Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Oops

Folks, I inadvertantly semiprotected this article when it should have been fully protected. Sorry. Now, to all those POV-pushers and reverters: will you please take this to the talk page first? - Ta bu shi da yu 15:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish?

Does anyone know anything about Hitler being part Jewish? seems sort of odd that a jew would go around killing jews, but I guess it's not that odd considering what the jews in Israel are doing to the jews in Palestine right now =(

--RunawayToKelly 06:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't find nothing about it in the trivia thinger and I ain't reading the whole goddamn article so one of you didle bugs had better answer my question!

--RunawayToKelly 06:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Flattery will get you nowhere. --Golbez 07:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
RunawayToKelly has some racial epithets strewn about his personal talk page and claims to be an "Internet Troll". I think he is handily ignored - banned would be better. Michael Dorosh 07:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
GNAA=Troll, self described. Wyss 07:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Since answering Runaway is pointless, I only say: "Welcome back, Wyss". Str1977 10:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks :) Meanwhile, RunawayToKelly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely as a troll account. Wyss 10:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Back to Jewish: George Victor in his book Hitler : the pathology of evil ISBN 1574881329 describes the theory that Hitler may have been part Jewish and part Czech, or at least may have personally believed himself to be, and that a lot of his behaviour is explained as compensating for extremely low self-esteem, and thus he gave himself the mission of ridding the world of Jews, Slavs, and finally himself. Peter Grey 00:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • "May have" doesn't cut it, and psychoanalysis of historical figures is Sunday supplement stuff, best read before lunch (make sure to wash your hands).--shtove 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep and the article itself debunks this old propaganda saw. Anyway remember, everything imaginable has been written about AH, even that he's currently on some planet light years away planning on conquering the earth. Quoting some nut (or sloppy author trying to come up with yet another AH book that'll sell, never mind tiresome concerns about scholarship) isn't enough for a citation in the article. Verifiability is all that matters and there is zero evidence AH was Jewish. Wyss 07:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Hardly "debunked", the article lists it with the other theories regarding Hitler's paternal grandfather (all of which are speculative). And I would be careful about saying 'everything has been written' - documents from World War I have turned up as recently as 1997. Peter Grey 04:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I know it doesn't mean much but I remember from school that Adolf's only relation to Judaism was through a Nanny he had when he was a child. I could confirm this by tommorow p.m if that helps.jstupple7 02:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fascism, Totalitarianism, response to Str1977 post above

  • I acknowledge different theoretical perspectives (liberal, Marxist, social democratic, and conservative), inevitably giving rise to rival generic models. However, ‘fascism’ (small ‘f’, as large ‘F’ is conventionally reserved for the original Italian Fascism) has been widely accepted as a generic term by most historians and writers on political ideology and history, and this is clearly not going to change; the majority of scholars in the field agree that there is substance to warrant such usage. Due to its huge historical impact and brutality, the German National Socialist movement and regime has received the most intensive study, both in its own right and as a possible variety of fascism. But in spite of this Mussolini’s regime remains something of an exemplar for international fascism.
  • I acknowledge differences between Nazism and Italian Fascism. Who doesn’t? I addressed this point in some detail already, stemming both from distinct fascist routes reflective of national differences both for the origins of the differences and the structural political, economic and cultural differences. For instanced there was less popular participation and enthusiasm for the wars (Ethiopia, and Spanish Civil War). In fact large portions of the population were very cynical; fascists and Mussolini were often regarded privately as ridiculous, including all the military swagger, although the idea of Italy becoming a more powerful, influential had appeal. Italy was a nation weak in resources while Nazi Germany possessed the material and human resources to make it potentially the most powerful state in Europe. Italian fascism was still also racist, in ethnocentric and cultural terms, as the use of chemical warfare against the Abyssinians in 1935 showed. It was not for a lack of want that the ‘fascistization’ was more insidious in Germany, than Italy. This had to do with restraints and differences external to its own ideology. The core of the ideology, its historical roots and its core political goals remained basically the same, despite the differences.

The Nazi obsession with a racialism not only afflicted the German Nazis, but also several eastern European nationalist and fascist movements including those in Croatia, Slovakia, Serbia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Ukraine. Anti-Jewish bigotry was rampant in all of these racialist movements, as was the idea of a link between Jewish financiers and Marxists.

I disagree that Rousseau can be said to be the father of Totalitarianism. In fact I disagree that totalitarianism is even possible in a strict sense, outside of works of fiction. Maybe approximations in some ways, best left understood in relative, rather than absolute terms. The Nazi state was massively authoritarian, but was less than ‘total’ in its control. The structuralists/functionalists (essentially a materialist) analysis of historians has largely replaced the more idealist [[[Great Man theory of history ]] outlook, and with some scholars even seeing Hitler as a comparatively weak dictator. While I don’t agree, I do think these methodological approach is more accurate and useful, instead of the almost cartoonish picture that absolute totalitarianism. Even Stalin’s totalitarianism in the Soviet Union was not absolute. I think its best left in fictional accounts of Oceania in 1984. character, although possessing totalitarian aspects.

The work on totalitarianism (Carl J. Friedrich and Zbigniew K. Brzezinski, following that of Arendt), was was soon seen to be inadequate. There’s been a number of serious objections were raised to the applicability it’s criteria to any regimes, fascist or not. The term totalitarian proved to have even more considerable theoretical difficulty than fascist. And today Totalitarianism remains a vague and largely untestable hypothesis, hotly disputed and contested, much more so than fascism itself. To quote, ‘.. the very best that Friedrich and Brzezinski offered was a partial and primitive taxonomic scheme and some schematic accounts of some of the seemingly necessary and contingent conditions for the manifestations of some of the species, or subspecific, properties with which they were concerned… we neither know which traits of totalitarianism might be “essential” or “necessary,” nor can we argue with any confidence that the shared similarities between totalitarianisms mean anything “significant.” …. What we do not have is a general theory of Fascism (much less a general theory of totalitarianism). (A. J. Gregor, 1998, pp. 216-219 and 226-237).

But, this step backwards has not stopped a post-cold war resurgence of right wing Eastern European writing on the totalitarian theme – most of which remains as speculative and unproven as were its 1950s predecessors. Long ago Frederic J. Fleron Jr. remarked that it has become little more than negative label on a for a “bad”system of government’. - examples of which include Sparta, the Empire of Diocletian and Calvin’s Geneva. (cf. ‘Soviet Area Studies and the Social Sciences: Some Methodological Problems in Communist Studies’ Soviet Studies, 19/3: 1968, p. 313.) Arendt’s picture of totalitarianism was far too simplistic and she eventually concluded that her definition could not apply to the Soviet Union, which she ultimately referred to as a ‘one-party state’. Arguably the most devastating single attack on the totalitarian model of fascism came from Wolfgang Sauer’s article ‘National Socialism: Totalitarianism or Fascism?’ (American Historical Review, 73:2 December: 1967). In anycase 'Totalitarianism' not a clean’ scholarly concept, serving instead as an ideological instrument; its impossible to treat it as 'neutral' scholarly analytical tool. Notice that this doesnt have anything to do with favoring communism or Marxism. Its rejection is,though, related to an adoption of a materialist method that is shared by Marxism, which played a big role in developing the social sciences in this way, which informs to some degree the rejection of idealist, organic, theories of the state such as totalitarianism. But, suggesting that one is against the use of this concept because one is really a commie is a little silly. Red baiting is no longer in vougue. :)

Back Rousseau and the French Revolution. I say that it’s more accurate to think of it as one the fathers of all modern social theories; its progeny has thus been called Modernism. Indeed its the reaction to it gives us our modern ideologies. That is, the response to the French Revolution and Rousseau, by Hegel, Marx, and others, that poured into an intellectual stew that served us Marxism, socialism, national socialism, fascism, modern liberalism, modern conservatism, communism, depending on nature of the reaction. The democratic notions embodied in liberalism and Marxism was a positive reaction and development whereas fascism was a reaction against it in general and in particular against Marxism. This is what I meant.

