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 allegorical. But it's probably just me. Nonetheless, something to consider. --Chomeara 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. Not cool, whoever edited this --Chomeara 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the depiction of Hitler and Nazism as evil is "callous or maybe even immature" is really preposterous. What do you then think defines evil. Wow!! I can hardly believe anyone could write this. The use of the terms British and French Empires also is irrelevant. This is a historical context that may be of importance in the history of causes, but the essence of who Hitler was is little related to that. The war also included the U.S. so the comment is very inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that Hitler defined evil not only in the 20th century, but really across generations, and nothing can mitigate Hitler's evil. In terms of understanding the causes of WW II, one can certainly reflect on a wide range of historical factors, but in considerations of Hitler, none of these are mitigating circumstances. One might reflect on how Hitler came to his thinking, but at core he personifies evil in the 20th century.. Stalin also does so. 66.241.132.98 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Sam

Be that as it may, Wikipedia's policy isn't NPOV "unless there's a REALLY good reason not to be" 129.7.131.198 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I clarified previously, I'm not a Nazi. But I think "evil" sounds wrong. Sure, many in the world regard him as "evil", but doesn't that seem allergorial? Believe or not, there are pro-Nazis. Also many others think his aims and goals were wrong but he had conducted a superb fashion of which to take over the world. Evil is a kindergarten word compared to what I offered. No offense whom ever wrote this article, but evil is overused. I wasn't denying Hitler was evil, but surely a word change would make it fill better.--Chomeara 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chomeara. It does seem harsh and immature. It seems POV anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addie777 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Harsh" - you really think that the word evil describing Hitler is "harsh". Wow.. I can hardly believe you could even write such a thing. Evil is hardly a kindergarten word. Please define "kindergarten word". Words are words, and when there is a single word to describe character - there is hardly a need to look for some other fancy expression to describe that. If there is a word that is overused, it is "cool" as a descriptor for just about anything. I never heard of a word such as "allegorial".. Did you mean allegorical? In any case, that word hardly fits in this context. Please look it up in the dictionary. There is an extensive historical record (Read Ian Kershaw's most recent 2 volume biography of Hitler). This egomaniaical villain caused the deaths of millions of people. He embodies the very epitome of evil. Let's not be silly about this. We do not need apologists for Hitler, nor rationalizations to justify, or soften who he was. The edits on this article are closed, but I certainly suggest it go through careful review by some qualified historians so that it does not become sanitized as if poor Hitler did not get a fair review here. History speaks clearly as to who he was and what he did. It speaks to his talents and political skills and sheer nerve in his policies, but at end, he was indeed evil. This is very well documented. Too long to put into Wikipedia. There are some neo-nazi websites that try to give a "fair" description of Hitler, but in fact, all they do is try to create a belief system that goes against reality. He certainly was a fascinating historical figure, but one that also draws feelings of horror that he could do what he did with his henchmen. Millions of people died because of him. That is hard to fathom, but it is historical fact. 216.254.166.201 04:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Sam

If someone uses the word "evil" to describe someone, I feel downright pity for them. "Evil" does describe Hitler, but it isn't the best adjective. BTW I already chaged the sentence, and no one has changed it. Also the definition of allegory: Work of written, oral, or visual expression that uses symbolic figures, objects, and actions to convey truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience. as quoted on "Answers.com". The word "evil" is very symbolic. I am not denying Hitler was evil, but I think that "evil" is way too general and brief to fully describe him. Plus, it is POV

--Chomeara 12:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be reworded. --Ye Olde Luke 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV. There are facts in the world, not everything is POV/opinion. 2+2=4 no matter what, a man who does evil is evil it is simple straight forward logic. In any case, I spit on Adolph Hitler's grave and upon all Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.220.63 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about opinion if Hitler is evil or not, in fact check out this link from Wikipedia itself, [[1]].

Read it? Good. You might say, "That defines Hitler." or "You're contradicting yourself." True enough, I suppose, but that sort of thing is a label, [[2]], which differs person to person. Just go on Google Blog Search, and type "I love Hitler", (here, I did it for you) [[3]]. Ask any of them, and they won't define Hitler as evil, heck, they love him!

Also, evil, (if you read it) is a definiton for someone, of which SOMEONE else gives, not the general public. It is not NPOV. It is POV. It should be reworded. Also, there is zero proof that the love or hate of Hitler and Nazis isn't opinion. Yes, here in America or Germany, he's regarded as evil, but labeling (if you read that article) is not FACT. It is an opinion made based off facts. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, which is why Americans regard him as evil. That is fact. But him being evil, not fact, strictly opinion. Does that make any sense to anyone? If so, please tell me. --Chomeara 17:00, 14 November 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)

"Hitler's role in the second world war is of no interest to the average reader."- "Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize." Well, certainly, yes. Any more unconventional suggestions? Maybe about Hitler, the wonderful dancer? Or his secret love for freedom, peace and democracy?

