Talk:Adolf Hitler

• Adolf or Adolph discussion archive
• Hitler's Sexuality discussion archive

A thought

Part of this article reads as follows:

Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as evil.

While this can be regarded as truth, this statement seems to be callous and maybe even immature.

I am not a Nazi, but I think something like this would work better:

Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically and culturely regarded as immoral.

I don't know, I guess "evil" seems a bit harsh, and maybe allegorial. But it's probably just me. Nonetheless, something to consider. --Chomeara 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

To Ban

If you take a look at the history, a person by the name of Moviekid007 has been defacing the article with Chuck Norris jokes and etc. (Check history) I'm not wikipedia savvy, but if possible, someone should ban his account/ip address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHLinuxGUY (talk • contribs) 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

I hope whoever referenced Hitler as the "Ultimate PWNDER" will stop changing difference pages that mention Hitler. It's just silly, and makes light of a very serious discussiong. Thank you. 606-2-610

See Also

In the 'see also' section, the first item is 'list of coupled cousins'. That is ridiculous. Of all the many articles relating to Hitler and his deeds, that list is surely not one of the most important; the reader gains nothing by it. Moreover, the nature of his relationship with his cousin is ultimately speculative, as the article on Hitler as well as the article on his cousin state clearly. I cannot edit the article, but surely to God that link should be removed?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.255.61 (talk) 08:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Second World War references

Why is it that everytime an article appears about Adolf Hitler, we always have to hear some references to the fact that he was the Fuhrer of Germany during the second world war. So what? What's so special about that?

When I look up about Adolf Hitler, I would like to read more about the man and his family. I'd like to know more about his tastes in clothing fashions and about his relationships.

Hitler's role in the second world war is of no interest to the average reader. (Nurse Hilditch 11:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Hitler is only worthy of an encyclopedia article because he was the leader of Germany during that period, while being especially notable because of his role in the second world war -- namely, that he started it. I would venture to assume that you don't speak for "the average reader" when you say you are not interested in that role. His personal life is also notable, but his impeccable fashion sense is not the reason articles exist about him.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:59, 10/4/2007

And it appears you don't even believe what you're saying -- Talk:Herbert Dingle#Still More Reasons to Restore the September 16 Version. Trying to make a point, perhaps?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:02, 10/4/2007

-While Hitler's role in the second world war is probably what he will be remembered for, there are still some things missing from the Wiki page.. In 1939 he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - The nomination was withdrawn shortly after but nonetheless it could still be included in the article:--RandomAsTheyGet 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Orchestra

The current article says that the Red Orchestra continued to operate after the attempted assassination of Hitler in 1944. But the Red Orchestra article seems to suggest that both groups identified by German counter-intellligence as the Red Orchestra had been destroyed by that time. Pirate Dan 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know know anything about the "Red Orchestra", but there does seem to be an inconsistency, so I've deleted it. Paul B 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AdolfHitler1944Bomb.jpg

This picture is dated wrong. It was most certainly NOT taken in 1944. --24.107.183.94 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, why? According to the source, the National Archives, that is the date [1]. Paul B 13:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 24.107.183.94. (1) Because AH did not wear Nazi party duds after 1 September 1939. (2) Take a look at the people around Adolf, all peace-time party hacks and no Wehrmacht uniform in sight; this is supposed to be 1944. (3) National Archives – so what? U. S. Government statements have never been a guaranty for The Truth and nothing but The Truth.--Gamahler 21:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hitler only said he wasn't going to wear them anymore, that doesn't mean he actually stopped wearing them. Parsecboy 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So what actual evidence is there that "AH did not wear Nazi party dudes after 1 September 1939"? Yes, the US government can be wrong, but the question is who is more likely to be right, the US government or some anonymous internet person? Paul B 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the National Archives is wrong about the date. First, in his speech on 1 September 1939, Hitler said: "My whole life henceforth belongs more than ever to my people. I am from now on just first soldier of the German Reich. I have once more put on that coat that was the most sacred and dear to me. I will not take it off again until victory is secured, or I will not survive the outcome." I went through the first months of the war of my collection of the "Illustrierter Beobachter," the Nazi weekly illustrated magazine. Every photo has him in a field-gray uniform, including his appearance at the commemoration on 9 November 1939, the most sacred day on the party's calendar. I've never seen a datable war-era photo with him in party uniform. He did not visit bombed cities (Goebbels complains about that in his diaries). And the picture shows a healthier looking Hitler, to my eye, than was likely in 1944. It's also unlikely that, in 1944, there would be no one in a military uniform around him. Not conclusive — hard to prove a negative — but the 1944 date is dubious. Bytwerk 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, the evidence, permit me to state this in a convoluted way, is the absence of genuine, dated photos after 1 September 1939 of AH wearing anything but a field gray jacket or overcoat with the Wehrmacht eagle on his upper left sleeve (in Waffen-SS manner). The Hitler Nazi party uniform pictures in Wiki are of essentially unknown origin; (a) the photo of AH examining damage among local party cronies in what seems a rural or small town setting was “captured,” and (b) AH with Benito Mussolini, alleged to be dated 1941-1944 and donated apparently by the Yugoslavs, was therefore also “captured.” Neither instance is a recommendation for authenticity as to place, event or date and the institutional owners of these photos provide merely superficial guesswork. From what I have read and seen, it is my opinion that both images with Hitler in Nazi party getup, are pre-September 1939.--Gamahler 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini visited Munich on 18 June 1940, and that's not Hitler's party uniform, so the Hitler-Mussolini photo is OK. Bytwerk 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider to check out Archive 48 Photo Caption and its miscellaneous contributions.--Gamahler 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, thought you were referring to the picture now in the article. I agree that the picture purporting to show Hitler and Mussolini in Yugoslavia is questionable. The books I need are at my office, but I can't find a record of Hitler meeting Mussolini in Yugoslavia in 1941, and afterwards he was too busy to have been likely to go there. Bytwerk 03:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The SS man to Hitler's right is ALSO wearing a uniform that was long-since discontinued by 1944. I don't see how there is any explanation why both Hitler and the SS man would BOTH be wearing the wrong uniforms in 1944 unless the picture is wrongly dated. --24.171.12.175 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler never visited the concentration camps?

