Talk:Adolf Hitler

Hitler didn't die in 1945

Note the use of Argentine tinfoil - particularly strong and durable

https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler http://yournewswire.com/fbi-hitler-didnt-die-fled-to-argentina-stunning-admission/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amydempster18 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The first link says "FBI Files indicate that the Bureau investigated some of the rumors of Hitler’s survival," but does not say that he actually did survive. The second link is a Fake news website, and in no way reliable. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm shocked at this information! Is Elvis there too? Kierzek (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

True, but was the body a body double of Hitler's or the so called Hitler that lived WWII a body double of Hitler's!? I smell a Conspiracy theory! Arthurboyz1 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

"Austrian-born" emphasis again

A recent edit which has been reverted attempted to add into the article "Austrian-born" again. Is there a specific reason that this is regularly attempted to be added into the article? The article points out quite clearly that Hitler was born in Austria in the second paragraph and that he only became a German citizen in 1932 is mentioned in the article as well.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 11:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

This has gone round in circles during the time that i have watched this article. The name of country born nationality formula is very concise where a simple story is being told (Hitchcock? T.S. Eliot?). In the case of AH, Austria, as we know it, did not exist at the time, therefore text and links have to reflect what did exist if they are to present the fuller picture. That, as I recall it, is the logic behind moving 'born in Austria' to para 2, leaving para 1 solely for why he is known. I think it is probably a good compromise. Pincrete (talk) 12:49, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree Pincrete and what is presented Ivanov is the current consensus as to a matter that has been thoroughly discussed. Kierzek (talk) 16:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok people have a misunderstanding that he was a German. He was not a German. He was Austrian, who got German citizenship. This should be noted by calling him what he was, he was not German. He was an Austrian-born German politican. Just calling him incorrectly German gives the incorrect implication that he was German. Even atlases mistakenly make statements such as " German soil gave birth to a Mozart and a Hitler." Wrong, Hitler was Austrian NOT German. That he obtained German citizenship later doesn't make him German. I was just trying to clarify the facts. I know it says he was born in Austria in the second paragraph. I just think it should be noted he was an Austrian NOT a German, although he did gain German citizenship. NapoleonX (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

NapoleonX, in the context of WP, a person's nationality is principally the nationality when they became 'known', rather than at birth (ie T S Eliot is a British poet, born American, Harry Houdini a Hungarian born American). Though we would never wish to ignore 'born' nationality, it doesn't take 'pole position'. In the case of AH, various formulations have been tried. An additional complication in this case is that 'Austria' did not exist at the time of his birth, except as half of the 'dual monarchy'. Personally I think no one wishes to hide his place of birth, nor that he needed to acquire German citizenship and was not born entitled to it, it is simply a case of recording all this in an efficient, accurate and complete fashion. The logic of moving 'Austrian' to para 2 is that it leaves para 1 open to concentrate on what AH is best known for, ie as the leader of Nazi Germany. Pincrete (talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

For example, Bob Hope, Charlie Chaplin, Stan Laurel, Harry Houdini, Alfred Hitchcock, Walter Huston, and Mary Pickford were all Americans, but none of them was born in the U.S. -- 68.111.35.169 (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pincrete, thank you for addressing my views in a respectful and informative matter. I appreciate that. I understand why Adolf Hitler's birth is addressed the way it is. NapoleonX (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Blitz

HarveyCarter sockpuppet account blocked Nick-D (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

