Talk:Adolf Hitler

Order of first three sentences

I'd like to change the order of the first three sentences (ABC -> ACB).

Reasoning: Embedded versions of Wiki articles mostoften use the first two sentences (omitting the brackets) to display the most important parts about the topic.

The current "Hitler"-google search reads:

"Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945."

If my proposal was not being reverted, it would be this way:

"Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust."

In my opinion the second one has more important information. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You might get this change if you don't try to smuggle the "at the centre" wording in with it. Otherwise, I don't think so. Britmax (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"At the centre" was already part of the last sentence. I don't want to smuggle anything into it. All I want is to change the order, so the most important part about him is mentioned in short, embedded wiki articles.

What might work as well, although I am not entirely sure: Replacing the "." between the first two sentences might trick the embedding algorithm into using the third sentence as well.

"Otherwise, I don't think so." regarding what? Hitler's involvement in WW2 & Holocaust being more important than the title he gave himself? --RicardAnufriev (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It means you invited comparison between three sentences while only quoting two of them, and that although I am sometimes wrong I do not believe that you will obtain consensus for these changes. Britmax (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be confused.

If I quote sentences "AB" and "AC", then I have quoted sentences "A", "B" and "C". The amount of those elements is 3 (three): 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 (one plus one plus one equals three)

If you have further questions regarding basic Addition, please read the article.

This begs the question wether the other part of my question was understood: Does anyone understand what I mean with "Short, embedded wiki articles (e.g. Google Search)"? If yes, isn't it desirable to include the most important parts about the subject into those? (Which, in my opinion, is WW2, Holocaust and Nazis, not his titles)

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Google does not take the first two sentences as their "little blurb". Currently one sentence is showing which states: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party as well as chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945." Therefore, the text that Google displays is not based on sentence count but on word count, as well. Further, the lead is a summary of ordered content and points of the sections of the article. What is stated are not just "titles" but the order of his life; rise to power and control. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be the two-sentences-version. (I reverted my edit some days ago and Google seems to update their cache after 12-24 hours)

Do you use non-English Google?

I wonder if the auto-update is different based on region.

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Google blurb now reads "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945" which is a paraphrase of the first two sentences of our article. Obviously there's been some human intervention, with the folks at Google eliminating some of our content to meet their own needs. I don't agree with tweeking our opening paragraph in a (probably futile) attempt to get the Google blurb to read a certain way. Better to leave the material in the order it is, as this best meets the needs of this website imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no human intervention.

The algorithm, based on my experiments (might be wrong, not sure), works as follows:

- Every so often (12-24 hours?) check for content-change (which was automatically saved)

- Take plain text (no HTML, links or formating)

- Remove brackets and their content.

- Cut off text at some point (between 100 and 179 characters. 160 as in Twitter? dunno)

- Complete the sentence in which the cut occured.

- Add data from the most basic template (in this case person, thus: birth, death, etc.)

------

Why I think it would be cool to make those changes (not only Hitler article):

Definition apps, which give a short description of entities (e.g. Siri's definitions, Google queries, Android apps) come from some database. Improving wiki articles increases the information gain for many users and raise Wikipedia's usability in this regard. Spreading high-quality information + increasing Wikipedia's usefulness = winwin

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ricard. Though I must say I prefer "was central to" rather than "at the centre of". Hitler's main impact on the world was through the world war and holocaust - not from being the leader of the Nazi party. Hence, I believe a change would be good. The first paragraph was worse a while back - there used to be nothing derogatory about Hitler until the third paragraph. Made him out to be a saint. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Present first paragraph:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); National Socialist German Workers Party). He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.

Proposed first paragraph:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); National Socialist German Workers Party). He was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust. Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945.

Or alternatively "at the centre of" becomes "central to". Does anyone have strong objections to the change in sentence order? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree to your proposed changes, Diannaa, although I don't believe there is really a need for it. I would keep "at the centre of" because he was the center of the wheel in which Nazi Germany revolved. Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't really work, does it. Maybe just leave it? Andrewthomas10 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jews and other people

"Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior."

Why the random emphasis on Jews?

Based on quantity more Slavs were killed as part of the genocide. (Even if you subtract military deaths and famine victims)

Just because there are more popular Hollywood movies about Jews during the Holocaust does not make it more important. The whole "Lebensraum" and "Generalplan Ost" concepts were the major reasons to invade and exterminate Slavs in the east of Germany. It was a planned genocide, bigger in scale and scope than the Holocaust. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not "random", but intentional and for good reason. We have been through all this before. The last time was in Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 55. There are several threads there as to what you ask. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing a page with a bit more than 20000 words worth of discussion, but due to time constraints, please, tell me which part might be relevant...

Do you mean the uber long discussion which mentions "Slavic", but is about Hitler's direct involvement regarding the Holocaust? (which is not what I was talking about)

Or do you mean the post, which mentions "Slavs", which theorizes wether the Holocaust would have happened in the west if etc. etc.?

