Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 10

As the page was getting too long when edited completely I have moved the longest part to the page above. It is a very long discussion about whether the spelling Adolph should be mentioned and if it should be mentioned as a misspelling or as an alternative less common spelling. I hope I did it correctly. As my English is to poor for refactoring it I haven't done that, except that I removed parts that were purely repetitions. Any comment by me about what I changed for reorganizing is in the typewriter font. Furthermore I also tried to add meaningfull headers on this pageLaudaka 05:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

to user:Articfrog, redundant?

Why is it redundant that the red army was hostile and approached Hitler's bunker? How is the reader supposed to know that unless we state it? Andries 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

If it is not redundant, it should be. That sort of thing should be in the body of the article, not the header statement. This article keeps having its intro expanded, and that is not what they are for. It should simply be a short statement of why Hitler has an article here, why he is famous; if the reader wants details, they then read the article. Instead, editors are trying to summarize everything about him. That is not how biographical articles are supposed to be structured here. ChessPlayer 23:10, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
For the sake of posterity, ChessPlayer and I have come to an opposite understanding at User_talk:ChessPlayer#Lead_section. See also Wikipedia:Lead section. --mav 02:37, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
well, I bascically agree with Maverick about the lead section but I give priority to improving the main article. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Causation and Hitler

I think it simplistic in the extreme to say that the leaders of the world caused the war. Such a statement is not a fact at all, but an interpretation, having to do with what historical causation means. There is a segment of historical academia that rejects the idea that individuals, even world leaders, are the causes of events, and saying bluntly that Hitler caused something is not factual, but a POV in the causation battle. I support the sentence that he was instrumental; I do not support it being given as fact that he caused the war, not even if other leaders are included. ChessPlayer 21:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

CP is correct here. This is not to excuse Hitler or to subscribe to moral relativism. Hitler's nazi party was systematically built up by supporters in the industry and in the Reichswehr. Violations of the Treaty of Versailles were tolerated by Germany's allies in the hopes of creating a bulwark against the Soviet Union. That a vote for Hitler was a vote for war was common knowledge among higher educated people and a popular anti-Hitler slogan - yet Hitler was not stopped. People like Ludendorff and Hindenburg subscribed to a mentality in which peacetime was only the time used for preparing for the next war.
The key question, which can be factually answered, is: Would there have been a war without Hitler? And that is certainly true. Schleicher, von Papen, Röhm, Himmler, Strasser - they were all staunch militarists. Even the 1944 assassination attempt was committed not because there was a war, but because Germany was losing it.
One idea which primarily arose in the mind of Hitler himself is that of exterminatory anti-Semitism. While he was systematically influenced in this regard, nobody had expected that Hitler would take his beliefs to such an extreme. The Holocaust was his invention, and it is highly doubtful whether anything of that magnitude would have happened without him. Similarly, while Hitler primarily allied with fascist regimes that could be easily subdued after the Endsieg, his generals and deputies would probably have sought an alliance with the West against the Soviet Union.
Blame Hitler for the Holocaust, blame him for the course of the war. But you can't blame him alone for the fact that there was a war. As Foch predicted after the Treaty of Versailles: "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." (1919-1939) The old power elite wanted war. Some industrialists wanted war. Many politicians wanted war. The media supported this course. Germany's neighbours tolerated the preparations for war. War was inevitable, with Hitler or without him.--Eloquence*
While I'm no expert, Im not sure that one can say that "war was inevitable," for the same logical reasons that one can't attribute WWII to Hitler alone. Perhaps it is better said that the popularity of a glorified German ethnic nationalism, combined with the favorability of militaristic means, made another war about 99.999% likely. -Stevertigo

While I wouldn't say you're fully wrong, I think you're eliding the difference between militarists in the army, and so forth, and Hitler. Every single one of Hitler's aggressive moves, up to Munich, were opposed by the military elites because they were afraid of western reaction. That fear proved to be groundless, but any regime led by anybody other than Hitler would very likely have been much, much more cautious. One would also note that a regime which had not completely ruined its credibility by earlier ventures in Czechoslovakia, would probably have gotten the western powers to stand aside from a German-Polish war. But this is to argue over counterfactuals. john k 17:56, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ugly pic

