Talk:Adolf Hitler

Biased article?

Does anyone else feel that this article is one sided? It seems to document lots of bad things about Hitler so maybe we can add some good things about him to balance the article out? Betty Logan (talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe we should talk about how he improved the condition of Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.89.127 (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The economic revival is often cited as a good example of Hitler's successes as a leader, along with his talent for speaking and cultivation of support. SGGH ^ping! 19:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The economic situation in Germany both before and after he first came to power is probably central to the rise of the Nazi party. It should also be pointed out that a large part of this economic revival however was due to the state creation of jobs in both the military and the manufacture of military hardware. Therefore while this did lead to substantial growth in the German economy it was also unstainable and the only way it could be sustained was to utilise the investment in this military project in the form of conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaquesdemolay92 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I would also consider that German wealth per person also increased by converting a substantial percentage of its citizens to non-citizens and transferred the wealth of those peoples to the state. 98.64.242.215 (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC) [usemasper]

What good things did Hitler do (What I'm really trying to say is that I just couldn't think of anything).

There are many things that could be expanded upon. There is substantially more to the man than genocide, he was also a visionary too:

• Recognised how the automobile would become an integral part of society so initiated the building of the autobahn, and the volkswagon with the goal of making cars affordable to the average German.
• Initiated the rocket research that ultimately put man on the moon.
• Initiated large building projects to provide young German families with their own privately owned houses, with mortgage relief dependent on the number of children.
• Approved a vegetarian lifestyle and brought in animal protection laws.
• Discouraged smoking.
• Funded the world's first nationwide research project into the causes of cancer and its prevention.

Betty Logan (talk) 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

He continued the building of the autobahn, he did not initiate it. It was there already during the Weimar Republic. 201.240.87.171 (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Trim

guys, this article's too LONG. plz, cut it down a bit, erase what we dont need; sides, kinda useless to habve it, anyways...my point is, its too LONG. plz do something, i know he seems...popular on wikipedia, cuz theres so much about him, but...plz... like, the religius believes section, its called MERGE, ppl. (sigh...TOO long...need cleanup...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tubesgirl (talk • contribs) 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hitler is an unbelievably important figure in modern history, and there's an absolute abundance of recorded information about him. Thus, the article is gonna be long. --King Öomie 15:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What specific suggestions would you make towards cutting it down? --John (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

yes, yes, obviously 'article gonna be long' (and they call ME fanboyish on his talk...note the sexism), but, really, NO pg on wikipedia is, like, 'untouchable'. no matter how many ppl ignore this, that still doesnt mean we should keep so much info. like, is it that important to have so much info about his life BEFORE ww2? should we HAVE to have link to the stub 'poison kitchen'? and religiues beliefs, and pop culture is just...ah, well, leave it up to u. tahnks. Tubesgirl (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I for one agree with the OP of this paragraph, there's *way* too much detail, especially (IMO) about his actions during the war, summarizing what he did and general themes to his behavior is possible without listing every single foreign-policy and domestic political decision he ever made… Historian932 (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.. and Hitler did have a life before WW2.. all of his life if significant, building up to the events of WW2 TigerTails (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Imho: I have no problem with long articles, I like detail, and since articles are generally 'sectionised' one can find ones way around relatively easily. I guess it depends on the article. In the case of complex topics it is more ideal to direct the reader to the more salient points, however with a relatively simple topic like a biography, what's the problem (apart from download time ofcourse:))1812ahill (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

One option, that we're kinda doing already, is to make this article a summary, and put the details in sub-articles. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that tendency in this and many other articles. Excellent way to proceed! Keep up the good work everyone:)1812ahill (talk) 23:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Loaded statement

The following has appeared in the lead over the last few days:

He is often associated with tyranny and evil.[1]

