Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 45

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 50

Start of WWII

I would ask all editors to note that there has been an attempt redefine the outbreak of WWII, avoiding reference to Hitler's direct responsibility, contrary, I believe, to the simple facts of history and the consensus previously established on this page. I have reverted to the earlier, more accurate wording. White Guard 22:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, can you take a guess who did that? I can't imagine... LOL. As for consensus - there isn't one. The article should not be used to distribute blame, nor should it be used to persuade the reader to feel a certain way about Hitler. I offered to list events in chronological order so that the readers would be able to decide for themselves, but certain proponents of the Allies's propaganda have refused. They prefer to provide the reader with their biased interpretation of the facts, rather that the facts themselves. To them "proving" that Hitler was evil is more important than historical accuracy. Xanon 10:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist misinformation reversed. White Guard 22:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

You are extremely biased and obviously have no intention of fighting that. Article altered to be more historically acurate.Xanon 00:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Causes of WWII

I hope everyone has calmed down after the rather passionate argument about who started WWII a while back. I will restate my position, and hopefully the discussion will take on a more civilized, academic tone and historical accuracy will triumph. 1) This shouldn't matter to anyone because it doesn't affect the strength of my arguments, but just so my opponents know - I do not sympathize with Hitler and I don't read Main Kampf before bedtime. I think that he brainwashed Germans and that he was a cretin for believing in the Jewish Conspiracy. The reason I participate in this argument is that the blind demonization of the Nazis annoys me. "There is no pure good and pure evil, only shades of gray, but there were evil Nazis sixty years ago". Malarkey. I am just saying this so that the witch hunt can end and people drop their ridiculous accusations. 2) Wars between countries begin as a process. They begin because of some underlying conflict, in case of WWII - because of a power dispute. Germany wanted more power (more land), England and France wanted to keep Germany weak. Those who sympathize with the Allies will probably paraphrase that as "The Allies were threatened by Germany's aggresive foreign policy so they responded by declaring war on Germany". However, if you don't arbitrarily assign the countries of the Alliance altruistic personalities, and stop claiming that they had no geopolitical/power ambitions of their own (not something colonialism testifies in favor of) and that they were merely "responding" to Germany's policy, you arrive back at the causes of war that I've stated. 3) Just because you consider one of the sides to be wrong, evil, etc., does not make it guilty of starting WWII. Every country has instituted policies responsible for horrible attrocities and demonizing solely the German government is ridiculous. 4) MSN Encarta defines "pretext" as "[a] made-up excuse: a misleading or untrue reason given for doing something in an attempt to conceal the real reason". Saying that the Allies started the war against Germany because mean, bad Germany invaded poor Poland is just stating the pretext written in the history books by the victors.

Currently, the article is heavily anti-German and pro-Ally, and completely ignores the four points above. I suggest we change that for the sake of historical accuracy. The intro, in particular, is extremely biased, saying that Germany triggered the war.

"Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), which triggered World War II when Germany invaded Poland." Hitler... triggered WWII. That's what you get out of the intro. If the purpose of this article is to provide an accurate description of the past and not to brainwash the reader into the politically correct views of its authors, then that needs to be changed.

P.S. I forgot my password, but I think you all remember me anyway. Xanon

There is always a measure of cynicism amongst the leaders and instigators of Great-Power foreign policy, and it seems to me that you are partly just picking up on that Xanon. I don't agree that the current article as you put it is heavily "heavily anti-German and pro-Ally" although (perhaps inevitably given the subject material) it does not portray Hitler as a decent chap, interested in vegetarianism and dogs, who got misled into accidentally tripping over a whole bunch of other countries and planning mass-murder and world-empire. :-) There is however a good and valid academic approach which treats Nazi Germany as just another competing world-power, or wannabbe world-power, not different or worse than for example the USSR under Stalin and very much involved in typical great-power moves. Where this thesis falls down is in the mass campaigns of anti-semitic extermination which were never a key plank of great power politics. We could also argue that Hitler was a uniquely 20th Century phenomenon, an ideologue and demagogue leading a campaign against perceived racial and political enemies both at home and abroad, rather than a mere national politician.
I think you may also have a valid point about the origins of Hitler's foreign policy being over-simplistically described in this article. It certainly is the case that from a very early stage his primary ideological goal was to destroy communism (bolshevism as he put it) and this goal happened to co-incide with the interests of big business, a number of western powers, a class of German aristocrats and generals and others. This created the impetus for war planning, annexation of neighbouring countries and eventually led to World War 2. It was also intermingled with the profound national feelings of failure that Germans felt following the perceived "sell-out" at Versailles. The article could explain these better without descending into blatant POV. MarkThomas 10:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I expected more of a reaction. "this thesis falls down... in the mass campaigns of... extermination which were never a key plank of great power politics" What does being a "key plank" have to do with anything? France, Britain, US, Russia - they all have numerous instances of genocides and mass murders in their histories. Whether you consider the French religious wars, the oppression of the Scots and Irish by the British, the extermination of the Native Americans, and the "political cleansing" in USSR to be minor details or not, they were there. Or do you think that after a policy of oppresion is no longer in effect, that the government which instituted it suddenly sees the light and becomes good overnight? Just because it's portrayed as good, does not mean it is.

"This created the impetus for war planning, annexation of neighbouring countries and eventually led to World War 2." Why do you insist in blaming WWII on Germany? Clearly, the hostility was mutual. Or has it not been Britain and France to first declare war on the evil, Nazi-infested country? Xanon

This is ridiculous. The real or alleged crimes of other nations in other times have absolutely no relevance to WW2. I happen to believe that none of them even remotely compare to what the Nazis did, but that's beside the point. Paul B 12:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the very numerous, very real, well-documented attrocities in the histories of other countries (I don't like the phrase "crimes of other countries", it personifies a country - presents a country as a person who can commit a crime) are relevant to this discussion because they prove beyond doubt that the notion of WWII being a battle of good Allies and semi-evil USSR against evil Germany is complete malarkey. Just because a murderer (excuse the personification of the Allies right after I criticized you for it) does not kill anyone for a week (because he didn't have an opportunity, mostly) does not mean he has become an honest man. No miraculous transformation takes place - he is still a murderer. And when he starts self-righteously condemning murder just to butcher someone the next day it sounds ridiculous. Secondly, the crimes weren't just commited in "other times", they were commited right before and during WWII as well. Finally, the crimes in the histories of other nations are comparable to the crimes in German history no matter what you believe. It is easier to see why they compare if you factor in the force of progress - the Americans didn't have gas chambers, but they did figure out biological warfare and used bacteria-infested blankets to eliminate the Indians. Are my arguments having any effect? Just wondering. Xanon

If no one has any objections, I will proceed to alter the intro so that it doesn't put all the blame for starting WWII on Germany. Xanon

As far as I am aware everyone objects. I don't think you have had a single supporter in the past. Your arguments are totally illogical since you seem to think that counties accummlate merit or demerit points over history! The comparison of WW2 allies to "murderers" is perverse. Paul B 07:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you post nonsense to this important Wikipedia page "Xanon" (why on earth can't you sign in as a proper user by the way?!) it will be reverted immediately. I'm impressed Paul by the way - you have actually managed to divine a purpose in Xanon's endless ramblings! :-) MarkThomas 08:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, wrong pageRexparry sydney 06:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Please try to base your objections on argumuments rather than opinions, alright? If all you have is your opinion, then it's only an opinion no matter how many people share it.
  • The comparison of Allies to murderers is perverse, for which I apologised already, yet it conveys an important idea. I hoped I explained it simply enough for you to understand, but apparently I was wrong.
  • Not quite. I do not think that countries accumulate merit or demerit points over history, but I think that actions show character. I think that countries are complex social machines, assigning which human personalities is ridiculous. However, since we do need to assign countries human characteristics to continue with the discussion, let's invent our own imaginary number - our own i. I propose we consider all countries semi-evil, so to speak, apt to take a chance to conquer another nation or commit genocide, yet acting in what may appear a decent manner when fortune doesn't provide such an option. This view is based on the fact that all the nations I checked (Russia, Britain, France, US, Germany) have numerous incidents of conquest and genocide/minority oppresion in their histories. According to this model, Germany was just using its chance to commit attrocities, exactly like any other nation might at a different time, given the opportunity.
  • USSR, Britain and USA (I don't have any dirt on France, but that's only because I didn't dig) were all doing something during WWII that is comparable to the Holocaust, even if it doesn't quite match the Holocaust in scale. (The Nazis were utilizing the power of progress very efficiently with the gas chambers and such, so other countries fell behind a bit). That completely annihilates the idea of the Ally countries representing the side of Good. The problem is, there weren't as many movies shot about Native Americans starving in their reservations, blacks leading miserable lives as pariahs, Indians massacred during peaceful protests, forced labor camps, etc. as there were about Nazi's extermination camps, so people fail to visualize the full extent of the Allies's crimes. It is a much less talked about topic and of course I can't really give you all the details within a couple of postings. Do some research on your own. Please also keep in mind that the Final Solution was put into effect after US, Britain and Russia refused to take in anymore Jews.
  • Basically, Allies seized the chance to portray WWII as a moral conflict, while it was just a power struggle. Those with power shall abuse it. German domestic and foreign policy were vicious, but Allies themselves were nobody to criticize. As colonial and imperial powers, they had subjugated weaker nationalities time after time through monstrous brutality. They indulged in the same type of actions whenever they could get away with it, and that includes right before and during WWII. They were the ones to first declare war on Germany. Using atomic bombs when it wasn't necessary, firebombing cities with no military targets. Prisoners of war tortured and executed despite all conventions; and thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of rapes by the soldiers... I am just getting warmed up writing about this, and I could go on for quite a while. Allies were nobody to criticize.
  • What I post is not nonsense, although it might be nonsense to those whose minds can't grasp the central ideas. My position is revisionistic, yet if people never reevaluated (revisioned) history how could they learn from it?
  • Some people need just food, clothes and shelter to be happy. Others require certain luxuries to remain content. Yet there are a few who are only satisfied with life if I sign my name under my posts. This is for you guys!

Xanon 07:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so this is how the intro looks now: "With the establishment of a restructured economy, a rearmed military, and a totalitarian fascist dictatorship, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"). After he ordered the invasion Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany. This conflict became known as World War II." If anyone sees anything wrong with this form, please state the reasons why. Let's discuss the changes first and let's not turn this into a childish quarrel where the winner is the one who says "I am right" once more than the loser.

