Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 25

"Charismatic leadership" or "Charismatic authority" (second act)

"The question stands: why the blanket interest in Hitler, when Stalin merits as much, if not more? Isn't it a pretence to insist that the Hitler obsession has anything to do with moral reflection and lesson-learning?--shtove 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)".--shtove 01:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's to do with how history is taught in school and how it's passed down. In Britain, history focuses largely on the world wars, throughout mandatory lessons and GCSE (I'm not so sure about A level). I don't know what is said about in other countries since I'm from Britain. Also, since Russia aided the allies in the 2nd World War, Stalin is inevitably ignored in the multitude of documentaries that have been made about it, since these documentaries are made by the countries that won, and so focus on the losers. Because of this, most people when asked about the 2nd World War will think of Hitler, even if they know very little about it (e.g young children), since he has been the most televised dictator from recent times. Even people with little interest in the 2nd World War know a lot about Hitler because of the mass of information about him. If teaching about Stalin was widespread throughout history lessons and the general public then I'm sure that people would talk about his 'atrocities' just as much. However, this hasn't happened because Stalin's actions were very self-contained, and kept within Russia, whilst Hitler's were committed at a time when most of the world had an interest or involvement with Germany. As such, we have an interest in things that involved us, and teach them in history. Stalin's actions did not involve us, and so draw less interest. it sounds very cold-hearted, but humans tend to have little time for learning about things that do not, or did not ever involve them to any great degree.Humpelfluch

Your points are sound, but not all GCSE pupils or tv-viewers are interested in Hitler, and I daresay a few of them are more interested in Stalin. What I'm getting at is the obsession we have. My view is that Hitler is our chosen cipher for evil - absent God - and that the soap-opera of his life gives the cipher mass appeal. As for the self-contained nature of Stalin's actions - state communism set out to dominate the world and human nature: far more pernicious than Germany's cobbled together ideology. I wonder what Ukrainians and Poles would think of the obsession?--shtove 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but from what I see in the Hitler/Nazi Wikipedia presentation, here the cipher of evil is underplayed. His personal and rock hard, never changed and clear program is very hard to find, and completely un-linked as I question below. Sorry , temerity to interject but...EffK
That is true, but the fact remains that there are far more documentaries about Hitler than Stalin, since the 2nd World War was bigger and affected more countries than Stalin did. For this reason the average person knows more about what Hitler did than Stalin, and this may not be throught choice or interest, but simply because what Hitler did is focused on so much more than Stalin. I've given a reason or two above for why this is so, but I don't know for certain why, all I know is that we do focus more on Hitler, and because of this the vast majority of people know of the Holocaust, but not as many will know of Stalin's atrocities. And so when we talk about great evil, Hitler is what a lot of people will think of. It may also be due to the fact that a lot of Jews survived the concentration camps and were able to talk about it, and the allies saw these camps and were able to talk about them. Less people survived what Stalin did, so less people could talk about it or have first hand experience of it.
As for state-communism, it may have set out to take over the world, but it wasn't as involved with us as Hitler's plans. Germany invaded, Russia did not. Germany basically atempted to put forward their views and dragged the world into it, while Russia may have had the plans and intention, but were not so loud about it, so less people knew, and still now, less people know about state communism than Nazism, again because Nazism affected so many more people than Russian communism. Russian communism affected the people in the country, but Nazism affected the country, and every country they invaded and fought against.Humpelfluch 15:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously User:Shtove does not live here in Italy where the crimes of Stalin and the evils of Communism are associaetd with anyone who opposes the regime of Silvio Berlusoni and his neo-f*** allies on a daily basis. Hitler is not mush talked about and Mussolini is considered a relatively mild avuncular fellow.--Lacatosias 15:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, the only people who have valid insight on this matter are Germans who deal with problems stemming from Hitler to this day. [/sarcasm]. Seriously, you have to realize that wherever you grew up, there's a lot of bias on these matters. America is so concerned about Hitler because the war was a big thing for our (I'm American) contry, and it's essentially run right over the effect Stalin had, and if anything, Americans generally feel that Stalin's acts were just paving the way for a Hitler figure (I'm being overly brief, but you get the idea). That's why we, as a nation, tend to focus on Hitler more than Stalin. And last I checked, the US was still one of the biggest Wiki contributors to the English pages, so that influence appears here. It's a simple formula, really. If this were a primarily Russian site (or the wiki for a Russian-area language), I imagine Stalin would be getting a lot more fervor than Hitler. So it is with Mussolini and Italy. [User calderra is logged out]

Absence of Program

Why is there no reference to the 25 -point plan, no link to it, either from here or from the recommended sub-articles?

