Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 35 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45

Why is this here?

two passages in Mein Kampf mention the use of poison gas:

At the beginning of the Great War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas . . . then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain. (Volume 2, Chapter 15 "The Right to Self-Defence").

These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human weakness and must lead to success, with almost mathematical ce rtainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here it is a case of to be or not to be. (Volume 1, Chapter 2 "Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna")

While I dont oppose this being somewhere, it being shoved under 'World War I service' seems out of place and makes the article look like trash. I dont dare edit it myself as I imagine it would quickly get reverted. user:ratzinger81

Kurt Tucholsky, an jewish "comedian", wrote this sentences some years before Hitler, not about jews, but the "bourgoise" / citizens. He was talking about the first World War. Hitler just changed the group that should be killed by poison-gas. So you cannot say that he already had been thinking of the gas-chambers in this years. I think Hitler knew about this quote of Tucholsky, when he wrote this sentence...! Greetings, Rheinfall!

Religious Beliefs

I was quite sickened by the chapter regarding Hitler's 'relgious beliefs'. The entire slant of the chapter amounts to, "Well, you see, because Hitler came from a Catholic upbringing it's the Catholics and their faith who are actually to blame for the Holocaust". There's no way around it - these various edits have been used in this section to portray Hitler's evils as the collective responsibility of christianity. Whereas of course the truth about the Bible is that all of the massacring takes place in the Old Testament and not the New Testament.

Adolf Hitler viewed the Christian faith only in political terms. Where it suited him to 'play christian' he would do so for a few extra votes or the confidence of the people. Next on the list after the murder of the jews were the clergy and lay faithful (as evidenced by the actions of the German army in Poland and all over Europe...even within Germany itself). There are no winners in this pathetic game of 'My God is bigger than your God' and I hope the players in it realise how malicious their actions appear. Heinrich Himmler once made a long reference to the intense rigour of the Jesuit Order and mentioned how he had based the hierarchy of the SS on the Jesuit example. I suppose this means that the Jesuits are all murderers too?!

Such puerile foolishness.

Grow up. Christianity didn't create the Holocaust. Nazism did. If you want to write a nice big long article about anti-semitism then I'm sure there is one you could add to elsewhere instead of trying to cunningly portray Adolf Hitler as having been influenced by his mother's faith in order to murder millions of innocent people. --Iamlondon 03:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

  • "Adolf Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic by his Roman Catholic parents." Seems kind of redundant. ReverendG 16:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Or perhaps the editor wasn't being specific enough? "Adolf Hitler was brought up as a Roman Catholic by his Roman Catholic parents who were Romish Papist Popish Romanist Papalists" ;) .
--GuyIncognito 07:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Good heavens, so to speak. I read this article and didn't see any indication that Catholicism was the root evil behind the Holocaust. As for "...brought up as a Roman Catholic by his Roman Catholic parents" being redundant, it's possible that his parents could have had different faiths, or that he was brought up by someone other than his parents, or the Catholic aspect of his upbringing could have been at the hand of another relative or family friend.

You have to understand that Catholics are on the defensive since it was announced that Pope Benedict was in the Hitler youth. The same thing applies for rumours that Hitler had a "thing" about the Jews since a Jewish doctor allegedly failed to treat his sick mother, who Hitler was very fond of.

I found that the religious section was fair. It accounted for all sides. The fact that his parent were catholic... is a fact. When we complain, we give examples ...Somerset219 23:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest this section is extremley bloated and dragged down into "quote" fest. I felt this section is either aimed to whack Atheist and Christians. Who gives a damn if Hitler is a Christian or Athiest anyway and shit happens. Here's what I observe so far some people want to label Hitler an Atheist simply because they want to discredit Atheism (meaning that Hitler lack of beleif in god results to evil craps) and while Atheist want to lablel Hitler a extreme devout christian to re-infore their claim that christianity is an abomination for humanity. Quit using Hitler as propgaganda tool. I like to simplify this article w/o comprimisiong the facts or censoring any information. A seperate article Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs is somehwat superior because its well organised. So try making an article WITHOUT INSULTING ATHEIST OR CHRISTIANS for fuck's sake.

209.214.230.142 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Religious Beliefs, 'Part: The Second'

I've re-enterred the quote which was rudely removed by one of the contributors. If you wish to blank out the fact that Hitler's anti-semitism had nothing to do with his reiligious upbringing then I'll carry on pasting that quote back in each time. It's a deplorable abuse of Wikipedia to arrogantly remove material on no other grounds than that it doesn't fit the thesis of the 'editor'. I could make a pretty accurate guess as to the general demographic of the person who keeps removing this.

Ironically, if you want to whitewash the truth and skew history perhaps you might join the Nazi Party - they were quite good at lies and propaganda, you know. --Iamlondon 14:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Steigmann-Gall is an author cited in this controversy several times. He's also cited here, regarding Luther. Is he a serious source, or a journo?--Shtove 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Steigman-Gall is a serious source, an expert in the field. As a historian his studies into this period and of Hitler are highly respected by all. The passage above I removed as very poorly written, barely clear, and the points it tries to make are illogical. It does not follow from the quote the statments it makes, which amount to original research. Is there any serious claim that even in the first place that Hitler's youth was imbued with anti-Semitism? No. The influce comes during his adult hood with the influence of the Christian Social Party, Martin Luther, and other anti-semitic influences. The quote about the terror that Hitler recognized Christianity used is an observation that such terror is needed to forcefully reshape society, which he intended to do as well, in admiration of the early Catholic institutions. Ofcourse this is my own interpretation and unless I cite a reputable scholar who gives this opinion (even though its not relevant to Hitlers religious beliefs) would be original research to. But to jump into speculation about how this means Hitler planed to destroy Christainity is a great leap of logic, original research, use of weasle words, creates a straw-man, and is a non-sequitur to boot. That is why I removed it. Giovanni33 02:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Gio,
if you followed the reasons which you gave for removing London's addition consistently you would also have to delete your own Mein Kampf additions from the section. They are at least as "poorly written", "barely clear" and "illogical" in their introductions and selective in their presentation.
London's edits are no improvement to the section stylistically, but your removal of them is merely an instance of POV pushing. It contradicts your biases, so throw it out.
Str1977 (smile back) 15:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. The problem, Giovanni, is that where a quote is not enough for you neither is direct incontrovertible evidence. Would you like reams and reams of pages of evidence demonstrating Hitler's intent to remove christianity from German life? Only the most incredulous of persons would argue the point as to whether Hitler intended on the removal of christianity from the life of the Reich. One or two quotes from an anti-semitic bishop do not equate to a groundswell of adoration by Hitler for christianity when placed alongside the thousands of priests, nuns, monks and lay people he had murdered in his attacks on the Churches both within Germany's borders and without. So it is far from any "Great Leap of Logic" as you tried to caricature the quote. In Mein Kampf Hitler said what he meant and meant what he said. The evidence proves that the quote bears out his intention of destroying Christianity as a force in German life.--Iamlondon 16:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Hitler used Christian rhetoric for political gain, but it wasn't the faith which caused a swell in Nazism. However, equally wrong are those who attempt to erase any mention or reference to his upbringing and fabricate claims that other religious beliefs (or none at all) were somehow responsible. --AWF
I don't question your assertion in the least. But any attempt to discuss the religion of Hitler's upbringing will immediately stand accused of attempting to slant others toward believing, erroneously, that such a faith was the primal cause of his anti-semitism. This was a clear intention of some of the original contributors and it is fair and correct to balance these additions. But the simple truth is that Catholicism in no way made Hitler an anti-Semite - something he himself very clearly states in the first book of Mein Kampf when he discusses Linz and its jewish population of his childhood years. --Iamlondon 23:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To what extent can Mein Kampf be considered a good source for Hitler's real views?