I have to assume there are a lot of strange people in this world. Sam Golden 06:16, 1 November 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 damaged 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)

The image indisputably depicts Hitler inspecting bomb damage, so clearly he did not avoid it altogether. The only question is when and where it was. If it is not war damage, the only other possibility I can think of is that it follows one of the several assassination attempts on him, but this is guesswork. It could be either. Paul B 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Paul, I do dispute the fact that it shows Hitler inspecting bomb damage. It clearly shows him inspecting damage of some sort, but for reasons previously raised, it's not likely to be bomb damage during WWII. Bytwerk 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather doubt that all those grim-faced party functionaries were there to study the results of a gas leak. Paul B 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the friendly assistance of the folk at axishistory.com, I now have the evidence that the photograph is pre-war. Look at the picture on this page: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=129961. The angle is different, but the building in the background is identical to the one in the photograph. The rubble is similar as well. I'll remove the photograph from the article. Bytwerk 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Paul B 11:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the image is definitely from the same location/time as the one from the forum. I'm fine with deleting the image as well. I'd like to find a place to use it elsewhere, though. It is a good picture, afterall. Parsecboy 14:53, 12 November 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)

"most of the prominent supporters of animal rights were and are Jewish!" Oh really? Says who? We don't exclude information about Hitler's views on non-politial matters simply because it might be upsetting to some people that they share them. Paul B 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See Reductio ad Hitlerum. It's a logical fallacy, and is no way justification to remove facts about Hitler. Parsecboy 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

hitler in office

In office 2 August 1934 – 30 April 1945 as far as i know adolf hitler gained power in 1933 jan 30 not 1934 2 of august. |-|17|\/|ÅÑ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitman688 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, but it wasn't until August 2, 1934, when Hindenburg died, that he gained actual control of the German state. That's the more crucial date. Parsecboy 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was evil

The article never mentions that he was evil. Fix this. 163.41.138.2 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that Hitler was evil, but stating as such in the article would probably violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. SomeDarnGuy 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not probably, definitely. Saying Hitler was evil is one of the few statements explicitly excluded in the NPOV policy page. See "Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves". Paul B 11:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think he was evil. Just as I think Muhammad was evil. However, we have NPOV policy to maintain. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and Stalin in Cartoons

Here is a collection of cartoons about Hitler and Stalin 1932-1948 seen from Switzerland (Nebelspalter). The cartoons let us feel the situation which was dominating central Europe during that time: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/ch/nebelspalter-Hitler-Stalin1932-1939-ENGL.html

This link could be integrated into the link collection of external links. 84.74.56.127 13:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

The section on religious beliefs is pretty confusing, especially the last paragraph. I think it needs to be modified as at the moment it seems to suggest that Hitler had a special preference for Islam. The source quoted suggests that Hitler wasn't a fan of any religion and I think it would be better to mention his anti-religious sentiments overall rather than single out Christianity and Judaism as targets of his vilification. Shinigami27 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did not have "anti-religious sentiments overall". Far from it. It's true that he said positive things about Islam, but also about Japanese religious culture. He said many negative things about Christianity - in private - but I knpow of no evidence that he expressed opposition to religion as such. So, yes, he did single out Christianity and Judaism. --Paul B 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true. He considered Islam to be more of a religion of war and because of that more suited for the Germans. He considered Christianity to be a Jewish religion and wanted to abolish it in the long run. But of course, he couldn't say so in public, because that would not go well with most of Germany's Christians. — Superman (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

the very first sentence

should reflect what most educated people think when they hear "Hitler", to an English-speaking audience. Not doing this is like not including the word "domestic" in the first sentence of the article on Dog. The fact is, when you say Newton, people think of Physics (even though he did as much alchemy and even religious studies), and when you say Hitler, people think of "evil" (with which his name is synonymous) and mass murder. I propose the first sentence read:

"Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945), whose name today is synonymous with the genocide and mass murder of World War II (see Holocaust), was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany from 1934–1945."

The fact exists that the word Hitler is a part of pop culture, and that needs to be reflected in the first sentence of this article. You're writing for the general reader, for example, if there were eight more or less Hitlers, you should identify clearly why this one is the one they're reading about. It's not so much his political post that matters here, but what we attribute to his work. (For example, I would expect Roentgen's first sentence to state that he discovered x-rays, and Einstein's to mention his synonimity with Genius, which in fact the genius article does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.56 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective; an encyclopaedia should, first and foremost, tell people what they already [think they] know? In any case, I think your premise is flawed; the Final Solution is not the only, or even the most, notable thing about Adolf Hitler from a NPOV. His leadership of Germany before and during the Second World War are. FiggyBee 11:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)