"Fascism is reaction," said Mussolini, but reaction to what? The reactionary movement following World War I was based on a rejection of the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution, and whose early formulations in this country had a major influence on our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity."

  • Liberty from oppressive government intervention; the liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.
  • Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law.
  • Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and this binds us all together.

Benito Mussolini proclaimed, "Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary... does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal."

Modern historians of national culture and ideology like G. L. Mosse make this point, located fascism as part of a much longer European ‘revolt against reason’ and Enlightenment values characteristic of both Italian and German history.

The same point is made in Sternhell, "Modernity and Its Enemies: From the Revolt against the Enlightenment to the Undermining of Democracy," “The Enlightenment was the age of criticism....The principal ideas of the modern age--progress, revolution, liberty, democracy--ensued from criticism. It was the rational criticism of certitudes and traditional values--and in the first place religion--which produced the theory of the rights of man, the primacy of the individual with regard to society....It was the rational criticism of the existing order which allowed society to be conceived as an aggregate of individuals and the state as an instrument in the hands of the individual. The Intellectual Revolt against Liberal Democracy, 1870-1945, ad. Zeev Sternhell (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1996), 12.

"Fascist Romanticism is hatred of the modern world and nostalgia for an organic community of the past…” A prime example is the German Nazis' longing for "the old tribal and feudal Germany, for traditional peasant life in opposition to the big city, it assert that the German Nazi vilification "of the modern world and nostalgia for an organic community of the past" is typically fascist. See ibid., 56-57, 60-63, 69-72.

Also See Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Program, Myth, Reality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990); and H. Stuart Hughes, Consciousness and Society: The Reorientation of European Social Thought, 1890-1930 (New York: Vintage Books, 1958) About the birth of democracy in the wake of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution of 1789, and the subsequent globalization of capitalism, that supports my claims.

“Scholars now recognize the role of fascism in the emergence of anti-Enlightenment movements opposed to the democratic tradition that was the heritage of Enlightenment thought. Indeed, the rise of fascism in Europe responded to a widespread search for spiritual values and "organic" institutions capable of counteracting what was considered the corrosive effects of rationalism (and capitalism) on the body politic. As Pierre Birnbaum notes, democracy's opponents repudiated the Enlightenment principle of a rationalism inherent in human nature and the legitimizing principle of "one man, one vote." In its stead they posited ethnic, regional, and religious forms of national identity, antithetical to political democracy's universalist and rationalist precepts. See Pierre Birnbaum, "Catholic Identity, Universal Suffrage and 'Doctrines of Hatred,'" in The Intellectual Revolt against Liberal Democracy, 1870-1945, ad. Zeev Sternhell (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1996), 233-51.

Fascists, though opposed to Enlightenment ideals were eager to absorb those aspects of modernity that could be reconfigured within their antirational concept of national identity. Thus, historian Jeffrey Herf has documented the Nazis' thorough acceptance of modern industrialism, which has led him to coin the term "reactionary modernism" to describe those thinkers and ideologues under the Weimer Republic and the Third Reich "who rejected liberal democracy and the legacy of the Enlightenment, yet simultaneously embraced the modern technology of the second industrial revolution." See Jeffrey Herf, "Reactionary Modernism Reconsidered: Modernity, the West and the Nazis," in Sternhell (as in n. 8), 131-58; and idem, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Herf's book considers the simultaneous championing of "volkish ideology," "romantic irrationalist ideas," and "modern technology" on the part of such thinkers as Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, and Carl Schmitt, Nazi ideologues Goebbels and Hitler.

To contravene this new social and political order, the Enlightenment's critics turned to alternative philosophical strands, from which they constructed new social systems attuned to the Industrial Revolution yet opposed to the democratic tradition. Antirationalist philosophers and activists such as Maurice Barres, Georges Sorel, and Henri Bergson, antidemocratic sociologists like Gustave Le Bon and Vilfredo Pareto, and racial theorists like Arthur de Gobineau inspired the anti-Semitic blood and soil politics of the Nazis, the creation of fascist myths under Mussolini, the socioeconomics of corporatism, and the theatrical mass politics of fascist regimes and movements throughout Europe. Moreover, concepts and myths were created to reflect regeneration, spiritualism, and primitivism, integrated into the anti-Enlightenment pantheon of fascist values. Over the course of the 1990s historians of fascism began probing this cultural matrix.

By claiming that fascism possessed a "mythic core" Griffin highlights the irrationalism behind fascist ideology and the function of myths as motivating factors among fascism's adherents. He turns to the theory of myth propounded by French political theorist Georges Sorel (1847-1922) to define the fascists' specialized use of this concept--an appropriate association, given Mussolini's self-professed debt to the author of Reflections on Violence (1908). Sorel concluded that the revolutionary transformations instigated by religious sects and political movements arise from the emotive impact of their core myths, defined as those visionary principles that inspire immediate action. For Sorel, myths were decidedly instrumental; rather than providing people with a social blueprint for a future to be created incrementally through political reform and rational planning, myths presented the public with a visionary ideal whose stark contrast with present reality would agitate the masses. In his Reflections on V iolence, Sorel underscored the emotive and antirational nature of myth by defining it as "a body of images capable of evoking all the sentiments which correspond to the different manifestations of the War undertaken by socialism against modern society." Nazi ideology was to supply values that would facilitate the nation's rebirth, pointing out that "the Nazis no more wanted to return Germany to the period of the Volkswanderugen (tribal migrations) or the Holy Roman Empire than the [Italian] fascists wanted to return literally to the age of the Romans or the Renaissance." See Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Pinter, 1991; reprint, London: Routledge, 1993), See Jeffrey Herf, "Reactionary Modernism Reconsidered: Modernity, the West and the Nazis," in Sternhell, 131-58; and idem, Reactionary Modernism: Technology, Culture, and Politics in Weimar and the Third Reich (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984). Herf's book considers the simultaneous championing of "volkish ideology," "romantic irrationalist ideas," and "modern technology" on the part of such thinkers as Oswald Spengler, Ernst Junger, and Carl Schmitt, Nazi ideologues Goebbels and Hitler. In Herf's words, "The reactionary modernists were German nationalists who turned the revolt against materialism away from backward-looking pastoralism.... They saw in technology a thing of beauty, a product of German creativity rather than of Jewish commercialism and internationalism." (Herf [as in n. 8], 134). Central is the idea "of the myth of renewal" to this "alternative" modernism in fascist ideology. See Roger Griffin, The Nature of Fascism (London: Pinter, 1991; reprint, London: Routledge, 1993), 47 (page references are to the reprint). Jaskot's book is indicative o f a new trend in fascist studies that focuses on the competition among various Nazi organizations for economic and cultural hegemony under the Third Reich

Griffin also sees racist eugenics as an aspect of its palingenetic or regenerative ultranationalist orientation. "Espousing "blood and soil" tribalism even as it constructed autobahns, engineered the Volkswagen, and developed advanced methods of factory organization, the Nazi regime--like its Italian counterpart and fascist movements in France--looked to both a mythic past and a technological future in a manner that seems highly contradictory." Fascism is a genus of political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra-nationalism. (p. 26)".

