Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 45 Archive 49 Archive 50 Archive 51 Archive 52 Archive 53 Archive 55


Just write what the sources say

A recent study of the genes of 39 relatives of Hitler published in the Belgian magazine Knack found a high prevalence of Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA), which is rarely found in Western Europeans, but commonly found in the Berbers of Morocco, in Algeria, Libya and Tunisia as well as among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

This attempt to veto the news reports should not stand. The genetic information is not very complete or certain, but many sources chose to publish it, and that's all we need to know. This is a well established variety of genetic testing.

Though it should be irrelevant: regarding Berbers, Somalis, Jews, and Khazars, I am persuaded by Tacitus that the Jews originated in Ethiopia, prior to their labors in building the ancient Suez Canal and related tasks, and subsequent labor unrest under the eighteenth dynasty of Egypt; a relationship confirmed and extended through diplomatic relations with the famous Queen of Sheba. Thus it does not surprise me that the marker should be in both populations.

Some will say that the Israeli press (or the English press, or the American press, or the Russian press) is biased against Hitler. Boo hoo. Some will say that a method of studying Hitler's genotype was unethical. Boo hoo. Cue the violins. Does Wikipedia censor out the photographs from the Holocaust, the stories of Mengele's little lab investigations? Hitler's going to get what he has coming to him. Wnt (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, we do not post misinformation and speculation. The tests indicate nothing, hence nothing has been added. It is twice said that journalists are not geneticists and that their proclamations of Jewish ancestry are not in line with the results. Ah yes, "Hitler's going to get what he has coming to him." is exactly the kind of POV we are trying to avoid. Your feelings on Hitler's morality (or lack thereof) are no reason to post this information. As I see it, no genetic information is posted on most biographies of political leaders, thus no precedent exists for it to be done here. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 15:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You mean like the speculation about Alois' ancestry? All history is speculative. Now as for which leaders have genetic information posted about them, no doubt it depends on the leader. I wonder why Knack decided to test Hitler as opposed to, say, Ronald Reagan? But it's up to the sources to decide what to research - Wikipedia just seeks to cover it. (see also WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST) Wnt (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If a source says Hitler was a woman, that would not be posted. Neither will this, so long as we cannot agree to do so. Will you people stop defying consensus? You MAY NOT post the information until the discussion is over. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 15:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok i dont think this should be here until the whole profile is released...this could represent only 1 perecent of DNA found and thus would be irrelevant...This references our not from medical publications or journals...This type of reference is not the norm in the genetic community.....We need to see the whole profile to have this conclusion as the effects of a Population bottleneck, Genetic drift and founder effect caused this results .. Moxy (talk) 15:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Note: Editor Wnt was observed recently exhorting fellow editors to "just grab up the sources and toss them in the article like you were harvesting potatoes, and the truth will out". Seen from the viewpoint of writing an encyclopedia, such a stance is preposterous. I have to say, though, in the world of WP editor Wnt is right: official WP policy is to put "verifiability before truth". I won't be participating in this debate anymore but will check back in next week to see how this played out.-- (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your cooperation. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I am one of many to add this information. There is no "consensus" to delete it. There is no argument to delete it aside from WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I understand it is not definitive information; it doesn't matter. It's what's known. The reader who comes to this page curious whether "Hitler was a Jew" or not should see all the top arguments available for or against the position. All you are doing is censoring a page by reversion. I understand --- this works --- but hopefully this humiliation will force Wikipedia to end this abuse. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Edits from self proclaimed experts... Ok a better understanding of genetics in needed here (Introduction to genetics)... As stated by the news reports this test were done to 39 "believed" related people...So we have 39 people tested.. I have no dough that many many Haplogroups will be found among this many people.. No DNA from Hitler has been identified, but yet this off field results simply conclude that he must have Haplogroups from all 39 related people...This is not how genetics work...10 - 15 of this people could have this Haplogroup , this does not mean that Hitler stated in the references. Just think about it ....if we were to test your cousins and they show lots of Haplogroup Q1a3a..this does not mean you have it to. Before this kind of info is added we must see real evidence in a real medical publication lake -->[1] Moxy (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
NO consensus to add it. Please stop this edit warring. The info. being put forth to add is poorly sourced and not complete. Here you had surmise, at best, on a matter where the physical evidence is not totally clear (and even then can be interpreted differently). It doesn't meet WP:VERIFY. Kierzek (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I support the inclusion of this relevant and well sourced information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalists are not geneticists?

