullandemu 21:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
![[5]](http://www.hermes-one.com/GermanGoldWoundBadgeWWIRev.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](http://www.achtung-blitzkrieg.com/acatalog/Golden10.jpg){kind=link}
Done Added a 