Talk:Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler is not German

"supposedly german born" Adolf Hitler is actually An Austrian and is also a Hypocrite because he wanted everyone to have blond hair blue eyes but what did he have? Black hair, brown eyes plus he was also half Jewish he came to germany with a sudden hatred for jews when german citizens went in to debt but the jews were doing fine because in those day Jews were rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedstoneTinkerer (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:V, and try actually reading an article before commenting on it. The article does not say that he was born in Germany or even supposedly born in Germany. Hitler was not half Jewish, you've confused one of his parents with an unsubstantiated claim that Hitler's paternal grandfather might have possibly been Jewish (that is rejected by modern historians). Your claims regarding Jews sound like Nazi propaganda. Would you like to be blocked as a troll? Ian.thomson (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

The article makes no claim that Hitler was German-born but that he was a German politician, which of course, he was. Whether or not Hitler was German would depend on the definition of "German" used. Germans as an ethnic group existed long before the unification of Germany as a nation-state in 1871. Hitler was not born in Germany and he never claimed to be, on the contrary, he used his Austrian birth to reinforce his German identity in advocating the pan-German concept of a Greater Germany which would include his birth country Austria (as well as other territories). Hitler was an ethnic German born in an Austrian town that had been part of Germany until 1866 when Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian war in 1866 which ultimately excluded Austria and the Austrian Germans from Germany and the Prussian-dominated German Empire. The German-speaking Austrian inhabitants of the Austro-Hungarian empire considered themselves to be Germans. After the collapse of the empire, Austria was officially called the Republic of German-Austria but the victors of WWI forbid the union between Austria and Germany. The concept of an Anschluss was well established before the Nazis came to prominence in Germany. In 1938, Austrian-born Hitler annexed his birth country Austria with the approval of the majority of the Austrian people. An Austrian identity separate from German only came about after WWII. Hitler did not want everyone to have blonde hair and blue eyes and he actually had brown hair and blue eyes. He was not half Jewish, there are persistent rumours that his paternal grandfather was Jewish but there is no substantial evidence to support this claim and Hans Frank's thesis has been thoroughly debunked by modern historians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.130.223 (talk • contribs)

Please do use the talk section for the aim of improving the article rather than just posting utter hogwash.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

Er, I found out some more information, so I er, would like to edit and put it in here myself? Thank you. 123kdkd12 (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't be coy; tell us what ya got. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Use of the term 'Dictator'

I find that Wikipedia has inconsistency with the use of this term. It is used in the first paragraph of this article yet in the articles of living dictators who called themselves prime ministers, it is not used; for example, Prayut Chan-o-cha, the current dictator(2014-2017) of Thailand. For a dedicated soul it would do Wikipedia good to use this term consistently throughout the website. Either these people all were/are dictators based on a certain criteria or they aren't at all. NaturalEquality (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

The criteria is the description used in reliable sources. If you can find and quote such a source that would help your argument for inclusion. Then you could make your case on the talk page of that article.Britmax (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a Tu quoque and metaphor fallacy. So what? Der furhrer is a prime example and the very definition of dictator. Comparison to other articles uis irrelevant to this discussion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hitler commited suicide on Walpurgis Night April 30

Every April 30 is known in Germany and some neighboring countries as Walpurgis Night and according to History Channel's Hitler and the Occult, this festival has a connection to reincarnation. 2601:589:4705:C7C0:81EC:7A23:F060:3FE (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The Indiana Jones Channel is not a reliable source. We use professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources, not sensationalist networks. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

History Channel did have a good discussion of this subject in 2002, with interviews from George Mosse and others. However, in recent years they have become increasingly sensationalist and are now regarded as a joke. The timing of Hitlers suicide had more to do with the military situation in the Battle of Berlin and the encroachment of the Red Army on his bunker. The fact that it was on Walpurgisnacht is just coincidence.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 14:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Bellerophon5685. The Soviet Army was literally just down the street and that's what determined the timing of the suicide. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)

Ah, but were there DARK FORCES driving the Soviets down the street? The perfect confluence of her-night, with their day? Pincrete (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

About 13:00 in the afternoon, is not any night at all is it... but a fitting end to that 33-hour honeymoon? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Its apophenia - seeing meaning in random data. I'm sure if you looked hard enough you can fit the number 23 into it. The Illuminati were founded on May 1, 1776, May 1, 1933 the first Humanist Manifesto was published, as was the first issue of the Catholic Worker; on April 30, 1966 the Church of Satan was founded; May 1, 2011 Osama bin Laden died (US time). Synchronicity, Coincidence, what ever.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, 1 in 365.25 aren't really very big odds, are they? Even so, I've now cancelled by subscription, just to be on the safe side. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I think [ this] is the documentary that OP is referring to, if anyone wishes to investigate further.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellerophon5685 (talk • contribs)

