Talk:Adolf Hitler

Meeting with Toynbee

Where, in which articles, do you think this material should appear? [1] Do you consider it useful for this article? or in general for other articles? Cogiati (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's far too marginal to be in this article. Hitler had uncountable numbers of meetings. It's appropriate for Toynbee's own article, in which it already has its own section (indeed it seems to have been cut-and-pasted from there). It might go in Nazi propaganda and the United Kingdom or Appeasement, if there is any evidence Toynbee contributed to the latter. Paul B (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Paul's recommendations. Kierzek (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Antony Beevor

The quote from Antony Beevor on Hitler's supposed refusal to provide his commanders with any flexibility or authorise retreats isn't really satisfactory by itself. While Beevor may believe this, other historians note that while Hitler was often inflexible once he'd made his mind up and meddled in topics in which he should have had no involvement, there's lots of examples of where he authorised retreats and allowed his commanders to use their discretion. The rapid abandonment of southern France after Operation Dragoon appears to disprove Beevor's assertion that "He would not allow any form of retreat", and Hitler also authorised the withdrawal from the Balkans in 1944 and areas of the USSR in 1943-44. Commanders were generally able to plan the tactical details of their operations without involvement from Hitler, and he seems to have allowed Dönitz and various other favoured senior officers to run their wars as they saw fit. More generally, Beevor's views reflect a rather old-fashioned take on Hitler as a military commander which other historians argue has its roots in the arguments put forward by some of the senior surviving German military commanders after the war in which they attempted to pin the entire blame for losing the war on the Nazis. Time allowing, I'll see if I can dig up some other references on this over the weekend, and will propose some alternate wording: while Hitler was clearly a lightweight as a military commander who made many disastrous decisions, it's not accurate to characterise him entirely as a bungler during the second half of the war. Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a great idea, Nick. I've never been very comfortable with this wording either -- Diannaa (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Kierzek (talk) 18:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Mental Health

