Talk:Political views of Adolf Hitler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Germany (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Clean up[edit]

I've cleaned up the writing but otherwise left the content as it was. Wyss 08:32, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've done some more clean-up. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 12:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

liberalism, socialism[edit]

Wyss, looking back over the history of edits, at first you supported the language "anti-bourgeois liberalism". When an Anon user changed it to "socialism" (claiming that 'anti-bourgeois liberalism == socialism'), you 'clarified' that by changing it to "cultural socialism". Now you are supporting "anti-socialism" as the language on the page. This is diametrically opposite to the language you supported earlier.

Now, anti-bourgeois liberalism is not even close to the same as cultural socialism. The latter doesn't express his distaste for parliamentary democracy or for a middle class based on the gains of industrial productivity. The term cultural socialism doesn't make any sense, and obscures the economically socialist policies that Hitler advocated--the social safety net, a measure of redistribution, centralized organization of the means of production, etc. He was anti-communist for sure, but not anti-socialist, and calling him culturally socialism obscures that point. thames 17:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thames, I'm sorry, I'm having a crummy day here and I botched it. Can we make it cultural socialism? I didn't notice that had slipped out of the text and either way, your understanding of my less than alert self is way appreciated :) Wyss 17:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
My concern is that "German cultural socialism" is not something with a specific meaning that can be linked to. Meanwhile, anti-bourgeois liberalism has a more distinct meaning, which can be linked to. I think the latter is more precise, and captures his distaste for parliamentary democracy and the middle class. "German conservatism" is closer to this meaning than "German cultural socialism"--after all, Bismarck was the German conservative who was wary of parliament and supported a welfare state. thames 17:58, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Readers tend to confuse National socialism with European socialism, the former was as you know the cultural socialism they ostensibly promoted while the later they were quite opposed to, using the term German cultural socialism does solve that. I don't have time to look for sources right now, but I will. I agree that "anti-bourgeois liberalism" may seem more precise, but it's clumsy and halfway misleading since AH himself and lots of Nazis were in many ways bourgeois, so again, anti-cultural liberalism would be a more helpful and accurate term, except it's likely not linkable. This is typical of problems encountered in describing the Nazis btw. So misunderstood because they murdered so many etc. Does it stir any more thoughts? Wyss 18:21, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "cultural socialism" - German or otherwise - that I know of. Let's not coin neologisms here. Anti-bourgeois/cultural liberalism makes sense, but it's still a clumsy term. How about "anti-parliamentarianism"? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 22:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that term captures Hitler's beliefs accurately. "Anti-parliamentarianism" doesn't encompass Hitler's Spenglerian distaste for the city/industry or his celebration of the rural Volkish culture. I don't think "bourgeois liberalism" is a terribly clumsy term. Searching Google Scholar the term gets 514 hits, and both wikipedia and Britannica have articles on the term (bourgeois liberalism and bourgeois liberalism).

If I might interject, I would like to point out that Hitler (and also Mussolini, by the way) went to great lengths to distinguish National Socialism (and Fascism) from International Socialism (which was also a common term for Communism). The reasoning for this is simple: Hitler advocated Socialism, as is clear from his domestic policies, but he was also a proponent of nationalism. Hitler believed strongly in the concept of nationalism, whereas his problem with Communism was that it was a form of International Socialism, seeking the abolition of all existing states in favor of a global Communist government. I always stress this, as it does in fact mean that Hitler (and Mussolini) was a Socialist, and therefor a left-wing dictator, not right-wing, like many contend. This assertion is baseless, and the only thing many people cite when pressed to show why Hitler was right-wing were his views on race. being racist does not a conservative make. Remember, Marx was a racist, too. And Stalin was a known anti-Semite.--SpudHawg948 (talk) 08:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't a leftist. He believed strongly in tradition and the power of a strong, dictatorial leader akin to the Kaiser, militarism, imperialism and that the strong were superior to the weak, and only believed in Socialism for the "Aryan man"; everyone else was thrown to the curb. He also strongly opposed the liberals and leftists and declared leftists as enemies of the state as it were. Fascism is more akin to state owned hyper capitalism than communism. He was a forward thinker on many things, but no more a leftist than a neoconservative.-Sign Wikipedians —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.212.182 (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename into Hitler's political and religious beliefs?[edit]