So, we see that the volkish aspect of Fascism are just the paricular varient expression that took form in Nazism. The key here is that fascism is simply the most virulent form of right-wing populism. Not all right-wing populist groups are fascist, but all Fascist groups use right-wing populist rhetoric. They work together in a complex dynamic of demonization and scapegoating leading to ethnocentric repression that often accompanies right-wing populist movements.

Volkish thinkers are one part of this in Nazi Germany. They embraced all things German—the medieval past, the German landscape, the simple peasant, the village— and denounced the humanist tradition as alien to the German soul.

Volkish thinkers abhorred almost everything about modern society—industrialization, urbanization, materialism, party politics, and class conflicts. Capitalism, impersonal and rationalized, destroyed ancient social forms and virtues and alienated people from themselves and each other. Liberalism fostered materialism, individualism and a rational-scientific outlook all of which separated Germans from the true genius, the peculiar character, the soul of the German nation.

The peasant, in close touch with the soil, was believed to be most in touch with this German soul. Urbanization was breaking this link with the soil and thus was a grave danger to the future of the German nation. Germans who lived in cities were urged to return as often and as much as possible to rural areas to get in touch with this real source of German identity and distinctiveness. The idea of lebensraum and the settlement of German farmers in the east, which was picked up and amplified by the Nazis, were based upon this idea of returning as many Germans as possible to agriculture and the connection with the land.

Volkish thinkers yearned to restore the sense of community that they believed existed before industrialization. Only by identifying with their sacred soil and sacred traditions would Germans escape from the rootlessness and alienation of modern industrial society. A return to roots would restore authenticity to life and stimulate creativity. Only then could the different classes band together in an ‘organic’ unity.

Volkish thinkers were strongly attracted to racist doctrines which held that race was the key history. A race retained its vigor and achieved greatness when it maintained its purity; intermarriage was a contamination that resulted in genetic, cultural and military decline. Volkish thinkers claimed that the ‘German race’ was purer than, and therefore superior to, all other races. They claimed that the Germans were descendants of ancient Aryans, the only descendants who had maintained their purity.

This is where racism naturally ties it Imperialism (which btw, is an essential part of the totalitarian model, so its odd that on one hand those that support the Totalitarian label reject describing it as imperialism (Arendt would disagree). Also, anti-Semitism was a very prominent feature of Volkish thought. Some Volkish thinkers wanted a German religion, different from Christianity. Others wanted to harmonize Christianity with ancient Germanic traditions; this was linked with a determination to expunge ‘Jewish’ elements from Christianity.

I think it might help if you if you realize that Fascist ideas constituted a vague ideology rather than, i.e. Marxist-Leninism, an intellectual coherent dialectic. Thus, we are dealing here, not with a precise ideology, but with the loosely formulated aspirations and inchoate impulses, which motivated the fascist movements, but whose elements can be grasps sufficiently for identification.

It’s no accident that Fascism in all its variants (Nazism) display anti-modernism or of social pathological processes in the paths of development it followed. Its raw materials were the forces of militarism, racism, chauvinism, charismatic leadership, populist nationalism, fears that the nation or civilization as a whole was being undermined by the forces of decadence, deep anxiety about the modern age and longings for a new era to begin---all these active ingredients are made possible in contemporary history, forged together into popular, and even mass movements in the inter-war period for both fascism and nazism, and allowed them to eventually to erect a new type of single party state, as a conjuncture of acute socio-political tensions resulting directly or indirectly from the First World War and the Russian Revolution.

To sum up, since the 1960’s the case was strongly made that fascism was in fact a genuine ideology, with its origins and the intellectual revolt against liberalism, rationalism, industrialization and urbanization of the nineteenth century, followed by communism and democracy in the twentieth. Beginning with Ernst Nolte’s ‘resistance to transcendence’ definition, a range of ideologically defined generic models was constructed insisting that fascism can be core defined in terms of its ideas and beliefs. [Nolte, 1966; Gregor, 1969.] The 1970s and ‘80s a number of liberal historians (Renzo De Felice (later moved right), Zeev Sternhell, George L. Mosse, and Stanley Payne) followed up this ideological and historical line of enquiry and established as an accepted fact that generic fascism could be defined, at least in part, through its shared core beliefs. By the early 1990s a second generation of liberal idealist scholars were building upon these earlier works with Roger Griffin’s The Nature of Fascism published in 1991, followed by Roger Eatwell’s article: ‘Towards and new Model of Generic Fascism.’ in 1992.

Thus, Fascism and Nazism, despite their differences, can be viewed as alternative forms of fascist route to modernization. Both were attempts to escape from a perceived spiritual and material crisis in Italy and Germany, with the creation of a new society. Italian Fascism had always been imbued with the modernization myth. Nazi Germany's "reactionary modernism" likewise reflected in Hitler’s Table Talk of nazi’s eventual desire to turn back the clock, in a de-urbanized society. Giovanni33 20:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Gio, I have not yet read all of your post (but I will in time). Just a few remarks on points you raised.

  • I think you are right that there were external factors that limited Fascism as well (notably the existence of a King and the, well, nonchalant attitude of Italians towards laws - as opposed to German efficency - agreed these are clichees, but they have their kernels of truth and you know what I mean), but there were also internal factors involved. You cannot lay the huge difference between people killed by Mussolini 1922-43 and Hitler 1933-45 at the doorstep of external limits.
  • You are giving a good outline of the F vs. T debate - only I disagree with you on the merit of the concept of T. I think both (small case) fascism and Totalitarianism are valid constructs/models (and as not such not real vs. Fascism or Nazism or Communism) that try to elucidate Nazism, both try and both are valid but appearently we disagree on which model is better in doing the job.
  • Saying that T. cannot be achieved in reality is beside the point - the intent of the regimes is what counts - the human factor will always work against perfection, be it good or bad.
  • I agree that the French Revolution is the source of all political ideologies (with the exception of the reactionaries, by which I mean the actual reactionaries of the early 19th century that never had much real impact) - they relate to the FR by affirming some and opposing some (either for being too little or too much). When Mussolini declared F. to be reactionary he was using a term already tainted by polemics - he didn't try to restore the conditions of 1788 (on the contrary, being a Nationalist) and "futurism" was one of the three root movements of Italian Fascism.
  • I must insist on my characterisation of Rousseau - wasn't it he who theorized about the Volonté Generale that he defined a priori and which must be implement even against any opposition. This was the ideology on which Robespierre and Saint Just based their terreur, this was the root of Marxist ideology and of all the atrocities of the Communist world.
  • You are right that actual Fascism is somewhat opposed to ideology ("Our ideology is the act!"), but that isn't true in the case of Nazism, though it is not as easy to find Nazism's actual ideology as the leaders were spinning sometimes conflicting threads - but in the end Hitler is definitive and he is ideologically coherent.
  • I also must disagree with you on the racist character of Fascism. No doubt, Fascists "looked down on the negro" but that doesn't make them any more racist than many Western democratic leaders/societies. However, you won't find any attempts by Italy to exterminate the "racially inferior Abyssianians". The usage of gas is also irrelevant in that respect - Germans and Entente used gas on each other in World War I - does that mean there were racist against each other?

Str1977 23:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad Link

Hey folks, I just noticed that the SA link at the end of "The rebuilding of the party" links to the SA disambiguation page, when it probably should lead to the Sturmabteilung page. Since I can't fix it myself, I thought I'd note it so someone wiser and more powerful than I could fix it quick. Thanks. Cerealkiller13 20:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Serious PoV Concern

Elsewhere, User:Simonides has made the following remark about this article:

The article intro makes Hitler sound like some sort of misunderstood, wayward hero who rescued Germany and led it forward, just as the Nazis used to portray him.