I like how you say "let's discuss the changes first", when you already made the change. If you truly cared about consensus, you would have followed your own words. --Golbez 07:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not perfect. You have a point, but the only reason I did that was because the other editors, although they don't have the arguments to support their position, simply ignore what I write. At any rate, can you actually find anything wrong with the way I edited the intro? No. You are just mad that you lose a chance to brainwash the reader by inserting your OPINION about who is responsible for WWII into an article that should be about facts. Xanon

This is a citation of the Wikipedia's editing policy: "One of Wikipedia's core policies is that articles must be written from a "neutral point of view", presenting all note-worthy perspectives on an issue along with the evidence supporting them. The project also forbids the use of original research. Wikipedia articles do not attempt to determine an objective truth on their subjects, but rather to describe them impartially from all significant viewpoints. " Xanon 19:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Racial hygiene

This article is missing a discussion of and even a reference to and many of the comments in the above discussion on homosexuality have completely missed the foundation of Nazi social policy, racial hygiene. It is ridiculous and sad that even the different victims are still classified in some kind of hierarchy by many of us today. The basic idea was very "simple" and wanted to simply implement social Darwinism. Anything deemed an inferior life form was sent to the concentration camps, and it is completely senseless and inhumane to claim that some victims were there more or less by accident because they belonged to a smaller group or a group whose extermination was less well organised. If they only found and sent 25 people with six fingers there and you were one of them, you'd have been shocked to read that even some harsh critics of Hitler would be saying 60 years later that your kind of victim wasn't a real victim or that there was no plan to get rid of all people with six fingers or that you weren't sent there because of your sixth finger and that this does not constitute exactly the same reason as in the case of Jews and homosexuals and other victims etc., etc. --Espoo 16:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to add some reference to Nazi policy on racial hygiene and eugenics where you feel this is appropriate. However, you should note that not all those considered racially undesirable were dealt with in concentration camps. Mental institutions became the first places to implement Nazi racial policies. It was here that the very first gassings took place. Best wishes. White Guard 22:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i have known about Action T4 since my childhood and especially about the fact that this was the test not only of the extermination methods but also an attempt to help predict how the general public would react to later plans with larger and more visible (not already locked up) segments of the population. --Espoo 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
This article's purpose is not identifying victims and taking a moralistic stance. It is to provide an accurate historical portrayal.Xanon 20:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
This is a ridiculous and preposterous "argument"; see below for comment. --Espoo 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Numerous people and groups who were considered to be inferior were not sent to concentration camps. Your statements are very simplistic. Read some books. Paul B 23:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You know very well how that comment was meant. It was sloppily formulated but was explained by its context and in connection with my previous attempts to correct your historically incorrect differentiation between different victims of the policy of racial hygiene. "Anything deemed an inferior life form was sent to the concentration camps" is a colloquial way of saying "could be sent", which is made clear by the rest of the sentence "and it is completely senseless and inhumane to claim that some victims were there more or less by accident because they belonged to a smaller group or a group whose extermination was less well organised." It is no coincidence that you didn't respond to this or the other points i raised. There were massive and well-planned and extensively implemented programs to exterminate many other groups besides the Jews, and that in no way slights Jews or their suffering, on the contrary. It is also ridiculous to point out that some or many groups deemed inferior were not sent to KZs; you know very well, or should know, that most of them would have eventually also been exterminated if Hitler had stayed in power for a few more years. --Espoo 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Keep in mind, Espoo, that this is an article about Hitler, which will concentrate mostly on biographical issues and events that Hitler was involved in very directly. Details on Nazi philosophy and policy, WWII and the Holocaust don't really belong here, but into the respective articles. Otherwise we'd have to squeeze the whole Third Reich history into the Hitler article, since he was the initiator of pretty much everything that happened during that time. --Frescard 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, i agree, Frescard, and i never said anything that contradicts that. I'm also happy to see that despite the mostly negative comments above, you all have approved my short summary of the "reason" for the inhumane treatment of all minority and otherwise "non-normal" people approved and initiated by Hitler. There is clear evidence that this policy was both initiated and condoned and fostered by Hitler, so this is definitely a biographical issue. In an organisation as authoritarian as the NSDAP, it was impossible to implement such fundamental and far-reaching decisions without approval from the very top.
However, for some strange reason, the descriptive adjective "inhumane" for racial hygiene was removed from my contribution. Since this was done without any mention in an edit summary let alone an explanation here, i will put it back soon unless i hear some argument for that strange decision. "Inhumane" according to the New Oxford means "without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel." Even a short glimpse at the racial hygiene article should convince even someone who had never heard of that concept before that "inhumane" is a fitting and objective adjective. It is also a necessary qualifier to help readers who may not be familiar with the concept.
The adjective "inhumane" was quite correctly removed. We do not add moralising injunctions. Please read WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves. Paul B 13:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
And it is completely ridiculous and clearly non-objective to say that an article on Hitler should not identify his victims. No one would suggest something that preposterous for a serial killer let alone a "normal" killer, so there is obviously no reason to not even include general descriptions of what kinds of people became victims of a perpetrator of genocide. (There is obviously no room to describe large numbers of the victims individually, but an interesting idea would be to provide some way of visualising 11 million people. Most people cannot grasp even much smaller numbers. Are there videos of large memorials with names?) Due to the added simplistic admonition not to take a "moralistic stance", i suspect that Xanon was the cause of the "hidden" and unexplained removal of "inhumane". In fact, i suggest we consider the possibility of describing a few real cases of individual victims in a separate article summarised here to make this article less theoretic and thereby also more scientific. It is time to end the pseudo-scientific description of Hitler and other brutal tyrants as somehow superior to "normal" killers; this impression is caused by more or less abstract descriptions of their policies and programs. By describing the concrete human effects and goals of such policies, we can objectively show the clear difference between the sick minds behind them and normal politicians, whose policies may also cause extreme suffering, pain, and death but do not have these as their expressly declared goals. --Espoo 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


"...some or many groups deemed inferior were not sent to KZs... most of them would have eventually also been exterminated if Hitler had stayed in power for a few more years." That is a hypothesis which cannot be tested and should not be put forward as a fact.

That is not in the article, so you're not reasoning logically. I was using that argument here on the discussion page to make a point. In addition, there is clear historical evidence that the program to get rid of groups deemed inferior was to include more and more groups. For example, there were plans to eventually get rid of all Finns. And to put it differently, there is no historical evidence or even any hint that Hitler would have stopped getting rid of "inferior" groups once he'd murdered all Jews. More specifically, there is no reason that would indicate that he would not have dealt more rigorously with groups such as homosexuals and communists that he was only hunting down "on the side" while most of his resources (even military ones) were spent on the Jews.

"Due to the added simplistic admonition not to take a "moralistic stance", i suspect that Xanon was the cause of the "hidden" and unexplained removal of "inhumane"." I did not delete the word "inhumane", someone beat me to it. However, I am concerned that some users don't know the difference between an encyclopedia article and a church. In the church, you can preach your moral views. An encyclopedia article is place to record factual, objective information. If you want to know how dangerous preaching in an encyclopedia is, check out the Big Soviet Encyclopedia. Instead of being a store of knowledge it's a written monument of soviet-communist ideology. You are not doing Wikipedia a good service by forcing your moral views on its readers. Xanon 07:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would have been simply objectively incorrect to remove it because according to the meaning of the word "racial hygiene" and the definition of the word "inhumane" in all dictionaries i know, racial hygiene was and is inhumane.
And nobody is preaching any moral views in the article; your comments shows that you want to slant the article in a direction that trivialises the murders of the victims. In many countries, your comments would be close to getting you in jail, and with good reason. --Espoo 19:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly, you do not have even the slightest idea of what "objective" means. It means "based on facts rather than thoughts or opinions". Organized killing of members of various social groops took place, that's a fact. By calling it inhumane you express your opinion about the fact, and your opinion cannot be considered objective, even if your opinion is shared by a large number of people. The adjective carries no informative value what-so-ever and, therefore, is completely unnecessary in an encyclopedia article.
  • I do want this article to be about facts. That's where we differ.
  • In Nazi Germany, your comments would be close to getting you into a concentration camp. As for the quality of the reason, whether it is a good one, or not, I'll let you decide. Just shows that Nazi Germany wasn't all that different from "many countries".
  • Whoever is doing it, STOP ERASING MY POSTS.

Xanon

Response to Xanon

Xanon, this is the last time i will respond to your comments because you are not only saying completely illogical things but are also obviously supportive of Nazi ideas like sending people to KZs. But it is important that your comments don't stand here unchallenged and shock future visitors. If you make any similar comments in the future, i will answer by simply adding a link to this discussion instead of responding. And in case your comments were just due to ignorance of basic things concerning national and international laws, let me point out that putting someone in jail for a crime after due legal process is from a legal point of view the exact opposite of sending someone to a KZ. But perhaps you are also ignorant of this basis of international law: KZs are against several international conventions and agreements that override all national laws. And if you continue to express such childishly veiled personal attacks as above, i will ask an administrator to ban you. But back to the article and editing:

Clearly, you have no idea what a descriptive adjective is. If "racial hygiene" is inhumane according to an objective description of "racial hygiene" and the definition of the word "inhumane" in all dictionaries, it is clearly objective and scientific to use it in talking about racial hygiene. I'm pretty sure it was not an accident but an attempt to be sly that made you claim i'd used the adjective to describe the organised killings as inhumane. That all organised killing is inhumane is so obvious that "inhumane organised killing" would be a tautology and a sign of a sick mind or of elementary school language skills. The expression "racial hygiene" on the other hand has possible positive connotations or at least associations in the minds of readers due to the positive basic meaning of the word "hygiene"; it therefore needs the addition of the descriptive adjective "inhumane".

[Side comment: One advantage of seeing posts by Nazi sympathisers is that one rediscovers old newspeak examples that one doesn't notice anymore. I will go to the racial hygiene page and start a discussion about whether any attempts have been made by historians and other scientists and doctors to replace this term with one that is less biased in favor of these insane and unscientific misunderstandings of evolution that are not a kind of "hygiene" but an excuse for racism. Hitler knew that what he was doing was disapproved of by most Germans; otherwise there would not have been a need for the extreme secrecy about mass killings and no need to not call "racial hygiene" what it really was, "extermination of groups of people that Hitler didn't like". (The expression "Nazi eugenics" is no solution because most people don't know what "eugenics" means and due to the positive connotations of "eugenics".)]

You have not presented a single fact that is missing in the article nor presented a single non-fact that needs to be removed, thereby your comment is as illogical and childish as the rest of your posts.