I mean, if anyone has ever read mein kampf, it's basically populist rhetoric and lies about his WW1 period. Is it really a good source from which to derive what Hitler believed in? It was always intended to be published by the way, Hitler isn't exactly going to say to a largely christian german public 'by the way I'm an atheist'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.0.221 (talkcontribsWHOIS)

Mein Kampf can be used as a very good source for Hitler's views. I don't think it was populist at all, Hitler was going to get his views to the German people no matter what they thought, and he wasn't going to change his mind for anybody. Most of it was propaganda, and I agree with you on the last part. I've said it before and I'll say it again, he wanted Christian votes, so he said he was Christian perhaps in some passages. But his racial and social attitudes were largely uncensored in that book, and that's why many Neo-Nazi's idolize it as something comparable to the Bible, which, of course, it is not. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Mein Kampf is of the highest importance in any article concerning Adolf Hitler. In Mein Kampf Hitler laid down the groundwork of his ideology. But more importantly, he virtually never deviated from the ideas contained in this book - From Lebensraum to a determination not to go to war with Britain...Hitler's views in Mein Kampf can be considered pretty much 'honest' regardless of their immorality.--Iamlondon 14:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
I find that strange, because I've yet to hear of a scholar that considers it anything other than populist in regards to it's religious rhetoric. I mean, what you Atheists don't seem to get about Hitler is that all the sources you find of him self-identifying as a Christian are either public speeches before the Reichstag (pre-NOLN - or speeches to things such as the SA). Everything Hitler did in his actions seems to suggest he was mildly anti-clerical, I mean, look at his top level appointments - Himmler and Bormann were both virulently anti-Christian.
This isn't an academic response, in fact it's rather illiterate. For your information I am a practising Roman Catholic.--Iamlondon 01:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a catholic, but I'm sure not an atheist. That's not to say I have something against catholics, just to address the topic at hand. Aaрон Кинни (t) 09:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I actually liked your answer to the question. --Iamlondon 23:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
History2125history2125 This is my first edit on any topic on this encyclopedia. I am a professional historian with interest in Nazism. Mein Kampf was created as propaganda, reproduced as progaganda and will always be propaganda. As representation, we can never get to the "truth" of any written document. It is only useful to talk about this document as what Hitler, and more importantly (since Hitler was a myth of the party and the man himself was rather less significant than what he represented)what the party wanted to represent through his life and ideas. So it is an important source for Nazi history...less useful as biography or analysis of Hitler's "thoughts".
What I fail to grasp (and to be clear, I am a student and not a professional historian) is how Mein Kampf can't give us tremendous insight into Hitler's thoughts. If it was solely authored by him, even as purely propaganda, can we not analyze the reality of Hitler the man, his deeds, to the suggested ideologies of Hitler the author? Are you saying, History2125 that Mein Kampf is a construct of a construct, since Hitler "was a myth of the party" ? Ranieldule 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
History2125 To see Mein Kampf as somehow reflecting authentic ideas of the man is to assume that the author intended something other than political uses (propaganda) of the document. If we recall that this political document was written and published at a key moment in the direction of the party and the future leadership position of Hitler within the party than anything and everything in it must be examined critically at best, skeptically at worst. What makes the self-styled mythmaking in Mein Kampf so suspect is that most serious historians of Hitler see most of the biographical information in the story as fiction or outright misrepresentations. It was published by Hitler and then reproduced by the Nazi party to provide a founding myth for the Fuhrer and to keep his image pure and his story noble. The ideas (if you can call the rambling sentences of this almost unreadable document) are pure propaganda and not even original. You can find most of this drivel in fin de siecle ethnic fundamentalism and in many right-wing nationalist movements in central Europe. Almost all of it is derivative of other people's ideas. I think what is interesting and historically worthwhile in this valuable document is the party's use of it and the entire Hitler myth which got traction in the Third Reich. I recommend Ian Kershaw, "The Hitler Myth: Image and Reality in the Third Reich." So yes, it is a "construct of a construct" or sheer cultural production in the service of politics.
Thank GOODNESS for you History2125! You summed up my thoughts perfectly - This Atheist POV of treating speeches before the Reichstag as perfectly authentic accurate sources for Hitler's views concerning religion (but not anything else of course), has become almost ludicrous - I mean no offence to passive Atheists of course, only fundamentalist Atheists. This tug of war to prove Hitler was a Christian is pathetic. Glad to see some REAL historians on here for a change.

Trivia

Trivia is by definition unencyclopaedia. I removed the trivia section but someone restored it. Not only is a trivia section inappropriate for an encyclopaedia article, it is bullet points as well. What ever happened to prose? Anyway, the section should be removed, really. Anything which is actually relevant should be incorporated elsewhere. Worldtraveller 16:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

-- Don't even try to do anything to this page anymore. Too many ignorant democrats in here. I've given up. Point in case, it was removed from the 'good article' list. HMM. Wonder why...

  • Although I will point out improvements look like they have been made. I still think relgious beliefs should simply be left out. Colonel Marksman 01:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Why no trivia? Pages like Abraham Lincoln and Hunter S. Thompson are fine examples of a trivia section organizing facts near impossible to incorporate into meaningful prose. At least in this form no interesting pieces are left out. What's unencyclopedic about informing succintly, especially when many topics are miscellaneous? Ranieldule 18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 'Trivia' goes completely against what an encyclopaedia is suppposed to provide. If it's actually relevant, it should be included somewhere else in the article. Worldtraveller 18:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that for me WT - I had read that portion previously but I suppose I was searching for the word trivia itself, but the concept is there. I do hope though that all that information isn't lost in the ongoing delete/revert process. I find a good portion of it relevant and I hope to put those pieces somehow into the existing prose of the article. Surely everyone else should give it a go, too.Ranieldule 18:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Origins of the name "Hitler"

This list is incorrect, is it not? After all, his last name WAS Hiedler, not Hitler and therefore listing the origins of *Hitler* is irrelevant, rather there should be a listing of the origins of Hiedler, his father's family's real last name. User:211.27.247.184

Dear 211, Hiedler, Hüttler and Hitler are merely variants in spelling of one name. Only when Alois changed his name was the spelling fixed for himself and his children - and Alois chose Hitler. The variation of course doesn't make the search for the meaning easier but it is still only one name. Str1977 (smile back) 19:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

1936 Olympic Games

Under "Economics and culture" it says "In 1936 Berlin hosted the summer Olympic games, which were opened by Hitler and choreographed to demonstrate Aryan superiority over all other races." Did this succeed, fail? The article is not clear and with numerous non-Aryan winners of gold medals might it be changed to "choregraphed...with mixed results?" I ask tentatively because it's a small point and I'm sure plenty of you seasoned Wikipedians can set me straight before I muddle anything. Ranieldule 17:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Be bold and add it - that's a good addition, but you shouldn't need to ask permission first :). Deleuze 21:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Now I'm bold. Thanks for the nudge. Ranieldule 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Germany did win 33 gold medals, 26 silver and 30 Bronze for a total of 89 medals. The United States came in a distant second with a total of 56 medals (24 gold 20 silver and 12 bronze)

All of the top 10 medal winning countries with the exception of the United States and Japan were western and northern european countries, I dont think that really demonstrates a failure or 'mixed results' --Nazrac 20:48, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Destruction of Christianity

The article includes the following para:

Hitler writes,

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror by terror. Only then can a new state of affairs be constructively created."

(Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim translation, p.413). The significance of this passage is powerful indeed - a declaration that the eventual destruction of traditional Christianity was to be a further goal of Hitler's ideology.

This is the full passage in context. It does not appear to be "a declaration that the eventual destruction of traditional Christianity was to be a further goal of Hitler's ideology". Indeed it's rather unlikely that he would make such a declaration in his book, whatever his private views were. He is saying that the old must be attacked and destroyed in order to build up the new, just as Christianity attacked and destroyed the old religions to build up the new. In other words he is actually presenting the history of Christianity as a model to follow, while adding a few regrets about the loss of the happy-go-lucky attitudes of pre-Christian Europe. But the "passionate intolerance" he attributes to Christianity is in fact his justification for his own "passionate intolerance". He says that this intolerance orginally arose from the "Jewish mode of thought" but it must now be taken up in order to counter the supposed Jewish threat:

"And that was natural, right and logical. An existing order of things is not abolished by merely proclaiming and insisting on a new one. It must not be hoped that those who are the partisans of the existing order and have their interests bound up with it will be converted and won over to the new movement simply by being shown that something new is necessary. On the contrary, what may easily happen is that two different situations will exist side by side and that the-called philosophy is transformed into a party, above which level it will not be able to raise itself afterwards. For the philosophy is intolerant and cannot permit another to exist side by side with it. It imperiously demands its own recognition as unique and exclusive and a complete transformation in accordance with its views throughout all the branches of public life. It can never allow the previous state of affairs to continue in existence by its side.

And the same holds true of religions.
Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith.
It may be objected here that in these phenomena which we find throughout the history of the world we have to recognize mostly a specifically Jewish mode of thought and that such fanaticism and intolerance are typical symptoms of Jewish mentality. That may be a thousandfold true; and it is a fact deeply to be regretted. The appearance of intolerance and fanaticism in the history of mankind may be deeply regrettable, and it may be looked upon as foreign to human nature, but the fact does not change conditions as they exist today. The men who wish to liberate our German nation from the conditions in which it now exists cannot cudgel their brains with thinking how excellent it would be if this or that had never arisen. They must strive to find ways and means of abolishing what actually exists. A philosophy of life which is inspired by an infernal spirit of intolerance can only be set aside by a doctrine that is advanced in an equally ardent spirit and fought for with as determined a will and which is itself a new idea, pure and absolutely true.
Each one of us today may regret the fact that the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world, but the fact cannot be denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominated by this kind of coercion and that violence is broken only by violence and terror by terror. Only then can a new regime be created by means of constructive work. Political parties are prone to enter compromises; but a philosophy never does this. A political party is inclined to adjust its teachings with a view to meeting those of its opponents, but a philosophy proclaims its own infallibility.


In the beginning, political parties have also and nearly always the intention of securing an exclusive and despotic domination for themselves. They always show a slight tendency to become philosophical. But the limited nature of their programme is in itself enough to rob them of that heroic spirit which a philosophy demands. The spirit of conciliation which animates their will attracts those petty and chicken-hearted people who are not fit to be protagonists in any crusade. That is the reason why they mostly become struck in their miserable pettiness very early on the march...." (cue more ranting)[1]