I want to write a short piece about the religious beliefs of Hitler from the book The Meaning of Hitler. I think this would be a suitable place to do so if it were renamed into Hitler's political and religious beliefs. Can we do that? Does somebody know a better place to write about Hitler's religious beliefs (or the lack of them). thanks Andries 21:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

We could also rename it into Hitler's beliefs, instead of Hitler's political and religious beliefs, or better Hitler's world view. Andries 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd say keep them separate, and write your article at Hitler's religious beliefs. In Hitler's case, his politics (AFAIK) didn't come directly out of his religious beliefs, so they don't really belong on the same page. I think Hitler's world view would have to cover lots of other stuff too (eg attitudes to women) some of which are now covered on separate pages, eg Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 19:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Aryan race[edit]

German or Nordic "Aryans" were at the top of the hierarchy while assigning the bottom orders to Jews, Poles, Russians, Czechs and Roma (Gypsies).

Is this accurate? I thought he viewed East Europeans lower then Nordic Europeans but higher then Gypsies and Jews. Hiter Germanized slavic people into the reich who had Nordic features while Gypsies and Jews were completely excluded.

71.131.245.179 08:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

What about other "Superior Races." i.e. the Japanese, and perhaps the Indian and Arabs?


"from each according to his ability to each according to his DEEDS" is what Hitler wanted his "national" socialism to be.

Really? Where does he say that? -- Nikodemos 13:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I suspect this is a mis-quotation of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - often attributed to Karl Marx, but previously to Mikhail Bakunin or Louis Blanc.
... and they may have got it from the Holy Bible - Acts 2:44-45, Acts 4:34-37.
Biblical Communism - What Does the Bible Say About Communism & Socialism
See also To each according to his contribution - which is closer !
Hitler was anti-Marxist, so it would be surprising if they agreed !
--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It only differed from "international" socialism by Hitler's assumption that every race had a secret duty trying to rule over other races. So that in the end the strongest race would survive and the evolution of the human race would proceed in accordence to the natural laws embedded in G-d's creation. Hitler believed that Bolsjewists, Feudalists, Freemacons and Jews favoured their own group members without accounting them for their deeds, which is why he was against them.

PS1: When you study Bolsjewism, Feudalism, Maconry and Jewry, you will find in their official (by themselves validated) writings the confirmation that they indeed condone favouratism of their own group members over others without accounting them for their deeds (also called nepotism or discrimination).

PS2: If G-d created the earth then preservation of the workings of evolution is the same as preserving G-d's creation.

Does Hitler take any of these beliefs from Aristotle, who gives a similar defense of slavery.

- - "To each his own," was the German Creed since Luther and stems from some work by Cicero.

Hitler's Personal and Sexual Identify Influences[edit]

I have removed this section as I think it is largely unsubstantiated, and blaise. For example, the Hitler went on a date and the woman killed herself addition.

The Geli incident is a well documented scandal, yes, but I think it would be more at home in a section about Hitler's psychology, not his Political Beliefs and it is also very poorly constructed and written.

No article should feature POV and tripe like "Too strange to mention here in full detail" is not becoming of a wiki article on Adolf Hitler.

If the original author would like to contribute a higher quality addition in a Psychology of Hitler page - which would still be a POV section in my view, then he or she is entitled to do so. --Jason Hughes 16:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)



This page reads like a poor biography, not a description and dissection of Hitler's beliefs. It needs to be completely rewritten. Here are some possible elements.