Note, I have changed the reference into a url link for the purpose of the talk page. This is an incredible loaded and generalised statement that is almost completely unqualified. It is a blanket assertion that, no matter how common a viewpoint it is throughout the world, cannot just be written point-blank in the opening lines of a Wikipedia article. If the lead is going to common on popular, social and cultural perception of Hitler, (which I'm sure the article does) it needs to be tied down and not just be some outright, unsubstantiated statement like that, IMO. Also, referencing a simple URL to a google book page isn't suitable. Several citations from several reliable sources would be required. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 10:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree with you about the cite, it seems fine to me. It doesn't seem loaded to me, he is , and forever will be associated with evil, I don't see what you have taken it out for, it is clearly citable. Off2riorob (talk) 12:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't really belong in the article, at least not in the lead. The last time I checked Wikipedia is an online encyclopaedia, not a forum of opinion which means its purpose is to relay facts, along with qualified and verifiable analysis of those facts. Opinions come into that but only in relation to it. Equating Hitler with 'evil' might be a common association, but that association must be grounded in the facts, and analysis and opinion should only follow from the presentation of the facts. That means such a statement doesn't belong in the lead, but in a retrospective of how his deeds have shaped the various perceptions of Hitler, among the allied powers, Jews, Germans and contemporary neo-fascists. You can qualify the statement so I am not going to remove it, but it does violate WP:NPOV and doesn't document a fact or form any part of coherent analysis. This is symptomatic of the whole article really which adopts a very unencylopaedic bias which is the main reason why such an important article isn't star rated... Betty Logan (talk) 13:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The notion that "Hitler is often associated with tyranny and evil" is a loaded statement is utterly ridiculous. Maybe neo-Nazis would agree with you, but when over 99% of the global population (and I don't need to source that, that's just common sense) agrees that Hitler will be forever associated with those concepts, it would be untenable were we not to point it out in the lede. Evil, after all, is Hitler's most substantial philosophical legacy. TheFix63 (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Evil isn't a legacy, it's a particular point of view on his legacy. Hitler's legacy is one of eugenics, socialist reform and imperialistic ambition. The problem with the article is its democractic approach to adopting a point of view and then passing it off as fact. It is not objective and it is not neutral. Betty Logan (talk) 17:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not claiming that it's objective, hence the use of "often." We're claiming that it's merely a major point of view held by the vast majority of people. The cultural image of Hitler as evil is so ubiquitous that we must put it in the lede. It's merely saying that such a view exists, not that it is endorsed by wikipedia, if you really want to argue about this. TheFix63 (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I notice you have re-added this contentious statement to the article, on the grounds that the other editor had no consensus to remove it. The onus is actually on you to gain a consensus to add this to the article. As it stands it currently violates WP:NPOV because you have made no effort to offer a contrasting or alternative view. I'm going to wait and see what some of the other editors have to say, but I very much doubt there is going to be a consensus to include such a statement in its present form. Betty Logan (talk)

Come on this is getting silly, it is not a very good edit and it really messes up the lede, it needs to go. Off2riorob (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't Fox News, no fake "counter balance" is required in Wikipedia. That being said, calling Hitler evil is like calling water wet, it really doesn't add much to the lede and is tantamount to name calling. Ronabop (talk)

This is ridiculous. What do you want me to say as a counterbalance, "Neo-Nazis think Hitler was a great man"? Come on. The prevailing view of Hitler's legacy warrants inclusion. TheFix63 (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a Marvel comic book and it isn't August 1939, either. The "prevailing view" is clear. No one can read the article and come to a different conclusion. The talked about addition only states the obvious. There is no need for such a stilted inclusion.Kierzek (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• This point is going nowhere, as it always would. The primary statement "He is often associated with tyranny and evil" is irrelevant, because throughout history, such subjective statements could be applied to many people, depending on your perspective. Hence such a description is unhelpful. This article, and related ones, set out Hitler's policies and the results thereof, and they have been comprehensively documented, analysed, and reviewed over the last sixty years. Accordingly, we do not need to tell our readers what to think: all we should do is present the evidence and allow them to draw their own conclusions. That is the nature of a encyclopedia