The paragraph as it exists appears to reverse Hitler's meaning. Paul B 10:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul, for your analysis. However, I don't think your conclusion is correct. Hitler did not so much present (his version of) Christianity as a model to be emulated but a complaint about Christian intolerance (which he calls Jewish - in a way he's right in that, as Christianity is Jewish) and goes on to advocate a counter-intolerance. He is presenting it only as a model in so far as he considers it to be "the way things are going and always will" (akin to his racial struggle concept, or Marxism's class struggles). I certainly cannot see a contradiction to the above "a declaration that the eventual destruction of traditional Christianity was to be a further goal of Hitler's ideology", as he is actually declaring that. To rephrase: "You Christians destroyed the old pagans and now we will destroy you!" Str1977 (smile back) 13:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You really are unbeliveable. He says no such thing. Firstly, he's not even addressing Christians. Hitler needed Christian voters. So he can't be saying "You Christians destroyed the old pagans and now we will destroy you." One would have to be blinkered to the actual aim of the text to imagine that. Try reading the whole chapter. He would never directly attack Christianity in such a way. He even calls Christianity an "apodictic faith" (apodiktische Glauben). The word apodictic means "demonstrably true". It was well known in Germany because of its use by Kant to refer to things that are true necessarily. The chapter is about how to establish the Nazi state, or the People's State as Hitler calls it. He says that the first requirement is to destroy the current state of affairs. "For a fight it will have to be, since the first objective will not be to build up the idea of the People's State but rather to wipe out the Jewish State which is now in existence. As so often happens in the course of history, the main difficulty is not to establish a new order of things but to clear the ground for its establishment... That is why the protagonist of the new idea is unfortunately, in spite of his desire for constructive work, compelled to wage a destructive battle first, in order to abolish the existing state of affairs...And the same holds true of religions. Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up." It's very clear what he is saying - we have to destroy the "Jewish" social structure in the same way that Christianity had to destroy paganism. All this nasty destructiveness was created by the Jews in the first place, but we have to adopt their methods which have created the modern world. Of course we know that Hitler believed that Jesus and the early Christians were dedicated to turning Jewish traditions against Judaism - to create a new faith based on attacking Pharisaism. That's exactly what he thinks he is doing. And that's what he says, as clearly as his turgid prose can do. Paul B 23:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The dispute stems from a quotation of Hitler's writing. Once quoted, the passage shouldn't be qualified or commented upon, either way. There is another problem: the translation is dreadful - every clause bears tidying up and tightening - and that's not the fault of the writer. Is Hitler turgid compared to, say, Churchill, who won a Nobel prize for his Boy's Own account of the superiority of Englishness?--Shtove 01:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Well no-one can deny that Churchill is a great prose stylist, whether or not you wholly approve of the content of his writings. Hitler is generally thought to be very turgid, but of course that's a matter of opinion. Rosenberg thought that Mein Kampf should be taught in schools as a model of how to write! Hitler generally tries to sound profound by imitating German academic writing, throwing in numerous vaguely Kantean and Hegelian phrases about necessary conditions, historical contradictions, etc etc. He's also a specialist in interminable sub-clauses, so by the time you get to the end of a sentence you've half forgotten what it was supposed to be about when it started. But the general purport of the text is pretty clear. No-one can deny that in even this public statement aimed at voters he betrays a degree of ambivalence about Christianity, but he clearly says that it's a model for the Nazis, though in a way that most Christians would of course find wholly unacceptable. Also he's trying to justify and excuse his own intolerance by saying, in effect, "no one wants to be nasty and intolerant. I'd really prefer just to be nice to everybody, but the Jews have forced it on us!" If you believe that you believe anything, so I don't find his expressions of regret for the loss of pagan religious tolerance particularly convincing. Paul B 10:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr Barlwo, let me address your baseless criticism of me:
  • Whether Hitler is addressing Christians or not is of no consequences (and I don't think you can rule out Christians reading this).
  • Hitler needed all kinds of votes, but you cannot use this as an argument to reinterpret the meaning of the text (what that meaning is of course another argument)
  • Your definition of "apodictic" is mistaken (even more so in German). "Apodictic" is common parlance (I cannot vouch for Kant) means to speak as if something was undeniably true. Which is no problem when one is talking about things like the spherical shape of the earth, but annoying when the facts are not that clear. An example is your own usage of "Of course we know ..." when we don't. Hitler says Christianity only "tells its tale" without putting forth an argument or reasons (whether that's true is another matter).
  • Now, sure his destructiveness was aiming first and foremost against the Jews. But in his mind, Christianity (in contrast to what he considered Jesus' trachings) was part of that Jewishness as well, invented by Jewish apostles.
  • Hitler also clearly calls "intolerance" an necessary evil and blames Christianity (and Judaism) for it. He advicates "counter-intolerance".
Str1977 (smile back) 10:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, my "baseless" criticism of your interpretation is based on the interpretations I have already provided:
"Whether Hitler is addressing Christians or not is of no consequences (and I don't think you can rule out Christians reading this)"
Of course. I have already addressed this point, if you are capable of remembering. I was making the point that he would expect many Christians to be reading, so would not be likely to attack them.]
"Hitler needed all kinds of votes, but you cannot use this as an argument to reinterpret the meaning of the text (what that meaning is of course another argument)"
I am explaining the plain meaning which has been distorted by people with ideological reasons for doing so
"Your definition of "apodictic" is mistaken (even more so in German). "Apodictic" is common parlance (I cannot vouch for Kant) means to speak as if something was undeniably true. Which is no problem when one is talking about things like the spherical shape of the earth, but annoying when the facts are not that clear. An example is your own usage of "Of course we know ..." when we don't. Hitler says Christianity only "tells its tale" without putting forth an argument or reasons (whether that's true is another matter)."
This is gibberish. You seem to be trying to get round the undeniable meaning of 'apodictic' in a way which makes you unintelligable. You say it "means to speak as if something was undeniably true." Well, yes, exactly. That's what the says about Christianity. as I said. How does this contradict me? All that this obfuscation does is problematise your reputation for good faith.]
"Now, sure his destructiveness was aiming first and foremost against the Jews. But in his mind, Christianity (in contrast to what he considered Jesus' teachings) was part of that Jewishness as well, invented by Jewish apostles."
He is saying that the Nazis (that's him and his chums, just in case you need an explanation) have to be destructive. The destructiveness they need to learn was originated by Judaism - and Christianity was the first effective response to that, one that Nazism has to imitate.
"Hitler also clearly calls "intolerance" an necessary evil and blames Christianity (and Judaism) for it. He advicates "counter-intolerance"."
Duh, yes. He calls for an intolerance to counter that which was (in his view) created by the Jews. He thinks that Chistianity was the first effective response to "Jewish" intolerance and that Nazism should build on that.
"Now, sure his destructiveness was aiming first and foremost against the Jews. But in his mind, Christianity (in contrast to what he considered Jesus' teachings) was part of that Jewishness as well, invented by Jewish apostles."
["The passage say nothing about any distinction between "Christianity" and "Jesus' own teachings".
It clearly refers to "Christianity" without making any such distinction.]
"Hitler also clearly calls "intolerance" an necessary evil and blames Christianity (and Judaism) for it. He advicates "counter-intolerance".
"No he blames Judaism for it. He clearly states that Christianity was a necessary response to Judaism, one which Nazism must imitate."
"Now, sure his destructiveness was aiming first and foremost against the Jews. But in his mind, Christianity (in contrast to what he considered Jesus' teachings) was part of that Jewishness as well, invented by Jewish apostles."
[No he argues that Christianity was the first effectively 'intolerant' response to Jewish intolerance, just like Nazism must be. That's what he says]
"Hitler also clearly calls "intolerance" an necessary evil and blames Christianity (and Judaism) for it. He advicates "counter-intolerance".
[Yes, he calls intolerance a necessary evil. The fact that you appear to take him at his word indicates the extent to which you are willing to believe his crap. In his view Jews created intolerance. Hence the 'apodictic' intolerance of Christianity was necessary, and must be imitated by the Nazis]
You are simply not willing to accept what the text says because you don't want to associate Christianity with Nazism. The fact is that Nazism was influenced by versions of Christianity and by versions of secular Darwinist thought. We should not pretend that neither had an an influence, whether we are believers in science or in religion. Paul B 23:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Paul, I do no know why you are that vitriolic but I have to try again:
  • Your plain meaning is not the plain meaning. If your plain meaning were the plain meaning you wouldn't have to resort to such nonsense arguments like "Talking to Christians, he couldn't have said that."
  • Your definition of "apodictic" is wrong and how you can reject what I wrote on this, at the same time approporiate the accurate definition and claim that it supports what you said is beyond me. Basically, you claim that Hitler by using that term is saying "Christianity is true" - he's saying nothing of the kind. If he did it would be strange to comnbine with what he also says about Christianity.
  • You say that Hitler blames intolerance on the Jews and sees Christianity as a necessary counter-intolerance? Why then does he say:"Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars". And "the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world" - So nothing about the Jews, only Christians (boo, boo, hiss, hiss) and those lovely pagans. And Hitler concludes: "the fact cannot be denied that ever since then the world is pervaded and dominated by this kind of coercion and that violence is broken only by violence and terror by terror."
  • You say that the text makes no such distinction. You are right. The text is merely talking about Christianity and says nothing about Jesus. Christianity is what it is and Hitler didn't like it. However, in other places Hitler very well claims Jesus as a forerunner, proving that he distinguished that way. In the real world, of course, that is nonsense, as Christianity is what Jesus' taught.
  • And no, I am not taking it him by his word, but since we are in the business of talking about this passage, we may very well address what he's actually saying, not some phantasy (which you are unfortunately doing).
I will not respond to your personal attacks and strange comments about "believing in science". Stop this pointless argument, if you want to be taken seriously. Str1977 (smile back) 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I will not stop the argument when I am trying to point out that the current text is thoroughly wrong. Nowhere does Hitler make any "declaration that the eventual destruction of Christianity was to be a further goal of Hitler's ideology". Nowhere does he say "You Christians destroyed the old pagans and now we will destroy you!" These interpretations are simply false. If I sound vituperative it is in response to your rigid intransigence and evasiveness. I have been quite clear that even here Hitler's expressed attitude to Christianity is ambivalent. He says it was somehow necessary but also regretable - as a corrollary to saying that Nazi intolerance is also necessary but regetable. But you are not even willing to to admit the plain meaning of apodictic. Your comments on that subject are both unintelligable and ungrammatical. You say that "my definition of apodictic is wrong". My definition was "demonstrably true". Your definition was that the term "means to speak as if something was undeniably true." So what is the difference between "demonstrably true" and "undeniably true"? By your own definition he is saying that Christianity is an "undeniably true faith".