Why is there barely anything mentioned about Hitler's mental health condition? Numerous psychoanalysts, psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have claimed that Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder (BPD) and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) (both of these disorders are Cluster B Personality disorders and share traits with psychopathy - in fact, some researchers contend that BPD, NPD, and AsPD are all subtypes of psychopathy). He is also well known to have had addictions to amphetamines and barbiturates. Why is this not something that the "Health" section not go into more detail about? --DendroNaja (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to post your proposed edits and sources here for discussion. There's certainly room for a sentence or two on this topic, assuming quality reliable sources can be found. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been a bit busy with other articles and in my day to day life as well, so I haven't been thinking of this matter here. I am going to gather all the names of the many psychoanalysts and psychiatrists that posthumously diagnosed Hitler with borderline personality disorder (BPD), a cluster B personality disorder and an Axis II disorder. Waite authored the book The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, which is considered to be one of the most, if not the most valuable psychobiographical study on Hitler. Waite, who conducted an exhaustive and extensive amount of research and consulted with numerous experts in personality pathologies and psychoanalysis, including experts like Erik Erikson, Norbert Bromberg, Lawrence Climo, Peter Loewenberg and a few others. Waite drew heavily on psychoanalytic theory in discussing psychosexual stages in Hitler's development, Hitler's Oedipus complex and the utilization of pathological defense mechanisms such as displacement and projection in Hitler's antisemitism. Waite really left no stone unturned and his research spanned years. After years of painstaking research, Waite concluded Hitler had BPD. The majority of the experts he consulted were clear and united in their belief that Hitler had BPD with features and traits of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), which is another cluster B personality disorder and an Axis II disorder. A few of the experts believed Hitler was co-morbid BPD/NPD. The two disorders are very similar and they are very difficult to differentiate sometimes. In the book, The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, Waite diagnosis Hitler with BPD, not psychopathy, which is what the article currently states. Psychopathy is not a diagnosable personality disorder, instead it is a type of personality which has aspects of all the cluster B disorders (NPD, BPD and AsPD). Some theorists and researchers believe that borderline personalities are "secondary psychopaths", while narcississts and sociopaths (a term used for those with antisocial personality disorder) are "primary psychopaths". The distinction has to do with the fact that people with BPD show emotions such as nervousness, fear, and anxiety while those with NPD and AsPD are cold and don't display emotion. Hitler was a every volatile person who displayed intense and dramatic emotions (anger, rage, anxiety, etc). There is another study that claims that BPD, NPD, and AsPD are just three subtypes of pscyhopathy, meaning that borderline personalities are psychopaths, just a different breed of psychopaths. Hitler was a borderline personality, and as a cluster B personality disorder, BPD has many traits that are psychopathic. The article already references the study that Waite did but his conclusion was BPD and not merely "psychopathy". --DendroNaja (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a mistake. The article cites Walter Langer, not Robert G.L. Waite, as concluding that Hitler was a "neurotic psychopath". This comes from The Mind of Adolf Hitler, a book published in the early 1970's and is based on research done during the early 1940's when Hitler was still alive. This is not the best source because it is unreliable for obvious reasons. It is believed that Langer copied or was at least influenced by the earlier work of Henry Murray (Analysis of the Personality of Adolph Hitler). Murray was a psychologist of high calibre and he was a well educated and highly intelligent man, but both of these studies were conducted during the war when psychology looked nothing like it does today. The evolution of psychology and perspectives on human behaviors and the understanding of mental disorders through advanced scientific research studies makes the works of both Langer and Murray unreliable. They both were educated well before the 1940's, in an era when the the understanding of psychology and mental illnesses was still very poor Great read on the history of psychology. Knowledge and understanding of personality disorders and psychopathy was also poor at the time. People who were extremely impulsive, suicidal, self-harming, aggressive, emotionally unstable, those whom were habitual criminals or those that engaged in deviant behaviors - people who today might be diagnosed BPD or AsPD, were invariably "schizophrenic" back then. Murray and Langer did not have any really detailed and accurate information of Hitler's upbringing nor did they have anything on the nature or status of all his interpersonal relationships (with any romantic relations, with Nazi leaders, close friends, acquaintances, family, etc). Information on Hitler was gathered through many sources, including informants. The sources Langer and Murray used are highly questionable by todays standards. This is why their works, although groundbreaking and useful, are not as reliable or accurate as Waite's. Anyone agree that Langer's "neurotic psychopath" conclusion should be replaced by Waite's "borderline personality disorder" based on the reasoning I have given? --DendroNaja (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

We could add a bit; the other doesn't have to come out, as BPD did not exist yet as a diagnosis when they did their work. There can and probably should be multiple points of view. Here's a proposed wording:

In his 1977 book The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, historian Robert G. L. Waite proposes that Hitler suffered from borderline personality disorder. Waite, Robert G. L. (1993) [1977]. The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler. New York: Da Capo Press. p. 356. ISBN 0-306-80514-6.

-- Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested wording offered above by Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 12:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I have gone ahead with the addition, -- Diannaa (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Diannaa, this is really good. --DendroNaja (talk) 21:40, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

See also

Should some of them be removed or be a see also template below the header of the correlating section. The reason being is that there is a lot of space being lost everywhere I look on this article. Or should a nice template be made for the links in the see also section and add a few more to fill in the white space with the most relevant articles that help define who hitler was.—CKY2250 ^ταικ 01:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't personally see white space as a problem on this article. It's an okay layout in my opinion. See-also material is not normally placed in a template. Note there's already a large collection of navigation templates at the very bottom of the article. I have removed a few things from the see-also that are already linked in the body, and removed Vorbunker because we have already linked to Fuhrerbunker. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

I believe paragraph 1 of section 2.2 of of the Ludwig Wittgenstein article, Jewish background and Hitler should be included in this article. That, or the section should be deleted from Wittgenstein's page.