Did somebody tried to find the ugliest picture of Hitler available? Can this brown painting please be replaced? Thanks Andries 17:45, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Heh, I also find it ugly, but an image is needed, and there were apparently copywright issues w the previous image. Sam [Spade] 17:50, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I could upload a few more and we could have a vote or something, I have about a dozen of these propaganda pictures. This one seemed the most realistic. It does not have the fake self-confident pose most others do, it was the least propagandistic of the bunch. The old picture was one from Walter Frentz’s personal archive. Frentz was one of the top photographers of the Reich, amongst others he was the cinematographer on the Triumph of The Will. --GeneralPatton 18:44, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
First the page will have to be unprotected. What is it we were so angry about that we required an armistace? It couldn't have been this silly looking picture could it? Hitler looks almost ashamed, as if concerned about NPOV on his article ;) Sam [Spade] 22:05, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
GeneralPatton, Please upload another picture. Yes, the picture looks realistic, but it hurts my eyes.Andries 09:58, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Page protection

If the page was protected because of the Intro, I'd just like to weigh in that I think Sam Spade's version is more informative and encyclopedic. Quadell (talk) 15:43, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Gah, my eyes! john k 16:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
?... Anyways, I was rather concerned about the harsh response to the intro, and decided to run it past a Left-wing academic friend of mine (he works for a top 10 uni, and is a grad student). He said the 2 versions were really not so very different, and commented that mine was a bit more "flowery". When I asked if he thought it was "apologetic" to Hitler, he remarked that it certainly was not, w my mention of the racial policy leading to mass deaths. We had an interesting side conversation about how that wouldn't need mentioning in the first paragraph if WWII were not so recent, since slaughtering of civilians is pretty much standard thru-out history, often (but of course not always) based apon race. Hitler may be remembered today for his racism, but is certainly not remarkable in that trait, as anyone w a cursory knowledge of history (or current events for that matter...) can attest to. I also had a long convo w a wikipedian via IM, where he expressed a concern over "was said to have died by his own hand", as it leaves open the possibility that the russian account might be less than scrupulously accurate. While I find this concern unfounded, I would be willing to consider compromise on this area, as nearly all sources seem to accept the soviet account verbatim. Sam [Spade] 19:43, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There are German accounts from eyewitnesses which confirm his suicide. The language "said to have" is unnecessary. Fred Bauder 09:15, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I unprotected the page. ✏ Sverdrup 21:54, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I tried "reported". No dice. I think I'll rewrite the whole sentance next time. Sam [Spade] 21:45, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ok, the page unprotection didn't work, and we are back at protection again. Please, try to work out a new lead section (different from any of the two versions) here on the talk page. When this is done, a sysop can unprotect and insert the new lead section. ✏ Sverdrup 21:50, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

What this means is that apparently, the conflicting parties do not agree upon either of the two versions. We need to work out one (1) version here on the talk page, and not until then, can the page be unprotected. ✏ Sverdrup 23:22, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)

How about something really short and simple, and leaving the rest for the main text? Just Hitler, the dates of his life, leader of the Nazi party, ruled Germany 1933-1945, mention World War II and the Holocaust...Adam's version from 7 January was

"Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was Chancellor and Führer of Germany from 1933 to 1945. He was the principal instigator of the Holocaust and World War II."

That looks pretty good to me, although I'd add something about the Nazi Party like...

Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889 - April 30, 1945) was the leader of the Nazi Party and ruled Germany as Chancellor and Führer from 1933 to 1945. He was the principal instigator of the Holocaust and World War II.

What do people think? john k 02:49, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

When protection goes away, could somebody replace the image? The current painting is listed as a copyright violation. We should revert to Image:Hitler.jpg. RickK 06:16, Jun 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have no idea wht user David Remahl listed it as a copyvio before consulting me. The portrait was one of numerous official proganada posters.

With copyright stuff, can't we just do that while the page is still protected? That's not what the dispute's over, in any event. john k 06:28, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don’t see how the Hitler painting was a copyright violation since it was one of the official propaganda items in Nazi Germany. The color photo is far more problematic. The Hitler photo that is displayed now was taken by Walter Frentz, Hitlers personal photographer and is copyright, his son, who works for a major german media company is famous for going after people who use it as you can see here. This image looks like a bad scan from Hitlers Berghof 1928-1945 in color book *[1] --GeneralPatton 22:22, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Neither of these acronyms is explained in the article. What were they? --Eequor 20:05, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany) and Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Communist Party of Germany). The terms are linked, aren't they? john k 21:18, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, just noticed the passage you're talking about. I'd say the whole thing should be deleted - it looks to be KPD apologetics. john k 21:21, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It's hardly "apologetics", and it is of course highly on-topic, so I have restored it. Is there any specific claim which you call into question? I edited this section from an earlier version, which openly held the KPD responsible for Hitler's rise to power and idiotically claimed that they had "collaborated" with the nazis. And it is of course a relevant question for an article about Hitler how exactly he rose to power; the section is titled "the road to power" for a good reason. We can agree to move the discussion elsewhere (e.g. NSDAP or Weimar Republic) and link to it from here, but outright deletion is utterly unacceptable. By the way, you also removed all references to the Reichstag Fire, but I assume this was an accident.--Eloquence* 23:46, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)

