Talk:Adolf Hitler

Mental illness

The health section omits all mention of mental disorders. 188.29.18.18 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The books I read stated that both he and Eva Braun were obsessed with personal cleanliness, but I found no information on any mental disorders. If you have found a reliable source that covers this topic, please provide more information and one of us will check it out. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Fitzgerald's book Autism and Creativity: Is There a Link between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability? received a positive review by Allan Snyder writing in Nature (Snyder, A. 2004. Autistic genius? Nature 428(6982), 470–471). In it, Fitzgerald claimed that Hitler had "Autistic Psychopathy" (Asperger syndrome). --Diamonddavej (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but this information was removed from the article on 10 January 2012, based on this review in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which calls Fitzgerald's claims "fudged pseudoscience". -- Dianna (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Fitzgerald's book was also reviewed by Iain McClure writing in the British Medical Journal, he gave it 3 stars, he didn't pan it.[1][2] Also, what about Andreas Fries' article, why was that excluded too? Fries concluded that Hitler met DSM-IV-TR criteria for Asperger syndrome. --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed with this edit. I personally have not been able to assess the quality of Fries' article, as it is in Swedish. I am unable to read the article in the British Medical Journal, as a subscription is required. -- Dianna (talk)

Here's link to the BMJ's review doesn't require a subscription.[3] Also, I used used Google Translate to translate Fries' article, you can download it from here - [4] Furthermore, Fries responded to criticisms of his article here.[5] --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I will look this stuff over tomorrow. -- Dianna (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the material being re-added. Please wait a few days so other active editors have a chance to respond. -- Dianna (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fries' article (which is journalism, not medical or academic commentary) does not actually support this conclusion. He weighed evidence on both sides, much of which was firmly against the conclusion. Furthermore, McClure's review is not support for the one conclusion Fitzgerald drew which is specifically at issue here. I am strongly against adding this back in.Ulpian (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Anders Fries' (specialist in psychiatry at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge) conclusion was: "Based on data from Bengt Lily-Gren biography of Adolf Hitler I consider him to have met the criteria limits for Asperger syndrome according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR. However, he only said to have had a subclinical syndrome according to Gillberg and Gillberg [12] and Szatmaris [15] criteria." The DSM-IV-TR is the recommended diagnostic criteria used by clinicians to diagnose Asperger syndrome, Gillberg & Gillberg and Szatmaris criteria were used in the past or locally. Thus, Fries clearly concluded that Hitler had Asperger syndrome according to the most widely used diagnostic criteria in use today. Furthermore, I object to your characterisation of Fries' article as journalism, it is clearly a medical commentary. Indeed, Fries defended his conclusions regarding Hitler against objections raised by Mikael Tiger (Resident physician, Psychiatry Northwest Stockholm County Council).[6] --Diamonddavej (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

about his views on the Christmas truce

I still think Hitler's view on the Christmas truce deserves mentioning, even though I was reverted, although the reason is hard to explain since it's twisty&fuzzy, (ie. even myself would have reverted the edit on the Christmas truce if I wasn't the guy who added it, but because I already had the twisty but true rationale in my mind, I decided to add it. If some1 else made the edit and I reverted, they would have a hard time explaining it to me too).

For a comparison, see why the article on Westboro_church mentions how the church's quotes about Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, even though its quotes on those are not important to itself. Westboro church's reputation is dominated by its speeches and "protests" on homosexuality, so it has not affected itself by those speeches. Westboro church's talks of race and ethnicity are even less important to itself, but still nevertheless mentioned, why? Well, you know that articles on Wikipedia are meant to give information on the subject, and Westboro church's speeches give away hints and information on its beliefs and ideology, so they can be noteworthy for the article even if the speeches does not affect the subject, as long as the information explains the subject. Hitler's views on the Christmas truce do give the reader information about his beliefs, so I think that should mean they can be inserted to this article. Sorry about the long Paragraph, but I hope you can understand the reason I've invented. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributations} 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

continued discussion from another page

(much of the text here is copied from elsewhere) DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 01:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought it should be obvious why this is not important. Compared to the invasion of the Soviet Union or the murder of six million Jews, it is very small beer indeed. So it stays out. -- Dianna (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems very convincing, and indeed it would feel completely correct if I agreed (so again, I wouldn't think differently if I were you). However, I, with more time to think about it, say that none of what Hitler did (such as "his artwork, drawing cartoons and instructions for an army newspaper", having "a second bout of blindness" learning of defeat, etc.) during his time in the army is really worth mentioning compared to what he does as a dictator. I don't like sounding like this, but according to this reason (which I would feel completely correct agreeing with), the whole "early years" section should be removed. Are we going to do that? DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

All of these things are mentioned by his primary biographers, and were important to his development as a person. You have a random incident mentioned in one newspaper article. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, true, but the source of the information is only checked to see whether or not the information is reliable or not, and does not have the final say about the information's importance. The center point all my reasons hover around is that how significant an event is does not solely determine its importance on an article. I didn't believe in this center point in the past the same way you don't, because it's not something that would be understood to be accepted easily. But look at everything on the article... for example when Hitler described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", does those words themselves have any significance coming from a low rank soldier? No, but the words tell a lot about how he thought about the war, and it's the reasoning that caused him to say that, not the words themselves that's significant, and information giving clues about something significant is important to the article even though it's not significant in itself. My edit does add clues to the dictator's views about concepts such as that of the Christmas truce. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 23:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So why, then would the quote where Hitler said WWI was "the greatest of all experiences" belong to this article while my edit does not? DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because that Hitler considered war as the greatest of all experiences is supported well by the available sources, whereas his view on the Christmas truce seems rather anecdotal. So you have a significant burden of proof that this snippet should be included in the entry, which is already very long. Malljaja (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Why I say my edit is important for the article is rather complicated. In fact, a typical look at my edit indeed appears so anecdotal, I used to revert edits that look like this. However, if you look at that quoted paragraph beginning with "Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City" in the "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich" section, why does it belong to this article? The actual event of Hitler writing down his experience is not meaningful to his life, and does little to the outside world. Well, the reason that makes it belong is that, even though the quote is insignificant by itself, it does give information about the event where Hitler walked past a German Jew. Again, that event was also insignificant, and even more anecdotal than Hitler's opposition towards the Christmas truce. And again, the reason that makes it belong is that it give information about Hitler's thoughts and beliefs. Hitler's opposition towards the Christmas truce also gives information about Hitler's thoughts and beliefs, so that reason can also be applicable here.

About that point how Hitler's opposition to the Christmas truce is not backed by many sources, I may have explained about this already, but I didn't expect you to read the whole dialog (which's a huge wall of text so I wouldn't complain of having to explain again): I think I talked about how the source of the information is only checked to see whether or not the information is reliable or not, and does not have the final say about the information's importance. You know reliability is not measured relative to other sources on an article: something would be wrong if the same information by the same source is considered somewhere and not elsewhere. Well you see, what I added is reliable in the Christmas truce article, so I think that should mean it's reliable here. Thank you for reading all of this... DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 04:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you try to find a good source that supports Hitler's views on the Christmas truce. It is not helpful to justify inclusion of a new section by pointing out sections that may be equally deficient. The goal is to work to make the entry better, not to strive for mediocrity. Malljaja (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The incident / opinion of Hitler as to the "Christmas Truce" is really not important enough to include herein. We can't include everything. It is really only a reported minor anecdote, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Good points. @ Malljaja, well I guess since you say the claim of Hitler's Christmas truce views is not reliable, you would support removing the information in the Christmas truce article too... (if you don't actually, say why) I just want to be clear about this though, so please just reassure me that that's what you're saying, in case I comment on that article, saying you want to remove the claim, without your permission, thanks. That's all I'm asking, so I would be pleased if you answer.