I don't see that Wittgenstein's Jewish background has anything to do with the Hitler article, and I don't see why trivia such as who went to the same school as Hitler belongs here either. --Boson (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Boson. This looks like the story about the alleged meeting between Mussolini and Lenin in Switzerland before WWI... :-) Alex2006 (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree, it is too trivial to include here, please seek consensus, if possible, before re-adding it here. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the information from Wittgensteins's page than; as it's so trivial.

First, please don't forget to sign your postings herein. Second, whether it should or should not be included on the Wittgenstein bio page is up to the editors of that page. Kierzek (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Only a few writers have speculated that Wittgenstein and Hitler met, interacted, and made a lasting impression on each other (or just one on the other) while at the Realschule in Linz. As far as I know, not a single historian holds this view. Remember, they were two grades apart. Such speculation is un-encyclopedic and does not belong in either the Hitler or Wittgenstein article.89.204.135.125 (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was seriously inbred

Why is there no mention of this? His parents were cousins and his grandparents were both descended from Hitlers. He also had an affair with his niece. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

As with your other comments on here, all claims need to be cited with reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source to support your claims, you are welcome to edit and add them. However, note that reliable sources should be as neutral as possible and from experts. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler's family was not "seriously inbred" (as you call it), the problem lies within his paternal grandfather, if the legitimized Georg Hiedler is who we accept then his parents were first cousins once removed. This was quite normal for where he was born and his family had lived for centuries, lots of interbreeding occurred.

There is no definitive proof that Hitler had an affair with his half-niece, it would not have been an affair neither (he was single and met Eva Braun after the death of Geli), such sexual rumours and other things suggested have been dismissed as anti-Hitler propaganda by historians such as Ian Kershaw.

If you are able to prove that his family were seriously inbred and that he definitively had an affair with his niece then go for it.--Windows66 (talk) 19:57, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler killed six million Poles

The article says only two million Poles were killed. Three million ethnic Poles and three million Polish Jews were killed. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this and the next thread you also just started, there are problems with your arithmetic. Six million dead Poles would mean nobody killed anywhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, you might need to check your own math. Depending on who is included in the count, 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Nothing wrong with my maths. I used the OP's posts as sources for my data. Maybe that's where you need to direct your concerns. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Do some research. Hitler killed just as many ethnic Poles as Polish Jews. Pistolpierre (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The information in the article is sourced to the USHMM, which says that 1.8 to 1.9 million non-Jewish Poles were killed. What is your source for the higher figure of 3 million? -- Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The information seems to be on the World War II casualties of Poland article which mentions 3 million ethnic Poles and 3 million Polish-Jews killed. The sources seem to conflict each other, the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation article however says 3.1 million Polish-Jews, 2 million ethnic Poles and the rest minorities. The two article contradict each other and this needs addressed.--Windows66 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article World War II crimes in occupied Poland also seems to mention the six million figure of Polish citizens (equally divided between Poles and Jews).--Windows66 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Poland also makes the claim that more than six million Polish citizens died during the war, I am going to add a citation on this and see what happens.--Windows66 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of this kind of internal inconsistency on Wikipedia, as many articles are still in need of improvement. That's why Wikipedia articles cannot be considered as WP:reliable sources. Reliable sources for this article include scholarly books, journal articles, or websites. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The figure refers to murders of Poles in the Holocaust, not to all deaths in the war. The relevant paragraph makes no mention, for example, of British people who died, because such deaths were war-related and not murder/genocide. There will, nevertheless inevitably be differing numbers, because there can be no clear and unambiguous distinction between murderous and military deaths, especially in the messy and brutal conditions of wartime Poland. On the whole, I think it's best to adopt conservative figures to avoid giving support to the holocaust-minimisers out there who love to ridicule such figures as inflated. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The source given has no references to follow it up, its a page from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is this considered reliable?