You comment that "You say that Hitler blames intolerance on the Jews and sees Christianity as a necessary counter-intolerance? Why then does he say: "Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars". And "the advent of Christianity was the first occasion on which spiritual terror was introduced into the much freer ancient world

Well the point about Christianity introducing "spiritual terror" is pretty commonplace. It's a standard view that the concepts of spiritual guilt, fear of damnation, "heresy" etc did not exist in paganism, so Christianity certainly introduced those things into cultures that were much "freer" regarding religious belief. There's nothing especially controversial about that. The point about a necessary counter-intolerance relates to the chapter as a whole, in which his overall argument is that Jews have created an intolerant culture, so we must be intolerant back. Christianity is used as an example of this. ("and the same is true in religion") Of course this is where the ambivalence comes in, since, as you say, Christians were at first intolerant to paganism not Judaism (though that did come later, as we know). That's why he then says that we must regret the loss of pagan "innocence" as it were, but that Christianity was "apodictic", implying that it was necessary. His argument is certainly confused here, but since I am not trying to vindicate Adolf's logic, that's rather beside the point. The general thrust of the whole chapter is to explain why the Nazis need to be intolerant. According to him "spiritual terror" is what the Nazis need to adopt, because it is part and parcel of the modern world. The problem with the current text is that it drags the quotation out of context, so that the passage is made to yield a very different meaning. The current interpretation essentially glosses the lines as follows:

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion [the coercion of Christianity], and that [Christian] coercion is broken only by coercion [of Christianity], and terror by terror."

In other words the passage is made to yield the meaning that the last sentence is saying that the Nazis will destroy Christianity. Now we know that the Nazis repeatedly stated in their manifestoes that they had no such aim. Hitler repeatedly stated this in speeches. Well maybe he was lying. He was known to be a bit of a fibber. But the fact is that Mein Kampf is a public policy statement, and it would be utterly bizarre for him to contradict his own party manifestoes, with so many votes at stake. What I am saying is that in context, the gloss put on this passage is unsustainable. It should be glossed as follows:

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion [an unaviodable feature of the modern world], and that [therefore any form of this modern] coercion is broken only by [a counter form of] coercion, and terror by terror.

The previous paragraph makes it clear that he is directing his argument against "the Jewish state" and is saying that the regretable coerciveness introduced by Christianity must be embraced by the Nazis because we are now in a "coersive" world, where we must fight fire with fire.

As for my "strange comment" about "believing in science", it should be pretty obvious what it means. Some people who are strong supporters of the positive value of secular-scientific thought want to deny or downplay the influence of Darwinism on Nazism, just as Christians want to downplay the influence of Christian anti-Semitism, and neo-Pagans want to downplay the role of anti-Christian Aryanist cults. Despite their incompatability with one another all had some degree of influence on the development of Nazi ideology, and only partizans would deny the fact. Paul B 04:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we calm down? There's no need for the discussion to get heated and to turn into tbings like: "if you are capable of remembering", "this is gibberish", "that's him and his chums, just in case you need an explanation", "the extent to which you are willing to believe his crap", etc. It just makes it more difficult for good-faith discussion to proceed.
The twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary defines apodictic as:
Of clear demonstration; established on incontrovertible evidence. (By Kant applied to a proposition enouncing a necessary and hence absolute truth.)
Based on that quotation, and that translation (I don't know what the original says), I can't agree that Hitler explicitly called Christianity an apodictic faith. He said, "It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up." As that stands in English, we have an indefinite article, a possible conditional mood, and an ambiguous "grow up". What does "grow up" mean in this context? I've seen "grow up" used in sneers against Catholicism — for example, After two thousand years, isn't it time for the Catholic Church to grow up and accept contraception? Is the "up" a deliberate and correct part of the translation? If it's just "grow", it would mean "expand". Christianity, an apodictic faith, could expand? Christianity, an apodictic faith, could reach maturity? Christianity could develop into an apodictic faith? And what does "could" mean? In English, it's usually the conditional mood, and is seldom used as a past tense form of can; for that, we prefer "was able to". German, however, does, if I'm not mistaken, have a clear past tense form of "can". Hitler didn't say, "It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that Christianity was able to become the apodictic faith it is now." He talked about an apodictic faith, and used could.
Is "apodictic" used the same way in German as in English? (Think of French prétendre and English pretend.) Was it used the same way seventy years ago? (Think of English presently.) Do and did people always use it in the correct sense? (Think of refute.) Was Hitler's level of education such that he would be likely to use that word according to the standard meaning?
Regarding that sentence, I'd like to see what the original German says, and then see how apodictic is (or more importantly was) used in German, and also (if appropriate) how indefinite articles were used, and how "could" was used. What I've seen in English does not lead me to a conclusion that Hitler definitely said "Christianity is an apodictic faith." AnnH 07:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I have already given the original German phrase, but here is the whole paragraph in German:

Auch das Christentum konnte sich nicht damit begnügen, seinen eigenen Altar aufzubauen, sondern mußte zwangsläufig zur Zerstörung der heidnischen Altäre schreiten. Nur aus dieser fanatischen Unduldsamkeit heraus konnte sich der apodiktische Glauben bilden; diese Unduldsamkeit ist sogar die unbedingte Voraussetzung für ihn.

Here's the English translation again, as given above:

Christianity was not content with erecting an altar of its own. It had first to destroy the pagan altars. It was only in virtue of this passionate intolerance that an apodictic faith could grow up. And intolerance is an indispensable condition for the growth of such a faith.

In fact, as you can see, the definite article is used in the original. The meaning of "apodiktische" then was the same as the meaning now, since it is a technical term in philosophy made especially familiar by Kant. I don't want to be aggressive, but I really do think you are clutching at straws when you refer to the coloquial sense of the phrase "grow up". As you know, that means "you are acting like a child". It is impossible to find that meaning in this sentence. "Grow up" is just the translator's choice of a normal English phrase as equivalent to the German original. The relevant word is "bilden", which in this context literally means "take shape" or "form itself". The next sentence is similarly pseudo-Kantean in language, stating that intolerance is an absolute contition (unbedingte Voraussetzung). As for Hitler's education, it wasn't great, but he was good at picking up phrases and stylistic quirks designed to sound intelligent. He wants to sound as though he's producing an inexorable logical argument about historical necessity. It's also worth mentioning that Hitler had a lot of help with the book, especially the second part (from which this passage comes). Paul B 00:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
As further evidence of the validity of my interpretation one should also note the following passage in the same chapter, in which he is again using a Christian church as an unambiguous model for the Nazis on how win by being unyieldingly dogmatic. Now, note that I am not trying to say that this is evidence that Hitler was a Christian, it is just evidence that in this chapter he is presenting Christianity as a model of ideological strategy for the Nazis. As a matter of fact I am certain that Hitler was not a Christian in any meaningful sense, but rather had some sub-Hegelian notion of a providential divine spirit, an idea common in German Aryanist thought. But that does not alter the fact that his public statements in this period were never anti-Christian, and the notion that he would have stated in Mein Kampf that he intended to destroy Christianity is perverse. It contradicts everything we know about his political strategy at the time.

Here again the Catholic Church has a lesson to teach us. Though sometimes, and often quite unnecessarily, its dogmatic system is in conflict with the exact sciences and with scientific discoveries, it is not disposed to sacrifice a syllable of its teachings. It has rightly recognized that its powers of resistance would be weakened by introducing greater or less doctrinal adaptations to meet the temporary conclusions of science, which in reality are always vacillating... Therefore whoever really and seriously desires that the idea of the People's State should triumph must realize that this triumph can be assured only through a militant movement and that this movement must ground its strength only on the granite firmness of an impregnable and firmly coherent programme.