@ Kierzek, please clarify your reasons. Generally, when you expect what you say to be taken into account by others, it can always be helpful to state your chain of thought leading to your stance. For example, you can say your opinion as a conditional proof argument, ie. "because of this, that is true". I mean, if I commented when you're having a conversation and said "That statement is incorrect, and we can't agree with every statement like that" you would be a little confused too. I know you had a clear idea about why you think so, but things happen when any thought is translated into text on a computer: the logic to it can slip away without words to represent it. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 02:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DontClickMeName: The thing speaks for itself. There is no hidden meaning in my reply nor always a need to expand on ones statement. The addition is an insignificant anecdote (a short story about a real incident which is minor in Hitler's life). These articles are best kept at a certain length. We want them to convey the important areas of the persons life, in a encyopedia fashion with good WP:RS cites. At this point, I believe this topic discussion has become a WP:DEADHORSE. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DontClickMeName, The vast majority of statements of fact in the entry are supported by book references from very reputable historians. Your reference for the Christmas truce anecdote is an article in the NYT, which, therefore, jars with the rest of the sources. This along with the fact that we're striving to compact this long entry is enough reason to leave this minor episode out of it. Like Kierzek, I too think that this discussion has run its course — we're not discussing the finer points of a major debate among historians, which would justify such lengthy discussion. Malljaja (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

---

----

Quite simply, this is not a dead horse. Why this has stretched to this ridiculous length, if you can figure it out, is because: Whenever my reason for why the source is reliable enough is my last comment, someone else (who didn't bother to read the whole wall of text above my last comment) comments that it is not important. Whenever my reason for why the information is important enough is my last comment, someone else comments that my source is unreliable. Apparently, I can't blame anyone for not reading the wall of text, but if no one else new come, we can talk about importance and reliability one at a time. First, let's talk about importance, and completely ignore reliability of my source and we wont talk about the verifiability and source at all until we get the importance straightened out.

Here is my argument about importance. This has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability, reliability, and thus nothing to do with the sources, as we can talk about that later.

The argument is simple: why should the below quote belong to the article while my edit does not?

Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought. For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form: Is this a German?

If the event of the Christmas truce mattered little to Hitler, there is no reason this event of walking past a German Jew would matter more to Hitler, so this quote should be removed as well if my edit should be removed if they are equally reliable w/ equal sources. Correct? (If not why?) DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Please do not talk about verifiability, reliability, and sources until we straighten this importance problem out, as there is no hurry. If you ever expect this discussion to end, it can be a good idea to talk about one aspect at a time. Thanks. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I want to become involved in this discussion, but I would react to the Christmas Truce info as follows. Hitler's view of the Great War as the greatest experience of his life is relevant to understanding his 'world-view' and personal reaction to a cataclysmic event of European, or even world proportions. As much Nazi ideology (called 'Hitlerism' by some contemporaries) glorified war as a life-enhancing force, and tried to create a militarised and regimented society, that seems relevant to understanding both the man and the period. Hitler's view of the Christmas Truce, on the other hand, is just one more German soldier's opinion and reaction to a very ephemeral event of no magnitude in terms of long-term consequences; an opinion that was entirely predictable, given his extreme patriotism, and is of minimal value to our understanding of Hitler as a political leader and his political programme. Hitler's first encounter with a Jew in Vienna is, on the other hand, relevant to understanding his long-term anti-Semitism. Kim Traynor (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That you very much for you opinion, especially because it is about importance, which is what I want to clear up first. However, I kind of think the last part in your comment did not quite interpret my analogy in the intended sense. You are correct on how his views on the Christmas truce had no effect on his later views and didn't have any long term consequences, but my point was actually that the encounter with the German Jew did not significantly effect his later views either, but merely showed his views at that time, and so did his opposition towards the Christmas truce. That view definitely would be predictable at a later time, but it was not actually predictable at that time because we wouldn't be surprised if it instead said he supported the truce despite his patriotism. The knowledge of it more easily helps us understand when his preference for violence began, while his long quote describing a German Jew would require a lot of psychology reasoning to show anything about when his preference for antisemitic horror programs began. You can't find out that surely if he thought about planning a Holocaust or not at that time by reading that quote, but you can find out pretty surely that he had a pro-war mindset by noting his opposition to the Christmas truce. Furthermore, that quoted paragraph describing his passing by a German Jew takes up much more space in this article. So considering the consensus that that paragraph belongs, shouldn't we shift the consensus of my edit, assuming the only aspect is importance, and that reliability is to be discussed later? DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 04:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd point out that the 'first encounter with a Jew' source is conventionally used as the starting point of Hitler's anti-Semitism, as far as the generally accepted historical record is concerned. The source is regarded as reliable because it's Hitler own words on the subject. Whether it is the starting point is, of course, open to conjecture (and it has no bearing on the practical planning of the Holocaust). Your information is new (I can't comment on the reliability of the source without seeing it for myself). If I was a historian engaged in research and came across your Christmas Truce information, and decided to mention it at all, I'd probably just reduce it to "he was horrified by the Christmas Truce" and insert it somewhere in a paragraph about his war experience. It's already well established that he had "a pro-war mindset". I'm being truthful here. There are so many things one can add to the article about Hitler, but it is already overlong according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I think the default position is not to add any extra information unless there's a compelling argument for its inclusion. I honestly don't think Hitler's reaction to the Christmas Truce falls into that category. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

While it was the trip to Vienna when his antisemitism began, that specific encounter did not start it, from the way the quote's worded you can see he didn't become antisemitic from that one event: it also fails to show the origin of the of his antisemitism, and can even appear ambiguous of whether or not he was antisemitic at that time. It does, however, allow readers to deduct his views on Judaism at that time, albeit not much of his feelings towards them, which is still useful information, making it belong on this article. A question, however, is why my edit doesn't allow readers to deduct anything. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 04:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Was he vegetarian?

(section title added by --71.72.151.150 (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitler Was Not A Vegetarian! I am so angry to see Hitler stated as being a vegetarian on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was a vegetarian. I don't know how this legend got started, but it is not true.

Look at these links.

http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm http://www.naturalnews.com/025163_Hitler_vegetarian_vegetarianism.html http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speer (1971, pg 170) says he was a vegetarian. Kershaw (2008) mentions it in six different places. There is also mention in Bullock (1999), the source actually cited in the article. --Dianna (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See the index entry on Hitler, vegetarianism in H Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table-Talk, OUP 1988 where Hitler explicitly states in three places that he is a vegetarian and implies the same in other passages, for example when he describes the benefits of a meat-free diet. He twice refers to having given up meat (because he believed it made him sweat too much), though he doesn't state when. In one place he says that at one time he and Hess lived solely on Tyrolean apples, suggesting that his 'conversion' occurred some time after 1920 when the two first met. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Some vegetarians find it threatening to their belief in the moral value of vegetarianism that Hitler was a vegetarian, so go out of their way to disprove it. All experts of Hitler agree that he was a vegetarian. It is no legend. The only "legend" is the one created vegetarians, who have scoured sources to find unrelible gossip, which is often contradictory. Paul B (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Goebbels wrote in his diary that Hitler was "a convinced vegetarian" (29.12.1939) and mentions him indulging in "Long talks on vegetarianism, the 'coming religion'" (12.11.1940). Kim Traynor (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?

As loth as I am to improve the Hitler page, I must note that the Ancestry section is conspicuously missing mention of Hitler's mother, just his father is mentioned. The news today mentioned moving the parents headstone and that the site was available for re-rental, I was curious why the bodies weren't buried there (but even the Alois and Klara pages don't answer that). Lost interest now. DavesPlanet (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing intrinsically interesting about Hitler's mother, though it is perhaps an omission not to mention how large she loomed in his consciousness (as a counterweight to his domineering father's influence?), and how emotionally affected he was by her death. However, that would have to link meaningfully to his later development to justify its inclusion on the page. Studies in psychopathology are always intriguing but ultimately unrewarding as there is no convincing way of objectively measuring emotional states with their possible behavioural consequences. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Another reason why there has been so much focus on the paternal side of his family is because it was rumoured that he had Jewish ancestry on that side. So there's a lot more information available in our sources on the father, and that's reflected in the content of the article. -- Dianna (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

John Rabe: Hitler's complicity in the Nanking Massacre

Seems odd that such an article makes no mention of the relationship between Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan? In 1937, when the Reichstag received word from Rabe regarding the atrocities being committed by the Imperial Army in China, ordered the NSDAP member and businessman to return to Berlin immediately. Rather than do anything to stop what happening, Hitler's "comeback" order withdrew one of the only people who was protecting thousands of of Chinese civilians in the Nanking Safety Zone from the mass raping and killing.