There is no record in the history of any posts by anyone being erased by anyone. Sounds like you may be paranoid and need help with that medical condition. And please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. No need to write your name out. --Espoo 13:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Nowhere did I say that I support putting people in concentration camps in the manner it was done in Nazi Germany. You are slandering, or rather libeling, since this is written. That may have consequences.
  • International laws are a joke, a fiction for the naive and ignorant. The only international law there ever was is might makes right. I'm not sure if putting people in concentration camps in Germany was illegal under German law, nor do I care. Whether the process was legal or not makes no difference what-so-ever. If it was illegal, then it just means Hitler didn't bother with passing the appropriate legislation or found it inconvinient for political reasons (such as the general population's disapproval). Why that would affect anyone's view of the process is beyond me.
  • You may ask the administrator anything you want, whenever you want. However, then I will be forced to point out to the administrator your rude behavior and your attacks against me. Including this one: "Sounds like you may be paranoid and need help with that medical condition". That may result in you getting banned instead.
  • Clearly, the definition wasn't objective. You might as well define blue as orange, or light as heavy. Just because it's in a dictionary, doesn't mean you don't have to use your head to see if it makes sense at all. Dictionaries are written by humans. Humans are not perfect. If you look in older dictionaries, you will find a lot of... surprising definions. Clearly, the adjective is used to disapprove of the mass killings, which you had no business doing in a wikipedia article. Besides, perhaps some of the camp guards cried thei eyes out, because they felt pity for the prisoners, you never know. Then the part "without compassion for suffering" would not be applicable.
  • Clearly, inhumane is an adjective. I can't see how you can argue around that. You do know what an adjective is, right? If you don't please look it up. I'm not here to educate you about such things.
  • Racial hygiene should be in quotes to indicate that the phrase is controversial. If there is a more neutral phrasing, then it should be used.
  • "There is no record..." I know there isn't. There wasn't when I changed it back either. Pretty strange. Never the less, it's a fact.
  • Finally, don't get so worked up about the way I sign my posts. It's really none of your business. Xanon
It's unlikely that anyone is erasing your posts without leaving a record. It's possible that you have accidentally pressed "show preview" rather than "save page". Otherwise you may not have waited long enough after clicking. Saving does not happen immediately. Paul B 15:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I'm fairly certain I pressed save. I'm not accusing anybody in particular, I'm sure most of my opponents wouldn't sink to this. Xanon

Xanon is infact correct. Adding the the words inhumane to anything, wether it even be the extermination or the issue of racial hygene is reflective of your own opinion of it being "wrong" and consequentially is adding subjective and moral content to an objective article. As said before the amount of people sharing your views does not constitute either right or wrong. There is no "factual" basis to call anything inhumane upon as we know there are even political parties in some instances protesting for the legality of issues that a majority of people would consider "sick" or inhumane. However neither of their opinion is of any greater value than the others.

What you take as "elementary" or basic may not infact be considered that by another and so expressing your views with any adjective for that matter is coloring it with your own moral beliefs. Editor18 19:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Munich Soviet Republic

Why was Bavarian Soviet Republic (Munich Soviet Republic) edited out by Str1977, and also without an edit summary? --Espoo 06:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I see now that my edit was a mistake and wasn't one at the same time. The Munich Soviet Republic was indeed a "communist uprising" put down by the army (though Hitler's stance towards them is not that clear - we participated in the burial of Kurt Eisner for instance). However, the passage implies that the army did nothing instead of putting down uprisings. My mistake was that I thought the passage identified the 1918 revolution as creating a Soviet Republic (which I encountered much too often on WP - a very annoying form of ignorance!). My mistake was understandable enough, as the text talked about "uprisings breaking out across Germany, including Munich" - a characterisation only fitting for the 1918 revolution but not for the "communists uprisings in 1919, which occured in various places but not all over the country. I will post another version that hopefully settles my concerns. Str1977 (smile back) 06:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


World War 1 sentence

This sentence in the World War 1 section seems oddly out of place...

Some scholars, including Lucy Dawidowicz,[5] argue that an intention to mass murder Europe's Jews was fully formed in Hitler's mind, though he probably hadn't thought through how it could be done.

Is it meant to refer to his formation of the genocide being something he came upon during the first world war? Or perhaps it just got left there after many edits? MarkThomas 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Dawidowicz takes an extreme "intentionalist" view: that as early as 1918 or 1919 Hitler had a plan, or at least a dream, to kill all Jews if he got the chance and that this aspiration was always a Nazi aim. Paul B 13:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Chances are, he probably did. However, don't we all at one time or another at least dream that everything we don't like will disappear from this world? Never wanted all the killers and other non-minor criminals to disappear from the world? Xanon

Is that an anti-semitic remark Xanon? Anyway, I'm not disputing that he thought this or that Dawidowicz thought he thought it, just that the sentence seems a bit out of context where it is - it doesn't seem to go with the rest of the text in that para. MarkThomas 21:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Xanon seems to see no difference between wishing people you don't like would go away and planning to murder them all. How many of us have thought that if we became dictators we would round up every criminal and gas them all to death? On the issue of the sentence in question. I tried to integrate it. It's there because it's about Hitler's state of mind at the end of WWI. Paul B 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that at the end of WWI Hitler thought he would become the dictator of Germany. Therefore, he was just hoping Jews would die, not actually planning to kill them, because he knew he didn't have the means. Hitler thought Jews were evil. So he wanted all of them to get out of his sight (out of Germany), and if they didn't, he was alright with killing them. Seems perfectly logical to me. Xanon


January 30 selected anniversary

What is the note "An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)" on the top of the page about. It contains a red link and the "MediaWiki" link is empty. Can someone please explain whether is just a left over? Str1977 (smile back) 09:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Golbez 09:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Golbez, but actually I was looking for an explanation on what this note is all about. Cheers, Str1977 (smile back) 12:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
So.. did you click it to see what it is? I don't think it's a leftover. I could be wrong. --Golbez 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Category tags

WWI People

Category:German World War I people Octopus-Hands 01:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

npov sexual orientation tag - delete section soon

I just added a NPOV tag to Adolf_Hitler#Sexual_Orientation. Are there any objections expressed to deleting this section? If not, it needs to WP:CITE more sources to create a more rounded picture. Further, WEASEL words are discouraged as they reduce clarity. Cheers, Jpe|ob 10:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a very common question concerning Hitler that many users of Wikipedia look up here. It would be very strange if this were just deleted. In addition, this section has more references than is usual in Wikipedia. Considering that Hitler murdered Jews and homosexuals specifically because they were Jews or homosexuals, the question of whether Hitler was either or both is of crucial biographical, psychological, historical, and cultural importance. Improve the section as much as you like, but there is absolutely no reason for deletion. --Espoo 10:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
There was unrelenting discussion of this some while ago. We have a separate article on Adolf Hitler's medical health which has a sub-section on sexuality. And there's an article on the book Hidden Fuhrer: Debating the Enigma of Hitler's Sexuality. Paul B 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
It's highly debatable whether Hitler murdered homosexuals "just because they were homosexuals". Homosexuality was illegal in most European countries at the time. Homosexuals were imprisoned in Nazi Germany for their "crime" as they were elsewhere. They were also subjected to medical intervention in other countries too, so Nazism was not radically different from the democracies in this respect. During the war convicted homosexuals were sent to concentration camps, where they experienced brutal treatment, but again you could argue that that was becasue of pervasive homophobic attitudes and the general brutality of the situation, not because the Nazis were trying to achieve a Final Solution to the Gay Problem by murdering all homosexuals. There is no evidence of any such plan. Indeed some of the reports of maltreatment concern other inmates in the camps.
The problem with this stuff is that it's very very speculative. I think we should have a brief mention of allegations concerning his sexuality, which were made from the 30s on, but have aseparate article for detailed discussion. There was a Sexuality of Hitler article, but it seems to have been deleted. Admittedly, it was rather rubbish. Paul B 11:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's an important issue. However, as canvassed by Paul, the article Adolf Hitler's medical health does cover sexuality. That article is the main article of the section Adolf_Hitler#Medical_health. Thus, the Adolf_Hitler#Sexual_Orientation section should be removed and its content, along with the "sexual orientation" content of the Adolf Hitler's medical health page - should be moved to Adolf_Hitler#Medical_health. Jpe|ob 11:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that homosexuality is only one suggestion, and a rather minority one at that. During his lifetime various theories were circulated and allegations were made, (most notoriously one by Otto Strasser). These did not involve homosexuality. but other alleged... eccentricities. So the "gay Adolf" claim is rather a latecomer and has so reason to be presented as especially significant. Paul B 11:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As i already said, this is probably one of the most frequent things that Wikipedia users look up here, so it should definitely be at least mentioned and perhaps summarised even if it is then discussed in more detail elsewhere. In addition, there is a big difference between being sent to jail or a KZ! Not all people jailed for rational or irrational reasons were sent to KZs in the Third Reich. Considering that Hitler sent homosexuals to KZs specifically because they were homosexuals, the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual, was afraid he was a homosexual, or was perceived as perhaps being homosexual is of crucial biographical, psychological, historical, and cultural importance. --Espoo 11:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
During the war the concentration camps were full of "ordinary" criminals. Auschwitz had lots of prostitutes, for example! Where prisoners were put in the camps and how they were treated varied enormously. Paul B 11:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
The allegations actually made against him are worth including, since they seem to have had a political purpose. But speculation about his sexual preferences is just annoying. Mere puffery.--Shtove 11:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like some of you need to do some reading in History_of_gay_people_in_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Holocaust and Pink triangle. Homosexuals were *not* confronted with "normal" contemporary homophobia, discrimination, and incarceration in the Third Reich. It's absolutely wrong to say "Nazism was not radically different from the democracies in this respect". There was a clear program to send large numbers of homosexuals to KZs and thereby to murder them there directly or indirectly. And what may or may not be annoying to a Wikipedia editor is no criterium for inclusion or not. There is wide public interest and some serious research in Hitler's psychological characteristics, and these should definitely be addressed and presented in a serious article on Hitler. They can be discussed elsewhere but they should at least be mentioned here too. --Espoo 12:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I am fully familiar with the articles you refer to and with published literature on the subject. There was no "programme" to murder all homosexuals, and the very articles you mention do not say that there was. Indeed policies in different jurisdictions varied dramatically. Also, read carefully what people say, in particular the meaning of phrases like "in this respect". anti-Semitic eliminationism was specific to Nazism. The idea that homosexuality was an illness or perversion that should ideally be made to disappear was a very common view throughout Europe. Furthermore, Hitler's personal psychology does not provide good evidence concerning Nazi policies on homosexuality because, unlike with anti-Semitism, there is no good evidence that he was personally the driving force behind such policy. Paul B 13:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Apparently not familiar enough. Just because there *perhaps* was no plan to find and murder *all* homosexuals does not mean that there was not a very definite program and policy to persecute and kill *all* homosexuals that refused to "reform" and reproduce; and later even willingness to pretend being straight was not enough. Simple accusation was enough to be shot on the spot or to be deported. You seem to have missed these parts of those articles (for example!):

Shortly after the purge in 1934, a special division of the Gestapo was instituted to compile lists of gay individuals. In 1936, Heinrich Himmler, Chief of the SS, created the "Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion."