Courtesy Section-break

Hey, what is going on? There is clearly a consensus to remove the statement and yet it is still there ? Off2riorob (talk) 06:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - this is just my opinion, but the desire to have this phrase included--whether intended or not--is a disingenuous way of legitimizing the over-the-top comparisons of Barack Obama (or, say, a gay Jew) to Hitler and the Nazis. Whether Hitler is a symbol of tyranny and/or "evil" is loaded. Nazi/Hitler analogies are classic examples of over-evoked analogies that dilute the horrors of what actually happened during that time period in Germany's history. Whether it was intended or not I agree that inclusion is POV and loaded. -->David Shankbone 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Your argument seems rather bizarre. I have no doubt it is not remotely a "disingenuous" way of making comparisons with Obama, Bush, gay jews, straight muslims or anyone else, since no specific comparisons follow (and it's impossible to be disingenuous unintentionally!). Its "subjectivity" is simply irrelevant and btw equating value judgements with 'subjectivity' both confuses matters and leads to moral relativism. It is simply a fact that his name is associated with the idea of evil in modern western cultures, as evidenced in phrases like "X a little Hitler". It's become a byword for dictatorship and extreme brutality. There is no POV in that statement, since it is a fact about his reputation not an assertion that it is objectively true that he is evil. That is encyclopedic. Whether it deserve to be in the lede, however, is debatable. But it's relevant to his reputation. Paul B (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The statement that Hitler is associated with tyranny and evil isn't even POV or non-POV--it is that the sentence is utterly and irredeemably trite. In one obvious and non-specific way, it's trite because you're stating the obvious. But even the grammar is vague and weak: he "is associated" is really a weaselish phrase, like saying "Many say Hitler was a bad man." Yuk. The source doesn't even use the word. Now, the "evil" part is interesting--it sounds like a sixth-grader writing an essay, and it is worth nothing that the source goes on immediately to discuss the problems with the term evil. No, there are lots of good reasons to cut this phrase from the lede, the main being that it is simply bad writing. Drmies (talk) 00:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The quality of the writing is a minor matter, since it can be improved. The central issue is whether it's worth noting that Hitler has become the symbolic incarnation of evil in modern western culture. I think it is. Hitler has become a kind of secular version of satan, and has a similar fascination in popular culture, in a way that other murderous dictators - notably Stalin - do not. His role as a form of anti-god has become increasingly notable feature of the west. Paul B (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, actually. Hitler is very much a secular Satan figure (thought not to the extent that parents terrorize children with threats that they'll meet him if they don't behave). Godwin's Law should be mentioned here. 'Hitler' and 'Nazi' are go-to insults, unlike countless other dictators and war criminals. When was the last time you were called Pol Pot on a forum? --King Öomie 13:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with these statements as well; I was making the point above in reference to inclusion in the lead, not in terms of not mentioning a concept for which there are ample sources. -->David Shankbone 14:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I chime in with David. The reality of Hitler as a go-to guy, as King aptly put it, surely is notable--but it offends my sensibilities to have this popular use of Hitler in the lead, as if he's little more than a punchline or an artificial closer in a political debate. Godwin's law surely has a place in the article, but placing it (or any other "popular use" of Hitler) in the lede is not done--it suggests that it is on the same level as the Holocaust, for instance. Would you want to include in the lead that he's great fodder, under the pseudonym "Mr. Hilter," for British comedians? And that also is what I mean with "trite": it is not just a matter of finding the right words, it's the triteness of the very thought in comparison with the other material in the lead. Maybe Hitler will be a punchline in a few centuries or so, but not yet. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

How about something like "He remains an oft-cited figure today", and then work the rest (with the sources) into the article? --King Öomie 15:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean "cited" as "he is cited" (which he isn't, as far as I know) or as "referred to"? I wouldn't feel comfortable with it, in part because it seems so obvious, but it is better than "he is often associated with." I think it's putting the cart before the horse a bit: I would much prefer to see a stronger "Legacy" section first, something that does more than refer to "Consequences of Nazism" and mention a few notables who spoke of Hitler. A stronger "Legacy" section might be a better starting point for a one- or two-sentence addition to the lead--but this is just my opinion. Writing on a character like this is a difficult job, which is why I'm sticking to the talk page for now.