A "Holocaust survivor" once visited my school and claimed that she saw Adolf Hitler in Auschwitz. What is the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler never visited Auschwitz. There is no record of him having done so. Bytwerk 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question about grammar

Adolf Hitler, considered Sparta to be the first National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children.

I'm wondering if that comma after Adolf Hitler is supposed to be there? I would happily edit it myself but firstly I use British English, and secondly I'm not totally clued up on grammar. The quote can be found here. --130.159.248.36 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be there at all. I'll fix it now. Parsecboy 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too late! Paul B 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page protected

Why is this page protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.156 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it gets vandalized all the time. If you create an account, and wait a couple of days, you'll be able to edit it. Are there any changes you see that need to be made? If so, you can always point them out here, and I'd be glad to fix it. If freaking Paul B. doesn't beat me to it ;) Parsecboy 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture redux

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AdolfHitler1944Bomb.jpg

This is a request to remove the above referenced image with its current caption from the Adolf Hitler page. Sufficient doubt was raised by contributors (as to the correctness of event and date) to effect either its removal, or modification of the caption, or further research to identify the location, event and date in Germany – likely an extremely difficult endeavor. Consider to comment.--Gamahler 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I say. Current caption has no date or place mentioned, reducing the image to simply Hitler inspecting bomb damage with officials. I think this is sufficient for it to remain in the article. In no other image is Hitler seen as being made aware of even a fraction of the horrible effects of his war. Binksternet 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet. Research on our part is not allowed. If another source can be found that contradicts the official caption from the National Archives, by all means fix it, but until then, we have to use what we've got. That being said, I think leaving it ambiguous in regards to date and location is probably the best bet, given the doubts to its correctness. Parsecboy 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Hitler, as best I can determine, studiously avoided visiting bombed cities during the war, so the picture is probably inaccurate, and gives a false impression. I think it should go. Bytwerk 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I’m with editor Bytwerk. I did not mean to suggest OR but “search for...” in the literature. I just wonder if this picture also exists over there, i.e., the “captured” picture is in the U.S. Federal Archives, the negative is in a German archive with definitive date and location?--Gamahler 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One would think that a negative or at least a copy of this image exists in Germany as well. Do you think we could pose this question at WP:Germany? I'm sure there are German editors who may be able to check the German Archives at that Wikiproject. Regardless, I think the image should still remain in the article with a more generic caption, rather than removed completely. Parsecboy 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You make a good proposal; I would not know how to go about this. I am convinced – though lacking a definitive reference – that the pictures we’ve been discussing, (1) AH examining damage as shown on the Hitler page, as well as (2) AH and Mussolini in Yugo, are misidentified as to date, location and event. Contributor Bytwerk rates the captions “dubious” based on his sources. I’ll go one step further: the captions are wrong.--Gamahler 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is WP:OR. Your personal theory that Hitler never wore certain clothing after he gave some speech is not legitimate evidence here on Wikipedia. You need to find reliable sources who say that this is the case. If these sources do not say that then your argument counts as 'original research' and we must, according to the rules, go with what the sources say, even if they are - in fact - wrong. We can't judge that. However, of course, we don't have to include information from sources if it may be wrong. We can just omit it. As for Bytwek's claim that Hitler 'avoided bomb damagesd cities', he could hardly 'avoid' Berlin could he? Paul B 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

First, by the time bomb damage was heavy, he was spending most of his time at his military HQ. And by avoiding bomb-damaged cities, I meant that he avoided inspecting the damaged areas. Goebbels, who did do that, mentions in his diaries attempts to persuade Hitler to visit damaged areas, but he was unwilling to do so. Bytwerk 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Cooolway: I don't know where to post this but I have pictures which you can, I took them from a documentary. http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa104/cooolway2/WinstonChurchill3.jpg http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa104/cooolway2/WinstonChurchill.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway (talk • contribs) 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the article, the uncropped versions of those images are already there. Thanks for the suggestion though. Parsecboy 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Health section

The section on vegetarianism is full of apocryphal information and POV's. The reports "of him (sic) disgusting his guests by giving them graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make them shun meat" come from a single magazine articles whose main purpose was to argue against animal rights and vegetarianism rather than Hitler. The claim that "many authors also assert Hitler had a profound and deep love of animals" is completely unreferenced and the insinuation highly inappropriate if we remember that most of the prominent supporters of animal rights were and are Jewish! Please consider editing out these two sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herveshal (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)