Gays were not initially treated in the same fashion as the Jews, however; Nazi Germany thought of German gay men as part of the "Master Race" and sought to force gay men into sexual and social conformity. Gay men who would or could not conform and feign a switch in sexual orientation were sent to concentration camps under the "Extermination Through Work" campaign.

More than one million gay German men were targeted, of whom at least 100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms as convicted gay men.[1] Hundreds of European gay men living under Nazi occupation were castrated under court order.[2] --Espoo 16:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All sorts of people were treated with increasing brutality as the war progressed. No one is denying that Himmler sought to combat "homosexuality and abortion". They wanted more bouncing baby Germans. The very fact that you quote the fact that hundreds were castrated proves the very point that there was no systematic plan to murder them all. They didn't try to elimiate Judaism by castrating Jews did they? You are confusing increasingly vicious and brutal treatment, (including incarceration in camps) - which affected many groups - with systematic mass murder plans. Anyway, the central point concerns this article. You were initially claiming that there is some sort of parallelism between Hitler's hatred of Jews and of gays, implying that both derived from some deep-seated psychological motivation. I was trying to show that there is no parallelism. Homosexuality did not have the same role in party policy. Persecution was highly unsystematic, and it was mostly an exaggerated and brutalised version of attitudes - legal and social - that existed in milder forms in other countries. There is no evidence that Hitler himself was a driving force behind policy. Rather it emerged from the general ideology of racial hygiene in which numerous political and "health professionals" like Eugen Fischer were involved. Homosexuals were treated as general undesirables, as is still sadly the case today in many countries. As the war progressed attitudes simply became harsher towards any group perceived as undesirable or as weakening the war effort in some way. Paul B 16:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I see you just added the mention of racial hygiene, but you apparently haven't grasped what it meant. There *was* a very systematic plan to murder *all* that refused to engage in heterosex. At least all that they happened to get a hold of. Even if this wasn't as systematic as the Jewish genocide, it was still organised mass murder!
You were initially claiming that there is some sort of parallelism between Hitler's hatred of Jews and of gays, implying that both derived from some deep-seated psychological motivation. - I said nothing of the kind. I said Considering that Hitler murdered Jews and homosexuals specifically because they were Jews or homosexuals, the question of whether Hitler was either or both is of crucial biographical, psychological, historical, and cultural importance. And this: Considering that Hitler sent homosexuals to KZs specifically because they were homosexuals, the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual, was afraid he was a homosexual, or was perceived as perhaps being homosexual is of crucial biographical, psychological, historical, and cultural importance. I never said in any way that "Hitler's hatred of Jews and of gays ...derived from some deep-seated psychological motivation". I said that questions people have and allegations that they hear about Hitler's purported Jewishness or gayness have to be mentioned in this article and addressed in more detail in other articles. There is a very big logical difference here too that you're not grasping. --Espoo 17:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Of course I understand what it means! The fact remains that there was no plan to murder all homosexuals and you have provided no evidence at all that there was.
It is not important that Hitler didn't decide to or have time to kill all homosexuals because there is clear historical evidence that he approved and probably instigated a massive and well-planned and extensively implemented program to exterminate huge numbers of homosexuals. (And even if the numbers had been smaller, that would still not change the logic of the argument i'm presenting.) I really can't see how you were able to skip over the quotes i provided from WP without realising you're just plain wrong. I'll requote the essential parts below. But perhaps you've just seen them too often in reading or editing that other article. Then this may perhaps help you see how wrong you are in your claims about the extent of homosexual persecution and murder. --Espoo 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Shortly after the purge in 1934, a special division of the Gestapo was instituted to compile lists of gay individuals. In 1936, Heinrich Himmler, Chief of the SS, created the "Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion."

More than one million gay German men were targeted, of whom at least 100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms as convicted gay men.[1] Hundreds of European gay men living under Nazi occupation were castrated under court order.[2]

It was even proposed in 1940 that homosexuality should be legalised in the "rump" Poland (the part not absorbed into the Reich) in order to encourage it! The idea was that this would reduce heterosexual sex among the Poles and so undermine their popuation in comparison to the racially-superior Nordics.
This example proves the opposite of what you're trying to make it look like. Hitler considered homosexuality such a horrible plague that he decided to use it as genetic warfare. Your logic is as deficient as trying to say that troops firing diseased corpses into a besieged city would have also kept some lying around their tents because they didn't consider them a serious threat. --Espoo 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Your quotation from yourself proves what I said, that you are implying that there was a personal psychological reason to attack homosexuals ("[he] was afraid he was a homosexual...").
Either you clearly have problems understanding written text or i'm not producing understandable text. Let me try with shorter, simpler sentences. I don't think Hitler was a homosexual, but that is not relevant for my job as an editor of an encyclopedia. The reason for this is that i haven't researched that enough to have any historical evidence for such a personal opinion. Due to the vast amount of scientifically researched knowledge at their disposal, historians' opinions can very well be added to Wikipedia. Such opinions can be added even if they clearly state that this is something they can't prove yet or ever. Such opinions of scientists are not facts but based enough on facts to be included in Wikipedia; they are in fact what are also called hypotheses. At the link above, you may also have discovered the following sentence: "My own feelings are that Hitler was asexual in the traditional sense and had bizarre sexual fetishes." This could be incorporated into this article into a short mention of the many wild claims and partly proven theories about Hitler's sexual orientation. I think it's a good idea that these theories and claims are dealt with in a separate article, but many users looking for that info will not think of looking there. Most users who want to look up what WP says about various claims concerning Hitler's sexuality will be surprised that this info is missing. They will search for "sexuality" or "sexual" in vain. I propose the following addition to the article:

There are numerous rumors but only very few pieces of historic evidence concerning Hitler's sexual orientation and his sexuality. For more information, see Adolf Hitler's medical health.

According to librarians, questions about Hitler's sexuality are among the questions most frequently posed to them. If we don't even have the word "sexuality" here, that makes this simply a bad article for many if not most users. In addition, if we don't have that summary, we will repeatedly find new sections added here due to even quite savvy users not realising they should edit the linked article instead.
Now perhaps you can finally understand my quotes of myself by means of the following explanations (I'll leave out mention of Jews and edit accordingly to prevent confusing two different issues): This quote Considering that Hitler murdered homosexuals specifically because they were homosexuals, the question of whether Hitler was a homosexual, was afraid he was a homosexual, or was perceived as perhaps being homosexual is of crucial biographical, psychological, historical, and cultural importance" means this:
Hitler personally authorised a policy that resulted and was supposed to result in the death and suffering of homosexuals that refused to reproduce, and later mere accusations were enough to cause deportation. That means that Hitler had people killed just because they were homosexuals or claimed to be such by others. If Hitler was a homosexual, that would play a crucial part in understanding why he authorised this mass persecution and killing. That means it would provide crucial information for understanding his biography. It would also help to understand other people in the same or similar psychological situations. (Did you see the words "if" and would?) Because this would be so crucial in understanding Hitler's mass persecution of homosexuals (which you shockingly and historically totally incorrectly equated with much milder persecution in democracies of the time!), many historians (those are scientists) have spent a lot of time in trying to find some evidence of H's attitude towards homosexuality. The fact that they haven't found much evidence and that the bits they've found seem to indicate that H wasn't gay is the result of intense scientific research, and these results should definitely be mentioned in this article on H. They can of course be summarised or even disguised by using the word "sexuality" as i proposed above and described in more detail elsewhere. I'm sure you can now parse and understand the rest of the sentence too:
If Hitler was afraid of being a homosexual, that would play a crucial role...
If Hitler was perceived by contemporaries as perhaps being homosexual, ...
I'm sure you can build equivalent sentences to understand what i was saying about historical, and cultural importance.
I really don't understand why you have to pick out individual sentences that i wrote badly or that you read sloppily. You could have easily understood what i was trying to say, especially when i rephrased it. This is a talk page, and you are forcing me to turn it into a semantics and grammar lesson. There is no way you could have misunderstood these words:

I never said in any way that "Hitler's hatred of Jews and of gays ...derived from some deep-seated psychological motivation". I said that questions people have and allegations that they hear about Hitler's purported Jewishness or gayness have to be mentioned in this article and addressed in more detail in other articles. There is a very big logical difference here too that you're not grasping.--Espoo 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[Side comment: It's true that you were claiming incorrectly i'd said that "Hitler's hatred of Jews and of gays ...derived from some deep-seated psychological motivation" and i pointed this out because you didn't understand the logic of my argument (that we need to also address widespread claims and rumors that are incorrect) and misrepresented it. But it is of course true that any person's hatred of any group of people is caused by some deep-seated psychological motivation. Your comment was sloppily expressed and i responded to what you wanted to say and claim (incorrectly) about me (Hitler's hatred of Jews and of gays derived from his perhaps belonging to or being afraid of belonging to one or the other group) instead of the content, his psychological motivation, which is of course patent nonsense - almost all of our deeds and actions are psychologically motivated.]
And yet, as we know, it was not a personal preoccupation of Hitler's. Nor was there any suggestion of it in his lifetime. We have Strasser with his "watersports" allegations and the various rumours about him and Geli Raubal, but there was no significant suggestion of homosexuality. If there was some reason to believe that Hitler was especially obsessed by homosexuality as such your argument might make some sense, but there isn't. Homosexuality was punishable by death under the Taliban, but the reasons for that are Taliban ideology. It would not tell us much to speculate that it was because Mullah Omar "was afraid he was a homosexual". Paul B 23:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you can now finally understand how you've been barking up the wrong tree. You simply and naively insisted on confusing my assumed opinion (which i didn't even express until now and turns out to be the opposite of what you incorrectly assumed) with my defense of the right of WP users to find reference also to nonsense in WP IF (see that word?) many users believe this nonsense may be true or just want to see what intelligent things they can answer to such nonsense. --Espoo 00:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's difficult to know how to respond to your obsessiveness and one-dimensional thinking. This is not really the right page. It's amazing how sneering you are about alleged misunderstandings of your own statements and then so dismissive of the fact that you have expressed yourself "sloppily", as if it's evidence of stupidity to interpret ill-expressed statements in the way you think you meant them, but that you can't reasonably be expected to be clear! Also, the fact that you totally misrepresent what I say makes your own protestations hollow. I have never "shockingly and historically totally incorrectly equated [Nazi actions] with much milder persecution in democracies." I compared them, not equated them, just as you have done in this very sentence.