I'm sorry if I come across as harsh, that is not my intention; I have very strong and very mixed feelings, some of which in relation to a phrase or two found also on Holocaust trivialization debate. Especially the debate on the uniqueness of the Holocaust weighs in here. If the Holocaust was indeed extrahistorical, then Hitler was extrahistorical also, and that should be a part of both "Legacy" and the summary thereof in the lede. You see, I think the original statement, which offended a number of editors (in my opinion, they were right to feel this way), is simply too simple--and I don't know who added that statement so I apologize if I'm offending anyone in this present discussion, but I prefer to shoot straight here: I aim to criticize the writing, not the writer. Thanks to all for your patience in reading and responding to each other's comments so thoughtfully and for what I think so far is a very useful debate. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust trivialization debate contains a number of misconceptions, particularly that the word holocaust has been "trivialised". Until the 1970s it was an ordinary English noun used to refer to many things, not specifically Nazi mass murders. It could reference a "Nuclear holocaust" or someone burning documents (as a 70s book I have on Freud says - he made a 'holocaust of his papers'). Part of the so-called trivialisation is simply the continuation of historical usage. Paul B (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to come back and reaffirm my original statement. I am not disputing that 99% of the world thinks Hitler was evil and tyrannous, however I would say that a Wikipedia article on Hitler can't make such a sweeping comment in a lead paragraph, regarding the multi-faceted, extremely complex topic that is world-wide perception of Hitler. That topic requires significant amounts of information on the main (and they are numerous) works done on the subject, highlighting all the major contributions by third party reliable sources. The sentence I removed stated "he is associated (i.e. world-wide viewpoint) with tyranny and evil, here is one source which cites this one line as truth, no other thoughts have been made" without any scope of discussion. I'm not saying that the scope of the subject needs to all be in the lead, but the lead can't suggest that it is as clear cut as that. SGGH ^ping! 12:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Actualy, I think it is pretty clear cut as far as western culture is concerned. Paul B (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree. SGGH ^ping! 20:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Trying say that Hitler's association with evil isn't that clear-cut is a similar argument to the one that evolution is not really proven. The anti-evolution argument is created by people who fear that evolution is a threat to their beliefs. Its actually a sign of weak faith. The anti-evil argument is of exactly the same nature: By trying to say that there is no such thing as evil, it demonstrates fear as well as a lack of confidence in ones own ideas: In this case the fear that the belief in the existence of evil will destroy modern intellectual thought: Which just isn't true.

Sean7phil (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that has nothing to do with my motivation. I simply believe that the entire perception of Hitler shouldn't be summed up in that way in the lead - it is too complicated. I am amazed at the number of responses on here that seem to imply I have some fear of evil, or I am a Nazi sympathiser or just an idiot - I'm actually just a skilled historian. Please remember why we are here. SGGH ^ping! 15:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion for fixing a simple typo...

The word "had" appears twice in a gramatically incorrect way in the following sentence:

"Hitler, for his part, was to use the words of an aide, highly “furious” with the perception that he had been forced to back down by the Czechoslovak mobilization, and warnings from London and Paris, when he had in fact had been planning nothing for that weekend."

Suggested corrections:

"Hitler, for his part, was to use the words of an aide, highly “furious” with the perception that he had been forced to back down by the Czechoslovak mobilization, and warnings from London and Paris, when he had in fact been planning nothing for that weekend."

or

"Hitler, for his part, was to use the words of an aide, highly “furious” with the perception that he had been forced to back down by the Czechoslovak mobilization, and warnings from London and Paris, when he in fact had been planning nothing for that weekend."

Nice catch, I was WP:BOLD and changed it. Ronabop (talk)

Overly subjective and otherwise questionable statements

"…the Wehrmacht invaded Poland, causing the United Kingdom and France to declare war against the Third Reich…"

"Causing" the U.K. and France to declare war? The U.K. and France *chose* to declare war (I'm not judging their decision as right or wrong, just whether it was done as involuntarily as the article seems to imply).

"The treaty re-created Poland, which even moderate Germans regarded as an outrage."

The outrage, insofar as that word can be used, was not because Poland was recreated as a nation, but that Poland was made up of sections that had traditionally been German and/or Prussian (especially Danzig); this was upsetting because Germany had surrendered believing in Woodrow Wilson's Fourteen Points, which decreed that Germany would be treated fairly and borders would be redrawn according to the principle of self-determination (there isn't anything self-determining about putting places with German majorities under Polish or Czech rule, no matter how you slice it).

"He also used the "November Criminals" as scapegoats, although at the Paris peace conference, these politicians had had very little choice in the matter."

