Talk:Adolf Hitler

Request to add information

"Due to the growing pressure and Hindenburg's threat of dismissing him as chancellor, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934."

The bold part is the information I want to add. I think this is a crucial information on why Hitler decided to move against Röhm, his long time supporter. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source book. But our article Night of the Long Knives says that Hindenburg was threatening to enact martial law, not threatening to dismiss Hitler. It uses the same book and pages as a source. Evans 2005 page 30 says the same thing: Hindenburg was threatening to enact martial law.— Diannaa (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa I'm well-aware. "He then told Hitler that Hindenburg was close to declaring martial law and turning the government over to the Reichswehr..." The only way to let the armed force rule is to dismiss Hitler. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It sounds to me like you are drawing a conclusion that is not actually present in the source book. We can't do that.— Diannaa (talk) 19:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa It sounds to me that you lack knowledge on this topic. It's not a conclusion I invented since they are equivalent statements. Read 1934 German referendum (background) for more information. I'll wait for input from experts in the field. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa is, of course, correct. For it not to be original research which is not permitted to be the basis of a Wikipedia edit, the text has to be explicitly supported by the citation. What you propose is not. DeCausa (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa It is explicit because they're equivalent statements with different wordings. You're actually demanding for "exact wording" which is absurd since we have to paraphrase information from the source anyway. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Diannaa is correct. Hindenburg never threatened to oust Hitler - and I am damn well-versed in the subject, as is Diannaa -- so don't give me the guff you gave her. What you're doing is WP:Original research and it's forbidden.

I find it rather incredible that you're a 'crat on Wiktionary with the kind of attitude you're throwing around here - 6 years with 57 edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken I find it incredible that your claim to being well-versed may not be authentic. My kind of attitude is the same as you guys'. Take a closer look at when I first joined Vi Wikipedia (xtools); let me give you a hint, it was before you. As for you, 12 years with 0 edit in Vi Wikipedia.

Taking from 1934 German referendum, "In the wake of escalating Nazi excesses, Hindenburg threatened to sack Hitler and to declare martial law unless Hitler took immediate steps to end the tension. Hitler responded by ordering the Night of the Long Knives, in which several SA leaders, most notably Ernst Röhm, were murdered along with several of Hitler's other past rivals." Nguyentrongphu (talk) 03:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I'm quite aware of what happened on the Night of the Long Knives, and why it happened, thanks so much for assuming otherwise (you'll find that I;m in the top 10 in edits and text added on our article [1]). As for my lack of editing on Vietnamese Wikipedia, I'm not trying to edit there, you are trying to edit here. I have no idea what vi.wiki's policies and procedures are, but I know what they are on English Wikipedia, whereas you, clearly, do not. So stop trying to throw your weight around and bully people, and listen to what 3 very senior editors are telling you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken The policies and procedures are the same actually. I don't edit here often, but I do edit when I see little things that can be improved there and there. What's your interpretation on "sack Hitler"? I take it to mean that Hindenburg threatened to dismiss Hitler as chancellor. Funny how the bully calls his victim a bully. And, I'm sorry my seniority is higher than all of you since I first joined in 2008 with this account. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I didn’t realise you are “higher” than all of us. You’re trying to quote another Wikipedia article in support? You don’t have the equivalent of WP:CIRC on vi.wiki? It’s a quote from a start-class article, from a section tagged {{refimprove}} and from a sentence with a a page-less citation tagged {{page number}} over 6 months ago. Is that the gold standard we should be aspiring to on en.wp? DeCausa (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa I wasn't the first one who started to talk about "seniority". Higher or lower doesn't matter to me. What matters is the strength of an argument. I was just making a point that don't start to talk about seniority when you joined Wikipedia after me. Anyway, I've been around long enough to know that Wikipedia can't be used as a reliable source. I'm using its sources to support my position, not the Wikipedia article itself. Granted, the pages are missing. Fine, I'll come back in a near future when I find something with a page number. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dianaa and BMK, what is being proposed is bootstrapping or synthesis of the facts. Kierzek (talk) 03:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

References

Private Henry Tandey

Rather than edit war over whether or how to qualify the anecdote added here, please discuss on this talk page instead.