Hitler's action helped seal the fate of those trapped in the safety zone because after February 1938, when Rabe left, Japanese troops moved in and forcibly closed it down. Most of the male civilians were then shot as Chinese soldiers, young women were systematically raped and killed and the remaining others were sent to work camps. It's not nice and just another string to Hitler's bow. But something that der fuhrer had a hand in because he knew what was happening but preferred to ignore it because of the Third Reich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.41 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC) i was born in 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy123456 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, of course, in terms of foreign affairs, but irrelevant to an article focused on Hitler's career as the leader of Nazi Germany in Europe. He was not the instigator of the massacre, and his action as you describe it, even if interpreted as approval, belongs on a page dealing with the Third Reich and its allies. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. The IP is stating that Hitler did know what was happeneing as Rabe had personnaly written to him stating unequivocally what was happening in Nanking. And what Rabe was doing to prevent further attrocities. As a member of the Nazi Party, Rabe expected Hitler to intercede and ask the Japanese to stop (as allies). The buck stopped with Hitler in the Third Reich, he might not have carried out the massacre but he allowed it to continue by ordering Rabe back to Germany! Hitler had a hand in the Rape of Nanking like Pontius pilote had in the death of Jesus. They both washed their hands of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.4.157 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

May I ask out of curiosity why you would expect Hitler to have any interest in preventing a massacre of Chinese by Japanese? Kim Traynor (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that this point has provoked some discussion. The point that is being made is not whether Hitler could have stopped the Nanking massacres. Who knows? That is a conjecture for history. But the fact that he had been presented with first-hand accounts about them and did nothing is notable enough to be included in this article. Hitler was the only Western leader who was an ally of the Japanese, he was therefore the only international voice that might have had any influence in Tokyo. Hitler knew about the massacres because rabe had told him. But when the German businessman was ordered back to Germany he repeatedly tried to personally meet Hitler. However for his troubles, he was arrested on the orders of Himmler, interrogated by the Gestapo and suspended from the NSDAP for a while.

Therefore what has "stopping the massacres" got to do with the above point? What the issue is: Hitler had first-hand accounts of what the Japanese Imperial Army was doing in China. Rather than do anything to upset Tojo's government he did nothing because he was their ally. However other Western powers like Britain, France and the USA kicked up a right storm. However by 1937 the Japanese had stopped listening to anything the League of Nations said and, for the most part, the international body could do little anyway. So to recap, the only leader outside Japan who was powerful enough to stop the killings in Nanking because of his influence with the Japanese government was Hitler. but the Fuhrer chose to do nothing, ignored the facts and had his source withdrawn from Nanking and arrested in Germany. These were the actions of an embarrassed right-wing dictator. Information that should be in the article about this horrible man. 109.151.218.79 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it's anachronistic to think nation states and power blocs of the time under discussion had interrelationships of the kind that have evolved since the Second World War. We talk less nowadays about 'spheres of influence'. In my opinion, Hitler wouldn't have cared less what Japanese imperialists got up to in their own backyard, and in any case the Japanese wouldn't have cared two hoots what he thought. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A Writer?!

I don't think we could says He was an writer. Yes, I know, he published Mein Kampft, but it wasn't a book for me. For example, Thomas Mann was an writer, Kipling was one. But not Hitler. I don't know why he wrote a book. --Bobybarman34 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont think wikipedia goes by what you think is a book. He wrote a book, got it published and made money ont it. He is a writer. That the book is not excactly well written or if You, Me or anyone else agrees with the views of the book have nothing to do with it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has outdated material that has since been challenged or disproved

Recent research on Hitler's activities immediately after World War I have challenged previous assumptions made about Hitler. Recent research shows that Hitler was not immediately an anti-Semite nor an anti-communist at the end of World War I in November 1918, in fact Hitler served in his communist-led battalion of the Bavarian Soviet Republic where he served with distinction - serving as a liason with the communist government's Department of Propaganda, and stayed in it until the Bavarian Soviet Republic collapsed. There were many Soviet Republic soldiers who frequently and easily defected to the counter-revolutionary and pro-monarchist Freikorps, but Hitler never did - because he was not yet an anti-communist and in fact at that time believed in the ideal of a classless society and he was an anti-monarchist at the time. Furthermore there is film evidence of Hitler attending the funeral procession of Bavarian communist leader Kurt Eisner - who also was Jewish - with Hitler wearing both a black mourning armband and a red communist armband at the funeral. It was neither November 1918 when he became an anti-Semite, nor his claim in Mein Kampf that he became an anti-Semite in 1913, it is now known that Hitler became an anti-Semitic German nationalist in response to the news that Germany's social democratic government signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 that placed war guilt on Germany, ceded German territories, and demanded reparation payments. The Treaty of Versailles had a massive political impact in Germany - enraging ex-soldiers like Hitler with the German government that then drew them into adhering to the "Stab in the Back" legend of the so-called "November Criminals".

Prior to the Treaty of Versailles and after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hitler's battalion returned to German army control - and many of the leadership figures in his battalion were at that point social democrats and not yet anti-Semitic nationalists. However after the Treaty of Versailles, anti-Semitic nationalism soared, and a number of Hitler's soldier friends and himself then became anti-Semitic nationalists.

The current article has outdated sources - like William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - that my university history teacher who taught on the topic of totalitarianism, described Shirer's account as very outdated due to the new discoveries in historical research. There are other outdated sources that do not match up with present-day evidence that is now known about Hitler and the German military in World War I.--R-41 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

In accordance with what I have said above, I have removed outdated material that inaccurately claims that Hitler became an anti-Semitic nationalist in November 1918 and added material that mentions the actual period of time that he became an anti-Semitic nationalist - in response to the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.--R-41 (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, R41. I have reverted your changes for now. The level of quality of prose is not of a standard expected in a Good Article, and the citations need to be formatted into the existing citation style of short-form Harvard citations using {{sfn}} and {{cite book}} templates. You have added a lengthy paragraph about the Bavarian Socialist Republic, which may be undue weight. This will have to be discussed. Please provide ISBNs for any texts you used. Please don't worry that your work was in vain; the material is still there in the article history for us to draw on in updating and revising the article. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Dianna's comments. You have made very substantial changes that are both controversial and do not read well. For example, you dismiss Shirer, yet you provide only two sources by researchers who appear to be relative novices or reside at the fringe of the field of historical research (such as Thomas Weber). Just because they give different accounts of historical events does not "disprove" previously existing ones. For example, Ian Kershaw, widely considered an authority on Hitler, discusses Hitler's alleged sympathies or even involvement in the Räterepublik in post-WWI Bavaria. Kershaw comes to the conclusion that Hitler more than likely was neutral to opposed to the revolutionary radical left and only aligned himself with left-leaning groups within the army out of opportunism and not political conviction (see Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris, p. 120). This is not to say that Kershaw's account speaks the absolute truth about what happened during that time, but his research is well regarded and so it carries significant weight that is entirely missing in your recent additions. Malljaja (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic should be described, excluding it is inadvertently promoting what I would call the "Hitler legend" promoted by Hitler himself in Mein Kampf where he made no mention of his service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic and claimed that he was destined to become a Nazi because of his claim that he always had Nazi characteristics. It is now known that Hitler did serve in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, there is film evidence that has been studied and confirms that Hitler attended the funeral of Bavarian SR leader Kurt Eisner in February 1919 and there is evidence of Hitler being promoted in his communist-led battalion in the Bavarian SR. My point was that the new material provided by these authors has done detailed investigation into the months of Hitler's life following the end of the war. Hitler may have been an opportunist serving the Bavarian SR as Kershaw suggests and that deserves attention - but not complete exclusion of material on Hitler's service in the Bavarian SR. Furthermore reliable sources such as Thomas Weber's source that challenge the claims that Hitler was merely an opportunist in the Bavarian SR but that he was not yet fully politically developed then, should be included as well. Thomas Weber notes that many soldiers who were conscripted into the Bavarian SR's battalions frequently and easily defected to the anti-communist Freikorps - Hitler did not, he remained in service of the Bavarian SR until the final bitter end with its collapse and Weber notes that he was elected Deputy Battalion Representative of his communist-led battalion serving liason duties with the Bavarian SR's Department of Propaganda - his first entry into politics. Thomas Weber's source is an indepth detailed investigation into Hitler's early life and it reveals with substantial evidence that Hitler became an anti-Semitic nationalist after the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Now, as for Shirer's source - as I have said, my history professor who taught on the subject of totalitarianism in Europe told me when I was going to use Shirer's source, that Shirer's source is outdated and is becoming more and more outdated with new resarch, it was made in the 1960s. If material from Shirer's source is still verifiable by newer sources then it can be used, but claims by Shirer have become outdated with new research, those should not be included.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To say that Shirer is outdated may or may not be true. He's done a lot of research, so are you saying that all of it is out of date, or some of it? In addition, is Thomas Weber a recognised eminent expert on the events in question? The half-life of his claims may be shorter than those of Shirer (who documented events as they were occurring). Hitler's whereabouts and temporary political allegiance in post-war Munich is well documented by Kershaw (and probably others) and this could be included. Just for general perspective and considering the length of this entry, that Hitler was serving in a "red" army unit during the chaotic days of post-war Bavaria is probably less newsworthy than his equally opportunistic pact with Stalin in 1939. So I do not think that the Munich episode deserves much space here. Malljaja (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am saying that those claims by Shirer that are outdated are no longer valid. Thomas Weber's work that I have included was published by the prestigious Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press describes Weber as an award-winning historian and calls the book "groundbreaking", challenging previous conceptions about Hitler's early life - such as challenging Hitler's claims about his personal life in Mein Kampf. [7]. Weber's work and claims are important and it should be included alongside Kershaw's claims that Hitler joined the Bavarian Soviet Republic out of opportunism. It is important to include Weber's work, particularly his analysis on Hitler's service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, because it is an alternate argument to those that claim that Hitler was inevitably heading down the path towards anti-Semitic German nationalism.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