The idea that the Communist Party was really into the idea of allying with the SPD to stop Hitler, and that the SPD refused, is just ridiculous. Local branches of the SPD and KPD made alliances. The national KPD was completely opposed to an alliance, holding onto the Comintern "Social Fascist" position until it was too late to do anything about it. The SPD, of course, didn't do very much to court the Communists, either, although what overtures there were seem to have been from the SPD and their fellow travelers towards the KPD (for instance, a leftish DSP official in the Prussian government tried to talk to the Communists about tolerating the Braun government, which provided the pretext for Papen to launch his coup against the Prussian government. I would agree, of course, that we should not have a section that says that the KPD was responsible for the rise of Hitler, or that they collaborated with the Nazis. On the other hand, the KPD's "social fascist" position, held in the face of opposition from their own rank and file, who wanted a broad popular front type thing, certainly didn't do much to hinder Hitler. My other problem with the passage is that it essentially comes out of nowhere. The article is talking before this about the machinations within the Kamarilla around Hindenburg that resulted in Hitler being made Chancellor. Then, all of a sudden, it goes into a several paragraphs long riff on why the Communists were wholly innocent of any complicity in the Nazi rise to power. Then it suddenly goes back to a discussion of the specific tactics Hitler used once he became Chancellor. This is just bizarre. At any rate, discussion of this issue belongs in Communist Party of Germany, Social Democratic Party of Germany, the appropriate article in the History of Germany area, Weimar Republic, National Socialist German Workers Party, and so on and so forth. It is essentially irrelevant to a biographical article about Hitler. john k 05:07, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bush's ad only mentions Hitler to complain about the comparison

The article states at one point, "Comparing political opponents to Hitler is also a very common tactic in many countries. During the Presidential campaign of 2004, the George W. Bush web site even featured an ad showing Hitler ("

This is technically true but quite unfair. The reader is left with the impression that Bush is comparing his political adversaries to Hitler. In fact, the Bush web-ad in question only "show[s] Hitler," quite fleetingly, for the express purpose of _complaining about_ an ad (from which Bush's quick excerpt is drawn) previously posted on the website of pro-Kerry group The latter ad did directly compare Bush to Hitler; and Bush's ad simply calls brief attention to that ad (along with other harsh attacks on Bush) to illustrate how unfair the comparison is.

How about appending, to the above-quoted sentence, "albeit for the purpose of complaining about a prior ad that had compared Bush to Hitler"?

No. StoptheBus18 18:12, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Removal Category painter

I have removed the category paint because he did not become famous because of his paintings. Andries 20:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That Hitler was a painter is documented in this very article, and at [2]. The category is not "people who became famous as painters". Indeed, others listed there did not. Andy Mabbett 20:20, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The only reason his paintings are even known is because of his 'other' activities. I agree there are limits to categorizing.--DanielCD 20:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The category is not "people who are known only for their painting" Andy Mabbett 20:58, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The relavant policy, which I already quoted on my 2nd revert,is: "A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in" (Wikipedia:Categorization). Andy/Pigsonthewing has choosen to ignore it this. →Raul654 21:16, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
That's not apolicy, that's a general rule. Furthermore, the full text of that section is:

In the "vertical" dimension, you should probably be more frugal. A good general rule is that articles should be placed in the most specific categories they reasonably fit in. For example, Queen Elizabeth should not be listed directly under People, but Queens of England might be a good place for her. We know that all Queens of England qualify as Famous Britons and as Royalty, and all of those folks qualify as People. But sometimes there's a good reason to assign an article to two categories, one of which is a direct or indirect subcategory of another.