First - Genesis of Hitler's beliefs. From reading some of Mein Kampf, I belief there was a quite a lot on the Protocols of Zion and Henry Fords "The International Jew" (which also dwells a lot on the Protocols, which have been found to be a forgery). A description of Germany's place in the world. There were many studies published by German's that it was literally being chocked off the earth. France, Spain and England (Primarily England) owned huge amounts of the world's resources, and Germany almost none. "Lebensraum" is perhaps a resource in this context. Obviously some of this is already on the page, especially relating to the Peace of Versailles

Secondly- Larger ideals - anti-Semitism, Aryanism, Lebensraum, Führerprinzip

Thirdly - Smaller Ideas I have no idea how to answer, like what were his views on personal freedom, reproductive rights, trial by jury, rights to privacy, freedom of expression, function of the state in art.

Fourthly - A discussion on how much were deeply held political beliefs vs. political opportunism, visa versa how much did his idealism interfere with his ability to rule. (for instance, I've heard Jews say Hitler would have conquered if he wasn't so preoccupied with them. He also failed to make use of nationalist movements against the Soviet Union. England is a counter example of an always pragmatic power, who treated all enemies of enemies as friends. Was Hitler too obsessed with his own political beliefs, to follow the basic tenants of political self survival?

Ideally, someone having read both Mein Kampf, and a recent work of scholarship on the work should compose the page.

Nati?[edit]

I've always heard that the Zi does not come from the phonetics of "National" in German but from the actual Zi in "Sozialismus". Is this just a common misconception? D Boland (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC) Well, for me it's the first hypothesis. I don't really understand what you're suggesting. Could you explain better please ? --Bobybarman34 (talk) 16:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Article not neutral[edit]

I would like to add a NPOV-template to the article. Most quotations and references are not from scientific literature but from primary sources. Since these primary sources are speeches and NS-propaganda they can't support are neutral viewpoint. Any objections? --RandomNumberSee (talk) 17:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. I also don't understand how “duty to have children” equal a conservative value?
--OxAO (talk) 06:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Nearly every point under “Social conservatism” other then the quotes and persecution of so-called degenerate art are wrong.
Take Anti-Feminisum, family order and youth sex
– Hitler wanted Aryan women to get pregnant anyway she can. He encouraged women married or not to find soldiers to ‘please’.
A woman’s primary role was a child bearer and it was almost a duty to get pregnant.
Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it.
--OxAO (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

What was Hitler's opinion of Republicanism?[edit]

I was surprised to read in Hitler's table talk that he criticized Napoleon for making himself emperor, and believed aristocratic republic were the best government? Was the Third Reich considered a republic? Did Hitler see the Reich as a third way between republics and monarchies? I was so surprised by Hitler's table talk, where he claimed he supported an aristocratic republic like Venice, with a weak people's assembly, and an appointed senate that elected the Fuhrer. He also claimed to support a strict separation between executive and legislative branches, and military role in politics. While nearly all regimes call themselves republic, I would not have thought hitler would have valued republicanism even as a theory to aspire to. Does anyone have more details on this? I have not read Hitler saying anything similar in any other work. Is it possibly a forgery? This is the passage from Hitler's Table Talk I'm referring to:

"As regards the government of Germany, I've come to the following conclusions:

1. The Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with an absolute authority.

2. An agency representing the people must, nevertheless, exist by way of corrective. Its role is to support the Chief of State, but it must be able to intervene in case of need.

3. The task of choosing the Chief shall be entrusted, not to the people's assembly, but to a Senate. It is, however, important that the powers of the Senate shall be limited. Its composition must not be permanent. Moreover, its members shall be appointed with reference to their occupation and not individuals. These Senators must, by their training, be steeped in the idea that power may in no case be delegated to a weakling, and that the elected Fuehrer must always be the best man.