Paul you are right, there will never be a universal agreement on the figures but this is irrelevant in this case, the Poles text in the article is linked to crimes against ethnic Poles which is given as nearly 2 million as the figure.--Windows66 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is specifically about murders. The six million figure is of total deaths, which includes all deaths of Poles, by bombing, disease, people killed in crossfire, soldiers etc, not only those which were "crimes". Of course, there will inevitably be dispute about whether deaths in, say, the Warsaw Uprising were "crimes" or "legitimate" (when is shooting alleged partisans "acceptable"?), but I think it's best to err on the side of caution, which will mean "lowballing". The Museum should be RS, but others sources, of course, may be brought in. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So for the "nearly 2 million" the current source is the Museum, why should it be a reliable source - there is no footnotes or references.--Windows66 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Per WP:RS reliable sources are judged by a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". They do not have to make their own sources immediately transparent to us. Paul B (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article passed its GA review with the USHMM as a source. Here are two other sources:

• Piotrowski estimates 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles. The author is a Polish-American sociologist, Professor of Sociology in the Social Science Division of the University of New Hampshire at Manchester.
• Snyder, Bloodlands, page 406 says about a million non-Jewish civilians directly killed, 100,000 more killed by the Soviets, and "perhaps another million" died through mistreatment and as casualties of war. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was not acceptable as a source Paul but rather that in the given numbers used there is no references given.

But there seems to be a debate whether it was nearer two million or three million. Just a brief search shows that it is debated the total figure of ethnic Poles that were killed. See some of these links [2] [3] (although this source states that some people just maintain that only a million Poles) [4] [5] (this source says nearly three million). So this is quite largely questioned and some are debating the numbers between only one million Poles and up to three million Poles.

I'm not saying sources given that show nearly 2 million Poles is wrong but rather quite a lot of people who publish work about this have put the numbers lower and even higher than that figure.--Windows66 (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources from before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 are not as good, as the Soviets had many seized Nazi papers in their archives that historians have only recently gained access to.

• Your first source, the Jewish Virtual Library, I would not consider a reliable source that I would use in this article, which has already reached Good Article status. That source says 3 million non-Jewish Poles.
• Your second source, Lukas (1989), says one million to three million.
• The third source, Cherry and Orla-Bukowska eds. (2007), says three million.
• The fourth source, Zubrzycki (2009) says three million. Her info comes from Hilberg, Volume 3, page 1128.

So I would say we've got two-three high-quality sources that give the higher number, so in my opinion we should change it to say "two to three million deaths" and source to Snyder for the lower number and Zubrzycki for the higher number. I will put in this edit in the text day or two if there's no further comments. Here's the cites: Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. p. 406. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9.; Zubrzycki, Geneviève (2009). The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. p. 114. ISBN 0-226-99303-5. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As you can see I'm not the one who even made this topic anyways and the OP of it has not even made any effort to post some sources stating their belief that it was more than what is in the article (at present). I just went onto Google books and the web and typed in "3 million non-jewish poles holocaust" and this fetches up a lot more than the same phrase except with 2 million and not 3 million.

There seems an overlap in the actual figure (how are people getting info as a possible only 1 million?) and btw is Hilberg considered a reliable source? His article shows many people have criticized his work.

Even according to works such as [6] there is a view that it was even more than 3 million non-Jewish ethnically Poles.

Diannaa, if you are going to change the toll number on this article as "two to three million deaths", are you going to do this on others regarding Poland/Poles and the Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows66 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Lowballing the Holocaust

It is embarrassing that Wikipedia is using the figure of five and a half million instead of the universally accepted six million. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Your use of the words embarrassing and universally seems weird. And what on earth is lowballing? Embarrassing to whom? And it's obviously not universal if there's a different figure here. But anyway, I see text saying "5.5 to six million Jews", with two sources. HiLo48 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 - Lowball. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

? HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We have been through all this before and the wording is backed up by the cited estimates of the WP:RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 02:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed before, please check the archives instead of automatically creating a new section. Also, what is "lowballing"?--Windows66 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

"lowballing" in this context = "underestimating". A sporting term, originally. Paul B (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought that is what he/she meant with the key word being low, still a ridiculous thing he/she has claimed though anyways.--Windows66 (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hindenburg despised Hitler

Is this not worth mentioning?