What are Shirer's specific claims that are outdated? That Weber's publisher is gushing over him is hardly surprising — they want to sell his book! What are his credentials besides that? His insights maybe very deep and well researched, but you have not yet built a strong case for this, and the reviews of his book I have come across thus far have not either. That said, I rest mine until others have voiced their views on the current discussion. Malljaja (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Just because they give different accounts of historical events does not 'disprove' previously existing ones." Malljaja, I would agree with this statement for the most part; there are times where the cumulative evidence on a matter can cause the weight given to a statement/story of an event to change over time; R-41, rarely is something proven to be totally wrong. As to Shirer, I agree that his book is dated overall; but that does not mean it should be thrown out completely, even as to this matter. Usually, what I have found is there is a change to parts of a given event, or some changes of opinion without the whole event being completely wrong. Kershaw, for example, cannot state all is fact as to certain things; but draws conclusions at times; Weber has to do the same but from what I have read about him, there are complaints of bias and his total accepting of certain things as fact; such as the funeral film in question and Hitler's motivations. One cannot say with certainty what was going on in Hitler's head at the time. Almost nothing Hitler wrote before 1919-1920 has survived. As for Weber, the "puffing" by a book publisher means little; nor does the POV of a college professor. What can be written in the article is general accepted fact and conclusions which are not of undue weight from RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a review by a prominent historian on Nazi Germany and Hitler, Richard J. Evans, who supports Weber's book.[8]. In the review, Evans says: "In this readable and well-researched new book, young German historian Thomas Weber, who teaches at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, sets about clearing up these and other mysteries about Hitler’s war service. He does so on the basis of research so obvious that one wonders, as with many brilliant research ideas, why nobody has done it before: He tracked down and worked his way through the wartime records of the List Regiment, in which Hitler served throughout the war. Pitching these critically against the memories of the regiment’s soldiers and indeed the memories of Hitler himself, Weber strips away many myths." [9] Another review from historian Norman Stone supports Weber's book, commending Weber's book, and noting Weber's confirmation that Hitler was not an anti-Semite during World War I but became an anti-Semite after the war. [10] Norman Stone notes that Weber's analysis adds onto existing literature that have determined that Hitler was not yet an anti-Semite during World War I - such as historian Brigitte Hamann's book Hitler's Vienna (1999), and Stone says that it is now confirmed as a fact that Hitler associated with Jews immediately prior to World War I - contrary to Hitler's claims that he didn't.--R-41 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Evans review, while following convention not to openly knock a fellow scholar, is not exactly glowing if not stealthily eviscerating. For example, he takes issue with Weber's apparent heavy handedness in analysing the political situation and trajectory of the Weimar Republic and only lauds him for dusting off old military records and clearing up some myths regarding Hitler's rank. Hardly the stuff that a scholar would like to see in a review of his work. He ends on rather bland high note that suggests that while it's an engaging read one needs to crunch the salt.

I'm not sure if Norman Stone formed his opinion on having personally observed Hitler pre- and post-WWI, in which case I'm inclined to belief him, or whether he gives this account on the basis of having studied what little is known about Hitler's early views, in which case I'm sceptical. Malljaja (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

You are being highly dismissive of Weber's work with little evidence to justify it. You claim that Evans is being dismissive, but he is not being dismissive of Weber's analysis of Hitler's service in the battalion, which Evans says has swept away old myths about Hitler. Evans describes the book as "well-researched" and for "clearing up" many mysteries involving Hitler's life. And Evans finishes the review after his criticism over Weber's interpretation of the Weimar Republic era by saying: "Nevertheless, he has written an intelligent, informative and absorbing book that has to be required reading for anyone seriously interested in the history of modern Germany, or in the effects of war on politics in general." --R-41 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit to being a little pithy in my criticism of Dr Weber's work, and I apologise for that. However, please understand that a lot of others' work has gone into this entry, and although it's good at times to be bold, your recent changes lacked sufficient respect for that, at least in my opinion. I've got no axe to grind with any of the authors you have suggested, rather I want to do a good pat down of the new sources in the hope that they could be used well for this entry. I'm sure we can work towards a version with newly improved content. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the contributions of others work, but if material is inaccurate then it needs to be replaced by accurate material. Recent research has revealed strong evidence that Hitler was not an anti-Semite in Vienna as Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf, nor that he was an anti-Semite in World War I. The consensus that is building is that it was the event of the Treaty of Versailles that resulted in Hitler and others being drawn towards anti-Semitic German nationalism in the wave of anger by Germans at the German government for allegedly betraying Germans by signing the punitive peace treaty. I will seek to maintain the general structure and flow of the article as contributed by other users, but the information on Hitler's service in World War I currently in the article does not utilize the most up-to-date research, and his service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic is not addressed at all in the article and needs to be described.--R-41 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over whether Hitler was anti-Semitic whilst living in Vienna

What exactly is the evidence that Hitler was not an anti-Semite pre-1914? It can't be the fact that he was still in an army unit at the time of the Räterepublik and had to participate in the procession at Eisner's funeral. Also, it can't be his pre-war acquaintance with Jews like Reinhold Hanisch, with whom he fell out. Is there any record in print or reported oral testimony from before 1914 which demonstrates that he was not anti-Semitic? As 1. a Church-educated Austrian Catholic and 2. a young pan-German nationalist (or did he fib about that too in Mein Kampf?), he ought to have been! Kim Traynor (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a lot of confirmed evidence available that he was not an anti-Semite before 1914 and there is no confirmed evidence that he was one before 1914. Secondly, your statement on Reinhold Hanisch is completely wrong and the reverse, Reinhold Hanisch was not a Jew, he was in fact a rabid anti-Semite. Existing claims that Hitler was an anti-Semite before 1914 were based on what Hitler said in Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf is filled with deliberate distortions and a number of presumably unintentional memory errors. Brigitte Hamann's acclaimed book Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant As a Young Man has completely debunked the myth that Hitler was an anti-Semite as a youth in Vienna. First of all Hamann has stated that no anti-Semitic remark has been documented to have been said by Hitler when he was a youth. And second of all Hamann notes that Hitler in the 1910s was friends with multiple Jews. Hamann states that Hitler's Jewish family doctor Dr. Eduard Bloch noted that when Hitler's mother died in 1907, Hitler expressed gratitude to Bloch for having taken care of his mother in her ill health, and years later Bloch says that Hitler was not an anti-Semite when he lived in Linz.--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

