Talk:Adolf Hitler: Difference between revisions

Template:WP1.0

	Adolf Hitler is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 26, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 19, 2005 Good article nominee Listed April 22, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted March 26, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 20, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article candidate

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Military history: European / German / World War I / World War II Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War I task force World War II task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Military / Politics and Government / Core B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Germany B‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Austria B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

To-do list for Adolf Hitler: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2015-01-17 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Copyedit : Delete redundant information Verify : Add citations to listed facts

Archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Adolf or Adolph Hitler's Sexuality

I was under the impression that Hitler was actually blinded by White star (50/50 Chlorine and Phosgene) despite falsely claiming Yellow-cross (Mustard) gas in Mein Kamph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.183.177 (talk • contribs)

I think there are way better pictures of AH than the current one that is depicting AH in an awkward pose but also making him look somewhat of a mad man. Not saying that he wasn't, but one shouldn't be able to draw such a conclusion from looking at the picture.

What's wrong with just having a neutral looking picture, like this as an example: http://proveniens.ifokus.se/Sites/c80ff87d-4498-4973-b3fe-13aeef924297/Svena5.jpg but with AH looking older and thus being more recent.

Opinions?

SwedishPsycho 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree totally. It is often possible to find an unflattering picture of a given public figure, but it proves nothing. People's conclusions should be drawn from the facts that we present — not from the picture, as you say. How about commons:Image:Adolf Hitler.jpg? — Alan^✉ 11:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Face it, Hitler ALWAYS looks like a madman, because he WAS!!! Lotrtkdchic 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

People reading the introductory section can already draw their own conclusions from the millions who perished as a result of war and genocide. The picture adds nothing serious, and I'm going to change it. — Alan^✉ 10:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it, but it seemed to come up as a link rather than an inline picture. I don't know why. Some technical assistance would be appreciated. — Alan^✉ 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ach, ze prezent picture is so luverly. I luv zeeing ze fuhrer again, in zis, von of hiz most famuz postures. Heil Seig! A tear coursed down my cheek vhen I remembered how marvellous it voz to be listening to him at ze rally. Ach, nein, nein, enough, I cannot speak. MarkThomas 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahaha that made me crack up MarkThomas!!! Nein danke SwedishPsycho!!!! Dis new picture is muuuch less flatterung zan ze last posture!!! Perhaps ve caan cum to an agreenment...lol Lotrtkdchic 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

mein gott!! ok, ok this is kind of weird and offensive(above) but oh well, very funny. seig heilEddisford 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opnion Hilter was a great leader. (or atleast could have been) He could have taken his advantage of the people following him and turned it into something good. I think it was good that he started a genocide. Not because i dislike the Jewish religion, but because if he hadn't it could happening in our society today. I also believe that another genocide will scome if we don't rember the last one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.156.74 (talk • contribs)

I agree...our world will fall soon. The End is near. Know where you are going to end up... User:Lotrtkdchic 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrobinson9517 (talk • contribs)

In case this deabte is still going, how 'bout this one? It's got more detail in the face, and if there's a seirous debate about how it portrays him, the shadow does make him look a bit ominous... --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have put up a new, better quality image, it doesnt have the swastika or the military uniform that Hitler really didnt deserve to wear. Gavin Scott 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no law anywhere that I'm aware of against swastikas appearing in historical images. Even German Wikipedia has Nazi swastikas on its swastika page. We can't make judgements about what uniforms he "deserved" to wear as head of state. Paul B 11:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of any such law either, and any such law, if it exists, probably only applies in real-world, public places -- not the internet. Plus, Gavin, I respect your ideological reasons, which are presumably to draw respect away from Hitler, but think of it another way: It might be important to depict Hitler, the swastika, and the uniform, to illustrate how the three elements relate to each other — so that in the real world, when people see a group touting the swastika, or a national leader who regularly wears a military uniform, the warning light in their brains might activate. If I can be allowed to stray from NPOV for a moment, rarely has anything good come of any of those elements throughout history.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

11:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} Hello, I just was looking at the recent changes and noticed this page had been changed. Somehow, I suspected vandalism, so I looked into it. Surely enough, I was correct.
Could an admin please assist me in reverting the page? Thanks a lot. Curran (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's very sad how these pukes and jokers find the motivation to vandalise and ridicule on the historical record of a subject who stood out above all men or his era for the virtues of his energetic statesmanship, political cunning, self-determination and ideological commitment. It's called getting up by tearing others down - and inevitably choosing those others who aren't in a position to respond. For sure such elements need to learn a few lessons from what the subject did to effect the transformation and revival of his culture and his nation in the 1930s. It starts with having a Vision, a Purpose and a Plan. Add to that at least a concept of personal honour, self-respect and principled initiative ... all sorely lacking in their own demonstrations. NI4D 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think Hitler is one of the worst people that ever lived. The only reason I brought attention to the vandalism is simply out of pride for Wikipedia, and that I don't believe in vandalism of any kind on here, whether I get a kick out of it or not. Curran (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His vision, purpose, and plan were to kill lots of people. To that end he sure did stand out in self-determination and ideological commitment, the same as a successful terrorist organization or serial killer would. Your argument defends the ends justifying the means, so if you're saying we need to "learn a few lessons" from people who have such aspirations, use these methods, and defend their actions in a similar way, then I sincerely hope that's a lesson ignored by the vast majority of the world, as it would lead to nothing but people striving for personal honor by killing off anyone who they perceive as standing in their way. As for self-respect, I don't think people who respect themselves kill themselves. You seem to hail principled initiative as something to aspire to in and of itself, regardless of the goal of that initiative. If the initiative were to kill you, then I don't think you would promote it. Initiative alone is not a reason to respect a person.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

11:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, NI4D, that your attempt at glorifying Hitler is far more pathetic than a bout of vandalism. Hitler was one of the worse kinds of evil's to have walked the Earth. Any kind of hate he gets is less. I personally think that he should be condemned in everyway and form. I hope he's suffering the worst kind of eternal torture in hell along with you, ya nazi bastard.. --- Da Main Event

No personal attacks, please --h2g2bob (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Hitler (listen (help·info); April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was the German Chancellor (Reichskanzler) from 1933 until his death, and, from 1934 until his death, he was the Führer ("Leader") of Germany. Unofficially he was known as the "German dictator" during most of the same period that he was Chancellor and Leader of Germany.

The intro says that he was The Fuehrer and was referred to as "the German dictator". Isn't it more accurate to say that he was the German dictator (compare Stalin, who gets the same description in his intro) and he was referred to as The Fuehrer (regardlesss of what his "fuehrership" meant in practice)? --91.148.159.4 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is POV and unacceptable to say that he was 'the German dictator'. Think about it this way: did HE ever represent that or did the Nazi state? No. He operated within a system of responsibilities and constitutionalism (with some suspensions in effect from the incident of the burning of the Reichstag). So giving due credit to official stylings he was the German Fuhrer and Reichschancellor although 'referred to' (by some, outside Germany) as "the German dictator", but more frequently simply as Germany's 'Head of State','Fuhrer', 'President', or 'President and Chancellor'.

From another perspective and to aid better understanding of this important point if I were to say "George W Bush is the 'dictator of America' but known as 'President of the USA'", then you'd know I was being POV and deliberately an ass who puts facts in the backseat to propaganda and a personal agenda or mischaracterisation/misrepresentation. Wouldn't you?— Preceding unsigned comment added by CreditToGreatness (talk • contribs)

Any mainstream historian would agree that he was a dictator, unlike the case of Dubya. You seem to espouse a fringe pro-Nazi view. --91.148.159.4 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If his official title wasn't "Dictator" the article shouldn't state that it was. It should state what his title and office was. "Dictator" has come to mean "tyrannical autocrat", it is a judgement not an office or a title and any judgement is POV, no matter whether one agrees or not. Let's not be too jumpy and look for Nazis all around us eh? Lucius Domitius 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Dictator has a very objective meaning, namely, more or less, "an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state". Hitler was one, just as Stalin was one, despite and quite apart from the offices that they formally held; BTW, unlike Stalin, Hitler would have been proud to admit he was a dictator, as would all of his followers and even many of his Western sympathizers; that was part of the essence of his ideology. The only reason why "dictator" may sound like an offense today is because the generally accepted view today is that democracy is a good thing and dictatorship is a bad thing. And it should be obvious to anyone that the statement of CreditToGreatness was as absurdly pro-Nazi as to verge on trolling. --91.148.159.4 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The intro as it stands right now is both misleading, and grammatically incorrect. For example,

"Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum (living space). This triggered World War II when Germany annexed Austria and the Czech lands and invaded Poland, much of which was also annexed to form the Großdeutschland Reich ("Greater German Reich")."