While I thoroughly believe that he has made this statement in total good faith and utter sincerity, I do not agree with User:Simonides. The Holocaust/genocide sentence, along with reference to his having led Germany to utter defeat starkly shows that this was, in polite terms, one of the most disastrous leaders in history. User:Simonides says he has been editing on WP for about a month. I wish he had expressed this stark (and valid) opinion on this page earlier. If he did, I apologize for not seeing it.

It don't think it is encyclopedic or helpful for the intro to make any particular effort in expressing the supportable and reasonable opinion that AH was one of the purest, documented historical examples of evil available (which I happen to agree with). The intro is not an opportunity for op-ed. Let the reader decide: Readers who can't infer a similar opinion from the whole artilce's text as it now stands won't be swayed by an intro anyway.

User:Simonides also "accused" me of thinking AH was "talented and brilliant." I do. One of the starkest lessons of history may be found in the tale of Mr Hitler, that we are led both to meed and to ruin by the most talented and brilliant among us and that all that glitters is not gold. AH was not a cartoon caracature of evil to the tens of millions who supported him during the 1930s, who learned only when it was too late that in addition to being talented and brilliant, he was a raving lunatic. Even Madga Goebbels was expressing doubts along these lines by 1943. Wyss 20:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

For a much more personal (and brief) take on my general thoughts about this sort of thing, readers can have a shufti at this bit on my talk page. Wyss 21:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"evil" is in itself a POV; I personally don't believe in "evil" nor agree that Hitler was a good example of such. The crimes committed by the Third Reich were notable for the banality of the men committing them. The picture of Hitler as the carpet-chewing drooler is appropriate for Punch magazine but not an encyclopedia. Dismissing him as a mere lunatic or madman is a disservice I think t those that followed him, those that fought against him, and those that were victimized and died at his command.Michael Dorosh 21:56, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I do strongly endorse Michael Dorosh's take on this. Wyss 22:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it much matters what we think of Mr. Hitler. I don't think it really mattered that much in the course of history, either, which means I'm not in the intentionalist camp. We need only note the fascist nature of the Nazi Regime, mention its particularities, the history, and the role played by its dictator, however lazy he was himself to do much of the actual dictating. I happen to think that all imperialism, and all fascism is evil, as in immoral, a violation of ethical principals. This imperialist regime under the form of fascism just carried out its class violence and racism in a more concentrated, open and terroristic manner characteristic of fascism--but not essentiallly different in nature than what all the other imperialists did and still do, and that includes US imperialism as well as the classic the British Empire whose sun never set, etc. Its all "evil" and not primarily based on the individual historical actors. Giovanni33 22:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I do strongly disagree with your word usage. It is historically misleading and unhelpful to readers, for example, to conflate American geopolitics with Nazi efforts towards Lebensraum under the fuzzy label imperialism. Wyss 22:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I know you would disagree. We disagree. And, no, it's very helpful when we make the systmatic connection of unjust state power, looking at the driving political and econoimic forces for system of oppression despite their form. Very helpful. Imperialism need not be fuzzy at all if we cofine ourselves with a particular school of thought within imperialist theories. And, I can show historical continuity and accuracy for such a POV. Just to quote Noam Chomsky, on the US supported genocide of East Timor where almost one-third of the Timorese population was wiped out: "The greatest genocide relative to population since the Holocaust, and supported by the US." I'd call that a comprable evil. Like I said you don't have to be a fascist to be an imperialist, although all fascists are imperialists. The millions that US imperialism killed in Vietnam is also pretty evil, and some of it was very Nazi-like, in practice. Giovanni33 22:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely cannot see where this article portrays Hitler as a hero. There were certain pitfalls and much of the discussion has been on avoiding these pitfalls.

I disagree with Michael (and Hannah Ahrendt) that the evil of the Nazi regime was banal. I believe she was blinded by Eichmann's defense strategy who claimed that he was only obeying orders. Other utterances of him however make it clear that he knew and liked what he was doing, namely killing Jews. The evils of Nazism were banal only to the extent that any evil is banal as it violates moral principles open to any ordinary human being (and not just to hypertrained ethicist, these are sometimes the worst offenders themselves). One of these is "Thou shalt no murder!"