Why do I keep hearing people say that journalists are not geneticists? Does anyone seriously believe that the journalists performed the genetics analysis themselves? Most likely, they hired a genetics lab to perform the analysis and then reported on the results. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The alleged connotations of Jewish ancestry are idle speculation on the part of the journalists. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 18:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
What I find unfortunate is not the opposition to the addition to this content, it's the (some of) poor reasoning for its exclusion. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If you have something to add to the debate, then add it. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 21:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
If I understand this correctly, this is a piece of research which was reported in numerous newspapers, but has yet to be vetted by the scientific community. As this is a scientific study, the guidelines for sciences should apply. From Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine:

Articles in newspapers and popular magazines generally lack the context to judge experimental results. They may emphasize the most extreme possible outcomes mentioned in a research project and gloss over caveats and uncertainties, for instance presenting a new experimental medicine as the "discovery of the cure" of a disease. Also, newspapers and magazines sometimes publish articles about scientific results before those results have been peer-reviewed or reproduced by other experimenters. They also tend not to report details of the methodology that was used, or the degree of experimental error. Thus, popular newspaper and magazine sources are generally not the best sources for scientific and medical results, especially in comparison to the academic literature.

Until it is published in a peer reviewed journal, such research should not be included. Quasihuman (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Yep, and another one. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no policy about using peer reviewed sources. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

These journalists are blowing this out of proportion for propaganda reasons, and is spreading ignorance about haplogroups. A haplogroup does not determine one's ancestry, but one's unbroken lineage. Think of it as a surname. All this means is that Hitler has an unbroken lineage that is Haplogroup E1b1b. He could have 1/64 or 1/128 ancestors that were E1b1b or 1 out of a billion(hypothetically), as long as it was an unbroken lineage of males. Furthermore, the spread of E1b1b sub-clade in Europe (we don't know what sub-clade Hitler is, but most likely, it's the European one) is associated with the ancient Greeks and is mostly concentrated in ancient Greece/Albania as well as Southern Europe, where Greeks colonized it. It's found significantly in Austria, Romania and Wales, places colonized by the ancient Romans. Thus, it's safe to say that Hitler is most likely a descendant of ancient Greeks/Romans, and not Somalis, Berbers or Jews. Though, the Ashkenazi or Sephardic Jew may be likely because of Jews converting to Christianity, but that is impossible to tell. Of course, there's no true way of knowing, and this is a deliberate misinterpretation of facts to spread propaganda and I am surprised the genetic or haplogroup communities haven't spoken out against this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The information is sourced from several reliable sources, its not up to us to speculate about the DNA tests. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You have it backwards its the journalists who are speculating. Moxy (talk) 21:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
You have it double backwards its you speculating about who is speculating as well as speculating about the DNA tests.

cheers, Jamie —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

speculating?? pls just show us the results/methods used/clinical study ... not just the commentary from a journalists who say its a "suggestion" Moxy (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Whether the journalists are speculating or not, newspapers and popular magazines are generally not considered reliable sources for scientific and technical matters. Quasihuman (talk) 11:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
All edit-warring aside, has anyone found the details of this study? I found a rather briefly worded teaser in Knack which gives approximate details, but I'd like to see more e.g. a pedigree of the relevant genes, which and how many SNPs were tested, who did the testing and analysis etc. Right now the story actually seems to be less that Hitler had E1b1b than that Knack said Hitler had E1b1b, and that's frustrating. Wnt (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hitler’s Bunker by Lehmann/Carroll

Hitler’s Bunker by Lehmann/Carroll ISBN 1592285783 from 2004 (post Kershaw).

This was posted on, and refers to, the discussion on Death of Adolf Hitler. I repeated it here in case this book interests anyone else.

This book is soft on sources, but is probably good as fluff. The author was a sixteen year old wounded Hitler Youth who ended up as Axmann’s courier in the final days. He appears to be real, Adolf pinched his cheek, the secretaries knew him, he was there. He appears to have been in the breakout, survived, and got reflective and religious in later life. However, he did keep in touch with his former boss, hard-core until death Axmann.