You compared them and declared them similar! You wrote Homosexuals were imprisoned in Nazi Germany for their "crime" as they were elsewhere. They were also subjected to medical intervention in other countries too, so Nazism was not radically different from the democracies in this respect. There is a very big difference between being put in jail and a KZ, and even if some homosexuals were mistreated by doctors in other countries, it is shocking and historically incorrect to compare these individual medical interventions with the Nazi medical experiments and the mass deportations to KZs. I presume you're referring to the fact that experiments were carried out in other countries to try to "cure" maybe dozens or hundreds of gays, but i hope you're not claiming that tens or hundreds of thousands were imprisoned in barbaric conditions, mistreated, and used for medical experiments that had nothing to do with their sexuality, as in Germany.

I will not respond (again) to the other subjects you now allude to in more or less personal attacks above; i presented arguments on those topics and you refused to answer those. My one sloppy sentence was perfectly comprehensible in the context presented and is normal colloquial English. This is a discussion page, where colloquial language is perfectly normal. It is however quite hilarious to see your attempts to project your problem of one-dimensional thinking on me. Apparently you write everything in WP from your perspective and cannot grasp the idea of writing for normal, clueless users. (We all are on most topics until we educate ourselves...)

On the main subject: You really should look at the full debate on this issue. Yes, there are many gay-rights websites which want to inisist that there was a "gay holocaust" but there are also many researchers on the subject who argue that the term is inappropriate. Rüdiger Lautmann, one of the main experts on homosexuality under the Nazis does not think that there was any genocidal campaign against homosexuality and therefore argues that the word is inappropriate. Despite your protestations you persist in trying to connect Hitler's personal sexuality to Nazi policy even though the evidence that we have suggests that Hitler was not the prime mover in attacks on homosexuals and that it was the essential nature of Nazi ideology that was decisive. Note also that Nazi anti-gay legislation was not repealled after the war, which suggests that the legislation in itself was not considered to be extreme. Also, Himmler (a totally hetro guy with several illegitimate kids) was far more significant in pursuing actual persecution than was Hitler. That's why making this supposed connection as an explanation does not work when you look at the detail rather than cloaking yourself in easy moral outrage. I don't know where you get your claim that librarians are constantly asked about books on Hitler's sexuality or that "most users" will think it is a "bad aricle" without discussion of this. The Sexuality of Adolf Hitler page is currectly a redirect. If we want to turn it into an independent page with a serious discussion of the subject, then we can do so. It's a legitimate topic. If you want to discuss in detail Nazi anti-gay policies do so on the relevant page, which is History of gays in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. Paul B 15:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion about whether or not there was a massive campaign to find, deport to KZs, and kill homosexuals does not belong here. If you seriously doubt the contents of the article i've quoted twice (which contradict your claims and which you continue to ignore), then you should present evidence for that claim on that article's discussion page. (You apparently also don't know that the legislation was made much more severe under the Nazis and that the Nazis only used legislation as an excuse to carry out their much more extreme plans.) The only thing that is relevant here is what we should put in the article to help many users (e.g. here looking for information on Hitler's sexuality. Since no objections were voiced to my suggested addition, i will add it when i find the time. And "you persist in trying to connect Hitler's personal sexuality to Nazi policy" is ridiculous since you provide no proof of this claim and since i clearly showed that you goofed in confusing my views with those of users coming here to find an objective opinion on (incorrect!!! do you understand that word and can you see those signs and do you know what they mean?) rumors they've heard. --Espoo 00:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

History Channel Sources

Night of the long knives and Hitler

I may just be an ignorant twit--I don't know what I think I'm doing venturing this knee-deep into wiki-territory like this (which is a shame it's like that), but here goes:

I honestly don't know if there's some kind of tacit haughty agreement that the History channel "is bullshit" on here--but I was watching today, and they had an hour long special on The Night of the Long Knives. Towards the end they explained how while speculative, many things suggest a shady sexual past for Hitler: For example, he was having an affair with his niece. They had had a violent argument one day, and the next morning she was found dead in her room--Hitler claimed he was out of town, but a local tavern owner confirmed that they hadn't left until past midnight. During the Night, he had the tavern owner and some of his waitresses killed.

He apparently struggled with Rohm's execution, as well--taking his name off the list several times. I only caught the last 12 minutes so unfortunately it may be a bit muddled, but it alluded to many of the killings as possibly to cover up his past in Vienna and some other town, where it's "almost certain" that he was on police record as a male prostitute. Further extrapolation places his "unique" mannerisms as derivative of the exaggerated, flamboyant homosexual style which could easily be picked up.

So, that's what I'm talkin' bout. Could be some naive "shroud of turin" that was disproved a while ago, but I'd like to know why it isn't featured more prominently.

Lockeownzj00 23:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any connection between Geli Raubal and the Night of the Long Knives.
It is unclear whether the relationship between Hitler and Geli had a sexual aspect. However, the cause of her death is quite clear that his being overprotective and also frequently absent suffocated the girl, resulting in her suicide. The same thing happened with Eva Braun, who tried to commit suicide twice (maybe staged the attempts) to get Hitler to be more careful.
Hitler's hesitation to kill Röhm (if that is indeed true, I have no idea) would be understandable given the long past.
There have indeed been measures to cover up his Vienna past, including the disappearance of his former acquaitances, but this has more to do with his having lived in a homeless asylum then with any alleged homosexuality (which is indeed highly unlikely).
It isn't - or rather they (because these are various issues without any link amongst each other) aren't featured more prominently because it is really speculative.
BTW, the Turin Shroud remains controversial and has certainly not been disproved. Str1977 (smile back) 09:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, it sounds like the usual tosh to me. Like Str1977 I think the suicidal tendencies of Hitler's girl-friends are easily explained by existing evidence. He did his mesmeric-number on them, made them feel special, as though they were part of his Great Mission - and then he just ignored them for long periods. It was the psychological stress of being repeatedly raised up, and then dumped, and then raised up again, and waiting for his call (while being too intimidated or enthralled to let go) that got to them. Shocking sexual fetishes are a totally improbable explanation given the evidence, but they make better TV. The gay-prostitute theory is similarly unsupported by any substantial evidence. It's almost impossible to believe that such a juicy story would not have made it into the hands of Hitler's many enemies in the 20s. BTW, we know Hitler was away at the time of Raubal's death because he got a speeding ticket while driving back after being told the news. Paul B 11:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

A darker shade of Green

A while back I read a "What if" article in New Scientist. A darker shade of Green. I just remembered it today, so I did a quick search of what I remembered, and it was amasing what I was able to dig up:

I've added them to the Nazism article.

There are probably more litle known Nazi topics to dig up, but I haven't got the article anymore.

I wonder if I will dare question the roots of the "green party".... --Stor stark7 Talk 21:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The association between volkish conservatism of various kinds and early Green politics is well-known. Read Blood and Soil by Anna Bramwell.
Yeah, figures. Is it well-known amongst the Greens too?--Stor stark7 Talk 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Those with an interest in history, yes. Paul B 22:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes-the Wandervogel! I once saw a good picture of two of them alongside Der Führer. White Guard 23:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Portrayals, cartoons & parody

I think that portrayals and the taboo of association with Hitler should be addressed in the article. Especially since the article fails to take into consideration the perception of Hitler in Eastern countries such as India, China, and Japan. For example, an Indian restaurant owner opened a Nazi-themed restaurant, since such taboos are not widespread, and swastikas are rather innocuous in Indian culture. Japanese manga sometimes features characters dressing as Hitler, such as in Fooly Cooly. I think this should be considered somewhere. Angrynight 06:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


You might be mistaken since Indian restaurants might just have their religious symbol displayed, which happens to be the same as the Nazi sign.

Parody by Walter Moers

In Germany there's a disput on the Hitler-comic-parody (music-video) by W.Moers called "The Bonker" (Paradoy on Downfall (film)). The priced film (Sondermann 2006 at Frankfurt Book Fair) is a part of the third part of a trilogy on Hitler by Moers and a blockbuster on german youtbube: german, german subtitles, german, english subtitles (2), english. Interessting on how germans handle with Hitler. -- Cherubino 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - german youtube is english youtube! There's a comment following the video: "Austrians ... can be so fucking stupid". And what's with the bottle of wine? I thought he only indulged occasionally.--Shtove 19:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The translated song is not as close to the original than the subtiteled one (due to poetic license and rimes), so read the subtitles. I don't know how much alcohol flowed like water in the last days in the Führerbunker, and how much sex there was. Hitlers generals and advisors addicted to alcohol since they had not absconded yet. It's not wine, it's Chantré, a german brandy. Yes Hitler did not drink, he had a increasing aversion to meat, alc und nicotin. But as this reggae-song is a parody on the film Downfall you probably have to watch the film to understand the parody. There is of course only one youtube, but there are different favorites by "exolingual" youtubers. -- 172.179.127.167 22:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cartoons from Hitler and Stalin

If somebody is interested in cartoons about Hitler and Stalin here are

Cartoons of Nebelspalter 1932-1948: Hitler and Stalin seen from Switzerland

They are commented with the historical view of today.

Michael Palomino, Basel, 4th December 2006

Cultural depictions of Adolf Hitler

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition, when I tried to read MEIN KAMPF myself, I simply had trouble figuring it all out. So I I went to the index and found every page that mentions "Jew" and put a postit on it. My red paperback had a yellow fringe on top. Then I read the marked pages as a separate book. Then I started reading MEIN KAMPF from the beginning and it all made sense. It's a great way to discuss the whole subject of Anti-Semitism as a cultural subject. Now that MEIN KAMPF is online I simply searched the whole two volumes and created a single MKJEWFILE. I wish I had realized how important Vol:Chapter was. I'd have created separate files for a folder: MEIN KAMPF JEW FILE. Each file named MK:I:1, etc. That way it would be easier to really dig into the "culture" of Germany from this aspect.

Like you I think of Alexander the Great a lot. Also Emperor Constantine as resources for current global popular culture. I learned to make the connection in 1998 when I took Appreciation of Music.

  From Britannica DVD:

The year 1804 was to see the completion of the Third Symphony, regarded by most biographers as a landmark in Beethoven's development. It is the answer to the “Heiligenstadt Testament”: a symphony on an unprecedented scale and at the same time a prodigious assertion of the human will. The work was to have been dedicated to Napoleon, one of Beethoven's heroes, but Beethoven struck out the dedication on hearing that Napoleon had taken the title of emperor. Outraged in his republican principles, he later substituted the words “for the memory of a great man.”