When Hitler was living in Vienna he had multiple Jewish friends. In his hostel in Vienna, Hitler became close friends with several Jews, including Josef Neumann and Siefried Löffner that enraged his friend Reinhold Hanisch who was a fierce anti-Semite, and Hitler later in a confrontation with Hanisch abandoned his friendship with Hanisch while remaining close friends with Neumann and Löffner. When one of the Jewish hostel members was being berated by an anti-Semitic attack from another hostel member, Hitler interrupted by noting the achievements of great Jewish music composers Mendelssohn and Offenbach. Hitler was a close friend with a Jewish brandy store owner in Vienna named Jacob Wasserberg, Hitler frequently visited his shop and had breakfast with Wasserberg. Also Hamann has found an anonymous letter dated from 1912 that states the following: "Hitler got along extremely well with Jews. He once said they were an intelligent people that stuck together more than the Germans.". All these notes and more are available in Brigitte Hamann's Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant As a Young Man, that can be found here at Google Books: [11] Hamann's research confirms that Hitler was not an anti-Semite before 1914 contrary to Hitler's claims in Mein Kampf. Thomas Weber's indepth study into Hitler's battalion during World War I has found no evidence that Hitler was an anti-Semite during World War I, nor that he became fiercely anti-Semitic upon discovering that Germany signed the armistice of November 11, 1918. In fact, Weber's research notes that unlike rabid nationalist soldiers who joined the Freikorps in late 1918 to attack communist revolutionaries, that Hitler is known to have had no desire to join the Freikorps. That plus his known service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic has left Weber to conclude that the real time period that Hitler became an anti-Semitic German nationalist was in response to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 in which a wave of uproar arose against the German government for signing it, resulting in a surge of anti-Semitic nationalism that Hitler joined in on.--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Please remember this article is intended for the general reader, who is unlikely to be interested in scholarly debates or what the latest buzz is at the university. The Wikipedia reader is looking for basic facts, clearly presented. It is likely not possible to determine definitively at what point Hitler became an antisemite, and we should not pretend that Weber has done so. Hitler was not an important person prior to the start of his political career, so definitive evidence either way will likely not exist. We say in the article that Hitler said he became an antisemite upon his arrival in Vienna, and that much is true. He says that in Mein Kampf. Whether that is the truth or whether he became an antisemite at some earlier or later point is not likely determinable; we are looking at the past through a distant mirror. My own opinion aligns with Kim; I think he was an antisemite as early as Vienna, and quite likely earlier. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies R-41 for the mistake I made regarding Hanisch. If Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite in the Vienna period, what was he doing by buying and reading the magazine 'Ostara' and, if it isn't another invented story, seeking out Lanz von Liebenfels personally in order to obtain back copies? Kim Traynor (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Having re-visited the historical period in question as discussed by Kershaw in "Hubris", I've come to the conclusion that Weber is attacking a straw man. In the chapter "Drop-out" of said book Kershaw very carefully dissects the (scant) available evidence for the origin and genesis of Hitler's antisemitism. He finds some evidence for as well as against the assertion that he became an antisemite in Vienna; one strong argument is that antisemitism was so rampant in Vienna at the time that any of his comments would not have received much attention. That he was good friends with a number of Jewish people is not good evidence alone — he was an eternal opportunist who sought friendships to gain personal (and political) advantage, not because of deeply held convictions (his political and personal relationship with the openly homosexual Ernst Röhm is also a good example for that). His service briefly in a "red" army unit fits right along with this — he wanted to stay in the army, because it gave him his first real job, because he did not know what else to do with himself. That Hitler used the Versailles Treaty for popular advantage is hardly any news. I'm not opposed to using the Weber source, but I do not think that it provides the earth-shaking new evidence R-41 suggests that it does. Malljaja (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

To Diannaa, this is NOT about a so-called "buzz" in universities, this is about serious research, and research has demonstrated with direct evidence that Hitler had multiple Jewish friends in Vienna and that there is no evidence that confirms that Hitler was anti-Semitic then - by careful research we know the names of Hitler's Jewish friends in Vienna. Also, Diannaa, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the matter - Wikipedia is not interested in user's opinions, it requests reliable sources. To Kim Traynor, Hamann notes that Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels made this claim in 1951, and that there is no evidence confirming whether Hitler liked Liebenfels, Elsa Schmidt-Falk - an eyewitness of Hitler's one statement about Liebenfels, says that Hitler only once spoke of Liebenfels and his supporters then, calling them "Lanz and his homosexual clique", and that there is no evidence that Liebenfels and Hitler ever met in Vienna. The only thing that Hamann says is known is that Liebenfels' 'Ostara' was prolificly published in Vienna and placed alongside the common Pan-German newspapers in the city, so it is likely that Hitler was at least aware of 'Ostara'. Hamann notes that Liebenfels made this statement in 1951 about allegedly giving Hitler Ostara copies in Vienna in order for him to be able to claim that he influenced Hitler, and Hamann notes that Liebenfels also made claims that he influenced Vladimir Lenin - that is completely unverifiable. To Malljaja, the earth-shaking evidence comes from Hamann's research that I've described above, Hamann and Weber have noted that no existing research has been able to produce clear and verifiable evidence of Hitler being anti-Semitic in Vienna nor during World War I and that such claims commonly rely on Mein Kampf as a source. For instance, Kershaw's noting of rampant anti-Semitism in Austria is circumstantial evidence - it does not demonstrate that Hitler was personally anti-Semitic. Secondly, Malljaja, your rebukes of Hitler's early friendships with Jews are based entirely on your opinion of them - you have presented no evidence to demonstrate that Hitler's friendship with these Jews was opportunist.--R-41 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And as I said above, neither you, R-41, nor Weber can state uncontroverted facts on these matters discussed but must draws conclusions in the end. As an atty. I can tell you it would not meet evidence that proves that something is factual without inference or assumption. The best way to handle this is to say historian (name) has drawn the conclusion that .... and add the cite. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hamann has produced multiple verifiable sources that verify that Hitler had multiple Jewish friends in Vienna - she even found their names and described their relationships - and has noted that multiple claims about Hitler's alleged anti-Semitism when living in Vienna are either not verifiable or false. Hamann's work has been praised and other authors have built upon her research. Weber is one of such authors, who has investigated Hitler's service in World War I and has found no verifiable evidence that confirms that Hitler was an anti-Semite during World War I. Weber concludes that the only evidence that is available of when Hitler became an anti-Semite was after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.--R-41 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that you are silent on Kershaw, who has written recent and extensive bios of Hitler, and can be considered a foremost authority on the subject. That Hitler was an opportunist is not my opinion, Kershaw states this repeatedly (see, for example, in "Hubris", page 310), and this behavioural pattern is also demonstrated by his aforementioned friendship with Röhm, whose sexual preference was reason for others to be killed or sent to concentration camps (that Hitler had him killed was solely for political reasons). In summary, Hitler was rarely principled about anything, other than about satisfying his own ambitions, a fact that has already been established prior to the work of Weber (which you now you conflate with Hamann's). I support Dianna's, Kierzek's, and Kim's statements on this matter that converge on the point that we cannot, nor should we, absolutely ascertain what the exact sequence of events in the development of Hitler's views was — we should merely present the views of historians, including points on which they diverge. Malljaja (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been many authorities who have had parts of their work challenged. A prominent historian on Hitler and Nazi Germany, Richard Evans who reviewed Weber's work on Hitler's service in World War I noted that Weber's investigation of Hitler's battalion records was so obviously needed in history writing about Hitler that he was surprised that he and others had never thought about it. I have read Kershaw's work, much of it is well done and accurate, however research by Hamann and Weber have demonstrated that claims of Hitler being an anti-Semite in Vienna and World War I are not verifiable and that there is verifiable evidence that Hitler was friends with multiple Jews in his hostel in Vienna and that he defended one of the Jewish hostel members from an anti-Semitic attack by noting the genius of the Jewish music composers Felix Mendelssohn and Jacques Offenbach. Our job here is to present reliable sources with verifiable evidence, there is no verifiable evidence of Hitler being an anti-Semite during his years in Vienna nor in World War I, the claims that he was an anti-Semite in Vienna have come from Mein Kampf (where Hitler created a legend about himself that has many deliberate distortions and errors), or unreliable sources such as Liebenfels claims in 1951 that have been refuted. Unreliable material on Wikipedia can be challenged if there is evidence to demonstrate its unreliable nature. Where is Kershaw's evidence that Hitler was specifically opportunist in his friendship with the Jews he knew? Does Kershaw present verifiable evidence that Hitler was opportunist with his Jewish friends in his hostel in Vienna or the Viennese Jewish brandy shop owner whom Hitler regularly met to have a breakfast of tea and biscuits with?--R-41 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also here is what prominent historian on Hitler and Nazi Germany, Richard J. Evans said in his review of Thomas Weber's work, about the time when Hitler developed his anti-Semitism:

Moreover, historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany’s defeat, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe. His first political activities for the army during the Revolution of 1918 even involved propagandizing in the ranks for the revolutionary government in Munich. It was only later, when he was sent to observe far-right political groups, that his political convictions became clear and firm. What effect service in the war had on his political views is shrouded in mystery.

— Richard J. Evans, The Globe and Mail, June 22, 2011.