I also disagree on "Imperialism" - I agree that it is potentially useful, but as there are reasons against using it and als alternative wordings, I prefer these alternatives. No, it is not useful to try to equate totally different things (though both might still be bad): the US is not Nazi Germany, even when taken a toleration of the Timor genocide into account. Citing Chomsky doesn't make it any better. He might be a great linguist (Ann should comment on this), but his political views are plainly misguided. Str1977 23:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd expect you to disagree with me and the great political thinker, Noam Chomsky. I disagree about imperialism, though, and I still plan on dealing with that subject in depth. Btw, it was not toleration, it was active support, both militarily, violating the arms embargo(as they were running out of bullets), and politically, to quote Chomksy: "Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan -- who was, at that time, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. In his memoirs, he says, the U.S. "wished things to turn out as they did and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the" UN "prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it" might undertake. "This task was given to me, and I carried it" out "with no inconsiderable success." He also knew how things turned out. He goes on to say that, in the next couple of weeks, about 60,000 people were killed -- the same proportion, he says, as the number of people killed by the Nazis on the eastern front. And -- having proudly compared himself to the Nazis -- he then goes on to some other topic.[1] Giovanni33 23:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I disagree on that "great" "political" "thinker".
As far as Timor goes. I don't know the exact facts and so I can't comment on it. Only this much: I think you would agree that murdering Timorians was not the supreme objective of US policy. That doesn't make those guilty any less guilty, but still it is a difference. Str1977 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Its a distinction without a moral difference. My point has only been that other imperialist can be just as evil, even democratic ones, as fascist imperialsts are--that imperialism is just as moraly repugnant. Lets consider a provacative point using "mens rea" analysis of criminal law here. According to Michael Tonry, Professor of Law at the University of Minnesota, "In the criminal law, purpose and knowledge are equally culpable states of mind. An action taken with a purpose to kill is no more culpable than an action taken with some other purpose in mind but with knowledge that a death will probably result. Blowing up an airplane to kill a passenger is equivalent to blowing up an airplane to destroy a fake painting and thereby to defraud an insurance company, knowing that the passenger will be killed. Both are murder. Most people would find the latter killing more despicable." (Malign Neglect, p. 32). Giovanni33 00:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
But a soldier in a war doesn't murder - he kills. And this is how Eichmann, Hoess, and ultimately Hitler felt about what they saw as their "duty".Michael Dorosh 23:27, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Legal definition. If it violates international law, but not your own nations law, is the killing still not murder, even if its unjust killing? Even if the orders are illegal? The Nuremburgh trial I think settled this point by merely following orders doesnt excuse culpability. Killing can still be murder even if you are a soldier in a war. Giovanni33 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
This brings up Kholberg's 4th level of moral development... I was only following orders. There are those who say (and with some basis) that most of the Wehrmacht officers sentenced at Nuremberg shouldn't have been, while responsibility for horrors done in the camps is more tangled. Hitler, Bormann and Himmler, for example, could have been legally prosecuted and sentenced under international law for the industrial genocide of civilians. They knew what was coming one way or another and each killed himself when hope of personal escape evaporated. Wyss 23:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Michael,
a soldier killing in war according to the accepted rules of war (a deficent but necessary crutch) is not a murderer, BUT Eichmann didn't kill in the war (but sent Jews to death factories), Himmler was no soldier until July 1944. And order like the Kommissarbefehl were illegal, as Gio says, according to the accepted rules of war and according to the Wehrmacht's code and there were officers that refused to implement it because of this. Being a soldier doesn't exclude the possibility of murder, as Gio says. Some killings in war are not murder, but other killings are murder even in war. It is the latter category Nazi Germany is rightly beloathed for, not the former. And Nuremberg (though only directed at the losing side) did make that clear.
Ah, and Eichmann was not "just doing his duty as a soldier". He said that in his trial to improve his position. But in an interview, secretly taped, he bragged about killing Jews and did not hide his anti-Semitic motives.
As for conflicting legal spheres. See Natural law (which doesn't change) and rules of war (which are somewhat subject to change - but they did not change at some time between, say, 1920 and 1945).
(Str1977) 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't need a lecture on what Eichmann did - any idiot alive knows that it was murder. My point was - Eichmann obviously didn't see it that way. You do understand that much, yes? Michael Dorosh 17:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Then why did you post what you posted. Don't vent against me. What Eichman himself thought is beside the point. Murder it was. Str1977 17:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
You honestly don't "get" that evil is a POV? I mean, really? And you don't understand that the whole idea of labelling Hitler as "evil" is a POV issue? If Hitler, Eichmann and the thousands, perhaps millions, of "good Germans" who willingly participated in the industrial slaughter of 11 million people didn't see themselves as "evil", what point is there in our labelling them as such? It only serves to lessen the impact of what they did, as we can simply ascribe it to mental illness or some other reason that invites incredulity. I rather thought inviting credulity was the point of an encyclopedia. Do you disagree?Michael Dorosh 19:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Now I see your point - a misunderstanding. No, I don't think saying these guys are evil on the talk page is POV (or rather - it is POV but not according to Wiki policy). In the article, I totally agree with you, we should be saying that. Please look at my post at the bottom of the section. However, IMHO there are standards that stand even when self-perception is blurred or blind. But you are right about the article. Satisfied? Str1977 (smile back) 20:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Clearly saying anything is "evil" is a POV. Its subjective and depends on what moral yardstick you user; its based on ideological lens which changes. I think all capital punishment is just as evil as any kind of murder is. Thats my POV. Giovanni33 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
There's that tale about Goering while on trial at Nuremberg and one day he was in the prison courtyard walking about with other defendants and Jews were mentioned in the course of a conversation. A guard overheard him say (I'm paraphrasing, sorry), "Jews? I thought we killed them all!" The clear implication being there was, under the law, no military justification. Wyss 00:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sigh. Half my time on WP is spent refuting strawmen because some people either can't or won't read or enjoy disingenuousness for the sake of it. A whole section discussing bollocks! How sadly symptomatic.
First, to correct Wyss, I linked to and discussed this paragraph, which of course she doesn't understand or doesn't mention:
Second, I started by saying This was my first edit, less than one month ago, to the article on Hitler. Not This was my first edit on Wikipedia. I first came to WP over a year and a half ago but quit for several months, but that's irrelevant - even if I was here just a month ago it is no indication of credibility, given that some long-time editors here are simply clueless.
Third, it appears Wyss is engaging in Wikistalking.
Fourth, the POV that I discussed with Gio33 becomes more evident everyday, now that Str1977 makes his opinion of Chomsky clear. (Not that Chomsky is a political thinker - but he is one of the few important activists with scholarly authority.)
Fifth, there is no affirmative, scholarly documentation to prove that Hitler was either extraordinarily talented or brilliant. This is purely subjective opinion that some scholars differ on, but regardless of consensus, it remains a matter of interpretation. It's a clear example of a 'point of view'.
Finally, I personally never brought up or mentioned the word evil - the word does not mean a lot to me. However, I've read enough or watched enough memoirs of the Holocaust/WW2 and of Stalinism to at least vaguely grasp the scale and the great many nuances of what victims of either went through, compared to which the aleatoric debates on 'lack of good' and 'law vs responsibility' are mere shuffling of feet, the silliness of naive children trying to make sense of adult things. There are many problems with the approach to the article, but a key one is that some people here are so wound up on understanding the Nazis that they fail to see anything else, as if understanding American Republicans - merely a bunch of idiots or ignoramuses, most of them amoral, manipulative and greedy people with no insight into or empathy for anything - gives us any profound truths about humanity or the crime of the Iraqi invasion. -- Simonides 06:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Simonides & Wyss, could you please stop this bickering. Simonides, Chomsky might be a great linguist but he has no more authority to base his political utterances on than you or me or Wyss or Gio or whoever. Interpretation gets cited all the way in WP - if scholars agree on this it wouldn't be POV (Not to say that it isn't). And IMHO it is safe to say that Hitler had some talents and made use of them. We needn't include "evil" into the article (and I am not sure who suggested that) - let's report the facts and any human being in his right mind will come to the conclusion by himself. Str1977 08:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My points were not addressed only to Wyss.
Chomsky has plenty of authority based on the several books he has written, none of which reflect shoddy scholarship, something Chomsky knows a great deal about, although many people may differ with him on matters of interpretation. As an activist, he certainly has much more authority than anyone on this page, and to claim otherwise is just silly.
What does it mean to say Hitler 'was talented'? Every other employee of a local mafia is 'talented' in much the same way, ie in thuggery, deception, self-conviction, manipulation, self-promotion, apathy towards basic human rights, the value of a human life, etc, which is not very different from many politicians, of course. If that's what you mean (ie base resourcefulness), then yes, he was 'talented.' -- Simonides 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
The point was the User:Simonides claimed the intro as it stands made Mr Hitler out to be a misunderstood hero. Discussion of the term "evil" was only a tangent, although through that discussion I did manage to gain some insight into Simonides' PoV. Wyss 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that 1) you misquoted me and after my clarification continue to misrepresent my comments, intentionally or not; 2) your idea of NPOV has little to do with objectivity and more to do with a sort of kindergarten philosophy where fairness means giving every point of view, even unfounded ones, equal representation - after all everyone has a token amount of good in them! In any other context one could simply laugh this off but here it seems foolish and provocative. -- Simonides 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that the intro makes Hitler out to be a misunderstood hero - I just wish it enjoyed better phrasing. But I agree with the wicked Chomskyite User:Simonides that use of the term evil is out of place - do articles on the war efforts of Germany's enemies describe their leaders as good? POV is okay, as long as it's NPOV. And I like to hear the bickering: here's to the day when Wikipedia develops video-conferencing (with tomato ketchup special effects).--shtove 22:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The intro as it stood, ie the version I quoted above, supports my comments, in my opinion.
I'm all for ketchup-throwing video-conferencing so long as they make effective morning-after pills for the same. -- Simonides 06:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the intro makes Hitler out to be a hero either (quite the contrary). Since these discussions have become a bit convoluted and extended (which is normal) I suppose I should make it clear that I have never, ever supported the use of the term evil in the AH article, don't even use the term myself and would work hard to remove it if it ever showed up there. The term is ultimately PoV and utterly undescriptive in any scholarly context. Wyss 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me while I step over the edit war

Could somebody sub-cat him from :suicides to :Politicians who committed suicide for me? Much thanks, we're trying to clean up the :suicides category. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 11:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Who would do that for Sherucij? I doubt anybody would object. Agathoclea 20:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

hitler's death

no one knows for sure what happened to hitler in the end. The current version only includes 1 theory:

"Hitler committed suicide in the Führerbunker on April 30, 1945 by means of a self-delivered shot to the head (it is likely he simultaneously bit into a cyanide ampoule). Hitler's body and that of Eva Braun (his long-term mistress whom he had married the day before) were put in a bomb crater, partially burned with petrol by Führerbunker aides and hastily buried in the Chancellory garden as Russian shells poured down and Red Army infantry continued to advance only two or three hundred metres away.