I don't have strong opinions one way or the other, but did notice that, in the quoted source, Thomas Weber calls it an "unlikely story" ("[Hitler] told Chamberlain an unlikely story of how Private Tandey had encountered him personally during the war and how Tandey could have shot him dead but had refused to do so.", my emphasis). The way that footnote is written right now, readers don't learn about Weber's assessement of the story's likelihood. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I have removed it for now. Hitler said a lot of things, — Diannaa (talk) 12:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

As I said in a related section to this above, there’s no reason to mention this as there’s no strong supporting RS evidence that it actually took place. It reminds me of the published “story” that Hitler visited Liverpool, England in his youth. Rubbish. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa and Kierzek. I hadn't noticed that section above, "World war 1 expanded". ---Sluzzelin talk 12:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't actually noticed it either. But if it's not proven to be true, it's likely just something Hitler made up one day, so removal is a good idea in my opinion.— Diannaa (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Richard Meinertzhagen also told a story that he had met Hitler with a pistol in his pocket but decided not to shoot him. Even if true (very unlikely in both cases) these stories are trivia compared to the bulk of the article. Zero^talk 13:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Removal is, I think, the correct decision. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't really make a opinion as there isn't any evidence of either scenario though I will state that its a rather minor detail in a article like this. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

When I added this Tandey story, it was as a "note" not in the main body of the text. It merely acknowledges this alleged encounter, but I have no issue with its removal since its veracity is doubted. My thinking was it (this story) by implication demonstrated his delusional nature but it's omission is fine too.--Obenritter (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There are two additional considerations here that make this more significant than many of you are presuming. First, Hitler made this claim not to his minions or while stomping around in one of his offices but to another high-ranking foreign official. Secondly, it also demonstrates to some degree his wish to earn British approval by glorifying their most decorated WW1 combat veteran. Nonetheless, I remain in agreement that if by consensus you decide it's not worth mentioning.--Obenritter (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding your second consideration, I don't think that point was made clear at all the way you added the footnote. You added it to the sentence "In Hitler's view, the British-brokered peace, although favourable to the ostensible German demands, was a diplomatic defeat which spurred his intent of limiting British power to pave the way for the eastern expansion of Germany." I did not get that the footnote was trying to say anything about wishing to earn British approval by glorification of a British soldier, and nowhere was I informed that historians consider this tale Hitler told a tall one. The context Weber givs is about Hitler using his personal war experience in order to convince Chamberlain that "all Germany wants was to undo peacefully the injustices of the Versailles Treaty." That, again, isn't exactly congruent with your second consideration. I have nothing against anecdotes illustrating a point in biographical articles, but I think we should be far clearer and far more careful about what it is supposed to illustrate. Ideally, the source should have already made that connection. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pretty clear that I said I am OK with consensus already. Where else would one include this footnote given the very light treatment of Hitler's negotiations with Britain on this page? BTW -- nothing is stopping an editor from including the historian's opinion that this tale was likely bunk...which is obvious, since what would be the mathematical odds that Britain's greatest soldier had come face-to-face with Hitler? Yes -- it could be made clearer. It was just an inclusion given who the interaction was between. Concerning my second point (which you think incongruent) if you are familiar with Hitler's admiration for the British Empire, yes this was glorification to win favor. --Obenritter (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Partially fair enough, I didn't mean to attack you. Personally, I'm excessively familiar with Hitler's biography, I'm taking the perspective of readers who come here to learn more about the topic of this article, and I think things in the article need to be spelled out for those who aren't as familiar. I never said I agree with the consensus to exclude this info, period, I just think, if it gets included, it needs to be embedded with due context, understandable to readers who are not "familiar with Hitler's admiration for the British Empire" as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Interesting tale even if it was false. I see no harm in including it in a footnote. However, a better context must be given + including the historian's opinion that this tale was likely bunk. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sluzzelin: Understand your perspective entirely, so no worries. Many of us around here would be considered SMEs, so we sometimes need to police one another and remember that the audience is the general reader. --Obenritter (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I think you should put the footnote after after this sentence, "On 29 September Hitler, Neville Chamberlain, Édouard Daladier, and Mussolini attended a one-day conference in Munich that led to the Munich Agreement, which handed over the Sudetenland districts to Germany." My suggestion for the footnote beginning, "Earlier, while Hitler was negotiating with Chamberlain in the Führer's alpine retreat, Chamberlain saw a painting and asked about it..." Nguyentrongphu (talk) 22:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