All of these points are designed to show that the current interpretation of the relevant passage is a distortion, that's all. I had no idea that it had already been debated - as I now see. It seems that some Christian editors have latched onto this passage as some kind of "smoking gun" demonstrating Hitler's anti-Christian plans, so it seems to be very important to them. Hence the knee-jerk reactions. Well, the fact is that it isn't. Paul B 13:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Just to reiterate how absurd it is, in view of the thunderous amount of evidence which exists, to assert that Hitler had any other intention than the destruction of organised Christian religion within 'Greater Germany'. It beggars belief that anyone would assert to the contrary when there are countless eyewitnesses to Hitler's private talk concerning the Christain faith. From Speer to Frau Junge to the private diaries of Goebbels to speeches to the SS...I just wish the anti-christian element here would stop trying to veil their blatant desire to paint Hitler as the product of the Christian zeitgeist with some useless effort at revisionism. Take a look at what happened in Poland alone and tell me Hitler didn't intend the same for Germany's churches. Honestly....--Iamlondon 15:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It beggars belief that some editors care less about accuracy than ideology. Yes, it is well-known that Hitler made many anti-Christian statements in private, as you say. Mein Kampf is a public statement. That's the whole point. The article quite properly covers both his private and public utterances, while also addressing the much more vexed question of what counts as "Christianity" in different contexts, since there were, as you must surely accept, Nazi Christians - along with Nazi atheists (e.g. Bormann) and Nazi pagan/Aryanists (e.g. Himmler). Paul B 15:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Paul, I take your point on board but the fact of the matter is that I believe this article is important enough to not allow very dangerous assertions to be made when it is to be read and reproduced in countless school essays. You would never find Hitler and Christianity being discussed in any serious historical journal the way it is being treated in this article, with its eccentric obsession with somehow connecting a Mass Murderer with a Man who was murdered 1,973 years ago. It is offensive, it is illiterate and it is patently absurd to hint at Hitler somehow being influenced by Christ to hate anyone...and sadly that is what a couple of people have tried to do in this section. To my mind the whole thing should be deleted and replaced with a mention that Hitler grew up in a Catholic home but despised his familial faith. That's the sum of it, and no amount of conjecturing gets around that simple, basic reallity. The man despised Christ because he saw him as a jewish weakling. He believed Nietzsche was correct in thrusting his hope into this Super-man ideal - needless of 'love' or 'compassion. My honest opinion, which I have retained up until now, is that the root origin of this tat is a residual animosity from a particular group toward the papacy for what they scandalously claim was a failure on the part of the Roman Catholic Church to 'prevent' Hitler from expanding his claims. A notion as intellectually crapulent and historically unfounded as I can imagine. Yes, I *am* a Roman Catholic, but I am a man of integrity first and foremost. I have spoken out against Wiki's article concerning Tibet for similar reasons of astounding mis-representation in order to appease a minority lobby of Chinese. "Hitler died a Catholic" they cry. Well guess what, Ariel Sharon, the architect of the Sabra and Chatila massacre, will die a jew, Osama Bin Laden will die a muslim and Oppenheimer died an atheist. There is about as much corporate responsibility for the RCC concerning Hitler as there is the People of Israel for the actions of Sharon - QED, none at all. Thankfully I live in the UK where one can still "call a spade a spade".--Iamlondon 02:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This duscussion worries me a bit as a historian and as fan of wikipedia. It seems to have veered off the factual basis of who Hitler was to what he did to a blame game trying to pin the blame on either athiests or christians depending on one's own religous views. This seems really innapropriate at best.
There was also a interesting bit of scholership reported on here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=399470&in_page_id=1770 about Hitler's pending rewrite of the Bible. I suggest that Wikipedia ought to report this as the way most historians view Hitler. That is as a man who viewed the Church as either a threat (hence the destruction of the Catholic Centre Party) or as a tool to be manipulated.--Jprismon 17:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The "Aryan Bible" is hardly a new discovery. It's been known about since it was published. Yes, we should have a balanced presentation of the issues, and I think we now have a reasonable approximation to that. Paul B 21:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
And so say I. Despite apparently unbridgeble disagreement (which is why the discussion stopped) with Paul about what above quote actually says, we agree on the larger issues, that neither side should put the blame on the other (as Hitler was neither a Christian in a meaningful sense of the word, nor an atheist). I never considered Paul to be trying to put the blame on the Christian side, despite the conflict above. Str1977 (smile back) 21:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Speer, in his memoires, tried to read Mein Kampf and quotes Hitler I think pre-war saying that Mein Kampf was old hat; what he now thought was quite different to what he'd written all those years ago. (Speer then gave up trying to read the book, which he'd found difficult to comprehend).

This seems pertinent, given the heavy quoting from Mein Kampf in the article.

Toby Douglass 12:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


adolfhitler.ws

"Have you got any proof that the BBC or History Channel used the site as a source? I can't see any."

I got the emails

"Have you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Self-published sources can't be used on Wikipedia."

there is no self published material on my site NONE!!!!!!! NADA, besides that is for Wikipedia articles and not links. My site meets the Wikipedia:External links guide lines.

In your Hitler Links you have lawschool.cornell.edu, look at their source links

http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/library/donovan/hitler/intro.html

this is painfully obvious that one person has a vendetta against my site because he thinks it is a neo-nazi site [which it is not, if he ever reviewed the site he would see the disclaimers], or maybe it because he listed his own site. I want someone who is impartial to judge this.

Tell me, if you have been on Wikipedia since 2003 why are you just now deleting my link ? could it be you were influenced by someone ? Wikipedia should not be about politics rather facts

Will you personally delete any link that has the same "errors" that my site is being judged on ?

I assume I'm the person you mention above. I do not think your site is a neo-Nazi site, and never said so. I did say it links to some neo-Nazi sites, and that it had quite a few deficiencies. That doesn't mean it's a bad site, but not good enough for Wikipedia.
Also, Wikipedia practice discourages adding links to one's own material, which you have been doing on a number of pages. Use the discussion page to attempt to persuade other users that your site should be added rather than doing it yourself. Bytwerk 16:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I'm that person, see User talk:Wilson44#adolfhitler.ws, but I totally agree with you. Mushroom (Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Glad to let you have the honor! Bytwerk 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you telling me the other links are more informative than my site and meet Wikipedia standards " ?

Can you show me a more informative site on Hitler than my site, if you can I will leave, this is a matter of principal, it is obvious why my link was removed in the first place, the person thought it was a message board and never bothered to review the site, and you are not reviewing it on a neutral stance you are reviewing it to exclude it. Yopu even claimed I had all these neo-nazi links, and that goes to show you never spent any time there

Let the people decide if it is not a imforative and accurate site, Wikipedia is suppose to be about the people not two editors

the preceding comment is by Wilson44 - 17:54, 25 July 2006: Please sign your posts!