Andy Mabbett 21:22, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
But with the queen, there's no question that she belongs in either category. She is inarguably the queen of England, and (as a result) she is inarguably famous. On the other hand, the "general" rule (which, by calling it a general rule , means that it should be followed unless you have a good reason not to - which you have not) specifically says that it should be in categories that fit it reasonably well. By no reasonable stretch of the imagination does it make sense to put Hitler in the painters category - when people go looking at the list of painters, you can be sure he isn't someone they expect to find. This would be laughable if you weren't seriously advocating it. →Raul654 21:32, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
I'm concerned with what's encyclopedic, not what people expect. Your assertion that my reason is not good would be fallacious, were your "general rule" (NB not a policy) not irrelevant to the case in hand. Andy Mabbett 21:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it's really a judgement call. No one would expect him to be in 'painters', and since it seems to be a whim of one person, perhaps it should be left out. There's no really good reason for it to be there. It's kinda overkill. --DanielCD 21:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not a whim, it's a fact. He was painter. Andy Mabbett 21:38, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I didn't mean it in a negative way. Sure he was a painter, I just don't think anyone would expect to find him in that catagory; it's kind of a stretch. --DanielCD 21:45, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Other than being a painter, what requirements are there, for being listed as a painter, in the category "painters"?? Andy Mabbett 22:24, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Churchill was also a "painter". I suppose a bit of research would establish many other world leaders painted in their spare time. Hitler failed to get into Art College so can't really be classified as a painter BY PROFESSION.

I think the problem is ambiguity in the term painter. Is the list for people who were primarily painters, or to a large degree painters or for anyone who painted?

In the list of painters there could be a subsection for famous, or infamous, people who painted like Adolph Hitler or John Wayne Gacy. Hitler's background and information that he painted is interesting and should be included somewhere. --ShaunMacPherson 04:57, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

While it is true that Hitler indeed painted for a living (on a really pityful scale, very little money, hardly sufficient to pay his hostel place) during what Alan Bullock ('Hitler, A Study in Tyranny", 2nd ed.) had called The Formative Years (IIRC), I still decidedly side with those who oppose his inclusion in the painter category. One word: overvategorization. What Andy quoted above should be clear enough to settle this question, but I will also say this: 1) The later Hitler would NOT have described himself as a painter and it would probably have been seriously risky for any person to call him thus. 2) Very few of Hitler's paintings remain and they are only preserved because of Hitler's "other career." Ropers 03:16, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistency, perhaps fraud ?

Are you sure about this part of the article ?:

At this point, German industry leaders took a clear stand in favor of a dictatorship by Hitler. In November 1932, a letter was sent to Hindenburg by Fritz Thyssen (industrialist), Ewald Hecker (president of the Chamber of Industry and Commerce), Dr. Kurt von Eichborn (banker), Friedrich Reinhart (banker), Dr. Hjalmar Schacht (banker), August Rosterg (director of Winterhall AG, Kassel), E. Helfferich (shipowner), Eberhard Grav von Kalckreuth (landowner), Graf von Keyserlingk (landowner), Joachim von Oppen-Dannenwalde (landowner), and several others; the letter was supported by Dr. Albert Vögler (Vereinigte Stahlwerke, i.e. United Steel), Dr. Paul Reusch (Gutehoffnungshütte) and Dr. Fritz Springorum (Hoesch). The authors "affirm the necessity of a government independent from parliamentary parties." According to them, such a non-democratic government would have majority support of the general public "if one ignores the communist party, which rejects the state." They suggest that the leadership of such a "presidential cabinet" should be transferred to the "leader of the largest nationalist group", to create a movement which would "enrapture millions of people." [3] ( The leader of that group was, of course, Adolf Hitler.

I read the letter they mention and indicate in the link (I can read German). Here are some points that make me suspicious:

1- It comes from a Website which shows many signs of being a left-wing propaganda site and not a "Documentation System for theory of society, history and politics" that they pretend to be.

2- There isn't any contact adress or telephone number. Very scarcely resourced to be a credible institution, don't you think ?

3- I didn't find this text anywhere else. Try using Google. Copy a part of the text and paste it on Google. It will find only this one page.

4- The text reads: "Wir erkennen in der nationalen Bewegung, die durch unser Volk geht, den verheissungsvollen Beginn einer Zeit, die durch Übewindung des Klassengegensatzes die unerläßliche Grundlage für einen Wiederaufstieg der deutschen Wirtschaft erst schafft"

which means: We see in the national movement, that is going through our people, the promissing begin from a new era, that only with removal of the class struggles will create the necessary conditions for a reascent of the German Economy.