The article of Paul von Hindenburg mentions it in the very beginning, Hindenburg is mentioned several times in this article (obviously) so it should also be noted that Hindenburg greatly disliked Hitler and called him the "Austrian Corporal" or "Bohemian Corporal" referring to the origin of Hitler and his rank in WW1. He was greatly reluctant to even appoint him:

"Until January 1933, Hindenburg often stated that he would never appoint Hitler as Chancellor under any circumstances. On 26 January 1933, Hindenburg privately told a group of his friends: "Gentlemen, I hope you will not hold me capable of appointing this Austrian corporal to be Reich Chancellor"."--Windows66 (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A lot of people despised Hitler. Why single out Hindenberg? I think it gives his opinion undue weight. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler did have many opponents but Hindenburg was the one who appointed him as Chancellor and it should be noted of his own feelings towards Hitler just before he appointed him (even just four days before hand). Without Hindenburg, Hitler would never have came to power.--Windows66 (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible Monorchism

I recently read Norman Mailer's The Castle in the Forest, which contains references to Hitler's alleged monorchism (i.e. the condition of only having one testicle). I had heard about that rumor before and wanted to verify it on Wikipedia. A search for Hitler's testicle (my apologies, first idea that sprang to my mind) redirects to the 'health' section of this article, but it contains no specific information on that rumor apart from the very general 'Theories about Hitler's medical condition are difficult to prove'. However, I now found out that there's also a separate article on Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, which contains all the information I was looking for.

My first suggestion would therefore be to amend the 'health' section of this page with See also: Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism. If that is deemed inadequate, I would at least recommend that Hitler's testicle redirects to the article I am referring to. (92.205.98.71 (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC))

The book given is just a fictional novel and is not a source to be used in reference to Hitler's possible monorchism. The rumour cannot be verified. There has been a long held debate regarding Hitler possibly only having one testicle, some view it as anti-Hitler Soviet propaganda and others regard it as the truth.--Windows66 (talk) 10:49, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

It was a British joke in a marching song, which attributed testicular failings to all the main Nazi leaders, not just Adolf. It then became incorporated into Soviet belittling of Hitler after the war when an alleged "autopsy" of his body was released. Originally these redirects pointed to Hitler has only got one ball, which is about the song, but someone decided that the article on the song should not contain discussion of the 'truth', since it should just be about the song. Hence the creation of the 'monorchism' article, which originated as content from the song article. I think that's a silly decision to spin-off content personally. Paul B (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, Hitler's testicle is now pointing in the right direction. Paul B (talk) 12:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Poor on H. and his age

Hmm, saying that this article is imbued with a Great Man theory understanding of Hitler is almost an understatement. No, he is not described as a "great guy", but he's 99% sized up as a towering, dominant figure who shaped Germany in his image and cut through an inert and featureless contemorary world like a knife through warm butter. There's next to nothing about where he found his support, who bankrolled his early political campaigns before he took over (nothing about that in the article on his rise to power either) or about his preferred methods of ruling Germany. Everything's written ddown to a talent fro terror and scheming.

There's barely anything about how his political ideas, planning or strstegies evolved, either. Everything is described as if Hitler's word was enough to make things happen - he would have been proud of that kind of eulogy himself, since this was how he styled it ("the Führer principle") but research over the last few decades has abundantly shown that realities were often a lot more fluid and contradictory. Hitler was well known for favoritism, for giving free reins to some persons on the inside of the power apparatus and allowing them to trump the moves of other bigwigs, and then changing his tack later on. Already A.J.P. Taylor described Hitler as a sometimes opportunistic leader who wiggled, coaxed and tried his way along to see how people would react and whom he should work with - and who more than often had two irons in the fire at the same time on a specific issue. 83.241.234.4 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2013 (UTC)