I think the site qualifies. Let it have a chance, geez. I've used the site for research on essays and numerous other information. Mind you, the essay got an A+. It has loads of primary sources, and a piles of information, and you're telling me, and everyone else, we can't use it? It is just my opinion, and I respect yours, but I must say I think I'm on the right side of the issue here. That site would be very beneficial. Aaрон Кинни (t) 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No one says you can't use it, just that it doesn't meet Wikipedia standards -- but if your teacher gave you an A+ on an essay based on it, your teacher needs to learn something about sources. Bytwerk 11:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Errors or not - the site is not showing any credetials therefor fails WP:RS Agathoclea 22:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Mind you I used print sources as well. But that's not the main discussion, so I won't go into it. Aaрон Кинни (t) 04:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Trigger again

To suggest that Hitler triggered the Second World War by invading Poland is absurd. Germany invaded Poland to re-acquire the Danzig province that was taken from Germany after the Treaty of Versailles. Britian then used that as an excuse to declare war on Germany. User:fahle 13:29 27 July 2006

No no, fahle. It is absurd that Hitler only wanted Danzig. He wanted to wipe out Poland and then proceed to conquer Europe at least. In fact, he had wanted to start the war already in 1938 with the CSR but Göring's Munich Conference spoiled this. "Trigger" here was the result of a long debate, as some editors considered World War II to have begun only with UK and France vs. Germany. I happen to disagree. Hitler didn't trigger World War II - he started it, this criminal. Str1977 (smile back) 18:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Britain did not need an excuse to declare war on Germany; Germany was in serious violation of Versailles and a threat to the security of the entire European continent. Poles, being Slavic peoples, were seen as inferior by the Nazis. Under Nazi ideology, the Poles deserved to be conquered and enslaved to serve the German people. So it is untrue that all Germany wanted was the "Danzig province" as Fahle suggests. Monkeybreath 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

See Hossbach Memorandum for evidence of how innocent Hitler's intentions were. Paul B 23:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The notion that the Nazis considered slavs to be inferior and deserving enslavement is quite absurd. You're forgetting that most of Germany's allies during the war were slavic countries, and actually tens or possibly hundreds of thousands of them fought as volunteers on Germany's side. The idea that the Germans wanted to wipe out the slavs or enslave them has only been a widespread one for the last 15 years or so, mainly due to the ignorance of most people concerning the subject, and their exposure to holocaust seminars which try and throw as many people as possible under the umbrella of Nazi oppression. --Nazrac 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Many Nazi leaders did indeed think that Slavs were inferior. Rosenberg, nominal leader of the Reich Ministry for the Occupied Eastern Territories, was relatively well-disposed towards Slavs, but other leaders certainly were not. Nordicist theory generally portrayed Slavs as lesser beings. Paul B 22:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you name some then? --Nazrac 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Boorman, Himmler. Many of the Nazi race scientists, including Hans Gunther and Eugen Fischer. Paul B 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Slav-friendly quotes from those lovable guys:

Himmler: "What happens to a Russian, to a Czech, does not interests me in the slightest. . . . Whether nations live in prosperity or starve to death interest me only so far as we need them as slaves for our culture; otherwise it is of no interest to me. Whether 10,000 Russian females fall down from exhaustion while digging an anti-tank ditch interests me only in so far as the tank ditch for Germany is finished." George Fischer, Soviet Opposition to Stalin, p.72. The issue also came up at Nuremberg. See [2] "The Slavs are to work for us. Insofar as we do not need them, they may die. Therefore, compulsory vaccination and Germanic health services are superfluous. The fertility of the Slavs is undesirable." Paul B 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Russians and Czechs were Germany's enemy during the conflict. In that speech Himmler says nothing about Slavs specifically. That would be like calling each and every European person criminal for the actions of Adolf Hitler, simply because Hitler himself was European, and thus all of Europe guilty by association. That sort of argument is simply proposterous and an extreme fallacy. --Nazrac 18:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Also the second statement you cited above was made some unnamed subordinate of Rosenberg's. It was not made by Rosenberg himself, and I have never so much as heard of Boremann making any statement whatsoever refering to slavs. Just because some underling spouts off his prejudice does not mean it was official Reich policy against all slavs, nor does it indicate a policy of pre-meditated extermination of slavic people because they were of slavic, although I'm sure they were planning on using any means necessary to push them out of formerly German territory, which they did so. You have to take into context those sentiments, considering Germany lost a large part of its territory to the Poles and Czechs, who prior to World War 1 were a small minority in the German areas and mostly inhabited the eastern parts of their modern day territory. The Germans were angry because they became a supressed minority in the lands that had previously been part of Germany and Austria proper. This is part of what fueled extreme German nationalism that later became the National Socialist German Workers party. --Nazrac 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for a link change

In the link section, there is a link titled "Photographs of Adolf Hitler," which leads to a page on my "German Propaganda Archive. The link was there long before I got interested in Wikipedia, and it isn't really the best link to pictures on my site. Could someone consider changing the link to:

http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ww2era.htm#Misc

Thanks. Bytwerk 15:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

removed this part

I removed this because, unlike the rest of section, this makes an argument, a POV, and states it as a fact. This is a NPOV violation. "The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church..." according to whom? It doesnt say. It states it as if this POV were factually accepted by all. This is not the case. Hitler wanted to reform, yes, make it subservient to the State, yes, but from Hitler's pov it was to save it, make it stronger and fit in with his overall religiously based politics. It quotes Hitler as saying that "the belief in God was something "the simple people needed."" But, where is the citation for this alleged quote, in this context? None is provided. These are just a few examples of the overall problem with this section which stands out from the rest of the section. Thus, I removed it and bring it here for discussion.Giovanni33 06:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Hitler already had plans for the Roman Catholic Church, according to which the church was supposed to "eat from the hands of the government." As a first step Hitler wanted to force German Catholics to abolish priestly celibacy and accept a nationalisation of all church property, as had happened in France in 1905. After the "Final Victory" of National Socialism, all monastic orders and religious congregations were to be dissolved, and even the smallest influence of the Catholic Church upon the education was to be forbidden. Hitler proposed to reduce vocations to the priesthood by forbidding seminaries from receiving applicants before their 25th birthdays, hoping that these men would marry beforehand, during the time (18 - 25 years) in which they were obliged to work in military or labour service. Along with this process, the Church's sacraments would have to be revised and changed to so-called "Lebensfeiern", non-Christian celebrations of different periods of life.

The aim was slowly to dismantle the institutions of the Catholic Church and fit the institution itself into a new National Socialist German state religion, because Hitler still firmly believed, that religion and belief in God was something "the simple people need." But since the "laws of evolution" - upon which a new religion would have to be founded - were not yet precisely researched, according to Hitler, it was decided to keep these changes and laws on hold, pending the final victory. Hitler and Goebbels also recognised that such changes might create a third front of Catholics against their regime in Germany itself. Nevertheless in his diary Goebbels openly wrote about the "traitors of the Black International who again stabbed our glorious government in the back by their criticism", by which he meant the relucant or actively resisting Catholic clergymen who wore black cassocks. [1]"

I see Str1977 as restored both changes, I've made, as "POV pushing." Perhaps he can explain his own POV pushing by restoring this by using the talk page, as well? The other part he restored which I removed was: "In public statements, Hitler frequently spoke positively about the Christian heritage of German culture and his belief in Christ, possibly to appeal to the popular religious sentiment. I removed the dissmissive speculation, "possibly to appeal to...." Why not simply stick to the facts instead of speculation? If we must have speculation then it should be properly attributed, otherwise its just plain POV pushing, the kind im all to familiar with.Giovanni33 17:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Str, instead of edit waring on the main article page, why not come to talk to resolve this content dispute? Isnt that what you are supposed to do? I didnt remove your insertion of that speculation again, which pushes a pov, and is unsourced, again---but I will unless you explain yourself here. Edit warring is considered disruptive esp. when its done while avoiding use of the talk page.Giovanni33 19:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's appeals to religion