That still would neither put it in relevant context nor make it clear, in my opinion. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion isn't meant to spell out everything. The footnote writer needs to address 2 more things in the footnote: historian's opinion + Hitler did it to win favor with the Britain. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Chaplin

Chaplin's trademark character "the Tramp" debuts in Kid Auto Races at Venice (1914), Chaplin's second released film

In a BBC documentary, a film clip, visually similar (Hitler is on the opposite side of frame) to Kid Auto Races at Venice, is presented as Hitler's first newsreel appearance. The event was moments before a passing parade.

.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Request to change 2

"In response to Hindenburg's threat of declaring martial law, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934." (the bold part is the new change)

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281

…Blomberg instead was now the stern Prussian general and he brusquely informed Hitler that he was authorized by the Field Marshal to tell him that unless the present state of tension in Germany was brought quickly to an end the President would declare martial law and turn over the control of the State to the Army. When Hitler was permitted to see Hindenburg for a few minutes in the presence of Blomberg, the old President confirmed the ultimatum…

Rationale: it was clear that Hitler was hesitant to move against Rohm due to his prominence in the SA and perhaps partially to his long term friendship (and his long term support to Hitler) with Hitler. The ultimatum was the final catalyst that pushed Hitler toward action. Hitler didn't act in response to "anxiety among military, industrial, and political leaders." If anything, the old wording was misleading and gave the wrong impression of the situation. Hitler had a strong support from every level of society in Germany, and he knew it. Hindenburg was his last obstacle and the only one who could declare martial law and also dismiss Hitler (if he wanted). This article is not even close to be complete, and there are a lot of room for improvement! Nguyentrongphu (talk) 10:52, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Where does Shirer say that was why Hitler purged the SA? DeCausa (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa "Hitler had hesitated for months in moving against Röhm, in part due to Röhm's visibility as the leader of a national militia with millions of members. However, the threat of a declaration of martial law from Hindenburg, the only person in Germany with the authority to potentially depose the Nazi regime, put Hitler under pressure to act. He left Neudeck with the intention of both destroying Röhm and settling scores with old enemies. Both Himmler and Göring welcomed Hitler's decision, since both had much to gain by Röhm's downfall – the independence of the SS for Himmler, and the removal of a rival for the future command of the army for Göring." There you have it (from a different author though). Clearly, Hitler made up his mind immediately after the threat. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

References

To be clear, not only is that not Shirer, it’s not Evans either. You’ve cut and paste it from our own Night of the Long Knives article and claimed it as a quote from Evans. Misleading and WP:CIRC again. Nevertheless, that’s an FA so I’m sure the sourcing is correct in that article. In the Night of the Long Knives article the passage forms part of a much longer narrative of the lead-up to the purge. You’ve plucked it out and put it into a shorter narrative thereby changing the emphasis. WP:UNDUE. That’s the way I read anyway. Others, including two editors on this page who are in the top 10 number of edits for that FA, will be in a better position to comment. DeCausa (talk) 12:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

DeCausa I made 0 attempt to hide or mislead the fact that I copied and pasted from that article. Note a big difference in my citing style of original source vs sources embedded in Wikipedia here and section above. Again like I said in the section above, I'm using the sources in the article, not the article itself as source. I assumed the editors paraphrased it faithfully from the source. It's a reasonable assumption given its FA status. I'm well aware which is reliable sources vs non reliable sources given my 13 years of experience in editing Wikipedia.

Due weight argument is irrelevant here for 2 reasons. First: the old wording was misleading and partially untrue. Second: I proposed to add 7 words, not the whole paragraph, based on established facts with reliable sources. The biggest reason for Hitler to purge the SA deserves 7 words mention.