The signatories at Versailles were vilified long before anyone heard of Hitler—the first post-war German chancellor resigned rather than sign, and I believe at least one of the men who did sign thereafter was assassinated after returning to Germany. (The sentence sounds to me like Hitler invented blaming the Treaty's signatories.)

"Prior to removing Blomberg, Hitler and his clique removed Fritsch whom they denounced as a homosexual."

Actually I believe they *threatened* him with being publicly outed as a homosexual, but did not actually do so (it turned out, and the Gestapo knew it, that the Prussian officer in question who had been implicated in a Berlin bathroom encounter was actually a colonel named Frisch (not Fritsch).

"From 1905 on, Hitler lived a bohemian life in Vienna on an orphan's pension and support from his mother…"

I don't see how this is possible, since one of the most well-known aspects of Hitler's childhood was that his mother (who had protected him from his father) died an early death. (The family doctor, who was Jewish, later wrote that he had never seen a child as distraught over the death of a parent as young Hitler.)

"During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers declassified over fifty years later, Hitler's valet Heinz Linge and his military aide Otto Gunsche said Hitler had "pored over the first blueprints of gas chambers.""

I just finished reading Linge's book and I don't recall anything along these lines; I could have missed it but I don't think I would have. (It didn't mention anything about Gunsche testifying to that effect either, IIRC.) Perhaps a footnote is in order for whomever asserted this? During "interrogations" by Soviet intelligence most people would admit to the moon being made of cheese, which creates further uncertainty.

"For Hitler, Danzig was just a pretext for aggression as the Sudetenland had been intended to be in 1938…"

Again absurdly subjective—just because war *did* break out doesn't prove Hitler's preexisting motives, and decades of asserting that by his erstwhile enemies don't make it so either. Mind you, I'm not claiming this was not in fact his (primary) motive—just that it's such a ridiculously subjective assertion to make that it doesn't belong in an allegedly unbiased article on the subject. (Patrick Buchanan's recent book on the outbreak of WWII, for example, argues that Poland rebuffed German efforts at negotiation because they believed themselves to be safeguarded by the British guarantee of defending their sovereignty.)

"In late 1942, German forces were defeated in the second battle of El Alamein, thwarting Hitler's plans to seize the Suez Canal and the Middle East."

This is grossly overstated. Hitler only initially sent units to North Africa to help the beleaguered Italians, who were getting schooled by the Brits. Asserting that Hitler had any genuine intentions or plans of "seizing the Middle East" is both hyperbolic and factually indefensible IMO. Perhaps it's time to start questioning the reflexive "Hitler wanted to conquer the whole world" school of history?

"Hitler ordered Himmler's arrest and had Himmler's representative in Berlin Hermann Fegelein shot."

According to Heinz Linge's memoirs Fegelein deserted the headquarters and was captured at home by police in civilian clothes preparing to flee Berlin. If this account is accurate, it would create a very different reason for his execution.

I would state that I found the article overly detailed, especially during the war years, it goes into way too much minutiae and is virtually unreadable at times. I would improve the writing, but the article is locked (for obvious reasons). Historian932 (talk) 04:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

100 % agree, the article must follow the truth as far as we know it. Very good points, that must be corrected.

An other point is that "Hitler was born in Austria" This implies Austria 1919-1937 or todays Austria. But in 1889 Braunau am Inn was just north of the border between the German Emipre and Empire of Austria and Hungaria, a total different nation compared with "new Austria". Hitler also immigrated to Munich, Bavaria, German Empire in 1912 - and thereafter he never sat his foot in Austria again - with only exception after "Anschluss" - when Austria no longer was a country, but a part of Germany. /Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.37.1 (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

skull proven not to be Hitler's

DNA testing done by scientists have proven that the skull claimed by the Russians to be Hitler's actually belonged to a female. Details on this program.

http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=482006

I believe this info should be added to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.113.2 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's true, the skull didn't even belong to a man, it was a woman's skull. I definately think this should be added to the article, this pretty much discredits the entire notion of the Russians being in possession of Hitler's remains. –Nahald (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No. The link provided says nothing about it not being Hitler's skull. It *is* written in a sensationalist manner though to provoke interest. Clearly a reputable source is needed. srushe (talk) 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26135072-401,00.html