The Blitz began on 7 September 1940, not the end of October: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/10/did-a-nazi-bomb-land-near-your-house-during-the-blitz/ (Sideboard1 (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) Could you kindly stop edit warring, by adding on your personal view of things, in this Good Article? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC) All sources online say the Blitz began on 7 September 1940. (Sideboard1 (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) So you've actually checked "all online sources" for that claim? Where is your source for Hitler ordering, in early September, nightly air raids on British cities, including London, Plymouth and Coventry? The current article text is supported by pages 563, 569 and 570 from Ian Kershaw's 1999 Hitler: 1889–1936: Hubris ... are you saying he's wrong? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Kershaw was wrong about many things. Hitler gave a speech on 4 September where he said he would bomb London every night in revenge for the RAF attacks on Berlin in late August. The nightly raids on London began on 7 September 1940. Here is a source on the speech he gave: http://ww2today.com/4th-september-1940-hitler-declares-that-he-will-hit-back (Sideboard1 (talk) 19:52, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) I will check it when I get home, if no one else does first. Have to look at the context presented. So, "Kershaw was wrong about many things"; thanks, I needed a good laugh today at work. Kierzek (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Kershaw wrote it was a mistake for Germany and Italy to declare war on the United States when in reality the US had dropped its neutrality in March 1941. Many of his other statements have been challenged by other historians. (Sideboard1 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) So what did Hitler say about Plymouth and Coventry on 4 September? Perhaps you have a verbatim quote, on German, that Kershaw has foolishly mistranslated? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC) He ordered the bombing of London on 5 September 1940. (Sideboard1 (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) Again, could you kindly stop edit warring, by adding your personal view of things, against consensus, and piling up unformatted references, in this Good Article, before consensus has been established here? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC) It's not my personal view. The nightly bombing raids on British cities began on 7 September 1940. (Sideboard1 (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)) It's your personal view of what should be in this article. That single fact, with "all online sources" in support, does not invalidate the text currently included, which is itself supported by a perfectly good and well-respected reliable source. If you have a bee in your bonnet about when the bombing began in London, please take it elsewhere. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Harvey who? What a complete surprise. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Problem with a sentence

The article currently states "By 1933 the Nazi Party was the largest elected party in the German Reichstag, which led to Hitler's appointment as Chancellor on 30 January 1933."

This strictly is not true. Hitler was not appointed Chancellor simply because the Nazis were the largest party. Could this sentence not be better worded?--Donald Ivanov (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

It says it was a factor (which is obviously true), not the sole cause. You've inferred a "simply because" that isn't there. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

It says "which led" which is simply not true. Hindenburg did not appoint Hitler as Chancellor because of Hitler and the Nazis popularity.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

The sentence does imply a causal relationship IMO, though I'm not sure how to fix that. The body does give the fuller picture. BTW, 'largest elected party' implies there were UN-elected parties at the time. Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Accusations of Jewish ancestry prior to Frank's statement in his memoirs

The article currently undermines and ignores the fact that prior to Frank's statement in his memoirs that opponents of Hitler had been accusing him of having Jewish ancestry since the 1920s.

The third possibility is that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Rumours to that effect circulated in Munich cafes in the early 1920s, and were fostered by sensationalist journalism of the foreign press during the 1930s. It was suggested that the name `Huttler' was Jewish, `revealed' that he could be traced to a Jewish family called Hitler in Bucharest, and even claimed that his father had been sired by Baron Rothschild, in whose house in Vienna his grandmother had allegedly spent some time as a servant. But the most serious speculation about Hitler's supposed Jewish background has occurred since the Second World War, and is directly traceable to the memoirs of the leading Nazi lawyer and Governor General of Poland, Hans Frank, dictated in his Nuremberg cell while awaiting the hangman.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/k/kershaw-hitler.html

Could the paragraph about Frank not be simplified whilst including something regarding all of the various different rumours that were spread about Hitler's alleged Jewish ancestry?--Donald Ivanov (talk) 08:32, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Rumors about who his grandfather was and this family background are covered enough. The size of this article is still over the recommended word limit (bytes) and there is no reason to add more trivia. No reason to add a lot of speculation and rumors which have not been found to be true and as your linked article states, "...simply does not stand up". Kierzek (talk) 14:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to add anymore words, but on the contrary, reduce the amount of words by reducing the emphasis of Frank's statement and instead cut that one short and instead add that various different theories have been put forward but none of have been proved and historians such as Kershaw say that whoever his paternal grandfather was, it was not the Jew from Graz that Frank claimed since Jews had been expelled until the 1860s. Historians do not "dimiss" that Alois's father was Jewish (which is what the article currently states), but they have refuted the Graz thesis which was put forward by Frank. Hitler's paternal grandfather remains unknown so it's impossible to say for certain who his grandfather was.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

How about shortening the current wording to something along these lines:

Rumours suggesting that Hitler's paternal grandfather was Jewish have existed since the 1920s and include various different theories. The most serious of the allegations comes from Nazi official Hans Frank who wrote whilst awaiting execution at Nuremberg in his memoirs that when Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Alois she was working for a Jewish family named Frankenberger as a household cook in the town of Graz, and that her child might have been conceived out of wedlock with the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger. Historians such as Ian Kershaw and Brigitte Hamann dismiss Frank's thesis, pointing out that there is no evidence of a Frankenberger family living in Graz at that time, the various inaccuracies in Frank's account and also that all Jews had been expelled from Styria (which includes Graz) in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until the 1860s, several decades after Alois was born.