The last sentence makes it sound like Germany annexed Austria and "the Czech lands" and invaded Poland, all at once, starting WWII. This article is supposed to be imparting information, not speaking to an audience that already knows what happened and has the knowledge to parse this sentence into what it really meant to say. Further, one does not start sentences with "This" and then leave it to the reader to guess what it refers to. Drogo Underburrow 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the passage waas very confusing, and the phrase "the Czech lands" seems like a Czech nationalist formulation to avoid referring to Czechoslovakia. As for 'dictator', that's a fairly straightforard description of his political function. It's not a technical term in the sense that it is used in the history of Rome, just a descriptive one. Paul B 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. In the second paragraph, wouldn't it be better to say that he appealed to the economic and psychological needs...? Mentioning only the economic thing jumped out at me as looking like it was missing something. - Electric Larry

I've (quick) failed this article, as it has multiple {{fact}} tags and the "Health and sexuality" section has an unreferenced tag. The article itself also needs trimming - 105kb is way too long for a biography. CloudNine 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A small point, but is the 'und' in 'Führer und Reichskanzler' really correct here? If that was his formal title, then fine, but if he had two separate titles they should surely be separated by 'and' in an English article. Very possibly a rookie question... 81.151.33.104 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct when we refer to his formal title after Hitler's accession as head of state (after Hindenburg's death). Note that he in fact combined the powers of three positions: Führer of the NSDAP, Chancellor and President, though formally the office of President was declared held up (supposedly to honour Hindenburg, but actually more because a) one could not hold both offices according to the constitution, b) a President would have to stand for reelection after seven years while the Chancellor could hold office indefinitely. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can truly say I learned something today! Thanks! :-) Vacant Stare 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is also just a small point, but General Von Blomberg was in effect a Nazi. Though this alliegance was unofficial and by implication, secret, it was still very tangible and may be worth noting.

Nonsense is not worth noting. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why no mention of Hitler's only Edeljude...noble Jew...Eduard Bloch? SmUX 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, the whole thing was invented by his press or whatever, although he was told by his doctor to have a vegetarian diet for a cure for chronic flatulence. Just thought I should clarify... Dungeonmaster 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that "Hitler was a vegetarian beginning in the early 1930s until his death (although his actual dietary habits appear inconsistent and are sometimes hotly disputed)" is sort of meaningless. If he ate meat semiregularly than he wasn't a vegetarian. --P4k 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I guess this isn't an issue that matters to anyone other than a few vegetarians, but some more clarity would be nice. --P4k 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. Paul B 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice that a more accurate article exists, but that doesn't really solve the problem with this one. --P4k 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are any. We can't go into details of every argument. He described himself as a vegetarian. He was a vegetarian most of the time in practice. It's not clear whether any lapses - if that's what they were - were intentional on his part or a result of chefs sneaking meat products into his diet, or mistakes in statements by sources. What is clear is that the "chronic flatulence" explanation above is simply silly derogatoriness. Paul B 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are also several categories of vegetarians, ranging from Vegans, to those who merely don't eat red meat, but will still eat poultry and fish. If you wish to further clarify the section, go ahead and be bold. Parsecboy 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have just changed it in the first place. Paul B, I'm sorry for being rude. --P4k 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not wishing to enter into any form of disputatious contumely with DUNGEONMASTER, but it is definitively documented that after the death of Hitlers Neice, Geli Raubel, he nevber touched meat again in this life. His personal cook, Constance Manzialy, who was with him until the end in the bunker, clarified his dietary preferences in depth after the war. In short, it is beyond doubt that Hitler was indeed a Vegetarian. (ie: Not eating meat). BAZKEIRA

Could someone possibly put Adolf's name in IPA. I would do it, but I'm not 100% sure of the German pronunciation. -- Nodoubt9203 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found the following [1] from a reputable historian, PaulB thinks it is "utterly silly" [2] and contains a misleading use of "concentration camp". This is in fact where the term concentration came came from, and this historian thinks this is relevant to Hitler's failure in school, and I think it is quite an interesting and relevant fact about him. I would think that any further understanding of what formed this man's mind would be important and it really does seem to relate to, or at least offer an interesting comparison with, his later thinking and acts. At any rate, I'll submit this for the review of usual editors of this article. I'm not going to get into a dispute over it. Just thought it was interesting.

Part of the explanation for his declining performance in school may have been that Hitler was no longer respected as a leader among the students. Hitler had liked to re-enact battles with his fellow classmates, particularly those of the Boer War. His favorite scenario was playing the role of a commando rescuing Boers from the English concentration camps.