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2657015/Her-Hitler-skull-of-Nazi-leader-is-female.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1216455/Fresh-doubts-Hitlers-death-tests-skull-reveal-womans.html http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/hilters-skull-belonged-to-a-woman/story-e6frev00-1225780351766 http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26135072-401,00.html

Should atleast be added as "after DNA testing, doubt was cast..." User:MetallicaAddict-MetalJunkie --MetallicaAddict-MetalJunkie (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess that isn't OR. but basic common sense that there was also the remain of a woman under 40,t hat Eva Braun (born 1912) and in absence of details on the confidence degree of these tests, one can't exclude also that magda goebbels (born 1901). Best regards from Italy, dott.Piergiorgio (talk) 17:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (P.s. I'm of Hebrew heritage & background, and writing in a NPOV manner was really hard, so if there's lack of NPOV, please feel free to notice me, pointing to the (hopefully understandable) lack of NPOV,

It's good for one of the conspiracy pages but of no value here. There have been no tests at all and it is nothing but scandal. Off2riorob (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I´m sorry to inform you, but probably this news is nothing else than a misinformation:[2] (unfortunantely in German): The boss of the Russian state archive, Vladimir Koslov, indicated that Bellantoni, who spread this information, has never been in the archive for more than 4 years and the Russians never officially indicated that this skull fragment war really Hitler´s. Probably somebody of you can translate the entire article into German. Mr Koslow said, "Nobody said it was Hitler´s skull: In our books we wrote: Presumably Hitler´s skull. It is a misinformation to say that this fragment, which was discovered 1 year after the cremation, belonged to Hitler, according to our opinion. One should not argue that this skull was the only evidence of Hitler´s suicide" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.102.95.194 (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The so-called skull info. needs better sourcing and verification. Not enough hard evidence yet from any real reliable sources. The article should not fall prey to poorly sourced information like a TV show, news report or tabloid entry; as it has recently both here and the "Death of Adolf Hitler" article.Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Just got done watching an interesting show regarding the death on the National Geographic channel called "Hitler's Skull."
Among the facts discussed:
- The skull fragment is the back left portion and contains a bullet exit wound; the trajectory is consistent with an entry through the mouth from the right hand.
- The teeth were also saved by the Russians, not just the skull. The teeth, when compared to the historic X-rays are a 100% match per a forensic biologist Mark Benecke due to the unique bridging and gold replacements.
- DNA tests on the teeth portions and skull should not be deemed conclusive as the items have been handled heavily for over 60 years.
- The mouth of the burned remains of Hitler contained glass shards suggesting that he used cyanide prior to shooting himself
I would edit the material myself but due to the controversial nature of the topic, I will not. I urge someone more experienced to incorporate the information though.
I refer you to this article:
http://wiki.benecke.com/index.php?title=National_Geographic_TV:_The_Identification_of_Hitler%C2%B4s_Head_(Hitler%C2%B4s_Skull_%26_Teeth)

recent edits

This edit is uncited and not really good english} also this large edit looks a bit like a copy vio and is imo excessive conspiracy theory, isn't there a page for that kind of thing? Off2riorob (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed the highly suspect entry and additional clean up was done in follow up by Dchall1.Kierzek (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good. Off2riorob (talk) 12:27, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Opening Paragraph Describe him as a "Genocidal Leader?"

This would be factual and not mere opinion.

Perhaps even "one of the most violent genocidal leaders in recorded history".

It seems inaccurate and insufficient to merely describe him in the opening as "a politician".

Sean7phil (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I would concur. The introduction seems to be based on the false assumption that we have to bury the lede to have NPOV. Blowfish (talk) 20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but in all of history he definitively wasn't one of the most violent genocidal leaders in recorded history. See any Assyrian leader, Babylon, Rome v. Carthage, the Catholic Reformation, treatment of Anabaptist's, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.27.117 (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof he was involved? Can anyone show me a signed document by Hitler that confirms he ordered the genocide of any race? McDonaldsGuy (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You are correct but..Recently Discovered Documents

The recent discoveries cannot be called a written decision (which, if it ever existed, was almost certainly destroyed by the end of the war to preserve Hitler's stature), but they are certainly unequivocal confirmation that a clear decision was taken by Hitler as early as 1939. The two recent discoveries are: 1. The first is a diary entry by [[[Joseph Goebbels]] of December 12, 1941. It runs as follows:

Hitler Bezüglich der Judenfrage ist der Führer entschlossen, reinen Tisch zu machen. Er hat den Juden prophezeit, daß, wenn sie noch einmal einen Weltkrieg herbeiführen würden, sie dabei ihre Vernichtung erleben würden. Das ist keine Phrase gewesen. Der Weltkrieg ist da, die Vernichtung des Judentums muß die notwendige Folge sein.