MLA style: "Beethoven, Ludwig, van."Encyclopædia Britannica. 2006. Encyclopædia Britannica 2006 Ultimate Reference Suite DVD 31 Oct. 2006 . -Macnietspingal, 10/31/06

The Romany

Golbez said "why single out the romany":

The Romany are specifically mentioned because, unlike most of the other victims of the Holocaust (but very like the Jews), they were a distinct people, but not a nationality. Justin Eiler 16:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think the Romany are an ambiguous case, but including them just opens the door to yet another interminable list of every nationality, cultural, religious, political or sexual group victimised by the Nazis. There is also considerable dispute about how systematic Nazi murders of Romany were - partly because the population itself was not clearly documented and partly because some were excluded, though that was mainly the Sinti rather than the Roma. Paul B 16:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I've not heard of any dispute that the persecution of the Romany was systematic--if you have any references, I would appreciate them. To the best of my understanding, I thought the Sinti were a sub-group of the Roma--looking at the Sinti article, it seems to indicate that they are a distinct group, while the Roma people article indicates that the Sinti are a subgroup. Any clarification on this would be appreciated, even though it's outside the scope of the Adolph Hitler article. Justin Eiler 17:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Günther Lewy's 2000 book The Nazi Persecution of the Gypsies discusses the sbject in great detail. He concludes that "however much the gypsies were persecuted there was no general programme of extermination analagous to the Final Solution for the Jews". On p.102 Lewy discusses the racial categories into which a 1936 document divided gypsy poplations:
Members of the following tribes were to be regarded as foreign gypsies: "Rom" from Hungary ("who share certain racial characteristics with Jews"), Gelderari, Lowari, Lalleri, and certain clans from the Balkans...Members of the Sinti tribe were Germans.
By 1942 there were debates about which gypsies should be sent to Auschwitz, bound up with the notion of "Aryan" as opposed to "degenerate" tendencies within the population. Even in 1943 it was argued in a report from Bormann's office that "new research has shown that among the gypsies there are racially valuable elements". (p.141). A list of gypsies who were exempt from deportation was prepared in December 1942. This included "racially pure Sinti and Lallieri Gypsies" and nine other categories, which included any gypsies who had jobs, were married to Germans, had served in the military, and various other specific reasons. In other words, as long as gypsies did not have a stereotypically "gypsy-like" itinerant lifestyle, then they were OK. This is very different from the treatment of Jews, who were doomed purely by virtue of being Jewish, no matter what jobs they had or who they were married to. Paul B 23:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. In light of this, I certainly withdraw my objections to removing the phrase Golbez removed. :) Justin Eiler 23:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Middle name?

Well? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.80.107.170 (talkcontribs) .

I've never seen any sources that indicate he has one. Justin Eiler 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's personal standard

Hi, I've just added merge tags to Personal standard for Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler's personal standard and Führerstandarte. The first two are almost identical, the third is a stub. Help from anyone with expertise in the subject is welcomed. Dr pda 23:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea--I'm currently working on it. Justin Eiler 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Merge completed. :) Justin Eiler 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Salience

Currently this article states the following:

Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are, by virtually universal consensus, condemnatory.

In an encyclopedia that takes great pains to not take a particular stance or make judgments, this a pretty bold judgment. It is framed in such a way as to dodge actually making a claim about Hitler being evil, but it makes only token concession to Hitler apologists. For such a high-profile page to have a statement like that must have been the result of a great deal of argument and discussion. But I think think the reason that this statement remains is because it is, indeed, one of the most salient facts about Adolf Hitler—he is universally condemned and synonymous with evil. If you have to teach a child just one thing to know about Adolf Hitler, it's not that he was the leader of Germany during World War II, or that he was the leader of the Nazis. You would say to the child, "Hitler was a bad guy."

If I come upon this article, I should get a brief overview of who this person was and what his significance is from the introductory section. Currently, the introduction doesn't reference the fact that everyone thinks he was evil and is universally condemned. It does list a number of evil things he did, hinting to the reader that he probably wasn't a real nice guy. But why do I have to read 2/3 of the way through a 91 KB article to have the very simple fact pointed out to me? Do we really want to give our readers the impression that we think that Hitler's place in the modern conscious as a universal symbol of evil is only a ancillary aspect of his legacy? I think at least an abbreviated version of this statement should be included in the introduction. Nohat 07:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Since my suggestion drew no reply, I assumed it is uncontroversial and have added a short sentence to the end of the introduction. Nohat 06:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't feel very strongly about it, but according to WP:NPOV#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves we really shouldn't be making moralistic observations about people. Paul B 14:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I definitely considered this, but I think it is important to point out that in fact we aren't making moralistic observations, but are making (nonmoralistic, neutral) observations about most of the world's having made moralistic observations. Nohat 22:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


Explanation of my edit in Sexuality subsection

As the claim that Hitler is homosexual is often repeated by homophobes, those of whom who advance this view rightly should be considered Holocaust revisionists, is pseudo-history, dishonest disinformation, the encyclopedia has no need to even mention it. People like Lothar Machtan and the writers of The Pink Swastika have a hidden agenda against homosexuals, alleging these things about the Nazis not because they hate Nazis but because they hate homosexuals. Ironically, by creating the "gay Nazi" myth, they are repeating the Nazi tactic of portraying Jewry as conspiratorial and evil dangers, except the group being targeted for conspiracy theories is not Jews, but homosexuals. --Revolución hablar ver 11:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, you may not like the theory, but it exists. I think it's pretty dumb too. But we can't assume that it derives from an anti-gay agenda. Contributors here have even accused people who deny the theory of being homophobic! It certainly has nothing to do with "holocaust revisionism". Paul B 12:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I must agree with what Paul wrote. Some proponents of this theory might be homophobes or (something dubbed with that word by others), while other might not. Unless someone clearly voices his views you shouldn't speculate on this. In Machtan's case I think the motive is much more commercial. To make things clear, I think that theory rubbish and don't think it deserves a lot of treatment but under the WP guidelines it deserves a brief mentioning. And it is not en par with holocaust deniers (that have only assumed the mantle of revisionism). Str1977 (smile back) 14:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Hilter's patriotism

While everyone has maligned Hitler, no one has bothered to highlight his patriotism and love for Germany.--Darrendeng 06:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

His love for Germany? What about his stance that if the German people were unfit to rule the world, as he planned, they deserved nothing but annihilation and that he "wouldn't shed a single tear" for it. Str1977 (smile back) 06:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we could mention something in the article on the (uncannily predictive) psychological assessment of Hitler carried out by US experts during World War 2, co-ordinated by Harvard's Henry Murray for the OSS in 1943. [8] This discusses Hitler's attitudes to Germany and various other "loves" and "passions" he had. It's pretty clear that the guy was severely mentally ill and his passion for the "Aryan race" seems to have been almost of a sexual nature - later, when they proved no match for the "inferior Slavs", "mongrel Americans" and "decadent Anglo-Saxons" he turned against them, as Str1977 says above, ordering Speer for example to starve and destroy them. Hell hath no fury? MarkThomas 08:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Mark, we can use that study, but with care, as it was not only a study done by Hitler's enemy but also one done without any contact with him. I also must take exception to the statement that Hitler was "severely mentally ill" -he was not. His philosophy and attitude was deranged and perverse, no doubt about that (though we cannot say that in an WP article) but medically, his mind was perfectly well. It's an unfortunate tendency in modern times to declare the big criminals mad. Str1977 (smile back) 09:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I would never put the mentally ill assertion into an article about Hitler as it's unproven. Whilst it's accurate that the Murray study did not have Hitler on the couch in person, they did however conduct lengthy interviews with a surprisingly large number of people who knew Hitler in childhood and young adulthood and who one way or another had come into territories controlled by the Allies. So it wasn't conducted in a total knowledge vacuum. MarkThomas 09:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Machiavelli

How come there is no mentioning of Hitler's reading preferences, particulary Machiavelli. 84.72.80.179 12:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Semantics & Syntax

Entente or Allies

I have twice now had to change a reference to the Treaty of Versailles being imposed by the 'Entente.' It was not for the simple reason that the Entente-which strictly speaking refers to the Triple Entente between Britain, France and Russia of 1907-ceased to exist with the Russian revolution. The correct term used by the victors was the 'Allied and Associate Powers', the US being the 'associate' because Wilson did not want to be linked to treaties concluded prior to American entry to the war. It may be a small point, but in terms of simple historical accuracy the use of Entente is wrong. White Guard 22:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, the Entente cordiale was the alliance between the UK and France. Russia was not a constitutive factor to it. The term Entente was commonly used in Germany to denote the victorius Alliance. And Allies to me sounds too World-War-Two-ish to me. A possible alternative would be victors. Str1977 (smile back) 22:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit conflict)

No, White Guard, as I explained above, the term is not wrong. Str1977 (smile back) 22:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Allies is not wrong, and "Allied and Associate Powers" was, indeed, the term officially used. I don't like using "Entente" to include powers that were never in the Entente like the United States and Italy. john k 22:36, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
I am certainly open to alternatives, but to simply put Allies all the time is not to my liking, especially given that the mere word still has a general meaning. Str1977 (smile back) 22:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

John K is right; it is quite simply wrong to refer to the victors of 1918 as the Entente-properly speaking they were the 'Allies and Associate Powers', which was the expression used at the time. By 1914 the term Entente would not refer to the Entente Cordiale of 1904 but the Triple Entente of 1907. I chose 'Allies' or 'Western Allies' as the more neutral term. I will accept the rather imprecise 'Victors' if this is going to become an issue; but I stress, once again, the use of Entente in 1919 is wrong, and that I will not accept. White Guard 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

WHite Guard, John didn't say that Entente is "simply wrong" - it is not simply wrong, though other terms might be better. The term was used in Germany at least until the 1930s. "Allies" I oppose because of its potential to be misread. "Allies and Associate Powers" is too long for our purpose. "Neutrality" is no issue here at all. Str1977 (smile back) 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical accuracy is. White Guard 22:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

No doubt about that ... and clarity as well. Str1977 (smile back) 23:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. White Guard 23:07, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just "the victors" or something like that? john k 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

That would suit me fine. Guard? Str1977 (smile back) 08:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of peace, OK White Guard 00:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Authoritarian vs totalitarian rule