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A Jewish life is more valuable, thats why a non-Jewish life is just a simple nameless "other". Seriously though, it does sound offensive the way it is worded now. MANY groups were treated poorly, and MANY such as Gypsies were going to be sent to the ovens to. A Jew is not more important than a Gypsy or a Slav. 107.222.205.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Jews were uniquely targeted for extermination. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a vast list of reading material about Hitler. Anyone wishing to update, improve, or expand the article is likely to find their answers there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Random"? Don't be absurd. Anti-Jewish legislation was passed as soon as the Nazis came to power, and persecution increased from that point on. Hitler was obsessed by Jews. He wasn't obsessed by Slavs. They were, rather, just in the way. I don't know where you get your numbers from to support the claim that "more Slavs were killed as part of the genocide. (Even if you subtract military deaths and famine victims)". But that would be a debate for the Holocaust page. Certainly projected deaths of Slavs per "Generalplan Ost", would, in the end, have far outnumbered those of Jews, but they never got to implement it. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-Jewish legislation was passed as soon as the Nazis came to power, and persecution increased from that point on."

So? As did legislations and persecutions against political opponents, homosexuals and all the other "life unworthy of life".

"Hitler was obsessed by Jews. He wasn't obsessed by Slavs. They were, rather, just in the way."

Where do you get this information from?

He planned to exterminate the majority of them and his troops were executing those plans. (read about e.g. Belarus in WW2)

"I don't know where you get your numbers"

Please refer to the sources of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

(and the proportion of ethnics in those countries) --RicardAnufriev (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Many countries had legislation against homosexuals, including Britain and the USA. Nazi legislation was, in fact, quite similar. There was never any plan to murder homosexuals.They weren't even deprived of citizenship rights, as Jews were from the beginning. That has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "life unworthy of life", and neither does the internment of political opponents, which, of course, is typical of repressive regimes everywhere. The treatment of Jews is very specific to Nazism, and we all know this. What he planned to do in the East and what he did do are wholly different things. Plans change for all sorts of reasons. We can't know what would have happened in fact. Please read the article you link to more carefully. You will see that it does not support what you claim. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"There was never any plan to murder homosexuals."

So it was just an accident? When homosexuals were sent to concentration camps forced into labor and starved to death ("Extermination through labor") it was not intentional?

"The treatment of Jews is very specific to Nazism, and we all know this."

We know this? What I know is this:

MANY groups of people were treated as bad as jews. That's why I wonder why it talks about "jews and other people".

So, why does it?

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead of ranting, why don't you actually look at the articles and the evidence. The great majority of homosexuals were sent to ordinary prisons with time-limited sentences, as in the UK and US at the time. It is increasingly obvious that you know next to nothing about Nazi Germany. It's simply false to say that many groups were treated as badly as Jews. The only group that's at all comparable is gypsies, and in that case the numbers were a lot lower and the decisions much more ad hoc. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"The great majority of homosexuals were sent to ordinary prisons with time-limited sentences"

Yes, in the beginning. Maybe you should do the reading instead. Btw. I find it rude, if you accuse me of knowing nothing about the subject and putting my arguments off as "ranting".

"The great majority of homosexuals were sent to ordinary prisons with time-limited sentences, as in the UK and US at the time."

The "great majority" is irrelevant, if "an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of [homosexuals] sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps."

Did the UK and the US do the same?

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The great majority is entirely relevant, because Jews were not sent to prisons with time-limited sentences for the crime of being Jewish. The main reason why some homosexuals were sent to camps is the simple fact that the prisons were completely full. And in any case you are consistently mixing up concentration camps with death camps, which again demonstrates the primitive level of your knowledge of the subject. Many concentration camps were full of "conventional" criminals. The fact you keep changing your argument without acknowledging the fact is a further indication that you should read up on the subject. I don't say that as an insult. If you really want to contribute to useful debate, and to make helpful suggestions regarding the content of the article, that is the best approach. Otherwise your comments will not be taken seriously and you will be doomed to frustration. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude. I am talking about X. You _assume_ that I am talking about Y. Then you keep on insulting me based on this assumption.

Here, I quote myself: "When homosexuals were sent to concentration camps forced into labor and starved to death ("Extermination through labor") it was not intentional?"

Where did I write "death camps"?

I wrote that people died because of the Nazis, many, different people.

You don't want to acknowledge this fact. All you care about is 'how to differentiate the Jewish victims from other victims such that only the Jews get the focus of attention? All the other victims were just accidents and not intended. All the other atrocities were no atrocities, just the normal modus operandi.'

But let's stop wasting time and start being productive.

The sentence "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." should either have more specifics (mentioning the victims Jews, Gipsies, Slavs, Blacks, Homosexuals, Communists, Jehova's Witnesses, Free Masons, etc. etc. etc. and motivations "racial", "political", "religious", "territorial", etc. etc., as well as methods "extermination" (by work, hunger, gas, etc.), "sterilization", "experimentation", "ostracizing", etc. etc., etc.) or put everything into one general sentence (e.g. "xy million victims, who were regarded as enemies of the state")

I look forward to a constructive contribution (please no "You don't know jack! Only Jews suffered! Everybody was treated like everywhere else!")