Very funny! I knew already that fascism and socialism are very similar, but it's always amusing to see the words "Überwindung des Klassengegensatzes" (removal of the class strugles) in the mouth of a group of industrials.

To be honest, I can more easily imagine that this text could have been easily written by the authors of this nice little cute website. They have plenty of left-wing, marxist propaganda in here. There is plenty of class struggle in there, I'm sure.

Here are some examples of articles in this website called "Glasnost":

1- Michael Moore begruesst das Herunterladen seines Films "Fahrenheit 9/11" aus Tauschboersen.

How funny. What is Michael Moore doing in this reliable "Documentation System for theory of society, history and politics"

By the way, it's not even an article about Vietnam history by the expert Moore. It's "only" about it's new movie being available online on Kazaa.

2 - Die USA auf dem Weg in den Polizeistaat? Die US-Regierung scheint Terrorwarnungen zu plazieren, wenn es in die Strategie passt. Faschismus!

The USA on the way to be a police state. Fascism, they say.

3 - "Die taz mit einem aktuellen Artikel ueber das Regiogeld Chiemgauer." TAZ is a communist newspaper. They are promoting one article of the communist newspaper here.

4: - This is the main link in the news section. Very amusing for a "Documentation System for theory of society, history and politics"

Go there and see. The website is Have fun.

In the meantime, I might suggest to cut the text. I'm sure it was very convenient for these communists to see a group of industrials supporting the "dictatorship" of Hitler in 1932. That would really support their worldviews, if it wasn't a fraud...

they are fooling themselves

and you :-)

Can anyone confirm this from any other sources ? If not I suggest we deleate this bit in the article. -- 09:07, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The author of this complaint is a typical US fascist. The TAZ is in no way communist, etc etc. "Überwindung des Klassengegensatzes" in the mouth of industrialists is the very definition of Fascism, and merely another way of saying "National Socialist".

The author of the last "comment", who did not sign what he wrote, was, as I looked up in the edit history, an anonymous contributor with an IP of (I am not signing this paragraph myself, lest I be mistaken for the said contributor, with whom I would rather not be associated.)
I gave this above section a cursory read. If I understand correctly, the main concern appears to be the veracity of statements that there was industialist (or "capitalist" as terminology of the day would have had it) support behind Hitler's rise. I can elaborate as follows:
There was a huge controversy over this during the (I think 60s, 70s and 80s (and onwards for some never-let-ups.)
These years were also years when communist, socialist and social democratic (I'm not saying that they're the same) world views had a lot more mainsteam and street cred than they have now. ESPECIALLY with regards to communism/socialism. The "capitalist" and "communist" world views were in clear contention in western countries (which was probably healthy, because competition is good for you ;-)
Against this background, the "leftist" side persistently pointed out the Hitler-"capitalist" connections that surfaced. This was a proxy fight, to discredit the other side.
The "right wing" meanwhile went bananas and tried to convince the public (with remarkable success) that communism and fascism were somehow the same thing. They also asserted that the communists' utter fight against Hitler's rise had somehow helped Hitler -- tenuous, but there you go.
The historical "truth" (as far as it's currently scientifically accepted) is that at some point in time "industrialists" in the Weimar Republic felt threatened by the communists' success. This led to some "industrialist" support for Hitler. How decisive that support was is maybe open to interpretation (and this was central to the aforementioned debates), but it was there. It may be uncomfortable to some people, but persons rooted in the right wing of the political spectrum will have to be able to defend their position on its own merits, not by disputing historical evidence.
This is all very well known, btw. It only surpises people not really familiar with Hitler's rise to power.
To the author of this entire section: read Alan Bullock, A Study In Tyranny. Still one of "the" authoritative works. Written by an American if you please ;-)
"Industrialist"/"capitalist" support for Hitler mentioned on these pages (second edition):
  • 147 role of Alfred Hugenberg
  • 159 pp.
  • 211
  • 259 note the right wing industrialist pro-Hitler election fund
Especially however, I'd now like to put to the author of this section the herewith promulgated Ropers' Law Against Storm-Trooper WP Editing:
Just because some information can't be found by a websearch doesn't mean that the information doesn't exist.
Life before "teh Intarweb", remember?
Ropers 04:20, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)