I don't know where to put this, so I'll try here. I have studied political science, and when I read the article about Adolf Hitler I came upon something that in my view is wrong. In the text Hitler came to power and established an "authoritarian regime". That word "autoritarian" is generally considered a "milder" form of non-democratic rule where the regime does not try to transform society or the people living in it, but merely wants to rule it/them. A "totalitarian" regime on the other hand, tries to change the whole society and the way people think from the very core. The totalitarian regime is naturally often more brutal. The two "big" totalitarian regimes in history is considered to be nazi-germany and soviet union. Should I change the text into something more approriate with the word "totalitarian" included in order to make it more correct? --Mailerdaemon 16:31, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point... Yeah, I'd say, go ahead and change it (perhaps with an appropriate reference or wikilink). --Frescard 17:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right to define Nazi Germany as 'totalitarian' rather than 'authoritarian'. I would add a word of caution, though: the Platonic models of political science are rarely, if ever, found in their pure forms. There were immense differences in both theory and practice between Stalin's Russia and Hitler's Germany. As I have said elsewhere, Germany under Hitler was such a jungle of mutually competing interests that it fell well short of the totalitarian ideal. In practice, while having to pay lip service to the state, most Germans managed to live a 'sub-political' life, if it may be so expressed. White Guard 23:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hallo guys, the "authoritarian" bit was the outcome of a conflict in which we couldn't agree on whether the regime was "totalitarian" (as I proposed but which some objected to because of their rejection of the "totalitarian paradigm") or "fascist" (as others proposed but to which I objected because of fascist being to mild and also misused in Bolshevik propaganda). I was never happy with the "authoritarian" as it also too mild IMHO. What do you propose?
Guard, I have stated this before, but I will repeat it here: whether a regime is totalitarian doesn't hinge on whether it succeeded in implementing its objectives. The niches within Third Reich society did not exist because of the regime's choice but because they still existed. In time, these would very well have disappeared, but the regime lasted, thank God, only twelve years and not thousand. Str1977 (smile back) 23:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are right, of course, we have no idea how Nazi Germany would have developed if it had been given time, but you seem to be assuming one set of outcomes-an ever more extreme and intrusive Gleichschaltung. But what if it had gone the other way? What if Hitler had died and been succeeded by Goering? Would it not be possible that the Nazi state could have evolved along more 'relaxed' Fascist lines, on the Spanish or Italian model? But just imagine-if you can-living through the hysteria of the Yezovchina, possibly the closest any society came to true totalitarianism before Mao and Pol Pot. Nazi Germany may very well have had the aim; but it still fell well short of the practice. White Guard 23:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Guard, sorry but I just realize that I didn't include the second part of my thougt. My point was that the totalitarian nature of a regime does not hinge on the success of implementing it but on the regime's aim. And IMHO we can savely say that the Nazis had totalitarian aims. So, no I am not assuming a certain outcome and maybe, if someone liking Göring would have taken over, things might very well have resorted to something like "normal fascism". But "alternative history" is not within our department here. Str1977 (smile back) 23:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Again you are right; but Hitler was not immortal and you yourself opened up the possibility of alternative futures in your point about how long the regime lasted, or may have lasted. Forgive the polemic but the Nazis came nowhere near the sheer terror of the Yezovchina, always, of course, setting aside their approach to the Jewish question. White Guard 23:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Guard, let me reiterate that it is the aim and not the success that makes a regime totalitarian. (See the dedinition given below by Mailerdaemon.)
You cite the Yezovchina but I guess even in Soviet Russia there were far out spots that were not reached. That these were larger in the Third Reich does not change the fact that both were totalitarian regimes.
The Jewish question has no bearing on our issue here.
"Alternative history" is an interesting past time but not a field of serious study. Str1977 (smile back) 08:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought this matter was closed. Anyway, I am not objecting to the use of the word 'totalitarian' in relation to Nazi Germany (please note my comment at the outset) merely introducing a caveat over the pure use of the term. There were different degrees of totalitarianism, and I mentioned the Yezovchina as a case where all sections of society were touched to some degree or other, in a far more complete sense than the Nazis ever achieved; apart, that is, from the Jewish question, which is indeed relevant to the Nazi political practice. Once again, I emphasise that it was not me who conjured up the spirit of alternative history. I do not wish to have the last word on this matter; but I will always seek to clarify my intellectual position where I feel it has been misunderstood. White Guard 00:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify one thing: of course "the Jewish question ... is indeed relevant to the Nazi political practice", even central IMHO. However, I don't think it is of any special importance regarding the issue of Totalitarianism. There has been organized genocide in non-totalitarian regimes as well. Str1977 (smile back) 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Even if the thought of what could have happened is interesting - I don't think it is necessary to discuss it here. I agree with previous speaker that using the term "totalitarian" is problematic. I do however however still think it is better than simply "authoritarian". I have a fitting definition of totalitarian rule from the book "Comparative Government and Politics" by Hague & Harrop: "A totalitarian regime aims for total penetration of society in an attempt, at least in theory, to transform it. As defined by Linz(2000, p.4), a totalitarian system is ´a regime form for completely organizing political life and society´." For authoritarian rule I find two definitions: "(1) Any form of non-democratic rule.(2) Those non-democratic regimes which, unlike totalitarian states,do not seek to transform society and the people in it" There is discussion around the term "authoritarian" within the field of political science, but this does not mean that the term is not useful or even obsolete. The term "totalitarian" is featured in modern political science litterature including updated course litterature in universities. Personally I think this term has explanatory power and that we should make the change. --Mailerdaemon 00:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

This is one of those matters that people tend to fight about, but I favor the term totalitarian, since that was the goal, even if it was not reached. As a Nazi speaker put it in 1938: "The worldview of National Socialism, having conquered the entire nation, now begins to place its stamp on every area of life.... [The goal is] the transformation of every aspect of our life, down to the smallest detail." Bytwerk 01:43, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

So what is the voice of the collective? Shall we change this into "totalitarian" or leave it the way it is now? It feels like the discussion died out before we could reach a decision. Maybe many feel that this is unimportant, I don't know. We could just leave it the way it is I guess. --Mailerdaemon 09:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I was one of those editors involved in the edit conflict that resulted in the compromise of "authoritarian." No one was quite happy with it as the term, while accurate, can apply to other less brutal and less severe forms of tyrannical governments, and the Nazi's are at the extreme of the authoritarian spectrum to be sure. However, as much as the word totalitarian cures this, it brings in a worse problem in my opinion---the legitimizing of the theory and concept of totalitarianism itself, which is disputed organic theory of the state at best, and one that is discredited at worse. In any case it’s a loaded theory that carries its own ideological baggage, which should not be used without sufficiently problematizing it, in my opinion. I personally recommended something like "fascist regime. " The conflict about this is that while I ascribe to a larger theory of fascism that does encompass Nazism as a variant of fascism, others do not. This, btw, is the dominant consensus view among academics who study the issue but a minority view reserves the designation to Mussolini's Italy. How about simply stating "established a dictatorship?" Or I'd favor "right-wing dictatorship."Giovanni33 09:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It was and it remains a knotty problem. I would advise against anything containing "left" or "right". While it is clear that Hitler was on the right of the political spectrum of his time, such labels IMHO are much too unclear to anyone not familiar. Hence those American voices popping up every now and then, declaring Hitler a leftist. That makes sense in their political thinking, equating collectivism with the left and individualism with the right, but imports this thinking into another time and another country. I would prefer descriptive labels.
I know I have rejected this before, but what about simply naming both, as in "a fascist or totalitarian regime"? Str1977 (smile back) 11:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
If others are fine with that, I'm ok with it. But, instead of saying, "or" which implies one may not know, perhaps it could be worded like, "an authoritiarian regime that has been described as fascist, and totalitarian?" This way we report these two descriptions of this authoritarian dictatorship, which solves the issue of leaving it in the soft "authoritarian regime," wording, as well as the problem of giving one label the sanction of the voice of WP.Giovanni33 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd prefer a simpler wording. Str1977 (smile back) 11:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Str1977 on this. Gio is not entirely accurate in his discussion of totaliarianism. There is not a scholarly consensus against the term, and many find it useful. Do an amazon search. There are over 29,000 books that show up. There are numerous scholarly articles on the point as well. I've even written some of them. And "authoritarian" is also a loaded term. So Gio's phrasing privileges one view, whereas Str1977's simply notes the options. I'll make the change and see if it takes. Bytwerk 13:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You misunderstand. The academic consensus of which I speak referes to Nazism being a varient of fascism. There is no conensus on totalitarianism, but it is much more loaded than authoritarianism. If you say that they are equally problematic in this way (A and T), then I must disagree. The T concept, unlike A, is a disputed theory among politial scientists notwithsanding the number of books that you find on the topic. Its this dispute that Wikipedia should not take sides on.Giovanni33 21:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm in complete agreement with the above, though for the sake of historical simplicity I think it best to define the Third Reich as 'totalitarian' in contrast with the 'authoritarian' Kaiserreich. However, if this continues to be a problem I would favour "established a dictatorship." White Guard 23:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently Bytwerk changed it to "established a dictatorial regime.' That is fine with me. Just to show that I am not alone among editors here who discussed this question with a view that is identical to my stance, I went into the archives to pull out the below, from John K.:
"Authoritarian may be weak, but it is a term which everyone agrees is appropriate. Totalitarianism is a term whose validity is disputed. Wikipedia's editorial voice shouldn't be using terms whose very validity is disputed as though they are unproblematic."john k 14:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
"On the other hand, the alternate word preferred, "totalitarianism," is a highly controversial term. Most historians of Nazi Germany and most historians of Stalin's Soviet Union tend to avoid the term, which is generally seen to a) obscure the very major differences between Stalin's regime and Hitler's; and b) to be a highly politically loaded term, as it is frequently seen as a term used primarily by the right as part of an effort to identify Nazism with Communism. There is no way that the intro should use the term "totalitarianism." john k 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"
Giovanni33 02:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I still prefer to include both terms side by side, maybe with a footnote noting the dispute (not explaining it, that belongs into the respective articles). I don't think it accurate that T is disputed while F is consensus. The controversy about the T word is more about the overriding value of the T-theory than about the actual description of the Nazi regime. Str1977 (smile back) 11:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
I have just noticed that Gio has introduced the name both wording into one passage of the article. However, I think the usage there is not appropriate, as the passage is conderned with the legality strategy and not with the issue of how to classify that envisioned regime. Also, by making big explanations here, the reader may come to the conclusion that Röhm and others disagreed with the aim, a fascist or totalitarian regime, rather then with the method of getting there. At least, I came under that impression, which of course I immediately knew to be wrong. Therefore I have cut this passage down to "Nazi dictatorship" (which should be uncontroversial) and moved the T & F bit up to the intro. Hope you don't mind. Str1977 (smile back) 11:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about we settle for "brutal dictatorship" then? I know this term sounds like being more of a journalistic term than something from political science. This does not however mean it's not a working compromise for us in this case since we can't settle for T or A. What do you think about "brutal dictatorship"? --Mailerdaemon 14:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't understand why there is a discussion about whether or not "totalitarism" applies to Nazi Germany.
Every definition I've seen defines it as something along the lines of an "autocratic government in which the state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population."
The main criteria being that the state's influence doesn't restrict itself to just the "big issues", but that it gets involved in all aspects of personal life as well (e.g. schooling & raising kids, replacing religion, culture, etc.).
If that doesn't match the Third Reich to the point, then I don't know what does.
There may be historians to debate how far in particular this totalitarism reached into the private lifes of people, but that Nazism tried (and mostly succeeded) to control every aspect of live, I think that's undebatable.
And, just in case someone needs them, here are a few references: [9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15]
--Frescard 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with you Frescard. I agree that "Totalitarian" IS a good term to be used here, but there are apparently those who really feel that it would be impossible to use that word.