Respectfully -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two separate sentences here. One says he wasn't respected. The other says he liked to reenact battles. There is no obvious connection between them. Is the author saying that fellow students did not respect battle reeanactments? Perhaps his fellow students were pro-British and did not "respect" imaginary Boer commandoes. As far as I can see these are simply two loosely linked comments about Hitler's school days, not a cause-and-effect. There is simply no good reason to include what games Hitler liked to play as a child. Paul B 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are right that the author didn't intend to link his decline in popularity with his withdrawl from school, I just read that as part of a list of the reasons why. At any rate, isn't it interesting to know that his favorite game related to saving people (presumably women and children) from concentration camps? It's totally up to the editors of this article; I don't have any strong opinion about it, I just felt it was a curious piece of his story. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was vehemently opposed to Christianity. He hated it for its Jewish origins. He was instead a sort of Teutonic pagan, propagated by Rosenburg. Please change the section about Hitler's religion as it is misguiding and leads to people (cough* Dawkins*cough) claiming Hitler to be a Catholic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.34.98 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 June 2007.

He was a Catholic, but then again, so was Mussolini - and Al Capone for that matter. It doesn't mean anything much. Paul B 21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, not again. Hitler was raised a Catholic but as an adult life he was no Catholic in any meaningful sense - neither were Mussolini or (I guess) Al Capone. But neither was Hitler an adherent to Rosenberg, whose blurps he privately ridiculed. No need to stir up this issue again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Str, a "Catholic" is one who is a member of that religion. It has nothing to do with beliefs of that person. A person can believe anything he likes and be a Catholic, the Church considers people as Catholics when they have been confirmed Catholics, which Hitler was, regardless of what they later believe, or even do. Even being excuminicated doesn't make them not a Catholic, it simply seperates them frome the church in certain ways. Hitler was a Catholic, this is a simple factual statement. We have been through this before, and the fact that you try to make being "Catholic" mean something other than a person is a member of that religion breeds endless arguments. I wish you would stop. - Drogo Underburrow 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, Drogo. Of all religions in the world, it is Catholicism where most certainly not everyone can believe what they like.

For the record: we are here talking about the everyday meaning of Catholic and according to this you can very well go from being a Catholic to being something else. As for the Church's position (which requires much theological knowledge) you even got this wrong: a Christian becomes a Christian fully by baptism (or in a way already by requesting it) and if that happens in the CC the person is a Catholic. A Christian cannot go back to being a non-Christian, he can only go forth to being an apostate. Of course, he can become a non-Catholic. A Catholic is someone who is in fully communion with the Catholic Church. Would you add Martin Luther's religion as Catholic in a user box? He certainly did not die a Catholic. Would you classify a Catholic who became a Buddhist as Catholic? Would you classify all infants as Muslim because Islam thinks so?

In any case, I have discussed real arguments and your pseudo-arguments bazillion times and I have no intention of going into your discussion again. It is your pseudo-arguments that make Catholic mean something different from an adherent to Catholicism. I wish you would stop. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being a Catholic "has nothing to do with beliefs of that person."

"A person can believe anything he likes and be a Catholic."

I'm speechless! ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both sides make this way too much of an issue. Hitler was a Catholic in the sense that he was a member of the church, like lots of people who are nominally members of the religion in which they were brought up. We don't have a problem saying that in most cases - even with notorious criminals. His private views are difficult to be clear about, but certainly towards the end of the war they seem to have become strongly anti-Church. As for Mussolini, his personal views are unclear, but his policies were strongly pro-Church, for political rather than theological reasons (since he wished to create a unified Italian culture). Al Capone probably just didn't think about it much. Paul B 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if my reply seemed too harsh but to see the same stuff rehashed again and again without any argument after a pause of a year ...

The difference between a normal criminal like Al Capone and Hitler is that the latter had his religious, theological disagreements with the Church, whereas the former simply was a criminal, who, as Paul says, didn't think about such things much.

As for Mussolini (off topic here), his policies were not "strongly pro-Church". Sure he signed the Lateran Treaties but that's about it. All this in a deeply Catholic country like Italy. IMHO.

But the point is that we shouldn't be listening to the same old content-empty arguments put forth by Drogo. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This year anniversy just wouldnt be the same without me joinining the debate again. Ah, the nostalgic value. Some issues just never get settled, do they? I think we need to take a complex view of Hitler's being or not being a Catholic, and in so doing the solution is rather simple. In some ways he was, by some standards, and by other standards he falls short. The problem is that, right or wrong, there is no one standard, and we can't dismiss the individuals own testimony about his or her own adherence to a religion. So, that means if Hitler said he is Catholic, and forever would be, then by that (perfectly legitimate standard), one can say he is Catholic. However, others will point out beliefs that may violate some core tenents and say, he is Catholic in name only. Not a true Catholic. The problem with this is that its like the True Scottsman fallacy, and its applying a strict standard (most adherents, even Catholics, do not beleive the things the Church says they are supposed to believe in, or do the things they say they are supposed to to, i.e. not use birth control, etc)--yet they are still recognized as Catholics. I think the solution is to not make any claims ourselves but just report the facts, what sources say. Its what we are supposed to do anyway. We can quote Hitler himself, report what he says about the question, and report what relevant authorities say about the question. Let the reader decide how much of a Catholic, or lackthereof, Mr. Hitler in fact was (or was not). I think this is a reasonable approach.Giovanni33 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler used Religion, like many before and after him, to justify his brutal policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.226.20 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 June 2007.