So as you can see, historians accept that Hitler became the anti-Semite that he is known for, after World War I.--R-41 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that the way out of this apparent impasse is to add a statement after the MK quotation to the effect that, "Some historians have claimed on the basis of their researches that Hitler's anti-Semitism first developed in reaction to the new German government's signing of the Versailles Treaty in 1919 and that his statements in Mein Kampf were intended to create the legend that he had been an anti-Semite ever since his residence in Vienna." (refs = Hamann and Weber) There, in one sentence, you are giving the reader the choice as to which of the two explanations they think is the more plausible in accounting for his anti-Semitism. There's no need to go into details such as how many Jews he was acquainted with or whether he gave a spirited defence of Mendelssohn and Offenbach (very surprising for a convinced Wagnerite, of whom Kubizek said it had all started with a performance of Rienzi back in Linz). Kim Traynor (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

But what is the verifiable evidence from those who say that he was anti-Semitic in Vienna and World War I? Also, a lot of people liked Wagner's music - Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries to this day remains popular, even I think it is a musical masterpiece - that doesn't mean that people who like Wagner's music are all anti-Semitic like Wagner was.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You're surely missing the point here. I have tried to indicate the existence of evidence that Hitler's anti-Semitism pre-dated Vienna. If you rubbish every instance of that - Liebenfels was a liar, Kubizek was a liar, Hitler was a liar - you are not recognising that sources like these have nevertheless informed the accepted historical view. Why do you turn a blind-eye to everything that contradicts your belief in new research? While all contemporary witnesses to history are suspect and should be subjected to scrutiny by historians, I am more inclined to accept what Hitler's flatmate in Linz wrote (because I don't know that he had an agenda in reporting the Rienzi occurrence - Hitler's first public speech!) than Brigitte Hamann who was less close to the action (I don't know Thomas Weber's work). It is after all too easy to maintain that anything from the mouths of Napoleon, Wellington or any other historical personage is untrue and merely served to create a legend about themselves. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not me who is saying it. I am referring to Hamann's work, she says that Liebenfels made all sorts of claims - he claimed that he inspired Vladimir Lenin as well, and that a person who definately knew Hitler in Vienna says that Hitler in Vienna only once spoke of Liebensfels, referring to him and his followers pejoratively as "Lanz and his homosexual clique". I am not turning a "blind-eye" to anything, in fact I have investigated it further and have sought to find the place and time where these claims about Hitler's anti-Semitism were made. Professional historians who record evidence, such as war stories from veterans, listen to their evidence, compare it with other evidence by other accounts, compare it to the situation in the time, place, and context and then determine its validity. Many war stories have been disproven because of (1) memory errors that have been demonstrated by others or by evidence, (2) bias - a person may exaggerate certain aspects of a story, and (3) deliberate distortion - a person may lie to defend themselves or others or to promote their interests. Historians do not and should not take anything at face value without investigating it, and Brigitte Hamann has done so and demonstrated severe errors with previous accounts of Hitler's life.--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Hamann has demonstrated Liebenfels' statement is not verifiable and that it contradicts with what a person who knew Hitler in Vienna said about Hitler's opinion of Liebenfels, which was negative. Hamann notes that Kubizek made his statements in a book published after the time period in question in which he made severely inaccurate statements about himself and Hitler - for instance Hamann notes that Kubizek claims that Hitler joined Austria's Anti-Semitic League in Vienna in the early 1910s, but in fact the Anti-Semitic League didn't exist in Austria then - it was formed in 1919 when Hitler was no longer living in Austria. Hamann also notes that there were other people who knew Hitler who were astonished when they heard that Hitler became an anti-Semite, they never believed that he would become an anti-Semite - including the anti-Semitic Reinhold Hanisch who upon hearing of it, did not believe that Hitler had really become anti-Semitic and believed that Hitler was lying and was only using it for political purposes. This is Hamann's review of Liebenfels and Kubizek - not my personal review. It is in fact quite possible that people who wrote early books about Hitler would lie or exaggerate so that they could gain a market for the book to make money, this is done frequently by people who did or claim to have known a famous person. The Hitler of Vienna that reliable and respected historians currently present with verifiable evidence that has not been contradicted, was neither a monster then nor innocent - his relations with Jews then were modest, though other aspects do relate to Hitler's later behaviour - Hamann notes that Hitler in Vienna made homophobic and anti-Catholic remarks and that he had interest in pan-Germanism, but says that there is no verifiable evidence from that time that demonstrates that he was an anti-Semite then. The way that Wikipedia works is that reliable sources are sought - sources can be investigated for their reliability and if there is evidence they have unreliable material, that material can be challenged. All you need to do is seek out sources that claim that Hitler was anti-Semitic in Vienna and compare those claims by examining other reliable sources' analysis of such claims. If they are known by historians and not disputed by evidence that goes against those claims, then they are reliable.--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You are making perfectly sensible points about the unreliability of the traditional sources for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. I don't deny that sources like Kubizek or Mein Kampf have to be discussed in term of their truthfulness and historical reliability; but the place for that is in a historical journal, not on Wikipedia which is trying to encapsulate consensus evidence for the reader. Remember that history is an interpretative reconstruction of the past based on the "facts" that historians choose as being reliable (and often define as "the facts") at the expense of those they reject as unreliable. That's all that Hamann and Weber are doing when attempting to overturn orthodox interpretations. You can't dismiss what you call circumstantial evidence merely because new research suggests an alternative interpretation. This is the tendency of all new research - if it wasn't, nothing would get published. If the new research to which you refer is as convincing as you maintain, there will be a period of adjustment as it become slowly synthesised with the older understanding to produce a balanced view of ALL the evidence. Just because someone discovers Hitler had Jewish acquaintances in Vienna (I hesitate to use the term "friends"), I am not going to assume that he was not an anti-Semite until 1919, even though the evidence for him being so is not in your opinion 'verifiable'. There's enough of it to suggest to me that it is likely he was. There is no point, as you suggest, in seeking out sources for Hitler’s anti-Semitism in Vienna, because you have expressed yourself very dogmatically in rejecting any such possibility. I hope Brigitte Hamann makes the point somewhere in her work that if Hitler was an anonymous and obscure, non-political nobody at the time we shouldn’t really expect to find any. I'm inclined to agree with Maser that, despite many of his customers and patrons being Jews (Picker), "When Hitler moved to Munich in May 1913 at the age of twenty four his Weltanschauung was already firmly entrenched". Meantime, I should like to direct you to a very sensible statement about how one should react on finding oneself arguing against a brick wall. Take a look at R-41 for some excellent advice on what to do. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

You cannot verify something by claiming that those that reject such claims are false. You have criticized Hamann's and Weber's work based on zero reliable evidence, and are assuming that they are "disregarding evidence" - when in fact they have investigated it and have noted that there are problems with its continuity and accuracy. You have to be able to present verifiable evidence to prove that something happened - in this case, verifiable evidence that Hitler made anti-Semitic remarks, etc. at that time. I have not dogmatically rejected anything, I investigated what you said through Hamann's source - because Hamann's work has been widely praised as doing a thorough investigation into Hitler's life in Vienna. We do know that Hitler had Jewish friends in Vienna - Hamann meticulously studied his relations with Jews, we even know the names of his Jewish friends in Vienna such as Josef Neumann - a copper polisher whom Hitler was friends with and discussed both issues of Zionism and anti-Semitism with - Neumann and Hitler admired each other, Siefried Löffner - who personally helped Hitler when Reinhold Hanisch defrauded Hitler - by dragging Hanisch into a Viennese police station, Jacob Wasserberg - the brandy shop owner whom Hitler regularly visited in the morning to have a breakfast of tea and cookies with him. Kim Traynor, you need to present verifiable evidence that clearly dismisses these specific known friendships that Hamann has discovered, your opinions on Hitler's relationships with Jews do not prove anything.--R-41 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't 'prove' anything. I'm a too much of an historian for that. This is getting silly. I haven't criticised Hamann and Weber's work. Read over the comments again. The reason I put "friends" in inverted commas is because you are flying in the face of an overwhelming body of opinion to the effect that Hitler (post-Kubizek) never had close relationships with anyone he knew. Röhm is often named as the exception and Speer is often described as the only person whom Hitler appears to have treated as a friend, and not a close one at that. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