Why does the Holocaust article go against all history and present the Holocaust as emanating fro the Nazi party and Collaborators without identifying the clear sngle progenitor. This is to ignore the whole history. If he was so charismatic, and as he was the Fuhrer, why is his direct control un-recognised? EffK 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Did Hitler kill each and every Holocaust victim personally, by hand, with help from no one else? I'd imagine that's why. His control IS recognized, but he wasn't the only person (or even group) responsible. The article deals with all nations, all leaders, all influences, etc involved. [calderra]

Semi-protection again

I think it should be put back and kept on forever. I see no point of taking it down. -- nyenyec  02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There have been about two dozen instances of vandalism in the last two days. Why not semi-protect it? Shawnc 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's religious beliefs Hitler's religious claims

Some quotes can be found at stephenjaygould.org:

  • "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (Adolf Hitler, from John Toland [Pulitzer Prize winner], Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.)
  • "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." "For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." "When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." (Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, pp. 19-20.)

Shawnc 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Experiment: I am now as before and will always remain so... For I have also a duty to my own people... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited. The Devil can cite scripture - but this one didn't even bother: he sprinkled Christian phrases about for decency's sake. Aren't his religious beliefs summed up in the notion of race and in the term, "National Socialism"?--shtove 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I think he was not a Christian. He was well aware that could not publicly condemn (or contradict) Christianity because that would be devastating to his popularity. Only (difficult to verify) private discussions can serve as evidence in this matter. He even stopped the T4 euthanasia programme under pressure from the churches. Andries 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
He openly said he was a christian, he went to church, he discussed his faith in quite a few speeches and screeds... are we holding Hitler to a higher standard of WP:V just because he was such a monster otherwise? Ronabop 00:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
These quotes do appear to be verifiable. If someone announces publically that he is so-and-so, this - the act of announcement - is an undeniable fact, and is independent from discussions related to an evaluation of the validity of the announcement; the phrase "Hitler claimed to be a 'Christian'" holds true even if he was among the least-Christian people who ever lived. Shawnc 15:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Then write something like "In his public discourses, before the elections he claimed to be a Christian.". There is documented evidence that there were two professions that he hated i.e. the priest and the lawyer. (I forgot where I read this). What I meant to say is, that many of his public statements have to be considered in the light of their propaganda value. Andries 21:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Andries. Though Hitler was not an esotoricist as Himmler or Heß, he neither was a Christian. Hitler was born into a Catholic family, but from his youth onward didn't practice the faith in any way. He never went to church, except for weddings of people like Göring or funerals. He did not "discuss his faith" but made religious reference in his speeches - that's quite different. References to God do not make one a Christian. In fact, it is known that he wanted to erradicate Christianity after the "Endsieg". Any references to Christianity must also be seen in light of the NSDAP's "positive Christianity" which basically means a shell to be filled by Nazi ideas. Str1977 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally somebody who disagrees with me on something. That is rare lately. :)Yes, I saw on German TV (ZDF?) a testimony by a Catholic SS-man who stated that Hitler more or les privately told him that he wanted to eradicate Christianity after the Final Victory (Endsieg). He could not do that when the war was not won because he needed the support of the people. I do not have the details though. Andries 13:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought that Sebastian Haffner wrote in the book the Meaning of Hitler that Hitler was not a Christian and that he had no understanding of the meaning of religion for people. I consider his analyses of Hitler's life and thoughts authorative. He did not write a chronological well-referenced biography, like Kershaw. Can somebody please check if and where Haffner wrote this. Then I support inclusion writing this as an attributed opinion in the article. Andries 23:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed this section heading from "beliefs" to "claims". The public claims and speeches, assuming they are so, would not be an opinion and would not be subjected to debate. Shawnc 17:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I found the quote by Sebastian Haffner about the lack of Hitler's faith in the Dutch language version of his book The Meaning of Hitler. Does somebody have the English translation (or the German original, which would be better than the Dutch translation)
(Haffner commenting about Hitler's view on Judaism and Jews) "Want hij was, ondanks zijn gewoontegetrouwe retorische aanroepingen van de 'Voorzienigheid' en de 'Almachtige' niet alleen ongelovig, maar had ook geen zintuig voor wat de religie van anderen betekenen kan. Dat was ook duidelijk in zijn omgang met de Christelijke geloofsgemeenschappen. " chapter 4, page 116 in the Dutch version of the book.
English translation by user:Andries (Haffner commenting about Hitler's view on Judaism and Jews) "Because he was, in spite of his usual rethorical callings to 'Providence' and the 'Almighty' not only an infidel, but apart from that he did not have a sense for what religion can mean to other people. This was also clear in the way he dealt with Christian faith communities." Andries 21:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Andries,
here it is from Anmerkungen zu Hitler, Chapter "Irrtümer", page 109 (23rd edition, 2001):
Denn er war, trotz seiner gewohnheitsmäßigen rhetorischen Anrufung der "Vorsehung" und des "Allmächtigen", nicht nur selbst irreligiös, sondern hatte auch kein Organ dafür, was Religion für andere bedeuten kann. Bei seinem Umgang mit den christlichen Kirchen hat sich das deutlich gezeigt.
Str1977 09:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Andries, this quote is from the German original of Haffner's book "Anmerkungen zu Hitler", from the 23rd edition published 2001, as a paperback.
Str1977 14:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Category:Nazi war criminal

