Talk:Beer Hall Putsch

"Hitler Legalité

"Later on, the German people would call him Hitler Legalité or Hitler the Legal One." Where is the source for this preposterous claim? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.105.222 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

the given source is this 'Enigma: The Caldwell Series'

Amazon: 'Engima is the continuation of the story begun in the novel LONDON. It is a work of fiction...'

a fictious novel may not be the best source i guess???12:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)12:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.172.96.141 (talk)

Quick Question

How could the putsch be inspired by Mussolini's march when it occurred a year later?Radnompieceofgarbage (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

This article was changed to incorrect dates, which has now been reverted. The Mussolini march was in October 1922 and this event was November 1923. Kierzek (talk) 15:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

"Hitler himself was not wounded during the clash"

It says that "Hitler himself was not wounded during the clash" but this is not entirely accurate. He suffered a dislocated shoulder during the putch. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:32, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be considered an injury, not a wound. Kierzek (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Aren't "wound" and "injured" synonyms? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

No. That is incorrect English. A "wound" is tissue/body damage that is the result of intentional infliction by another; and is caused by a weapon or something used as a weapon, like a blunt instrument or it could even be from a teeth bite, for example. A soldier is wounded in battle.

An "injury" is something one suffers by accident, such as the result of a "slip and fall" or auto accident. A construction worker on a job site suffers an injury. No one has intended you harm or acted maliciously towards you. Unfortunately, like a lot of words and grammar these days, they are not used correctly even by some teachers and professional writers (especially on the web, it seems), who should know better. But, thanks for asking. Footnote: one could say all wounds are a type of injury, in a general sense; however, the opposite is NOT true. All injuries are not wounds. Kierzek (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the sentence is confusing since the terms are considered synonyms.[1] Is there a way to change the wording of this sentence to make it more clear? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Oxford Dictionary spells out the difference I stated above; see: https://en.oxforddictionaries.com. A wound is a type of injury in general, but not the reverse. With that said, why not change it to: Hitler was injured during the clash, when he suffered a dislocated shoulder, blah, blah, blah. You can put the detail in there as to how he was pulled down. I am at work so I don't have access to my home library for detail and RS citing of it. I can probably get to it soon, if you don't get to it before then. I have been very busy with work and real life lately. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• -Adolph Hitler Leaving Landsberg Prison- MET DP275747 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Source for section: "At the front of the march"

I believe there is quite a bit of misinformation in the above mentioned section.

Unfortunately it gives no reference or source to ascertain where the information was taken from, however the information on the page is contradictory to a first-hand account from Alfred Rosenberg in the first volume of Blut und Ehre (Pg. 96-97).

In this he states that Hitler was at the centre of front row, flanked to the right by Ludendorff, Göring, Graf, and Streicher, and to the left by Gräfe, Feder and Kriebel. Rosenberg himself was in the second row, directly behind Hitler, with Schickedanz to his left and Körner to his right.

The above account corresponds to many photos from the anniversary marches in later years, which roughly mirrored the locations of the men in 1923. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormalRS (talk • contribs) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Deutschlanderwac00bade 0 0039 Deutschland erwacht - Werden, Kampf und Sieg der NSDAP 1933 Wilfrid Bade (1906-1945) Cigaretten-Bilderdienst USHMM No known copyright restriction Hitlerputsch Gefallenen 1923 Cropped.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ataturk

I have removed material from this article which claims that Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch was inspired by Kemal Ataturk. This theory is held by a single person writing in a recent book. This theory is not generally accepted by subject experts, and, as such, it is WP:FRINGE and per WP:DUE should not be in the article. As disputed FRINGE material, I do not need a consensus to remove it, but per BURDEN, the editor involved needs a consensus to restore it to the article.