'Neither of the denominations - Catholic or Protestant, they are both the same - has any future left... That won't stop me stamping out Christianity in Germany root and branch. One is either a German or a Christian. You can't be both.' - Hitler 1933 I found the quote in a history text book by Geoff Layton. Indeed if you looked in any decent book about Hitler then you would notice his anti religious, and specifically anti Christian, views. You want further evidence? His closure of Church schools, undermining Catholic youth groups, campaigns to discredit and harass clergy. One of the basic tenants of Nazism is anti-Semitism. Jesus was a Jew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.145.195 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 June 2007.

We have no idea whether or not Hitler actually said that. It comes from Hermann Rauschning's book Hitler Speaks, which was written in 1939 as an anti-Nazi tract based on what Rauschning claims he remembered Hitler saying. Rauschning was a former Nazi turned anti-Nazi. A lot of it is widely believed to be totally made up. The problem is that a lot of "Hilter said" quotes come from unreliable and biassed commentators. That's not to say it's not true, just that we can really be sure. Even if it is true, it's difficult to know what it means about H's real opinions. Hitler lied to people all the time. He said what he thought would go down well with the person he was talking to. BTW, according to Hitler Jesus wasn't a Jew, he was an "Aryan" Celt (or at least that's what Bormann says Hitler said...) Paul B 11:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler is Catholic by baptism, and Christian by his beliefs (see Positive Christianity), and not pagan or atheist, like so many people prefer to think... In fact, there is not really other reason of Hitler hating Jews so much besides his fundamentalistic Christian beliefs.SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{14:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)}.

I notice that Shitler redirects to Hitler, even though it should be a separate article, as it is the, (perhaps colloquially), used historical term for Hitler's alleged faecal fetish behaviours (involving glass tables and women). If it remains as a redirection, these details should be added to the main article by someone who won't just make it an immature anti-Nazi rant. IamYossarian 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually on closer inspection, 'Shitler' should redirect to the article about Hitler's sexuality, which does in fact note his Shitlerism.IamYossarian 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would Rotten.com's biography on Hitler be enough of a source for this statement?:

"Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil."

Would additional sources be required to back this up? Is Rotten.com even considered a reliable source in this aspect? I thought I'd mention it as I saw they used it on Shoko Asahara. If consensus calls it unreliable, I'll try to remember to remove the statement from there or add a verification tag. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That quote in my opinion is flawed by itself with the phrase "Since the defeat...", seems like a form of Victor's justice. Granted, killing million's goes beyond most people's moral codes, I think stating that he is evil may make it drift from the NPOV. I'm not trying to completly destroy your opinions, in case my post seems that way. --GTPoompt(talk) 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my statement. Nevertheless, it does seem somewhat relevant, as only after the war did all the evidence of the Holocaust reach the general public outside Germany. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating something as evil (or good, for that matter) is undeniably POV. Not everyone cares about morals, or is bound by them. 80.201.181.105 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you discuss Hitler without mentioning evil you've missed his essence.Rexroad 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still POV to say that he's evil without a source to back it up. I'm sure there are plenty of skinheads who think Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread. Or ask old Ahmadinejad over in Iran. Parsecboy 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be POV to say that Hitler (or Stalin) is one of the worst mass murderers in history? It just seems to me that one doesn't need a source to assert that mass murder is evil, and that therefore its perpetrators are evil. If Hitler wasn't evil, then the word evil has no meaning. Rexroad 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered that the word evil might very well have a meaning so drenched with POV (possibly the most POVd word ever) that it cannot be used in articles outside the field of morals, and maybe theology?--SidiLemine 12:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't calling him evil. It's just everyone thinks he's evil. All I wanted was information on a source... --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SidiLemine makes a good point. The word evil is overused. But somehow, it seems to me, Hitler and the nazi racial project require condemnation. I applaud the general goal of avoiding POV. But is it a good idea vis-a-vis Hitler? The page, as Lenin and McCarthy says, is only saying that everyoen thinks Hitler is evil. I think the page should address the concept of evil vis-a-vis Hitler directly. Rexroad 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean the word, "evil", would be used? 'Cause I agree with SidiLemine — and I might even disagree with the notion that Hitler is evil. Evil is an absolute, unquestionable description of what constitutes "bad". "What is bad," though, will always be a matter of opinion, albeit a massively-agreed-upon one — that is, unless we bring god into the picture. That's the only way there can be an unquestionable definition of bad. So, mention of evil means mention of god, of which I don't have to illustrate the inherent problem. I myself don't like the guy, he killed lots of people, and furthermore I think that if you disagree that he was bad then there must be something wrong with you — but I realize that this is only my opinion, which in the grand scheme of things means nothing, and the fact that nearly everyone agrees with me means little more, at least in the context of justifying its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I also don't believe in god, therefore I don't believe in evil. But that having been said I think we can mention the fact that most people think he was evil, as long as we have a good statistical source on that.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If Hitler hadn't burnt down the German Church, a family (Strodes, Pesolds, Ancels, and soooo....many more) would have been living in a German Castle, and be very rich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.146.193 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 June 2007.