I think that link violates WP:COPYVIOEL, which is why I've removed it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Ahah! The Illuminati is trying to censor the truth ;)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a sentence

The article currently states "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." referenced with the source David Welch's Hitler: Profile of a Dictator on page 2. Has anyone actually bothered to read the page? It does not say that, it states "The word most commonly associated with Hitler is "evil" and commentators have been quick to emphasize his role and personal responsibility for the undeniable crimes committed by the Nazi regime." and then goes on to say that it's simply a moral judgement to describe Hitler as "evil" and explains nothing.

Does this sentence even need to be included in the article? If so, another source should be used because Welch's book does not state what is currently in the article.--79.70.129.151 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for checking. I think you should correct it while consensus develops on how to deal with it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

While Welch goes on to state that he does not agree with making moral judgements, the source does back up the statement that many historians have described Hitler as evil. We could add additional citations if that would help. For instance Shirer calls Hitler evil on page 5 ("undoubted, if evil, genius") and 1081 ("By now the generals knew the evil of the man before whom they groveled"). I am sure I could find some more if that's the way people want to go. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You know, I am not sure we really need this sentence, even though it is undoubtedly true and citeable. The rest of the article (or even the rest of the paragraph) makes it quite clear that Hitler was "evil." Affirming that historians used the specific word doesn't add much. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As modern historians and political scientists generally avoid terms like 'evil' (as such language is seen to be an easy way out, instead of seeking to explain events), I'm sceptical about the accuracy and relevance of the statement. It sounds like the source also makes this point (thanks a lot to the IP editor for checking the reference), so it should be removed from the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Ummm. Deep waters. Evil. Kershaw appears to accept the premise that Hitler was "evil" [[1]] although he qualifies it as a problematic term in historical usage. I think there is material for improving the article here. Maybe we can turn this to the readers advantage, with a short section dealing with past and contemporary historical viewpoints, instead of a disputed, throwaway sentence. It is an issue which some readers may find the article is not addressing adequately. At this point I am minded to keep, although ideally replace the sentence with a section with more meat. There is some material in the article we can trim, to make room for a short section. In many ways the problem of "evil" is the major factor for the enduring fascination that Hitler has. It says as much about us as it does about Hitler. I think it should be addressed somehow. Irondome (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa, Welch doesn't really say that. He says that Hitler is commonly referred to as "evil", not the Nazi regime. Although Hitler was the leader of the Nazi regime, the two are not synonymous. Even Kershaw states regarding describing Hitler as evil "However, evil is a theological or philosophical, rather than a historical, concept." Does this sentence actually need to be included in the article anyway? Wikipedia stresses NPOV so I don't see why people's opinions of Hitler and the Nazi regime need to be necessarily included in the article at all. Also, no such things are mentioned in the articles of other mass murderers of history such as Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong.--79.70.129.151 (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Since the article is over-long already, I have no objection to taking it out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa it should just be taken out. Kierzek (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"a short section dealing with past and contemporary historical viewpoints"

We already have an article called Historiography of Adolf Hitler, which should address such viewpoints. Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

If the article is well over-long and could do with being trimmed in parts then I think the section "legacy" could certainly be a start and have some information removed. Is it really necessary to quote full sentences from the historians mentioned? Also, since it's okay to remove the section regarding the sentence "Historians, philosophers, and politicians often use the word "evil" to describe the Nazi regime." then could the same not be said for "Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral;"? They are virtually saying the same thing anyway. Also, regarding the mention of Sebastian Haffner, is it necessary to have included in the article that he "avers that without Hitler and the displacement of the Jews, the modern nation state of Israel would not exist. He contends that without Hitler, the de-colonisation of former European spheres of influence would have been postponed"? This is just his opinion and doesn't really have any bearing regarding Hitler's "legacy". Regarding Haffner's statement about Hitler's impact and comparing him to Alexander the Great when many historians such as Kershaw in his book Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris mentions how much of an impact Hitler had and still has. What do you think?--92.18.76.224 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Suggested sentence: "Historians and commentators emphasize his role and personal responsibility for the undeniable crimes committed by the Nazi regime.". The term "evil" is subjective and in my opinion, could be a word that glorifies Hitler, rather then denigrates him. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2017

Death date and location formally and offically are unknown as to the recent evidence in the past few years that uncovered the fact that he escaped germany Namelessbeaver (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)