Lastly, top 10 editors in that articles may not be experts in Hitler as the whole. Surely, they're experts in that 1 single important event. I would like to hear input from top 10 editors in this article, whose input would be more valuable in my opinion. All opinions are welcomed though. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Nguyentrongphu: You are again synthesizing text and also giving the reader the impression that was the only reason for the purge of the SA leadership. There were multiple reasons for the purge. See Kershaw (2008), pp. 301-316. For example, he states on page 302 that the military “leadership was intensely and increasingly alarmed by the military pretenses of the SA. Failure on Hitler‘s part to solve the problem of the SA would conceivably lead to army leaders favoring an alternative head of state on Hindenburg‘s death.” He also writes about how Hitler‘s unruly party army had outlived its purpose, which was to win power. He talks about how the SA was “threatening to become completely uncontrollable. Steps had to be taken” and “Hindenburg himself requested Hitler to restore order.” He then goes on to talk about Rohm’s ambitions and how he wanted to continue the “German revolution”, etc. As a note, you stated you wanted to hear from the “top 10 editors” of this article, I am certainly one of them and I also helped bring this article up to GA status, as did Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm using information from the sources, not synthesizing anything. There were other minor factors sure, but the biggest factor was army's threat. Hindenburg made Hitler realize that. Also, your whole paragraph was only about army's threat which is equivalent to my requested statement. Okay, I respect your opinion, but there is still room for improvement though. "Anxiety among military, industrial, and political leaders" put pressure on Hitler sure, but that didn't make him act until Hindenburg's personal threat. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

You first write the sole reason is "Hindenburg's threat of declaring martial law" (at the outset of the section thread). Now, you say the "biggest factor was army's threat" and in the same paragraph above, that no action was taken until "Hindenburg's personal threat"; that is not logical. To give you another RS source, in looking at The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich, pp. 806-809. Not once do they list as a factor "a personal threat" by Hindenburg. They talk about Papen's Marburg speech of June 17th, being the last catalyst to make Hitler act (although he had already by then "steered toward a violent confrontation" [with Rohm and the SA]. Kierzek (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Martial law, army's threat and Hindenburg's threat are the same thing though. Hindenburg's threat was to declare martial law and let the army take over the state. It's logical when things are equivalent of each other. The Encyclopedia of the Third Reich doesn't list the personal threat, but I'm sure it mentions of army's threat.

It's known from Evans source that Hitler was hesitant for months in going against Rohm. Had Hindenburg not made the threat, it's debatable whether Hitler would take action right away. If Hitler hesitated for 1 more month until Hindenburg's death, the army would surely make a coup, and a civil war would ensure with SA vs the army. It's a fact that there is a reliable source saying Hitler made up his mind about the purge right after Hindenburg's threat. Sure, he was leaning toward violent purge before but didn't make up his mind until then. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I never write Hindenburg's threat as the sole reason. My proposed statement + the sentence before it would give the readers an impression that Hitler did the purge in response to Hindenburg's threat amidst tense situation intertwined with many different factors. Also, note that Hindenburg's ultimatum clearly (from the source above) stated Hitler has to act quickly before he calls martial law. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 14:20, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I am not going to argue semantics with you. Your words and writings speak for themselves. I am not going to comment further on this thread, at this point, either. If others wish to do so, that is up to them. At this time, you do not have consensus for changes to be made. Kierzek (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Your argument falls flat when your own stated source is actually agreeing with my position. You ran out of valid points to argue and started to blame semantics. Yes, my words and writings do speak for me loud and clear, so does yours. Let the community decide who makes more sense and has a stronger point. Lastly, I can't edit this article anyway due to protection, so someone eventually has to make the edit for me assuming I get consensus in the end. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to compromise if you can present a better statement that incorporates my position and yours, but it does seem that you're unwilling to try to improve the article further. The current sentence is partially untrue, incomplete and doesn't show the whole story to the readers. 7 more words are super concise and improving readers' understanding of the situation significantly. There are definitely many other ways to improve the sentence. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And he still doesn't have consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, for now, that is true. It's still early though. Consensus usually takes a few days up to a few months to develop. I'm a patient type of guy. I'll wait for more input from others who are willing to discuss with an open mind plus strong rational points instead of blaming semantics and wanting to improve this article further (also willing to let go of the ego). I'll consider Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard if there aren't enough participation here. 1 to 2 people objecting is not considered to be a consensus to not add. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources

First source in supporting my claim:

…This was a disastrous turn of affairs for the Nazi Chancellor. Not only was his plan to succeed the President in jeopardy; if the Army took over, that would be the end of him and of Nazi government. Flying back to Berlin the same day he must have reflected that he had only one choice to make if he were to survive. He must honor his pact with the Army, suppress the S.A. and halt the continuance of the revolution for which the storm troop leaders were pressing. The Army, backed by the venerable President, it was obvious, would accept no less…

— The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281–82

Second source in supporting my claim: Richard Evans (2005). The Third Reich in Power, page 31

Both sources basically claim that Hitler was forced to initiate the purge as soon as possible right after hearing Hindenburg's ultimatum. If not, he would be faced with serious consequences. Prior to that, Hitler had been hesitant to move against Rohm for months due to their long term friendship and Rohm's prominence in the SA (this was also stated in the source). My rationale: there was no reason to believe Hitler would purge his long term friend and suppoter Rohm if Hindenburg didn't make the threat. At most, Hitler would make a compromise with Rohm. Hindenburg died a month later. Had Hitler hesitated for another month, he would most likely have been overthrown by the army. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is not a great source in 2021. It would make sense to cite it if we were trying to write this article in 1965, but there has been much better scholarship published in the last fifty years. Longerich's and Kershaw's biographies are both much stronger sources. (t · c) buidhe 09:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  I don't have all the sources with me. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 11:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Third proposal

"In response to the army's threat, Hitler purged the entire SA leadership in the Night of the Long Knives, which took place from 30 June to 2 July 1934." (the bold part is the new change)

Sources supporting my claim:

• The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich by William Shirer, page 281–82
• Richard Evans (2005). The Third Reich in Power, page 31
• Ian Kershaw (2008). Hitler, page 302: "leadership was intensely and increasingly alarmed by the military pretenses of the SA. Failure on Hitler‘s part to solve the problem of the SA would conceivably lead to army leaders favoring an alternative head of state on Hindenburg‘s death."

Nguyentrongphu (talk) 12:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The army did not threaten anyone! Pincrete (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, Blomberg and Hindenburg did in fact threaten Hitler that the army would seize power if Hitler didn't act quickly. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a literal threat. Dictionary's definition of threat (one of the possible definitions): "an indication or warning of probable trouble, or of being at risk for something terrible." Hitler knew he had to act quickly before the army would have seized power. In any case, the sources are supporting my position. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The current sentence is untrue and misleading. Hitler didn't do the purge because of some people's anxiety. Of course, there were other factors, but the army's threat was no doubt the biggest factor. It's impossible to fit everything in 1 sentence. Interested readers can read more in detail at Night of the Long Knives article. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 15:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no point in continuing this discussion. We have entered an Alice in Wonderland world where words mean whatever you want them to mean. The army apparently means Hindenburg and a threat does not have to mean a literal threat! Apart from inanimate objects (the car threatened to leave the road) or abstract concepts (the weather threatened to deteriorate), I cannot think of any situation in which the word 'threat' does not necessitate an actual threat!

How on earth would the reader be expected to understand that "the army" does not mean "the army" and that "threat" does not mean an actual "threat". All that of course before even asking whether this is the explanation offered by the best, currently respected sources. Apologies, I will not engage any more - discussion at this level is pointless. Pincrete (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I didn't invent the definition. They're from the dictionary. Hindenburg only made Hitler realize about the army's threat. The army doesn't mean Hindenburg. Hindenburg was only informing to Hitler. The army had been planning to seize power even before Hindenburg talked to Hitler. The threat here was an indication that the army would seize power if Hitler didn't act soon enough. The army does mean the army, and threat means an indication of something terrible. Ian Kershaw's biography is actually currently one of the best respected sources on Hitler. Nguyentrongphu (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

So, you're just going to ignore the warning [2] just issued to you by admin Bishonen and continue to WP:Bludgeon this discussion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I have asked on AN/I for an admin to suggest to Nguyentrongphu that they stop WP:BLUDGEONing this talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hitler's Last Public Speaking was on July 4, 1944

MODERATOR: This article should include... Hitler gave his last public speaking engagement for a private group of 200 German industry leaders on July 4, 1944.<ref]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1gISC92E2E&t=3s 9:52 </ref] 2601:589:4802:AB0:80F4:8C3:9BBD:C5A (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)