4. The election of the Chief must not take place in public, but in camera. On the occasion of the election of a pope, the people does not know what is happening behind the scenes. A case is reported in which the cardinals exchanged blows. Since then, the cardinals have been deprived of all contact with the outside world, for the duration of the conclave! This is a principle that is also to be observed for the election of the Fuehrer: all conversation with the electors will be forbidden throughout operations.

5. The Party, the Army and the body of officials must take an oath of allegiance to the new Chief within the three hours following the election.

6. The most rigorous separation between the legislative and executive organs of the State must be the supreme law for the new Chief. Just as, in the Party, the SA and the SS are merely the sword to which is entrusted the carrying-out of the decisions taken by the competent organs, in the same way the executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics. They must confine themselves exclusively to ensuring the application of laws issued by the legislative power, making appeal to the sword, in case of need. Although a State founded on such principles can lay no claim to eternity, it might last for eight to nine centuries. The thousand-year-old organisation of the Church is a proof of this—and yet this entire organisation is founded on nonsense. What I have said should a fortiori be true of an organisation founded on reason." --Gary123 (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

This quote from Hitler on gun control should be added.[edit]

I cannot add this myself because I have been topic banned from political articles. If anyone else thinks that adding this would improve the article, please do so. Thank you.

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

Grundle2600 (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Personal ownership of firearms was not restricted for citizens (it was however restricted for registered aliens, i.e. Jews). For citizens, it was encouraged, so much so that Axis partisans typically used standard home-weapons, hunting rifles and shotguns, during the waning days of WWII.

Does any occupying power want the people they conquer to have weapons? This is common sense. Adolf Hitler didn't invent this normal method of conquest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.8.167 (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's views on gun control are not necessary for this article, that does not define his political views, but rather a personal view. It is not specific to Hitler and does not represent any underlyings in Hitler's political views or that of the Nazi party, and no reliable source I've read has contradicted that statement (feel free to correct me on that if needs be).
In my opinion, adding quotes like these onto this article wraps it up in partisan U.S. politics which are not relevant to the subject. It also seems like the sort of reductio ad Hitlerum that is often utilised by the pro-gun lobby and conspiracy theorists in America (i.e. Alex Jones' infamous "Hitler took the guns! Stalin took the guns! Mao took the guns! Fidel Castro took the guns! Hugo Chavez took the guns!") – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

This article lack's fundament[edit]

Hitlers Worldview (Weltanschauung) was based on his perception of the political and social reality of his time. This article should contain this perception and on which facts (or perceifed "facts") it was based. Otherwise you can never really understand his beliefs.

For instance it has to adress the facts on which Hitler founded his beliefs that communisme was a Jewish tool in the hands of Jewish world finance. This should go much further than the protocols of Zion since even Hitler believed that if the protocols where a fraude there would still be more than enough proof for his beliefs about communisme and kapitalism being tools in the hands of the Jews.

Second you have to adress his religious believes which are clearly founded in the belief that this World as a creation of God was created in accordance with God's laws. Which means the laws of nature are (part of or derived from) God's laws. Therefore anyone believing in God should follow this devine laws of nature. He beleived that the original Jews of the old testament followed these devine laws but that they created Christianity as a means to control the rest of the world. This article should also adress the facts on which Hitler founded these beliefs.

(These "facts" can also be the texts from the many many books and papers he read. We know a lot about what he read and what was printed in papers during his time of life in Austria and Germany. So we should be able to link these to his ideas.) Until now this is all missing in this article.

82.168.243.40 (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Albert Einstein's political views which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM[edit]

Added the {{quotefarm}} template – the quotes used in this article are overly excessive and dominate the article. Whilst it's obviously important to include all of the viewpoints currently mentioned (in my opinion), this article should not just be a collection of quotes from Mein Kampf (or, before someone mentions it, of Hitler's other speeches and writings).

I think some major re-writing ought to be done here, and more reliable sources ought to be cited. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

A major re-write and copy edit working of the article with RS cites has been done. Kierzek (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)