The editor is edit-warring against its removal, arguing that it has been there for "a long time", but in fact it was added to the article (by the editor in question) less than a year ago. Further, when it was added, the editor downplayed the part Mussolini's March on Rome had on the Putsch, when, in fact, the vast majority of historians and scholars see it as one of the strongest influences on Hitler. No subject expert -- aside from the one author -- accepts the Ataturk theory, at least to my knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: The book of Ihrig had postive responses from review articles, so it is not a fringe claim. This review by Leo van Bergen praises the book as such: "It is rare to read a work of history that is both startling and true"[2] This review states that Ihrig's argument is "convincing". There are lots of other reviews that praise the Ihrig's work which shows that this is not a fringe claim as the reviews agree with Ihrig. I will restore the stable version for the last time. You shouldn't revert it without having concencus.--V. E. (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

If you examine these reviews you will see that he is not the only author that "accepts the Ataturk theory".--V. E. (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

So, FRINGE and BURDEN claims are not valid here as the info is appropriately sourced and supported by other academicians.--V. E. (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Reviews of the book do not count as reliable sources unless they are written by subject experts, and the subject here is Hitler, not Ataturk or Turkish history. The book in question is Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination by Stefan Ihrig. Ihrig is a historian, but not a specialist on Hitler or Nazi Germany, his special interest is German-Turkish relations, which may have predisposed him to overstate Ataturk's influence on Hitler.

If Hitler was inspired by Ataturk in deciding to stage the Beer Hall Putsch, then other actual subject experts should mention this. Let's see:

• Burleigh - The Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk
• Bullock - Hitler: A Study in Tyranny - no mention of Ataturk
• Bullock - Hitler and Stalin - no mention of Ataturk
• Evans - The Third Reich trilogy - no mention of Ataturk
• Fest - Hitler - 2 mentions of Ataturk (pp.157 & 168), but not in relation to the Putsch
• Kershaw - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk
• Shirer - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk
• Toland - Hitler - no mention of Ataturk
• Ullrich - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk
• Weber - Becoming Hitler - 3 mentions of Ataturk (pp.214,275,310), one about how German right-wingers admired him, one about an article written by Hans Tröbst about Kemalist activity (Hitler wanted to meet Tröbst but never did), and one about Hitler's speeches in his trial; none are about Ataturk being an inspiration for the Beer Hall Putsch

From these sources, it's clear that Hitler knew about Kemalist activities, and that they "resonated" with him (in Weber's words), but none of these subject experts goes so far as to say that the Beer Hall Putsch was "inspired" by Ataturk. That theory is clearly FRINGE, and as such should not be given parity with Mussolini's March on Rome as an inspiration for the Putsch. Beyond My Ken (talk)

Reviews articles are important to understand how profound a view is among other academicians. In this case there are lots of academicians agreeing with Ihrig. Quoting from Buidhe:

...the book's reception was in fact mostly favorable. A more representative example is Erik-Jan Zürcher's review in Holocaust and Genocide Studies: "In this extremely interesting and well-researched book, Stefan Ihrig shows that neither Heimatland nor Adolf Hitler was exceptional: the entire nationalist right followed events in postwar Turkey and expressed admiration for the nationalists and their leader... the papers on the whole were rather well informed on the situation in Turkey and their judgement was often accurate—sometimes more accurate than Ihrig gives them credit for... Among the things considered admirable about Turkey was its “national purification”: the Armenian Genocide and the expulsion of the Greeks... It is clear that for the German Right the World War I Committee of Union and Progress and the Kemalists afterwards were part of the same movement, and that the population exchange agreed in Lausanne in 1923 reflected the same Entente aggression that had pushed Turkey to the earlier Armenian killings. This legacy enhanced the Kemalists’ credentials in Nazi eyes. Ihrig’s most important, well supported, and surprising conclusion is that the Kemalist movement in Turkey, rather than the Fascist movement in Italy, formed the most important inspiration for the early National Socialists in Germany."

Zürcher is a Turkologist. So his take on this topic is very valuable which proves this is not a fringe theory.--V. E. (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Not relevant to this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:55, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Visnelma is deliberately trying to make a propaganda.His method is to add anti-Turkish sources wherever he wants without anyone noticing. his only defense .is that the source he entered has been there for a long time.please stop the damage this editor has done to wikipedia. He is constantly making his own propaganda.it has an AN/I topic for it. However, he is not responding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.245.195.203 (talk) 12:52, 18 June 2021 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. You are making black propaganda on Turkish pages by reading an anti-Turkish book and citing it as a source. Viselma sen aynen devam et. Bizde senin bu türk karşıtı karapropagandanı ifşa edeceğiz. Yaptığın şeyin taktiği belli. Bir Türk karşıtı kitap alıp içerisindeki bilgileri wikipedia da sağa sola paylaşmak. Fakat artık eskisi gibi at koşturamayacaksın. Her paylaşımın arkasında olacağız. Yalanlarını ve kara propagandanı durduracağız.