The underlying problem I see in this discussion is a "problem" with the discipline of political science itself. This science is not "exact" like natural science, there are no "absolutes", everything is relative and more importantly - all theories in political science are debated fiercely within the discipline. It's very little, if anything, that the political scientists can actually agree on. The way I see it there are no theories or terms used in political science that are "consensus". Because of this, a word like "totalitarian" might seem inappropriate since some scientists oppose it and of course publish articles about their critiscism. If we are to use a "political science" word in this article - it should be "totalitarian" and not "authoritarian". These two words are featured and explained in the student litterature for basic political science courses and other litterature in the university. However, if we don't think "totalitarian" is good, then we must choose a "non political science word" like "brutal dictatorship" or something similar. This way we could reach a good compromise since "authoritarian" is clearly misleading. --Mailerdaemon 18:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, some comments:
Consensus might be a bit harder in political science than in the natural sciences, but in essence they are not that different.
There are words on which political scientist agree, but some on which they cannot reach an agreement. However, in our case it boils down to these two terms and I think (by now) that we can use both in this instance.
"Brutal" however is not only journalistic but stylistically bad and maybe even a bit POV (thoug I agree with that POV). Str1977 (smile back) 19:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with your POV-remark and "brutal" is probably stylistically bad. --Mailerdaemon 20:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Bad? It's awful; please don't go there. White Guard 01:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, English is not my first language so the weight of words is not my strong side.--Mailerdaemon 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you call it "charismatic"?

Hello, Str1977. Actually, no. A person can be described as charismatic-Christ like-but I think its stretching a point too far to describe what he says or, even worse, his propaganda in such terms. It's a small point of intellectual precision, and I really do want to have to split hairs on the matter; but, as ever, say what you mean and mean what you say! White Guard 22:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

White Guard, this section began with my post of a rearrangement of the paragraph. What do you think - yes or no? Please cast your vote. As for this point, the charisma issue was addressed at length a long time ago, but not the use of charismatic in this way. My view is that charisma is a capacity that can attach to words as much to the person who utters the words - but the best way to settle the argument is by reference to the OED proper: look it up and see if charismatic can be used in this way. Onus on you.
To Str1977: bugging, rather than buggering - one is more painful than the other (so they say).--Shtove 23:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I guess it depends where you put the bug. Paul B 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I separate this from the rest, as this is serius discussion while above is merely trolling.
Guard, a person can be described as charismatic (which I wouldn't equate with Christ-like) but also the way he speaks. Not what he says or his message but the way he speaks. Str1977 (smile back) 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello again, Str 1977. I did in fact leave a response to this issue, but it has been edited out for some reason. Anyway, let me repeat my point: I do not wish to split hairs on the matter, or to go round in endless circles, so I accept things as they stand. White Guard 22:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Guard. Str1977 (smile back) 09:53, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is there no section on Hitler's charisma? Maybe it wasn't important? Or am I to assume he wasn't charismatic and he manged to unite the entire country of Germany behind him by speaking like a dork and alienating germans with his poor social skills? Maybe he used just willed himself into his position as "leader of Germany". Oh wait I was wrong there's half a sentence about it in the beginning. Math is not my best subject but I believe that means that according to this article his charisma was of .01% to his life. If Satan isn't too evil to be documented as being charismatic then surely we can do Hitler too? I'm writing a damn paper on his communication techniques and you offer me nothing. Nothing! Heads will roll for this!66.118.233.213 01:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Prisoner 66.118.233.213 might want to tone down the sarcasm, but he does make a fair point: this is an article about the man, and charisma was key to his identity and success. There is so much written about his personal weaknesses (sex rears its ugly head), but this strength of his is not dealt with in the round.--Shtove 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that sex was ugly. And we have no reliable evidence that "sex" as such was involved in any of his "personal weaknesses" - anyway the problem with Hitler is his strengths not his weaknesses. Again, there's no reason why there should not be a discussion of his oratorial style, but discussing "charisma" as such is rather difficult to do. It tends to escape analysis. As always we have to be mindful of length. If anyone wants to create an article on his oratorical methods and personality cult, I'm sure it will be considered to be a legit subject. Paul B 16:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Meaning of word "genocide"

The introductory passage now contains the sentence:

By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews as well as members of other groups including Jehovah's Witnesses, Communists, dissidents, members of trade unions and others that composed the other 5 million dead, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

I wonder if this is correctly worded. Usually genocide means national, ethnic or racial murder. The mass murder of JWs, Marxists, dissidents, social democrats, homosexual people, trade unionists, etc, whilst it did happen was not really genocide semantically, more a sort of political/ideological murder campaign. Also of course the figures quoted are endlessly debated and should not be conveyed as exactly precise, and finally this list does not really give the largest "murdered groups". Can I propose we reword as follows?

By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the mass murder of at least 11 million people, including the deliberate genocide of about six million Jews, as well as the members of other groups including Romany people, Russian soldiers and civilians, Polish people, Communists, Jehovah's Witnesses, Social Democrats, members of trade unions, homosexuals and others that composed the other 5 million dead, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

Comments? Thanks. MarkThomas 08:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's much more appropriate. Paul B 09:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't think the former wording was problematic but I don't mind distinguishing between the more general "mass murder" and the more specific "genocide". However, what about the "members of other groups" mentioned here? Are they supposed to be part of the "genocide" (fitting for Romany, Russians, Poles) or are they "merely mass murder" for a variety of reason (fitting for Communists, JWs, Social Democrats, trade unionists, homosexuals)?
One more item I just spotted: "members of trade unions" seem a bit general to me - no one was murdered for merely being a member.
User:Str1977 09:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't want to get into another interminable debate about whether we can meaningfully speak of a "genocide" of, say, homosexuals. I think the the term is deeply misleading in that particular case, but suffice it so say that there is no scholarly consensus on this. The Nazis were very brutal towards the Poles, but it is very difficult to clearly separate out war-dead from other victims, or to be clear whether we can speak of an attempted "genocide" of Poles. So I think we need to err on the side of caution in wording. Paul B 12:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we are not talking about war-dead but about those rounded up, detained and killed by the Nazi occupation of Poland. It was not genocide in the sense that all Poles were simply killed but the Nazis did aim at annihilating the elite, the intelligentsia of the Polish nation (military, academics, clergy, journalists etc.) - so in a way the Nazis wanted to kill of the Poles as a nation. And this is BTW the reply to 217's unqualified posting: most of these were not Jews or Communists. Str1977 (smile back) 07:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not that easy to separate war-dead from murder in the case of Poland, where there was mass citizen participation in, for example, the Warsaw Uprising. Killing of alleged partizans or of citizens supposed to have participated in an uprising have occured throughout history. Paul B 15:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
In some cases, like the one you mentioned, you are correct. But other cases are quite clearly not war-dead. Those rounded up after Poland's military defeat are certainly not war-dead. Str1977 (smile back) 16:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't make it too complicated. For example most of the Poles who have been killed where probably also Jews and/or communists.--217.85.75.63 12:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Most of the Poles killed were not Jews or Communists, otherwise we wouldn't mention the Polish victims. Str1977 (smile back) 12:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
What excactly are you talking about?--217.85.79.167 13:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Please ignore these unsigned trolls, which are of course nonsense - millions of both Jewish and non-Jewish Poles were killed by the Nazis, some socialists and some not. Thank you for all your comments above, very sensible inter-editorial chat! I do very much agree Paul Barlow about the need for caution and was trying to be both cautious and accurate without stirring up the usual hornets. However, I do think there is a case for counting in especially Russians, Poles and Romany people as part of "genocide" since Nazi statements were made by Hitler and others that these "subhumans" needed removing, and there was of course the SS plan to empty Poland and Russia of people. The extermination of the Slavs would surely have followed that of the Jews if Russia and the Allies had not inconveniently won the war. Any other (sensible) comments? I move that we do change it, final form to be agreed by discussion. Thanks. MarkThomas 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"millions of both Jewish and non-Jewish Poles were killed by the Nazis, some socialists and some not" Where did the communists go?

"and there was of course the SS plan to empty Poland and Russia of people." There were a lot of plans in history, but we're not talking about plans here, but about actions that were actually done.--DerMueller 13:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Troll from totally new user evidently created just for this argument! I'm flattered! Anyway, I am of course not saying it was only socialists that were killed in Poland and that communists were not killed. I also of course aware that they were plans. However, a great many people were killed deliberately as part of these plans in for example the General Government and in Russia, both through scorched earth policies and through the deliberate mass-killing of Polish and Russian civilians amounting to genocide. MarkThomas 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You don't get the point. The point is: Why were they killed, were they killed because they were Jews, communists, socialists, partisans etc. or because they were Poles? It is my understanding that most of the Poles that have been killed were killed because they were seen to fit into one or several of the first four groups I mentioned.--DerMueller 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the Nazis organised killings of Polish civilians en-masse, for example, when they razed Warsaw. However, I agree that there would be doubt that their genocidal policies towards the Slavic nations had been commenced in practice before the war ended, as I stated above. MarkThomas 18:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have now tried a fresh edit which attempts to take the above views into account and also to clarify what is essentially an incorrectly formulated opener at the moment on this topic. I also auto-reverted a slash-and-burn approach by one user previously - please read and think before editing this key topic which is of huge significance to millions and should not be edited on a whim! Thanks. MarkThomas 20:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Slash and burn, that's cute. There's an edit summary box, use it. --Golbez 20:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Annotated Bibliography"

The page claims to link to an annotated bibliography, but in fact the "list of Hitler books" isn't annotated. Such annotations would be quite helpful, but in the meantime, shouldn't the ref be changed to just "bibliography"? --Andersonblog 01:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Religion

I removed the following sentences that succeeded the statement that Hitler was never excommunicated.

"This is significant when one reads claims that he persecuted Catholics, as well as Jews. If he had done so, he would have been excommunicated, and the entire nation could have been placed under interdict. This never happened."

The reasons why I removed is because

1. this section needs to be a summary of Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs and it is not
2. It is weasely unattributed opinion
3. erroneous, because the Einsatzgruppen did persecute Catholic clergy during the Invasion of Poland See e.g. here http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/PEOPLE/USHMMPOL.HTM not a perfectly reputable source but still. The einsatzgruppen were not personally managed by Hitler but they were quite close to the top of the hierarchy (i.e. Hitler)

Andries 21:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC) amended 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)