When Russian forces reached the Chancellory they found his body and an autopsy was performed using dental records (and German dental assistants who were familiar with them) to confirm the identification. To avoid any possibility of creating a potential shrine the remains of Hitler and Braun were repeatedly moved, then secretly buried by SMERSH at their new headquarters in Magdeburg. In April 1970, when the facility was about to be turned over to the East German government, the remains were reportedly exhumed, thoroughly cremated, and the ashes finally dumped unceremoniously into the Elbe."

I think it should be changed to something like: "There are many theories as to what happened to hitler next. though some believe he escaped most people agree that hitler committed suicide in the bunker (along with Eva Braun). his body was burnt by the soviets so as not to create a shrine for neo-nazis)."

The overwhelming historical consensus is the version carried by the article. Please don't confuse pop fiction and unscholarly, fringe speculation with the documented record. Wyss 17:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, don't confuse missdocumentation with "pop fiction". There is no capital proof of the found scorched body to be really Hitler's.--Lacrymology 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

There should be some reference to other theories (which by the way I think are wrong) as some of them are plausable. --St jimmy

We should stick with historical research. Str1977 (smile back) 16:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not an issue of whether theories are plausible, it's whether historians accept it as a potential alternative and whether it's existence is verifiable. If there are other theories, aside from the politically-motivated / sensationalist nonsense, they should be included, although to my knowledge there aren't any theories that would qualify. Peter Grey 16:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The version i was always taught and which I believe was the historical consunsus for years was that Hitler's body was burnt in the Street by the Red Army. where did all this SMERSH stuff come from? St jimmy 16:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What is it with users trying to single out figures?

In the title paragraphs, it stated that the Holocaust lead to the death of about 11 million people. THEN it explicitly singled out the figure of 6 million Jews. Wiki is supposed to be an unbiased NPOV site. I don't think ANY figure should gain special attention or be singled out.--Secret Agent Man 03:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since that was by far the largest group, I don't see why not. If a serial killer kills 30 prostitutes and ten random men, are we barred from mentioning that the main aspect of his death was prostitutes? --Golbez 04:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yep (as per Golbez). It's already NPoV. Wyss 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you should be able to give the figure for jews as long as you give the figures for all the other minorites he killed as well. Something like: "The Holocaust lead to the death of 11million people, 6 million Jews, x million slavs, etc." --St jimmy
I don't feel this is a requirement; as pointed out, the largest group of the murdered warrants the "special" attention. Listing all the other classes would be a waste of space (particularly in the intro) as well as unsupportable by documentation, as the numbers vary.Michael Dorosh 15:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
To deny that Hitler was particularly out to get the Jews would be POV. He didn't set out, e.g., to kill every Pole in Europe, while, otoh, he did attempt to try to kill every Jew in Europe. See, e.g., Nuremburg Laws, Final Solution, Wannsee Conference, etc. -- Sholom 15:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
We should remove the death toll from intro as soon as possible. --Haham hanuka 17:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Why? You haven't indicated a reason.Michael Dorosh 18:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
He never does. Haham just comes along randomly and tries to slip it out of the intro. --Golbez 18:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me for not taking him seriously, but his user page only lists his edits on articles regarding pornography starlets. It's hard to assume good faith with so little in the way of credentials. I also don't understand what the comment below has to do with the question. But I'm glad to see his Yad Vashem claim debunked. I think someone is wasting our time.Michael Dorosh 19:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a genocide but the Japanese death toll is not mentioned in Harry S. Truman. Maybe we should add the death toll of Iraq war to George W. Bush?. Not to mentions that the real number of death is a smaller. Even Yad Vashem admiting the death toll was less than 6 million. --Haham hanuka 19:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Facts: Quote Yad Vashem website: "Yad Vashem, Jerusalem, is the Jewish people’s memorial to the murdered Six Million and symbolizes the ongoing"... Agathoclea 19:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
[2] and don't forget it is a propaganda website. --Haham hanuka 19:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That page shows that it is mathematically correct to use the figure 6 Million whereas you would not be able to use 6.0 Million. What are you trying to prove? Hitler was innocent of the charge of killing 6 Million Jews because he only killed 5.999.999? Agathoclea 21:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point (look at what I wrote on top). By the why 5,100,000 is not 6,000,000. --Haham hanuka 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
The article you quote summarizes the number of various studies which suggest a number of different ranges where the lowest starts at 5.1Mill, as 6Mill. Most if not all ranges average above 5.5Mill. We don't have a headcount. We just have estimates. Historians in general agree on a figure around 6Mill. Therefore we stick with it, at least until someone finds some reliable tick-list of how many people have been killed. Agathoclea 16:57, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  • If a figure is used, it needs to be verified and more importantly it need to be specific in terms of what is included. Frequently these numbers get manipulated by including/excluding counts such as regular caualties of war, or pogroms not part of the Holocaust. Peter Grey 15:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Agree --Haham hanuka 16:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • There exist various readings up to 26 Million, but historians do have a consensus on a mainstram number. Agathoclea 18:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture Caption

It's only a minor thing but under one of the pictures is the caption. "One of Hitler's most beautiful paintings." This isn't an objective statement.

I hadn't noticed someone changed that. It's an inappropriate caption. Wyss 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
It should be removed. --Haham hanuka 16:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Someone suggest a new caption and I will post it together with the above category change as a edit request on the protection page.Agathoclea 16:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion - While Hitler did not lack basic artistic talent, as evidenced by this (19XX) watercolour, it was not considered sufficient to warrant admission to art school. If anyone has detailes on the date of this work, it might be appropriate to add also. Michael Dorosh 17:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer this caption:

Suggestion - Instructors at the Vienna Academy told Hitler that he had a talent for drawing buildings, but rejected his application for admission twice, suggesting he study to be an architect instead.

That's NPoV, drawn directly from the historical record and gets the point across. Wyss 18:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

It's also slightly confusing given that the painting in question is a landscape with no buildings in it. It also seems rather "conversational" in tone and wordy. Perhaps this:
Suggestion - After two rejected applications to the Vienna Academy, Hitler was informed his talents were in drawing buildings and it was suggested he pursue architecture instead.
Incidentally, though, I don't think it is POV to indicate Hitler had basic artistic talent - is that not what the picture is trying to prove? It's non-judgemental; if he didn't have "basic" talent you wouldn't know that it was a tree, a mountain and a waterfall, right? :) Michael Dorosh 18:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
We agree on that stuff. How 'bout this...

After two rejected applications for admission to the Vienna Academy, Hitler was told he did have some talent for drawing buildings and it was suggested he study architecture instead.

The recommendation was specifically that he "study" architecture. As I recall, their recommendation was made in the context that he might be capable of being an architectural draftsman. He may have subsequently told his family at least something about this, since Paula years later did mention he'd had plans "to be an architect" at one point. As we know, he never enrolled in any school after his rejection by the academy and within about a year had drifted into homelessness, finally asking for assistance from a homeless shelter which ironically was financed by a Jewish philanthropist. Wyss 18:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Support - sounds good to me. Michael Dorosh 18:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
If there is no other suggestion by the morning (GMT) I put the request in. Agathoclea 19:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oops, further suggestion. The other image of a Hitler painting (Laon France) has buildings in it and it does rather illustrate the advice he was given. I propose it be captioned...