Err, what??? Paul B 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there could be a section on Hitler's appearance, i.e. his square moustache, his hairstyle and the fact that they were both popular styles in Germany at the time? Also, it is relatively known that he wore glasses when he needed to, but never in public as he feared it would affect his image. This could be mentioned. Another thing is that Hitler would abandon his brown military uniform in favour of a suit when around the Conservatives he had to work with early in his 'political' career in the Reichstag; not even a swastika could be seen on him, obviously because he wanted to downplay anything he felt the Conservatives could feel threatened by. Perhaps this could be mentioned? Crazy Eddy 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's Candorville comic ([3]) shows a page similar to this one with Hitler's image replaced by a picture of one of the comic's characters. If the images aren't already protected, perhaps today is a good day for at least a temporary protection (much like is done when articles are featured on the Main page). Slambo (Speak) 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This nice image should be included.

A small, but I think meaningful, point on meaning.

On this page, the first reference to Mein Kampf as Hitler's "memoirs," seems both over-mild and helplessly inaccurate. Written by Hitler in 1924, as he served time in prison for his failed attempt to overthrow the elected government of Germany, Mein Kampf was a mixture of autobiography, self-justification, propaganda, racist screed, and a blueprint for Hitler's eventual SUCCESSFUL takeover of the German instruments of governing. As Hitler's declaration of his personal and poilitical philosophy, the book took on a life of its own, both to its adherents and those who rejected its nationalist and racial messages.

Lastly, the worst acts for which Hitler would eventually become infamous had yet to happen when he wrote Mein Kampf at the age of 35, which also challenges the accuracy of calling it his "memoirs." Shlimozzle 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the fact that somebody does stuff after writing their memoirs disqualifies said memoirs from being memoirs. Certainly Mein Kampf is more than just a memoir, but it is a memoir, among other things. john k 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this should be an FA, mayb that's just me. Richardkselby 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is still a long way away. A lot of referencing needs to be done, and then we might have a good shot at GA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Trimming is in order too.--SidiLemine 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please, somebody tell me . was Hitler left-hander? there are not photos, but many people say it.82.198.35.78 06:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are actually several photos depicting Hitler signing documents. He uses his right hand. [4] [5] [6] Paul B 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About 50% of the article has little to do with Hitler. This is supposed to be a biographical entry. Instead of information about Hitler's personality, we read the concise history of the Third Reich, with allusions to the Guernica painting, Operation Husky, and whatnot. The WWII section is a joke, conveniently forgetting that 80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed by the Soviets and dismissing the Eastern front as a sideshow. Instead of that, Hitler's health is discussed, although we have a separate sections about that. Briefly put, the article needs attention of an experienced wikipedian. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:RD/H for further processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A word or two of clarification in relation to to the truly absurd contention that Hitler was not 'technically' a dictator 'as he was elected into office democratically'. Dictatorship is a form of political practice. I know of nothing in theory or example that proves dictatorship and democracy to be mutually exclusive; dictatorships can, and have, emerged through the ballot box. Second, as the contention that Hitler was 'democratically' elected tends to appear from time time, I would like to add some more data in support of Lambiam's rebuttal. At its electoral peak the NSDAP obtained 37.4% of the popular vote in Germany. By November 1932, the last free election to the Reichstag, this had declined to 33.1%. So, even at their most popular the Nazis failed to impress 62.6% of the electorate, and they never achieved a majority in the Reichstag. As Lambian says, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by some shady political manoeuvring amongst the cabal surrounding President Hindenburg. More than that, he was appointed precisely because the NSDAP was showing signs of serious electoral decline. The fear shared by Franz von Papen and his reactionary clique, the real power brokers in January 1933, was that former Nazi voters would move en mass to the Communists, a fear given some support in the November elections, which saw the KPD gaining ground, just as the Nazis lost. So, please, please, no more 'Hitler was elected' rubbish. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:RD/H for further processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was Hitler a weak dictator? This has been the subject of detailed scholarly debate, and is by no means easy to answer. Hitler's style of dictatorship was so different from, say, that of Stalin or Mussolini in a way that makes comparison all but impossible. For one thing he was personally lazy, a vice for which he had been criticised in the early days of the Nazi movement by Gottfried Feder. Other than the exercise of power for its own sake, the Nazi Party, moreover, had little in the way of an organised programme, more a series of vague goals. It was also Hitler's practice to appoint people to office with overlapping areas of authority, which turned the Nazi State into a jungle of competing interest groups and personalities. Hitler intervened rarely to sort out the ensuing mess. All of this contributed to Hans Mommsen's contention that Hitler was "in many ways a weak dictator." (Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 1999 p. 60) From the opposite political perspective David Irving even suggests that Hitler was "probably the weakest leader Germany has known this century" (Hitler's War, 1977, introduction). This view conflicts with others, from Alan Bullock to Klaus Hildebrand, who say that Hitler had both a programme and the power to carry it out.