Hitler With respect of the Jewish Question, the Führer has decided to make a clean sweep. He prophesied to the Jews that if they again brought about a world war, they would live to see their annihilation in it. That wasn't just a catch-word. The world war is here, and the annihilation of the Jews must be the necessary consequence.

2. The second is a note in his own handwriting by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler in his soon to be published diary of a meeting he had with Hitler at the latter's Headquarters (Wolfsschanze) on December 18, 1941. The notes are simply and suggests a verbal order was given. Himmler notes the following was said by Hitler:

Complementing the task already assigned to you in the directive of January 24, 1939, to undertake, by emigration or evacuation, a solution to the Jewish question as advantageous as possible under the conditions at the time, I hereby charge you with making all necessary organizational, functional, and material preparations for a complete solution of the Jewish question in the German sphere of influence in Europe.

Insofar as the jurisdiction of other central agencies may be touched thereby, they are to be involved.

I charge you furthermore with submitting to me in the near future an overall plan of the organizational, functional, and material measures to be taken in preparing for the implementation of the aspired final solution of the Jewish question. Hitler

There is no dough he was an architect behind the Jewish question,,it is well documented that he was intending to solve the so called Jewish problem. .... but As shocking as it may seem, no official order for the extermination of the Jews singed by Hitler was ever circulated. But what he said about the Jews is well published (see links bellow). Most experts have agreed that an action on the magnitude of a mass genocide, with the resultant possible ramifications, could not have proceeded without Hitler's personal verbal approval. Documents of the Holocaust - Germany and Austria Documents of the Holocaust - Poland Soviet Union

Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hilter

Hello people! Well yes Adolf hitler was a feauture in the 2nd world war, and yes he promiced the germans they would get money and their jobs back but any other infomation? I need to know because i'm very interested, and I'm doing it in school!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.123.O (talk • contribs) 16:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the article somehow inadequate for your purposes? Rodhullandemu 17:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he just doesn't want to read it.

How was the worl war 2 with Adolf Hotler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.232.42 (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This section needs additional citations for verification

Ok ..i see many of this citation needed banners..WE should be using {citation} in proper place, so we know what needs citation (referances) and can help with the section ..or a {disscus} if you disagree with statement. Putting a Tag at the top of every other section is not very helpfully specially, when it may not be clear to all what needs citation. A fact from this article is that it was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page on January 30, 2005 and January 30, 2006. It also falls into the 50 most-viewed Wikipedia article category in 2009 and 2008, Yet for some reason in April of this year all this citation tags (full size banners) were added. I believe this is a FRIVERLESS act on an article with a high view count..i would say it almost a case of vandalisms to deface (de-credit) the article. You may not think it de-credits the article - but studies have shown it does affect someones positive view of the articles content as a hole and not just the section that has the banner. This is a B class article and let alone its view count, it should get much more care to its edits ...thus not allowing a rampage of banners. Has wikipedia standers gone up since April 2009? As you can tell i am not a fan of people just adding banners without reading the content properly or taking the time to really help, by adding {citation} for individual statement were needed or even better yet taking the time to verify (Google search is not hard) and adding in a credible reference. Ii falls into the Hidden categories section Articles with unsourced statements multiple times It is also a semi-protected page so really only experienced editor will help and they can see this Hidden categories if they wish. I believe we have a tag spammer that hit this article...i see no real effort in trying to point to what is wrong in the sections by the user. The criteria for placing the banners seems to be less then 4 referances in a section.

I believe the over size (discrediting) banners should be removed and replaced with individual {citation} for the needed statments. If a section is that unbelievable ( I see none here) it should simply be deleted. DAME YOU Banner spammers.!!!!

Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Category: German Vegetarians

Given what's written in the article about Hitler's vegetarianism (that he used to eat ham, caviar and sausages among other kinds of meat), I don't see why he is in the category of German vegetarians. Ben Gershon (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the book "Contrary to Popular Belief..." Hitler wasn't intentionally a vegetarian, per se, but instead he modified his diet to self-treat a stomache problem. Then after a few years it just ended up that all his diet consisted of was non-meat foods. I suppose that technically makes him a vegetarian after a certain point in his life... and he was German... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the sources quoted in Hitler's vegetarianism, in no point in his life he was fully a vegetarian. Some kinds of meat he never stopped eating (sausages and more). So he wasn't a vegetarian and he should be removed from that cateogry. Ben Gershon (talk) 19:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Graz, Footnote 8

In the ancestry section, the following appears:

" Ian Kershaw dismisses the Frankenberger story as a "smear" by Hitler's enemies, noting that all Jews had been expelled from Graz in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until well after Alois was born.[8]"

However, in the wikipedia article on Graz, Austria, the following appears:

"The thriving Jewish community was destroyed by the Nazis and their grand synagogue was burnt."

According to one source, (http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/oe/EncJud_juden-in-Graz-ENGL.html), the Jews of Graz were "Expelled 1439 - returned 1447 - expelled 1496 - returned 1783." The same source further states,

"Immediately after the Anschluss [union with Germany] (March 12, 1938), the Jewish cemetery was desecrated. Teh [sic] members of the community board were arrested and released only after prolonged negotiation. Local functionaries were anxious to make Graz the first town to be judenrein [pure of Jews, Jew-free]."

Perhaps Mr. Kershaw's comment could be replaced with a reference indicating there was a Jewish community as the Graz article states?

--169.132.18.1 (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Formal error at start

I understand that an article like this often gets vandalized. I therefore do not change the error in the start, but hope someone soon corrects it. It is claimed that Hitler was born in "Austria" - this is incorrect. Hitler was born in the old Donau-monarchy that at his time of birth officially was known as "Empire of Austria and Hungaria" - a nation that had 50 million inhabitants at the beginning of the great war 1914. As it now stand it is implied that he was born in the 100% german speaking Austria of today or the almost same sized Austria of 1919-1936 (as today) wich still today just has about 8 million inhabitants. Hitler did never ever live in the new Austria, since he moved to Munich, Bavaria, Empire of Germany in 1912. It is utterly wrong to claim him as an citizen of the new small Austria formed after the great war. During 1912-1933 he was without citizenship but was counted, and counted him self as a german. If articles like this starts getting wrong in details (and for instance demonizes Hitler out over what is the truth ) - then it will ,in the long run, benefit dark elements only. Specially since just writing the exact truth, as much as possible, about this man certainly is enough.

/Pontus Eriksson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.249.37.1 (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I though he was born in Linz ? Off2riorob (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism created Hitler

Has anyone said that Capitalism created Hitler & WW 2? Because the economy only improved after Hitler started "creating jobs" making weapons, building military jobs, automobiles, etc so the Germans thought he was good for ending their poverty by giving most people a wage job? That's also why Americans thought Capitalism (wage slavery) was good because creating negative jobs like building weapons, military & automobiles looked good, but they don't care that the jobs are doing negative things that kill people (& the earth), even causing wars? Stars4change (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It does not say Capitalism but I guess one would imply it by the statement in the article The political turning point for Hitler came when the Great Depression hit Germany in 1930. The Weimar Republic had never been firmly rooted and was openly opposed by right-wing conservatives (including monarchists), communists and the Nazis... Adolf Hitler#Brüning Administration ...However it is covered some what (But could be expanded on) in this article...Adolf Hitler's rise to power....Buzzzsherman (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a debate that is ultra vires here, but if any reputable historian or body of academic opinion has come to this conclusion, that should be given its appropriate weight. Meanwhile, speculative analysis doesn't really belong here. Rodhullandemu

still dont see y Holocaust template is here

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 49#The Holocaust template

I see it has been talk about before ...but i dont see y it is here??/ Buzzzsherman (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)