A watercolour by Adolf Hitler depicting Laon, France. After two rejected applications for admission to the Vienna Academy, Hitler was told he did have some talent for drawing buildings and it was suggested he study architecture instead.

The second image, the amberish landscape, could be captioned...

A landscape painted by Adolf Hitler.

Wyss 01:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


request done [3] Agathoclea 14:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

and then they change the policy on how an edit is requested :-( -template removed- change the captions on some pictures on the Hitler article Adolf_Hitler#Early_adulthood_in_Vienna_and_Munich see [4] The first image should be:

A watercolour by Adolf Hitler depicting Laon, France. After two rejected applications for admission to the Vienna Academy, Hitler was told he did have some talent for drawing buildings and it was suggested he study architecture instead.

The second image, the amberish landscape, should be captioned...

A landscape painted by Adolf Hitler.

Further there was a request [5] to change categories from :suicides to :Politicians who committed suicide which was not contested

Agathoclea 15:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Done now. Agathoclea 07:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO the picture caption should only describe the picture - the other information (rejection - architecture) is already included in the article's text. Str1977 (smile back) 11:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The notable point (but not relevant to the caption) was that Hitler had technical talent for drawing, but was unable to capture emotion in his painting. Peter Grey 13:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to have a picture, can someone please explain why we need TWO? What is the point of the second one, "A landscape painting by Adolf Hitler"? Mao Zedong wrote poems, but encyclopedias tend to be more interested in millions of deaths. Likewise here. Camillus (talk) 13:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Hitler's daubings is a pathetic, sick joke

None of Hitler's paintings should be included in the article. This article should reflect the mainstream, scholarly, encyclopedic fact that Hitler was the creator of the most vile political philosophy, and one of the most brutal, murderous regimes, the world has ever seen. Discussions of Hilter's "art" should be left to www.finalsolution88.com and their ilk. (I assume MD was joking when he wrote "if he didn't have "basic" talent you wouldn't know that it was a tree, a mountain and a waterfall, right? :)". A five-year old can draw a recognisable tree).

In memory of the tens of millions who died as a direct result of this evil barbarian, move the pictures to Wiki commons, or delete them.

Also, Hitler's regime didn't "collapse" - it was ground into the dust, utterly destroyed, mostly by his "racial inferiors". Camillus (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This articleis a biography of Adolph Hitler. His art "career" was played a major part in his early life and was part of the course that led him to where he ended up. It is necessary to include it. Not to include it would violate NPOV (because you are focusing on just 1 aspect of his life). The pictures are necessary to shows us what Hitler's art was like and to allow us to make up our own minds as to weather Hitler had artisic talent or not.
Who gives a toss whether he had artistic talent? Rather pales into insignificance compared to his later career. And why TWO pictures? How about some pictures of nice Mr. Hitler with some small children or dogs? Camillus (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
"Who gives a toss wheather he had artisitic talent?"
lots of people. Most people already know that Hitler was an evil bastard. people dont look him up on Wiki to be told that. They want to find out something they didn't know about him. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. if you just focus on the holocaust (which is what you seem to be suggesting) then you are expressing your point of view. St jimmy 11:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
It goes to his character and the notion that there is no such thing as "complete evil". Hitler demonstrated artistic ability and his perception of himself as an artist had a great effect on how he lived his life, the relationships he maintained (ie he viewed Speer as a "fellow artist"). What point would there be in having an article that said "Hitler was bad, he killed 11 million people and started a World War. The End."? The idea is to give a sense of the man, who like all humans was complex.Michael Dorosh 05:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Why TWO pictures? One is quite sufficient. The second one adds no information whatever to the article. Camillus (talk) 10:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Also to use the terms "ground into dust" or "destroyed" would be POV. St jimmy 13:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The Soviet Union "collapsed". Hitler's regime was destroyed. Those are facts. In terms of Hitler's regime "collapsed" is not just POV, it's patently historically wrong. Camillus (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Collapsed and destroyed (in this context) mean essentially the same thing. collapsed is more commonly used by historians. St jimmy 11:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Collapsed indicates an internal process, that certainly was showing at the end of WW II. Agathoclea 18:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The pictures of paintings are essential in giving as much info as possible in such a small document. Collapsed is a rather weak term for the state of Germany at the end of the war, and I'm not convinced having two large armies invade your country is particularly an internal process. Destroyed is too harsh and not entirely accurate (eg: The Brandenburg Gate and the Reichstag are still standing and several million Germans from the time survived.), It could do with something more accurate. PhilipPage 23:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Collapse" does not imply a merely internal process, a thing can collapse when confronted with something external. Collapse is a common term for the end of the Third Reich and it has the advantage of being contemporary. 1945 was commonly referred to by Germans as the "Zusammenbruch", not only of the regime but also of all German statehood. Str1977 (smile back) 23:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism

This page is obviously anti semetic as it says hitler in a positive light and smyphathizes with him

Ideally, it shouldn't portray Hitler in either a positive light or a negative light. Maybe you're upset that this article doesn't explicitly condemn Hitler's actions? If so, you should know about the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy, which requires us to present subjects neutrally without making moral judgments (although we can report that most of the world thinks Hitler was evil). It should be clear to any sane reader that Hitler was an incredibly awful person, but it is up to readers to form this conclusion. Rhobite 22:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
This article in no way characterizes AH in a positive light. Some readers sadly confuse talent, charisma and ability with ethics and meed. It's not what you've got, but what you do with it that matters.
AH had loads of helpful and worthwhile characteristics, which contributed to his gaining absolute control of one of the world's most technologically advanced countries and also made it possible for him to do so much harm. Truth be told, many people found him quite charming. If readers experience dissonance in reconciling that with the industrial genocide and amazingly destructive world war he precipitated, perhaps they'll learn something helpful. The article is impressively NPoV and solidly grounded on the documented record. Read... and weep. Wyss 23:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism"

I was a tad disappointed to see this figure classified under "vegetarians." The man was known to promote the diet, but often consumed a plethora of meats, including pork and game. Request this category be removed. --AWF

With all due respect, the historical record does not support your assertion, although some fringe vegetarian publications do make these wholly unsupported claims, wontedly by applying references to his diet in the 1920s to what he ate after 1932. By the standards of the time, AH was a practicing vegetarian from the early 1930s until his death. He avoided eating meat and by the early 1940s at the latest was abstaining altogether aside from animal products which may have now and then been slipped into his meals and medicines without his knowledge. Readers are strongly cautioned not to conflate vegetarianism with an ethical life, although I realize some enthusiastic vegetarians struggle with the notion these are separate things. Wyss 22:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


I beg to differ. The record does support AWF's assertion. Also, Vegetarianism is motivated by ethics as much as it is by health or other concerns (environmental). Its clear the Hitler's alleged vegetarianism is not driven by ethical concerns but a result of a doctors recommendation for health problems and his fear of contracting cancer. Ones practices, including dietary practices, are an important part of ones ethical life. But, we must also look at the motivations for these actions. Even, so Hitler still ate meat.
As I said Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet for a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, and others, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other cured meats. We have the testimony of the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s - Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel often." – From a review by Rynn Berry that appeared in the Summer 1995 issue of Vegetarian Voice. New York Times posts a correction – Hitler “did eat at least some meat.” – From a Jewish Vegetarians of North America news release. http://jewishveg.com/media12.html The link includes more information about Hitler's meat eating and the fact that the Nazis banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the lands they invaded and occupied.
The March 15, 2005 New York Times "Corrections" box included the following important item on page two: "A film review about 'Downfall,' which looks at Hitler's final days, referred incorrectly to his diet. Although the movie portrays him as vegetarian, he did eat at least some meat.” While it is true that Hitler's doctors put him on a vegetarian diet to cure him of flatulence and a chronic stomach disorder, his biographers such as Albert Speer, Robert Payne, John Toland, and others, have attested to his liking for ham sausages and other cured meats. Even Spencer says that Hitler was a vegetarian from only 1931 on: "It would be true to say that up to 1931, he preferred a vegetarian diet, but on some occasions would deviate from it." He committed suicide in the bunker when he was 56 in 1945; that would have given him 14 years as a vegetarian, but we have the testimony to the contrary of the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s - Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel often." – From a review by Rynn Berry that appeared in the Summer 1995 issue of Vegetarian Voice. Giovanni33 18:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Unprotecting?