Str1977 and Gio have been going back and forth on a phrase suggesting that Hitler spoke frequently of Christianity to appeal to popular religious sentiment, which seems POV to Gio. Well, how about a good source on the matter:

“Hitler’s evident ability to simulate, even to potentially critical Church leaders, an image of a leader keen to uphold and protect Christianity was crucial to the mediation of such an image to the church-going public by influential members of both major denominations. It was the reason why church-going Christians, so often encouraged by their ‘opinion-leaders’ in the Church hierarchies, were frequently able to exclude Hitler from their condemnation of the anti-Christian Party radicals, continuing to see in him the last hope of protecting Christianity from Bolshevism.” This is from Ian Kershaw, The ‘Hitler Myth: Image and Reality in the Third Reich (Oxford University Press, 1987), p. 109. Bytwerk 12:43, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
How can we solve this dispute?? --TheM62Manchester 13:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
M62manchester, Great research work. This quote can and should settle the dispute. Thanks. Andries 13:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Keep the disputed phrase and footnote Kershaw. Paul B 13:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm fine with introducing speculation provided it's attributed to a reputable source, and worded as such. Kershaw qualifies as such a source. I made a minor tweak to the language to reflect what Kerhsaw says more preciesly. Giovanni33 17:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Gio, it is not speculation but observation based on research. And no, your minor tweak doesn't reflect what Kershaw says but attempts to sneak (partly) your POV again. We (per Kershaw) know of Hitler's ability in that regard because he used it. Str1977 (smile back) 19:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is speculation. Anytime you say, "possibly because," you are speculating. You are attributing speculation about Hitler's motive. That is fine if it comes from a reputable source, and not stated as a fact, to further your own POV. My POV is only to state the facts, which is all I did by removing the speculation. But we can report what others said, even if it is speculation. The fact of the speculation is allowable if its attributed to someone. However, it must be made accurate to what Kershaw says. That is what my minor edit did. How is it otherwise? Giovanni33 21:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Gio, you are responding to an outdated version. The former wording indeed read like a speculation, even though the content was accurate. Now, we the Kershaw reference, making it no longer speculation, unless Kershaw speculates. But he doesn't - he is presented the results of his research. And you are misrepresenting him with your newest tweak, as I explained above. So your request in the edit summary is completely pointless - the requested answer is alredy here. And don't base your argument on my using of "meant" - the allusion should be clear to those familiar with modern poetry. Kershaw doesn't mean and doesn't say what you want him to - or rather he says more than that. Str1977 (smile back) 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was pure speculation before. This is what you were restoring and I was getting rid of. I'm glad you now agree it was speculation that was not sourced, even, and that you no longer find it appropriate. Thanks for that. However, now we are presented with Kershaw's studied observation/opinion. Read the quote above. He does not say as a matter of fact that his speaches were simulations as a matter of fact, but that Hitlers evidently had the abiblity to cultivate an image of a Christian defender, which was crucial for its affect on Church going Chrsitians. My tweak only is reporting exactly this point Kershaw is making. Now tell me where I am wrong here, by breaking down the meaning of the above quotation to support what you think it says, instead of what I think it says. This is not the first time we can read the same text that seems pretty straight forward but you come away with a completely different understanding, almost as if you are reading into it things it infact does not say.Giovanni33 06:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong in your mere parroting of Kershaw's syntax while denouncing the actual content of what he was saying. According to Kershaw, Hitler had the "evident ability" - what do you think this evidence was, if not Hitler's actual words and deeds? You want to restrict Kershaw to an abstract statement: Hitler had that ability and this ability lead to others being deceived but you want to disconnect from any actual words and deeds, since you are carrying on Hitler's dissimulation, though under opposite conditions, in order to push your POV. If we were writing WP in the way you are treating the quote there would be WP. Str1977 (smile back) 09:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And, yes, what I forgot: I didn't say that the former content was speculation - it was however worded as speculation (...probably because...) and it was indeed unsourced. Now, we have a source and you are still trying to sweep things under the carpet, as much as possible, as it contradicts your cherished POV. Str1977 (smile back) 09:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that his "evident ability' refers to his words and deeds. What else can it refer to? And do not I use the same wording as Kershaw does? So how can I be denoucing what he says by sayig what he says? That makes no sense. And does not this "evident ability" to portray himself as a defender of Christianity against the communists, appealing to Chuch going Christians (what Kershaw accurately says), immediately follow with "FOR EXAMPLE," and then one of Hitlers Christian statements to that effect? So how can you say that I have disconnected his statment from his actual words? I have not. "For example" directly connects it. What I have done is report what Kershaw actually says, while you want to restrict what he says to suite your own pov. My tweak is faithful to the actual wording of the source, while yours is restricted so as to make the original point unclear and allow it to possibly say something it does not. I just looked at the new version which quotes more, and don't have a problem with that.Giovanni33 19:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I am a German-reader and have studied the original sources as to Hitler's religious beliefs myself. Hitler did not reject occultism, nor Christianity, but he did reject the Roman Catholic Church, the traditional Christian teachings, the literal interpretation of the Bible, the Old Testament. He viewed the doctrinal staticity of e.g. the Catholic Church in the 1920s with admiration, but not out of religious sympathy, but rather, because he found it to be a logical structural support for his own, distinct, ideology (National SOcialism) based on evolution, nationalism, racial sciences, militarism and egalitarianism. I myself added a new picture to the entire article. The top picture was unclear, not in colour (which is preferable), and quite "moody" and gloomy. The new colour movie shot, by Eva Braun, illustrates Hitler's personality in a better way.Smith2006 13:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've particular objection to the picture, but it's a bit fuzzy. I don't know how it brings out his personality better than other images. Hitler promoted "egalitarianism"? It's the first I've heard of it. Paul B 19:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
No, Hitler did not promote or believe in egalistarianism. True there was some rhetoric of economic leveling, esp. pointing at against Jews, which was used to motivate some backward class elements, esp. among the youth, the "brown shirts," but Hitler was a capitalist, and he hated notions of equality, which he felt were not natural. Hitler deplored and denounced Marxism for its levelling egalitarianism, which he felt destroyed the natural principle of inequality and the consequent domination of some individuals (an elite) over others. Likewise, Marxian belief in racial equality. Obviously racial inequality and Aryan domination at the core of Hitler's outlook and program are irreconcilable with such notions of equality.Giovanni33 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
To some extent, Hitler propagate egalitarianism, but only within a certain context or group, i.e. basic equality among "racial Germans" whom he considered collectively above other races and so on. If that sounds like a contradiction, that's the kind of thing you get in Hitler. The Marxese in the post above I'll ignore. Str1977 (smile back) 09:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
    • ^ All the quotes of this alinea were taken from two historical works: HÜRTEN, H. `Endlösung` für den Katholizismus? Das nationalsozialistische Regime und seine Zukunftspläne gegenüber der Kirche, in: Stimmen der Zeit, 203 (1985) 534-546. NATTER, B. Hitlers Tafelgesprekken 1941-1944, Antwerpen and Amsterdam, 2005.