And where is this uncontested evidence that Hitler always, through his entire life never had close relationships? Are you saying that this is uncontested? Hitler is recorded to have been highly emotional upon his mother dying and during his visits to his mother's grave. Hitler was also reported to have been close with Heinrich Himmler, affectionately calling him "true Heinrich" and eyewitnesses report that Hitler was deeply upset and flew into a wild rage when he was informed that Himmler without Hitler's authority was attempting to negotiate peace with the Allies in April 1945 - Hitler saw this as betrayal. Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge has said that Hitler was friends with people - she says that he was a friend of Albert Speer even though Speer himself in his memoirs has sought to distance himself from Hitler by claiming he was not a real friend of Hitler. Hitler's distant relationships with people does not do not necessarily indicate that they were all empty - it seems to indicate nervousness about trusting others - and such behaviour is not surprising from evidence that Hitler faced child abuse from his father Alois Hitler who was an alcoholic who abused both Adolf Hitler and his mother, Klara Hitler when Alois was under the influence. The connection of Hitler's inability to trust others has been connected to his known child abuse according to the book Wounded monster: Hitler's path from trauma to malevolence (2002) by Theodore L. Dorpat.--R-41 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

More reasons why Shirer's book from 1960 is outdated and should be replaced be newer sources where possible

I keep encountering Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich being used that is presented inaccurate and since disproven material. It has not been updated in fifty years and has fallen badly behind recent research. For material that remains unchallenged it is acceptable, but for material that has been challenged or disproven, it needs to be removed or replaced with a modern up-to-date source. For instance, one sentence in this article that uses Shirer as a reference claims that Hitler "experienced major combat, including the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele". More recent research has uncovered that Hitler spent most of his time serving regimental headquarters that was typically 10 kilometres behind the frontline, Thomas Weber notes that this created a confrontational division between the frontline soldiers versus soldiers who served behind the frontline - so associating Hitler in common with frontline soldiers as Shirer does is extremely inaccurate and misleading.--R-41 (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to change the wording on that sentence. Kershaw (2008, p 54) says that dispatch runners were in a lot of danger, same as the other soldiers, when asked to carry messages to and from the front lines during combat. Three of the eight runners assigned to the regimental staff were killed on 15 November 1914, and another was wounded. Two days later a shell hit the command post minutes after Hitler had left, killing almost everyone present. The correct format for your citation needed tags is {{citation needed|date=April 2012} -- Dianna (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You have added a {quantify} tag to the statement that "Many Germans[quantify] perceived the treaty—especially Article 231, which declared Germany responsible for the war—as a humiliation". This is sourced to Kershaw (2008, p96), which states "The outrage felt throughout Germany at the punitive sum ..." so I am not sure how this information could be "quantified" with any precision (there were no public opinion polls in those days to give us more precise statistics). Are you looking for more precise numbers, or a re-wording of the text, or what? -- Dianna (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, before you send other editors on a wild goose chase for references, please be more rigorous with the analysis of the sources that are there. Shirer may have done research that is outdated, but this does not mean that the whole body of his work is. You need to be more specific (e.g., whether or not he participated in the battles you mention). Besides the events that Dianna already mentioned, Hitler was injured at least once and also suffered the effects of poison gas, which along with the fact that according to Kershaw his regiment was severely decimated during the early stages of WWI strongly suggests that he saw some major combat. As already noted by Kershaw, there were periods during the four years he served during which he was assigned to quieter quarters, but that does not negate the fact that he put himself into harms way more than once. Malljaja (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I've visited a trench near Ypres which was occupied by Hitler at one point during the war. Judging by the number of British bullets embedded in the trees ahead of the trench, I'd say Hitler was definitely a front-line soldier. One of the photographs of him that has survived from the period shows him in a trench. Also, I don't think Kershaw was the first to note that runners had a statistically much higher chance of being wounded or killed in action than soldiers serving in trenches. So that's still a front-line experience. The list of battles merely indicates where he was on the Front. As with any soldier, it can't tell you much about his level of participation in military actions. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

This is what a German frontline soldier veteran named Josef Stettner said that disputes claims by Hitler and his supporters that he faced regular danger as a dispatch runner:

Some worshippers of Hitler have pointed out now that the job of a dispatch runner was more dangerous than that of a soldier in the trenches. While the troops in the first line could calmly lie under cover, it is said in Hitler’s defence, the dispatch runners would have been much more exposed to enemy fire while on duty. However, I can accept that only for the dispatch runners of companies or maybe also of battalions. In the worst-case scenario, the regimental dispatch runner had to go to the dugout of a battalion which still lay far behind the first line. And even in those cases, it was for the most part the dispatch runners of the battalion themselves who had to pick up the messages at the regimental headquarters, particularly when things were getting dangerous. All the duties of a regimental dispatch runner lay outside the dangerous zone of machine-gun fire.

— Josef Stettner, quoted in Hitler's First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War by Thomas Weber, p. 100

Stettner also said that frontline soldiers were envious of regimental dispatch runners because and any frontline soldier would have preferred being a dispatch runner rather than a frontline soldier - because it was safer and they had better living conditions. Historian Thomas Weber notes that the command posts of the battalions were Hitler would have to send his dispatch letters to, were well behind the frontline - noting the account by regiment member Fridolen Soleder in the files of Hitler's regiment that confirms this.--R-41 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And the fact is, Hitler did not sit on his ass there the whole time, only half the time (Kershaw, p 54). On the same page: "The losses among dispatch runners were relatively high. Three of eight runners attached to the regimental staff were killed and another wounded...on 15 Nov." (1914). Other infomation follows, enough to say that yes, he was not a trench infantryman, but clearly was in harm's way and was in combat through his duties. See: pp 54-59. Kierzek (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What statistics or evidence is Kershaw using as a source? Plus if he referring to statistics of dispatch runners as a whole a problem arises there. Stettner in the quote I provided above clearly states that there were different levels of dispatch runners - some he says did face serious danger, these were the battalion dispatch runners, but Stettner says that the regimental dispatch runners did not face as much danger. Regimental dispatch runners did not go to the first line, nor within range of machine-gun fire. Hitler was not a battalion dispatch runner, he was a regimental dispatch runner, plus Stetnner notes that the battalion dispatch runners took over the responsibilities of the regimental ones when there was serious danger.--R-41 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, again be more careful and precise with your language. To say "that disputes claims by Hitler and his supporters that he faced regular danger as a dispatch runner" (emphasis mine) entirely misses the point. One need not be a "supporter" of Hitler to acknowledge that there are several historians whose work give good evidence for Hitler having had combat experience. In addition, the entry does not say that Hitler faced "regular danger". Lastly, as I've pointed out to you earlier, Hitler was wounded and suffered serious gas poisoning — so, although he likely was not the war hero he made himself out to be and irrespective of what Weber's Stettner claims (i.e., one source of many), he did not have a cushy time either. Malljaja (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I just gave you a quote that describes that Hitler was a regimental dispatch runner, not a battalion dispatch runner who would face more danger. Weber notes that the locations of where Hitler had to deliver his dispatch letters were typically well behind the first line. Weber used Stetnner's account - so what is the problem with Stetnner's account? He describes in detail the role of the different levels of dispatch runners and their duties. Kershaw was speaking of dispatch runners' casualties as a whole - when in fact as Stetnner notes, they were divided into company dispatch runners who could face serious danger, battalion dispatch runners who could face some significant danger, and the regimental dispatch runners (like Hitler) who served behind the frontlines and whom battalion dispatch runners would take their letters for them should the situation become too dangerous. If there are other accounts describe in detail the role of a regimental dispatch runner please describe them. The issue of gas blowing across the lines could affect many - but it is likely that Hitler received relatively minor effects of the more-dissipated gas (i.e. burning eyes, temporary blindness) that could happen some distance away rather than the severe injuries that occurred on the frontline where the concentrated gas would cause massive blisters and damage similar to third-degree burns. The article says that Hitler got his Black Wound Badge (for a minor combat injury) as a result of debris from a shell explosion - shells can shoot far distances well beyond the frontline - so the injury is not evidence that Hitler was near the frontlines witnessing "major combat" as Shirer claims.--R-41 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The losses that Kershaw (2008) mentions on pages 54 and 55 are not general statistics for dispatch runners as a whole—these are specific incidents that happened to Hitler and his unit. He goes on to say that the regimental commander Oberstleutnant Philipp Engelhardt had been about to recommend him for the Iron Cross for an incident a few days earlier where he had protected the commander's life. Hitler was one of four dispatch runners to receive the Iron Cross. The article makes no claims that the dispatch runner's job was any safer or any more dangerous than other soldiering activities, and it does not say that Hitler was engaged in "major combat". The article also does not touch on how the Nazis made Hitler's military career the subject of hagiography. Presently it simply gives a quick factual overview of his activities and awards during WWI.