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I care about the truth "dude". I think you are the one who is fixated on Jews, not me. Your absurd list (including "blacks" "freemasons" and "homosexuals") indicates that you have no interest in what serious scholars say about this at all. Nazi Germany was a lot safer than, say, Alabama at the time if you were black. However, no one is saying that only Jews suffered under Nazism. It was an oppressive regime for everyone, though that in itself is far from unique. Jews were subject to a policy of extermination. That's what's distinctive. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should stop believing Wikipedia as it states:

Blacks: "The Nazis originally sought to rid the German state of Jews and Romani by means of emigration, while blacks were to be segregated and eventually exterminated through compulsory sterilization."

Freemasons: Hitler seemed to have believed in Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion, which was one cornerstone of his hate against the Jews. Freemasons were controlled by the Jews (Judeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory) in his believes. But I must admit, that I have misremembered Freemasons + Holocaust, as it could have been, that non-Jewish Freemasons in concentration camps were imprisoned because of their other politicial believes. Nevertheless Hitler fought Freemasons systematically. Destroying their organization, stealing their assets, watching/prosecuting members, waging propaganda campaigns against the idea of Freemasonry.

Homosexuals: Didn't I cover that already? Thousands in concentration camps, 60% death toll of those, forced human experiments (e.g. Buchenwald) to "cure" homosexuals, etc.? It seems it was in another discussion.

"I think you are the one who is fixated on Jews, not me."

I argue in remembrance of all the victims. You make it sound as if it is something bad...

Maybe you empathise only with Jews because it was a systematic, short-term, physical killing based on race, while the other ones were either "long-term extermination" (Slavs, Blacks), "brainwashing" (e.g. hormonal experiments with Homosexuals), "societal/cultural destruction" (social democrats, communists, freemasons) or "just too few victims to be mentioned" (Roma, Sinti).

What is it?

Although I already know what you will answer: "This is absurd. You know nothing. Read the 'serious scholars' I read, so you understand, how to create some arbitrary distinction, which enables you to ignore all other victims."

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do remember that this is the article about Hitler. We already have articles about the Holocaust and World War 2. Britmax (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: hitlers views on india are not given.

117.196.13.15 posted this comment on 9 February 2014 (view all feedback).

hitlers views on india are not given.

Any thoughts?

Obenritter (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) For more on Hitler's worldview (particularly that regarding India), there are numerous biographies available. The most famous of them are from Alan Bullock, John Toland, Ian Kershaw, and Joachim Fest. India was seen as a subjugated possession of the British Empire and was an example of how Hitler wanted to rule others. Of course, his worldview included extermination of racial others and slave labor so that would not have been good for India. For another look into Hitler and the Nazi regime's understanding of the world, see either of the following:

1) Jackel, Eberhard, and Herbert Arnold. Hitler's World View: A Blueprint for Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

2) Smith, Woodruff D. Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Hope this helps.

I don't think Hitler's views on India are of great significance. Of course "Aryan" identity is important in India, so I can understand why an Indian might think Hitler viewed the country as special, but I know of no evidence that he did. The more avowedly "Aryanist" leaders of the Nazis were different. Himmler supposedly carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and Rosenberg wrote about India (in less than flattering terms). But in geopolitical terms Hitler had no designs on India. He would have been content to let the British keep it if they'd agreed to peace in 1940. After '41, it would have been part of the Japanese sphere of influence. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul has stated correctly here...India does not figure much in Hitler's planning aside from hoping that British concern about the Raj and their dominance there would distract them, making his work in Europe easier. These are the only mentions that William Shirer really notes in his tome The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Nowhere in Joachim Fest's massive work on Hitler does he mention India whatsoever. The mentions of India in Mein Kampf are also directly related to English hegemony there. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, "England will never lose India unless she admits racial disruption in the machinery of her administration (which at present is entirely out of the question in India) or unless she is overcome by the sword of some powerful enemy." Hilter also states, "I as a German would far rather see India under British domination than under that of any other nation."

Another revealing comment from Hitler is this remark: "What India is for England, the eastern territory will be for us."

Hitler also expressed admiration for the way a small contingency of Brits were able to rule and subjugate such a large number of Indians and hoped to emulate this model in Russia. In fact, he marveled at the British efficiency and attributed their success to the dominance of their race and force of personality.

On one occasion during negotiations with the British, Hitler told Lord Halifax that the way to take care of the protests in India was to shoot Ghandi and a large portion of his followers.

Hopefully this gives you a little insight. What Paul told you above is right on the mark based on my knowledge as well.--Obenritter (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes

References

• Jochmann, Werner. Adolf Hitler. Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944. Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus Verlag, 1980.
• Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: 1936-1945, Nemesis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
• Weinberg, Gerhard L. Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II. New York: Enigma Books, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)