So, what did the people who knew him best think of the Führer and his working habits? You can have this from the Memoirs of Albert Speer, the man who, perhaps, knew him best of all;

I would often ask myself did he really work? Little was left of the day; he rose late in the morning and conducted one or two official conferences; but from the subsequent dinner on he more or less wasted his time until the early hours of the evening. His rare appointments in the late afternoon were imperilled by his passion for looking at building plans. The adjutants often asked me 'please don't show any plans today'. (1970, p.131)

This lack of a systematic approach to work was made even worse in February 1938, after which cabinet meetings were no longer held. Germany, in a very real sense, ceased to have an effective government machine, with decisions being taken in a manner that allowed civil servants to act. Quite often Hitler was incommunicado in his remote mountain chalet near Berchtesgaden, so that "Ministers in charge of departments might for months on end, and even for years, have no opportunity of speaking to Hitler...Ministerial skill consisted in making the most of a favourable hour or minute when Hitler made a decision, this often taking the form of a remark thrown out casually, which then went its way as an order of the Führer." (J. Noakes and G. Pridham (eds.), Nazism, 1919-1945, vol. 2, State Economy and Society, 1933-1939, 1984, p. 200)

The only argument here against the notion of a weak dictatorship is that this lack of system and structure somehow magnified Hitler's personal power; but it still reduced the effectiveness of the whole Nazi system. Charisma is a card that should never be overplayed. Decisions could and were made, sometimes quickly; but these tended to be in areas of immediate concern to the dictator, particularly over matters of foreign policy. However, on the Jewish question, a matter seemingly central to the whole Nazi programme, the policy was marked by muddle and confusion, until very late in the day. The very best that can be said of Hitler is that, if not weak, he was, as Ian Kershaw has argued, not "master of the Reich" in the sense of being all omnipotent. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please. Was Hitler a weak dictator ? Well now, let me see. Everything and anything and anyone and everyone he wanted, he pretty much got, wouldn't you say ? A few close loyalists at his command, no, think on the order of millions. Slept day and night, would you say ? Who was it again that started the whole world at war ? Where is that dictionary: dictator: one who commands his will on others. Sounds like Mr. H., no ? Weak or strong ? If Hitler was weak, my goodness, imagine the mess if he were strong. Nope to a weak dictorship. Weak of you to think otherwise. -- Free4It 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question is how much of the effect was actually due to his will. Perhaps hate, racism and violence are so easy to get caught up in via human nature alone that Hitler needed to do little more than suggest it in order for it to spread like wildfire. The result itself isn't proof that he was the cause.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Think on this, for as long as you need. Take your comments and filter the H. factor out of them. Pretty mindless reasoning results, it seems to me. But, revisionists who for too long feed on fantasy, while exploring the permuatations of possibilites, become incapable of sustaining reasoned probabilities. Possibly Hitler's dog caused World War II, but probably it was he. Or pursue this thinking: Take a lit match to a dry forest [don't try this without sane parental guidance (an oxymoron, I know)]; to whom shall we attribute the burned bird thirty kilometers away ? The wayward branch all aflame that found its way to the hapless bird's wing ? Or, are you the irresponsible who is responsible ? No, Hilter did not pull every trigger nor release every bomb, but he was the cause of those who did. Hire a gunman to kill your mother and find out who the jury condemns. True, known results do not always reveal their causes, but known causes invariably do reveal their results. With Hitler and violence, both are all too well known. --Free4It 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Free4It, if you read the Kershaw book mentioned in the first para, you wouldn't need to resort to sarcasm and bizarre analogies, and you would know at least the outline of the debate in which you are participating. Mommsen's point is that Hitler's laziness and habit of giving vague verbal orders led to competition by his underlings to 'work towards the Fuhrer', this resulted in a 'polyocracy' of different, overlapping party and state bureaux, in which a process of 'cumulative radicalisation' occurred. This is very different to the pyramid model of authority which describes (eg) Stalin's USSR. It's a serious debate among historians of the subject, and a little knowledge is required to make meaningful contributions. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my mind had wandered when the title was stated, but I thought this was a discussion ascertaining the validity of whether Hitler was the weakest German dictator of the last century ? He was lazy in his managerial approach; he issued directives with contraindicated consequences; underlings were left to read hard meaning into soft ambiguities. Wait a minute, I'm sorry, I'm describing most of today's world leaders. No I don't know what most of them have accomplished; but, back to Hitler. Oh yes, he very nearly brought the entire world to his knees. As perverted a goal as that is, weak is not a description that readily comes to my mind, regardless of the mental fumbleness he and his accolyte puppets used to get there. --Free4It 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that he "brought the world to its knees" doesn't say anything about how much of that effect was due to his efforts. You're skipping over that entire argument and just making an assumption.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If he were there, H. could have used your thinking at Nuremburg. -- Free4It 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no doubt he's one of the parties to blame, along with everyone else who participated,which is why wherever possible they were all charged with war crimes.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Free4It, don't listen to him. I'm fine with your bizarre analogies, because they make your arguments that much easier to put down. If you're comfortable equating a human being to a tree with regard to free will, then your reasoning makes perfect sense. But as far as I'm concerned, if a group of people fall under the influence of one leader to such a degree, I blame them almost as much as him. I guess that's just a matter of opinion though, so we can agree to disagree.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of a metaphor is . . . ? Very good, now you know that a human being, indeed, is not a tree [isn't revelation a wonderful thing] when the intent is metaphorical. But, if you are more comfortable with trees than people, let me put the thought in those terms. A wayward lights the branch of one tree. Subsequently, an entire forest is swept to ruin. How much of the original lighting contributed to the burn experienced throughout? Hitler breached World War II. How much of each life lost is attributable directly to Hitler per se ? Or, although an avalanche clears a swath wider than the direct conection of the initiating pebble, it is to the pebble that consequences are attributable. Or, a fireman filters meaning from an entire city block chewed in flames [any more fire analogies and I am beginning to think that I might be a latent pyromaniac] to learn that a single match struck freshly, in the lower kitchen of unit B12, was the source and the cause of all the destruction. -- Free4It 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm challenging your metaphor as being inapplicable to this case, because trees and buildings don't have free will. They have no choice but to catch fire when a fire is started. People have a choice.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: If you're looking for the most recent archive of this talk page, it's here → Archive 47.

In my edit summary I stated the new archive would be Archive 48, because I mistakenly created Archive 48 before I realized that Archive 47 didn't exist yet. It's corrected now though, as I've moved mistakenly-named Archive 48 page to the new correct name, Archive 47.

08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, the WWII section has 3 subheadings:

5 World War II

• 5.1 Opening moves
• 5.2 Path to defeat
• 5.3 Defeat and death

Which IMO don't reflect accurately the progression of the war - it makes it sound as if after the 'Opening moves' everything rapidly went wrong, when in fact the Nazis gained control of most of northern Europe. For the first 2 1/2 years the war looked to be going Hitler's way. Shouldn't the middle one be something like 'High tide' or 'Rapid advances'? (Can anyone think of anything better?) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard from many people that Hitler had only one testical. The article makes no mention of this, even though I could find several sources from a recent google search. Is this true or was it propaganda spread to make Hitler seem like less of a man? Apparently Napoleon only has one testical as well. It may make for interesting trivia?R:128.40.76.3 16:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're after Hitler Has Only Got One Ball.--Alf ^melmac 16:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was a terrific breakdancer in his early years of prep school.