Here is some specific information about how Hitler got wounded: The regiment was moved south on 2 October 1916 and was engaged at the Somme. Hitler was wounded in the left thigh when the dispatch runners dugout was hit by a shell. Several people were killed and wounded. He was treated at a field hospital and spent almost two months recovering in a Red Cross hospital at Beelitz. This is all in Kershaw (2008, p. 57). Kershaw is considered one of the top Hitler biographers, as you are probably aware. -- Dianna (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You claim that Kershaw's source shows that regimental dispatch runners had a dangerous job. What about the source that Weber uses - Stetnner - a German frontline veteran who describes the internal division of dispatch runners - he says that regimental dispatch runners served well behind the frontlines, and Weber notes this. Shells fly over enormous distances - so yes, anyone is in danger of a shell explosion - but neither Shirer's source nor Kershaw's clarifies the level of danger in different circumstances. Kershaw uses one incident of severe casualties on one day to make a claim about dispatch commanders' danger overall throughout the entire war, that is bad statistical analysis because is like picking the day of a mass car crash on a highway and saying "the destruction of 27 cars on the highway on such-and-such-date reveals that this highway is especially dangerous". Good statistical analysis requires study of circumstances and conditions and seeks to find a pattern - and not exceptional anomalies. If you can find from Kershaw's book, multiple examples of such incidents that demonstrate a pattern of consistent high danger for regimental dispatch runners the matter will be different.--R-41 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see what difference it makes, as the question of how dangerous his job was is not discussed in this article. -- Dianna (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Take a look at the example: If 27 cars have a pile-up crash on a highway on one day out of years of almost no crashes and only the day of the pile-up crash is used in the analysis it makes it appear that that highway is highly dangerous when in fact it was an anomaly out of a pattern of generally low occurance. The point being: you cannot make an assumption about a pattern based on one single example. Kershaw has provided one single example of significant casualties in one battle only a few days apart out of the years of service by Hitler in the war. This may reflect that that battle was particularly dangerous to the regimental dispatch runners, but it does not reflect on the entire experience of Hitler nor the entire experience of regimental dispatch runners throughout the war. Does Kershaw provide multiple examples of casualties of regimental dispatch runners in different battles that demonstrate a pattern of danger to the regimental dispatch runners in the war? That one example alone of several casualties in one battle in a few days does not demonstrate a pattern of consistent danger to regimental dispatch runners throughout the war - it is making an assumption based on one incident from one battle that could be an anomaly from the norm. The sentence that uses Shirer as a source says that Hitler "experienced" "major combat" - what is Shirer meaning? If he is meaning that Hitler served in the frontlines in combat that is not accurate.--R-41 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your analysis is original research. It is not our task to question how the casualties in Kershaw's example were clustered or to conduct a detailed exegesis of Shirer's work. If reputable scholars have called them on the respective points you made, then it would be our task to consider including such criticism into the article. Malljaja (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Original research? Nonsense! Weber's book utilized Hitler's regiment records that no historian had done before and through investigation discovered that Hitler did not serve near the front lines as previous historians had said, and previous claims that have said so have been disproven by Weber's work. Major scholars' work is challenged all the time with new studies that find new material. I mean are you seriously saying that we should rely on any scholar at any point in time who has written a work? - like Edward Gibbon's now hopelessly outdated The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? There are portions Shirer's work that have been disproven with new discoveries. Why should we rely on Kershaw's book that was originally published in 1999 - at a time when neither Kershaw nor any historian had yet opened or investigated Hitler's regiment's files? Thomas Weber did investigate Hitler's regiment files - in which Weber has uncovered that much of Hitler's service was well behind the frontlines, that is in accordance to what Stettner described the role of regimental dispatch runners as being - behind the front lines, unlike the company dispatch runners or battalion dispatch runners who were at or close to the front lines. Thomas Weber's book is one of the newest, most up-to-date, and highly-praised books on Hitler's service in World War I. In contrast, Shirer's account of Hitler's service in World War I has not been updated since the 1960s.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you kept your comments civil. It would also be helpful if you spend some time trying to understand the views of other contributors whose knowledge and insight likely exceed yours (this may not include me); that way, you could avoid having to repeat yourself most of the time. I stand by my earlier comment — you are trying to build a case for your preferred version by using original research, which violates a central pillar of WP. Malljaja (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I would be more able to be civil if you would stop falsely accusing me of original research. I gave you the most recent, up-to-date source on Hitler's WWI service by Thomas Weber who investigated the files of Hitler's regiment that no other historian did before. His work was praised by major historian on Nazi Germany, Richard J. Evans. And Weber's evidence that he has diligently compiled from the regiment's records and evidence from veterans says that regimental dispatch runners served behind the front line, they were not in consistent serious danger like the company dispatch runners or battalion dispatch runners. The last source by Shirer that the article is using is from the 1960s and Kershaw's latest source in this article is a 2008 edition of his 1999 book on Hitler, it is before Weber's major investigation of the regimental records that has challenged many assumptions about Hitler. If an up-to-date source is available that has been written about Hitler's service in WWI since Weber's major discoveries in the regimental files and accounts for these discoveries, then it is an up-to-date reliable source.--R-41 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

When people get too involved in an argument, they tend to lose perspective. All this talk about different types of runners in the German Army and the different levels of danger they faced is taking the argument a step too far. (How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?). R-41, you are again rubbishing conventionally accepted knowledge to suit your argument. You weren't there and I wasn't there to see how much danger Hitler was in at any particular time on the Western Front, but we do know he wasn't chauffeuring a general around, unloading supplies at a railway station nor manning a field kitchen. He was engaged in activity at the Front, however much time he spent behind the lines, so by any reasonable measure he was a frontline soldier. Kim Traynor (talk)

R-41 is right to ask that Weber's research be included in this article. A brief mention of Hitler's staying with the Bavarian Soviet Republic's military while others were defecting to the Freikorps, and mention of the view that his rabid antisemitism did not emerge until after the Treaty of Versailles, are surely not excessive. Kershaw may be the "gold standard" for Hitler scholarship but this does not mean that one has to wait until he publishes a revised edition of his works incorporating more recent research of Hamann and Weber (and Hamann, at least, may well be considered the foremost auhtority on Hitler's early years).82.113.98.5 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

after July 20

Finally bought a copy of Last Days of Hitler, and noticed it mentioned after the July 20 bomb, when Hitler went into hiding, people were thinking Himmler might have taken over. (p99 of this preview) I didn't see it in any relevant articles and given I haven't worked on this article in years I thought I'd leave it to someone else decide if it has a place here. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Loret

A claim has been made that Jean-Marie Loret was an illegitimate son of Hitler, born in 1918. Should there be further info in this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk • contribs)

We decided that these unproven claims are not going to be included in this article. here is a link to the most recent discussion: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 52#May have had affair in June 1917 resulting in son born in France in 1918. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Information [...] faulty. "Notable opponent" "Pacifism"

An revert of my edit by Dr.K used the reasons that "Original research present" was present in my edit. The two things he pointed out was that "notable opponent" and "pacifism" were not in the citation, which indeed appears very convincing, I could certainly see his reasoning. The source, however did choose the use Hitler first to show how "Not everyone was so charitable," so it would be natural to add the word notable, assuming everyone'd agree the source implies it. However, now I see not everyone agrees the source implies it, so if Dr.K really thinks whether this was notable is questionable, I can change it to some other less assuming word. It is really just some word I for some reason thought was implicitly accepted, and just thrown in to make the sentence less ugly. I can change it if it's a problem. The other word, "pacifism," of course, is not in the source, and the Christmas truce has absolutely no association whatsoever with the mentality of pacifism, but the actual word I used was pacify. Pacify was just the best word to fit there, but I found it on the thesaurus, and didn't know what it means before, so then perhaps readers wouldn't know what it means either. Making it a link helps allowing searching for its meaning faster.

At any rate, my point is, if those are the only things Dr.K wants to fix, it doesn't mean the whole edit ought to be reverted. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The main reason your edit is not being included in the article is because it has been discussed at some length, and the consensus was that it should not be included. -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hitler had a "messianic complex"

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Adolf Hitler has developed a "messianic complex" during World War II. This, according to BBC, said the recently discovered psychological profile 1942nd was commissioned by British intelligence. "Hitler was caught in the trap of religious delusion. Jews considered the incarnation of evil, the incarnation of good himself.", wrote the autor of the psychological profile academic Joseph MacCurdy from Cambridge. 85.114.62.130 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)