This article has been protected for a ridiculously long period. Is there any reason why you chaps cannot be trusted to, you know (I almost feel scared to use the word) edit the article? --Tony Sidaway 02:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

i agree...it is rediculous

Brauau

Do we really need such a circumstantial sentence heading the "childhood ..." section:

"Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, at Braunau am Inn, Austria, a small town 90 km (55 miles) west of Linz in the province of Upper Austria, on the bank of the River Inn, which formed the border between Germany and what was then Austria-Hungary."

I propose the following version:

"Adolf Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, at Braunau am Inn, Austria, a small town in Upper Austria, on the border to Germany."

Thoughts? Str1977 (smile back) 09:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and the Briefs Controversy

What's this doing here??? --Sunfazer (talk) 10:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed it as off-topic detail. Str1977 (smile back) 11:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

It is sad but I guess we need to semi-protect again - Roha is running wild again. Str1977 (smile back) 11:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've semi-protected. Not an ideal solution, but ROHA wasn't by any means the only one making mischief in the last twelve hours. AnnH ♫ 11:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Colour picture

I propose to put a colour pic to the infobox, also the current if exists. Brandmeister 14:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Vote (Important!)

See my comments on section 26 in this page [6] --Haham hanuka 17:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove death toll from intro

PhilipPage 00:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC) comment I vote for removal not to sanitise, censor or apologise for anything. The death toll of the Nazi Holocaust is covered very well over at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust#Death_toll so why not just point to that? PhilipPage 00:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't remove

  • Agathoclea 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Brandmeister 18:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Camillus (talk) 00:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • There are three things constant in life. Death, taxes, and Haham hanuka trying to cleanse the intro. --Golbez 01:08, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • St jimmy 10:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Str1977 (smile back) 10:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Can someone explain why should we keep it there? --Haham hanuka 20:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Answer: Because a large amount of people were killed as a direct result of Hitler's ideology, command, and actions. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
      • But a large amount of people were killed as a direct result of George Bush ideology and actions (or almost every US president)... Should we write about this on their intro's? --Haham hanuka 20:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Couldn't resist this delicious opportunity: YES!!--Lacatosias 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
        • That is an invalid arguement. The statement that George Bush is responsible for the deaths of x amount of people is disputable, or at the very least incomplete. George Bush did not overtly order any large-scale troop movement anywhere until after the September 11th attacks. Therefore, you would have to argue seperate points to get to that final point that George Bush is directly responsible for the deaths of many people. Additionally:
          • While Bush is [weakly] arguably responsible for some thousands of deaths, Hitler is unarguably responsible for several millions of deaths.
          • The War on Terrorism is not easily argued to be stared by either side (Americans or terrorist groups). Hitler's campaign of expansion was unarguably a German-sparked conflict.
          • George Bush is not waging a campaign of genocide, as Hitler was. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 20:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Peter Grey 06:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Sadly, wars, racism and violence against ethnic/religious minorities are not unique. But genocide on an industrial scale is profoundly noteworthy. Being a casualty of warfare is something different from being murdered by your own government for stupid reasons. The problem is that Hitler caused so many deaths directly or indirectly that it's hard to sort out all the numbers.
Well that and being consistent. The Japanese Empire was as brutal as the Third Reich but there's no opening paragraph mention of it on the Empire of Japan entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_empire, nor on any of the related Japanese Prime Minister pages nor in the opening of the Hirohito page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showa_Emperor. To me this suggests a eurocentric approach which verges on the POV, and the acceptance that our objectivity is limited by our geography.

Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes#War_crimes "It may be pointless to try to establish which World War Two Axis aggressor, Germany or Japan, was the more brutal to the peoples it victimised. The Germans killed six million Jews and 20 million Russians [i.e. Soviet citizens]; the Japanese slaughtered as many as 30 million Filipinos, Malays, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Indonesians and Burmese, at least 23 million of them ethnic Chinese. Both nations looted the countries they conquered on a monumental scale, though Japan plundered more, over a longer period, than the Nazis. Both conquerors enslaved millions and exploited them as forced labourers — and, in the case of the Japanese, as [forced] prostitutes for front-line troops. If you were a Nazi prisoner of war from Britain, America, Australia, New Zealand or Canada (but not Russia) you faced a 4 % chance of not surviving the war; [by comparison] the death rate for Allied POWs held by the Japanese was nearly 30 %." PhilipPage 23:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Michael Dorosh 00:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC) for the reasons tiresomely repeated here ad infinitum.

What kind of moustache?

Is there a name for the type of moustache that Hitler sported? His name is mentioned in the moustache page but the style of moustache isn't, and I'm looking for this info to describe a Japanese comedian who sports a similar moustache (I'd rather not say that he's copying Hitler).  freshgavinΓΛĿЌ  01:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Over at Moustache it is called a toothbrush. Str1977 (smile back) 10:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

just corrected your link St jimmy 10:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-WP comment

who cares about nuetrality??? No one wants to listen to anyone who says that Hitler was good. Wikipedia has facts right? Fact: Hitler=Evil He doesnt deserve nuetrality. unsigned by 68.116.187.228

Wikipedia is about neutrality, for one. Without neutrality, history becomes skewed and incorrect. Wikipedia strives for the truth in all matters.

Secondly, your opinion on Hitler may not be the same as another's opinion on Hitler. Just because you hate him, doesn't mean another person doesn't love him.Burnthetown 08:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a matter of wheather he 'deserves' neutrality or not. Every article in WP gets neutrality no matter what the writer's opinion is. It's an encyclopedia. Have you ever seen an encyclopedia with Hitler=Evil in it? St jimmy 10:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose it could be included as a linguistic reference. That is, when someone is accused of "being a little Hitler", they are being called evil. StuRat 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
But this isn't a dictionary. Burnthetown 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
And even then I don't think "Little Hitler" is primarily "Evil" but rather "Dictatorial" mostly used when someone overstretches the authority given to him. Agathoclea 20:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Put it in wikitionarySt jimmy 10:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
That would need some more research first. Until then enjoy this. Agathoclea 11:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I love it! St jimmy 12:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Ballroom dancing

Hitler was a very well-known ballroom dancer in his time... why isn't this included in the article? Suebee stalker 09:32, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Because no source was provided for this info?Michael Dorosh 20:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Did he win any competitions? I am a well-known ballroom dancer by the people that know me - I don't even have an article. Agathoclea 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You didn't lead a nation to taking over Europe and nearly beating all world powers. Famous people have their hobbies in their biographies, and Hitler is arguably the most famous individual in history. He wasn't a great painter, but it is still important that he was interested in painting. That being said, I have yet to find anything on his ballroom dancing. Burnthetown 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Grin - That was actually the point I was trying to make - "Was he noted for it" - With the pictures it was easy - we can enjoy (or not) them on the page. Agathoclea 20:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_31&oldid=1146509020"