Talk:Adolf Hitler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAdolf Hitler has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article


Proposed Changes to Lead Paragraph[edit]

It has come to my attention that I must obtain a consensus vote on the talk page in order to make changes to the lead paragraph. For purposes of brevity and cleaner grammar overall, I think it would be best to dispense with the reference to Hitler obtaining full control of all strategic decisions on the Eastern Front by December 1941. As the commander-in-chief of Germany's armed forces, he was already the supreme authority on Germany's military strategy. The only difference after December 1941 was that he took it upon himself to micromanage nearly every aspect of battlefield decision-making (from the number of tanks in a given unit to the placement of individual military units). Therefore, since this wasn't a development which resulted in a dramatic increase in his power as Führer, it's something that is best left for the body of the article. For the same reasons, other changes include the removal of "September" from the reference to his invasion of Poland since visitors can find out the precise date of the invasion by clicking on the link provided. Finally, for the sake of providing a conclusion that ties everything together, I have included a reference in the final sentence to how Hitler committed suicide as Nazi Germany's defeat became imminent. Here is how the lead paragraph would look in its final form.

"Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ]; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was a German politician and leader of the Nazi Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; NSDAP). He rose to power as Chancellor of Germany in 1933 and later Führer ("Leader") of the German Reich and People in 1934. During his dictatorship from 1933 to 1945, he initiated World War II in Europe by invading Poland in 1939 and was central to the perpetration of the Holocaust. As Germany's wartime commander-in-chief, he closely supervised military operations until committing suicide as the nation's defeat became imminent."

Let me know what you think. — Emiya1980 (talk) 22:07, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I like itJack90s15 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

We don't need to mention his suicide twice in the lead. He closely supervised operations until December 1941, at which point pretty much nothing could be done (especially on the Eastern Front) without his direct order. So it's better the way it is now, because it's more accurate. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk)
Diannaa While not inaccurate, it is unnecessary to mention that Hitler assumed almost complete control of strategic decisions after December 1941 when there is a reference to how he was already closely involved in military operations from the war's outset (a statement no less accurate but not as detailed). Hence, why the information in the current version is better suited for the body and not the lead.
As for the reference to Hitler's suicide, why not simply replace it with a reference to Nazi Germany's defeat? It does not needlessly repeat material in the introduction and it serves the purpose of showing how long wielded control over military decisionmaking. — Emiya1980 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the current version is a little more detailed, but there's nothing wrong with detail, even in the lead, if it can be done concisely and with few words and is more accurate: He didn't just supervise the military: it gradually became impossible for his military to do anything without going up the chain of command all the way to the top. Current version of opening paragraph: 104 words. Proposed version: 94 words. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we need to mention in the opening paragraph that Germany lost WWII; it's covered later in the lead, and we already say in the opening paragraph that Hilter was in power till 1945 and died in 1945, so people will take it as a given that his control over the military terminated at that point. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it, we can replace "closely supervised German military operations" with "closely involved in German strategic decisions." That accurately encapsulates what role Hitler played in German military strategy without demarcating when he became more or less active in the same capacity. From the the very beginning of World War II, he was the commander-in-chief of Germany's entire armed forces. After the Blomberg-Fritsch affair happened in 1938, he reserved the right to insert himself in all aspects of military planning whenever he wanted. I don't think we need to specify when he chose to assert this right in a paragraph intended to summarize who Hitler was and what he is famous (i.e.notorious) for Emiya1980(talk) 02:01, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Okay, understood. I've changed "closely supervised" to "closely involved" and removed "by December 1941 had full control of all strategic decisions, especially on the Eastern Front." — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I support Diannaa's edit, I think that's better. What about changing "Chancellor of Germany" to "Chancellor", since "Germany" is already stated two other times in that paragraph and it's obvious he wasn't Chancellor of some other country? Levivich 02:50, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
How does "closely involved" include the fact that Hitler directly controlled Army Groups during Barabarossa? He was, in effect, the commander (albeit well behind the lines). I don't believe that "closely involved" suitably describes his connection. Roosevelt was "involved", Churchill were "closely involved", Hitler was Chancellor, War Minster, Commander of the Wehrmacht, and at times the direct the commander of Army Groups. He routinely required local commanders to get his approval for both strategic and tactical choices, refused to allow falling back to re-group, decided when to break troops away from one Army Group to send to another, and when to send them back. He was nothing less than the Generalissimo, and "closely involved" drastically underplays his role. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't really understand why his level of control over the military is an important point to highlight in the lead. He was the dictator, it seems extremely obvious that he was in control of everything that happened. This is what separates him from Churchill and Roosevelt, not his direct involvement in day-to-day military operations, but the fact that he killed subordinates on a whim. That's pretty direct control over operations if you ask me. It seems like "dictator" is enough for the lead, and the difference in his command of the military before and after Dec. 1941 could be explained (as it is) in the body. Levivich 04:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Because his direct control of the military is a significant factor in why Germany lost WWII. There were other, systemic problems as well, such as the lack of strategic resources, but if Hitler had listened to his generals more, instead of believing his own p.r. about being a military genius, the outcome of the war could well have been significantly different. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree broadly with what BMK is arguing. Stalin was also a dictator, but I believe I am correct when I say that JS increasingly delegated as the war progressed, (though ensuring that commanders 'carried the can'), whereas AH increasingly 'micro-managed'. AH's deluded sense of his own omnipotence (along with other factors - such as the combined might of the USSR + USA) significantly affected the second half of the war.
The addition of that text is relatively recent, I tend to feel that text is significantly more complete with little extra cost. If we are going to mention his role as a commander in the lead (we didn't use to) - it seems worth saying that his decision making became progressively worse as the war progressed. I'm sorry, but I see no virtue in Emiya1980's original proposed text above. Pincrete (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with that analysis of history, of course. But in my view, the details of why Germany lost WWII are not important enough for the lead on the article about Hitler (a biography). IMO Hitler is notable for three things: 1) genocide and murder, 2) becoming dictator of Germany, 3) starting WWII. I think the fact that he lost the war, nevermind how he lost the war, are important parts of the story, but not important enough to explain in the first paragraph. Hence, his role as commander doesn't need to be in the lead IMO because "dictator" is more important and kind of covers it. Levivich 16:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I was out for the majority of the weekend as far as Wikipedia editing goes, but am glad consensus was reached and I support Diannaa's, BMK and Pincrete's comments and certainly certain prior changes were redundant as they were covered in later lead paragraphs. I concur with the edits Diannaa made. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if his role as 'military commander' - and his deteriorating decision making (particularly in the East), could be worked into para 4 (Hitler sought Lebensraum) in some way, which is an over-view of key elements of the war, leading to defeat and suicide. I think his poor management is important to his biog, even if it isn't worthy of para 1. Pincrete (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree–my comments are limited to the first paragraph; no objection to this being elsewhere in the lead section. Levivich 18:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 March 2019[edit]