(I would add the various sources if this were to be allowed to replace what is currently in the article.)--Donald Ivanov (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The article currently devotes 62 words to this subject and your proposed amendment would increase this to 152 words. We are already 1,700 words over the suggested 10,000-word suggested page size, so I don't think we have room to expand this paragraph. Historians dismiss Frank's suggestion, and we already have extensive coverage of this topic at Hans Frank. Therefore my opinion is no, we should not add any more material on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I didn't count word for word but was only giving a rough example of what I meant by including all the various different allegations regarding Jewish ancestry. Why is the article only focusing on Frank's thesis and ignoring all the rest? If one were to look at the German Wikipedia article of Hitler then one would read a lot more information regarding his background and the various different allegations. Granted, it is the German version but it could be something to go off. The article at present seems to only tell the reader that one allegation was put forward about Hitler's ancestry after his death when in fact since the 1920s when he became a known figure, various different allegations about his family tree and ancestry were spread. Hitler himself ordered genealogists to publish his family tree to clear up any rumours. Regarding the limit for words, could other parts of the article not possibly be shortened? Then again, looking at the German article it seems to be even longer than the English.--Donald Ivanov (talk) 02:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Ceremony honouring the dead (Totenehrung) ?

• The picture is a part of Nazi propaganda. Let's not accept it.
• There are thousands of pictures from the III Reich, why this one? Xx236 (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
• Similar problemm - two propaganda pictures of AH as a statesman, one in the infobox, the other one in the subsection. One should be removed or replaced.Xx236 (talk) 09:44, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
  • What image do you suggest as a replacement? Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The photo isn't hugely interesting or 'typical' IMO, but the fact that it was initially propaganda is irrelevant, 90% of available photos would initially have been 'official' and it is impossible to separate Nazi photos from their initial propagandist purpose and why would we want to? Much of Nazi culture WAS propagandist. Pincrete (talk) 12:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

The picture is a primary source and Wikipedia uses mostly secondary sources. One needs some knowledge to understand the picture and plenty of readers wouldn't because billions of people don't understand what is Nazi propaganda.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete; someone could object or find something wrong with almost any picture suggested. Kierzek (talk) 14:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Because something is complicated doesn't mean we should accept cheap stereotypes.Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the photo is a good example of the type of image created by the Reich and the huge crowd at the rally demonstrates the popularity of the regime. Speer designed the rally grounds, and he is mentioned in the accompanying prose. My opinion: Keep. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Adolf Hitler, not about Speer nor hundred other subjects. The text should mention also 20 million Nazi victims, I'm afraid there is no place for pictures of them. Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa, the photo is a typical photo of the time and conveys that point in time in Germany. As for "primary sources", first they are not forbidden in use and second, this is a photo not a cited source, such as a book used; so apples and oranges. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Likewise. No objection for that image to be also used at Albert Speer, except that that article is pretty well illustrated with good images already. Seems rather disingenuous to argue that only images of Hitler himself should be allowed in this article. And the comparison with 20 million Nazi victims really does not stand any scrutiny. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Endorse points made by Diannaa, Kierzek and Martinevans, however the real question is Nick-D's, namely what do you suggest as a replacement? Given that the subject at that point is 'Economy and culture'. Pincrete (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Does the article mention this ceremony as Nazi propoganda? I can't find a referenced sentence in the article explaining the ceremony. It seems to have some sort of Nazi cultic implications. I believe photos should be referenced and explained in the text of the article. To me, it is a photo, but it should be explained to the modern reader. Was this to honor the WWI dead soldiers or something else ? Cmguy777 (talk) 02:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The picture is being used in 9 pages, apparently too much times.

Nuremberg Rally contains a better explanation.

Totenehrung is neutral, honoring of the dead. But here not all dead people are honored, I don't have a source which ones, probably mostly the Beer Hall Putsch Nazi vicitims.

Hitler is in the picture, but very small.Xx236 (talk) 08:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)