Isn't it a PoV? Hitler was never been convicted by any court. I've removed this category. see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:War_criminals. This catregory is going to be deleted. --Haham hanuka 13:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Haham, granted - he was never charged and hence never convicted but that was because he was dead. But if he had been alive (or thought to be alive as Bormann was) he would have been charged and convicted, don't you think? The issue of whether the category should be deleted is a different issue (and if it is deleted our issue here becomes futile), but if it does exist I can't see a reason not to include Hitler. Any other thoughts? Str1977 13:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that it's by no means decided that a category is going to be deleted, just because it's up for CfD. I know, I listed the one you're talking about :Þ But I agree, assuming Hitler was never convicted in absentia, then he doesn't belong on *that* list. Sherurcij (talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject) 13:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Dead men aren't charged with crimes. Str1977 13:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I think we can delete it now (and also it's sub category:Nazi war criminal). According to the vote 5 want to delete it and only 2 to keep. --Haham hanuka 13:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the subcategory is a bit questionable. Whether he belongs into "War criminal" category is a matter of definition of that category: he certainly didn't commit any war crimes himself, but he did order some (e.g. through the Kommissarbefehl). Str1977 13:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
but it is a PoV. If I think that George Bush is a war criminal, Can I add it to this category? --Haham hanuka 13:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No, Haham, it is only a POV insofar everything is a POV. If Bush was seriously (!!) charged or even convicted or had escaped charge or conviction via death or other means while evidence of his guilt were avaiable then you could include Bush. But that is not the case. Some want to include Bush for crimes committed by subalterns - I don't, unless they'd have evidence of his involvement (via orders etc.). Anyway, Bush is alive. Hitler is dead, was dead (and hence never charged) but the historiographical evidence "convicts" him. Though history is no law court, it presents evidence of what someone has done. That's not POV, as there's no serious debate over what he has done. Str1977 14:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates and the Nazis

I was earlier objecting to the neutralising of the specificity of this Title for the Hitler bankers who kept his movement afloat, down to german businessmen. now I see that the vote for deletion was carried by Robert McClenon and one other. this seems exrtraordinary, especially as the info was sourced to the very page . What exactly does this contribute to Wkipedia, and why do we sleep walk along into this kind of revisionism in WP ? I can only say that I am appalled at the approach being forced hrough here and in many related articles. This is sabotage of a high order and denies verifiability. EffK 10:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

They say yes, but you will never hear of your contribution again

Does the administrator of this Wikipedia still live within the world of the magazine "Mad" ? He seems to be not so qualified for this job. He seems to be a "Wikipedia administrator". Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- ersetze AT durch @ ) (19012006)