I have some facts i would like to present about his health Caderfudd (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. aboideautalk 16:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 March 2019[edit]

I would like to submit a remastered image of Adolf Hitler's 1938 photo portrait. Masterofremaster (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. AntiCedros (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Please correct the article[edit]

You have violated the neutrality. It is true that Hitler was a dictator, and has done embarrassing works, which caused the ruin of the world, but here is Wikipedia, and the article should be written impartially Please correct the article 5.219.146.244 (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Impartially/neutrality does not mean being nice to everyone - certainly not being equally nice. It means reflecting what the best sources say - without adding our own opinion. Most historians give AH a central role in causing WWII and making it an especially bloody conflict, the bloodiest in human history. I think we are fairly good at sticking to the facts about that and imparting it neutrally.
Is there anything specific which you think is not neutrally written?. Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hitler was responsible for the start of the war, but the Allies also played a role This article is written in such a way that only hitler is responsible for this war 5.219.126.213 (talk) 15:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

So, presumably you've done some research, and have some sources to back up that claim? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The main reason for the start of the war was the Treaty of Versailles The victorious countries in the First war imposed this contract on Germany This caused the anger of Hitler and the German people If the deal was not imposed, then there would never be another war 5.53.46.245 (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The Treaty of Versailles is mentioned extensively; have you even read the article? This Talk page is dedicated to suggestions and discussion about how to improve the article; it is not a forum for general discussion about the subject of Adolph Hitler. If you have a specific suggestion for improving the article, then let's hear it, please. Otherwise this entire section is liable for collapse or removal, per WP:TPO and WP:NOTFORUM. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
An argument about bias in the article's coverage of its topic is not a forum post. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, it is a "forum" post with vague WP:OR opinion and no WP:RS specifics or cited text. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The Treaty of Versailles helped the Nazi rise to power, but it little to do with the start of the war. Nazi Germany was largely ignoring the Treaty of Versailles by September 1, 1939. The war was about lebensraum. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Godwin's Law: Legacy?[edit]

Can i also suggest that under "Legacy" we include a reference to Godwin's Law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.130.146.240 (talk) 12:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest, but I don't think it will fly. This is a serious academic topic. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why not, we've already got Reductio ad Hitlerum as evidence of his legacy as an archetypal evil. SITH (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Death Date[edit]

collapse IP comment with external links about conspiracy theories

The death date should probably be changed due to evidence presented here https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/HITLER%2C%20ADOLF_0003.pdf As well as other Nazi official and troops know to have fled to South America. https://www.history.com/news/the-7-most-notorious-nazis-who-escaped-to-south-america https://www.history.com/news/how-south-america-became-a-nazi-haven https://www.aish.com/jw/s/Nazi-Havens-in-South-America.html I can find more sources if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.187 (talkcontribs) 18:02, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Just another episode of Hitler Historical Fiction, season 74. Please put the conspiracy theories to rest. And mind the vandalism warnings on your Talk page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 18:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Haha another classic "I dont care im not reading the sources and will just say youre wrong with no counter claims" this site is filled with people like you. Go back to reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.198.187 (talkcontribs) 19:12, May 1, 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed fringe theory links. Mathglot (talk) 19:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)