The problem with sourcing is that his memoirs were translated and expanded into a bunker story. Very mainstream, nothing disputed, but it is very hard to tell where the kid’s first person becomes the unsourced third person. Example: the kid asks Kempka for gas, and is almost used as a courier for von Below. The bunker story continues, but the kid is next seen after the fire has started, when Axmann tells him what happened, and shows him the grave. The kid was apparently somewhere in the bunker, but is totally unaware of the suicides when they happen. His only original info is a vague description of the grave, that appears to be his only real contribution to the death.

I have NOT read this entire book, my focus is the afternoon of the 30th. The kid appears to be in the breakout, I may go there later, and the kid may be valuable. As to the rest of the book, if you want to read what probably happened, this may be a good read. Possibly “Further Reading”. But if you are trying to prove anything, there will be very little help here.

This is posted as an individual P.O.V., no reply needed.Wm5200 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Hitler Book by Eberle/Uhl

The Hitler Book by Eberle/Uhl ISBN1586483668 from 2005, post Kershaw.

According to the foreword, Stalin was interested in Hitler and had the NKVD prepare a report for his information. Stalin may have read the report, then put it away. Uhl found it and edited it with Eberle, then it was translated into English as this book.

If this is generally accurate, and stands up under peer review, it is pure GOLD. A Soviet perspective?! I suspect it is good, but it is beyond my world to analyze it. I did pick Joachimsthaler out of the rabble, though.

I posted this relating to Death of Hitler. In that subject the Editor’s Afterword sources may be weak in this area only. The other text I read sounded good, maybe some bias, but generally mainstream and accepted.

I do believe that this may be a great book about Hitler. Anyone serious will watch for bias and sources anyway.

This is posted as an individual P.O.V., no reply needed.Wm5200 (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Timingila, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the page about Adolph Hitler, I believe there's a typo in the phrase "assuming the rank, role and tile of the Oberster Befehlshaber der Wehrmacht". It makes more sense as "rank, role and title".

Timingila (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Salvio Let's talk 'bout it! 18:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

from france

hello is there anybody understanding well french 'cause I've written an article

hitler's letter,category:antisemitism which is very problematic .everybody wants to suppress it.I don't know why! I think this letter is a very important document to understand the ideologic view of hitler about Jews.thanks for your advice

Littlejazzman (talk 10 septembre 2010 3:38 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT#OR, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Find another publisher. Binksternet (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Location of "holocaust" section; appears to make chronology of the article a bit jumpy...

I'm rather reluctant to get involved in such scary waters but I thought I should say that the location of the holocaust section in the article seems a bit odd to me.

The article follows Hitler to just prior to the war. Then we get the holocaust section. And after that we get WWII, the start of which takes us back to 1938. Would it be better to have the holocaust somewhere within the WWII section a bit after some of the war has been covered? It appears to make the chronology jump a bit set up the way it is. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)


I suggest that this edit be reverted. Mentioning the favorable comments about Hitler made by Anwar El Sadat and others is giving undue weight to an extreme minority view - I doubt very much that their opinions have significantly influenced the overall view of Hitler. Why Friedrich Meinecke is mentioned in the paragraph that Kierzek readded, I'm really not sure - he seems to be saying something quite different from the others, and it seems misleading to lump his views together with the ravings by Sadat et al. UserVOBO (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Sparta and Eugenics

The information on Sparta and Eugenics does not fit into the development of the economy during hitler's stead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's DNA

This article says that Hitlers most dominant haplogroup is E1b1b and his second most dominant haplogroup is common in Ashkenazi Jews:[2] This should be added to the article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider that to be anti-Nazi propaganda. The same thing is done to Hitler's sexuality. Furthermore, Hitler's assertion that the Jews are a race, not a religion, is always refuted. This new "evidence" suggests that he was correct, undermining the legitimacy of the claim. In other words, they are prepared to adopt some of Hitler's beliefs just to prove some of Hitler's other beliefs wrong. It's madness. Besides that, we can't post this until it is verified elsewhere, and counter-evidence is sought after.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 16:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
By who? is there any non-western source to say so???Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Its an Israeli newspaper that published it, and its not propaganda: "More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
So you consider the Jewish media to be an accurate source of information on Hitler?
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 17:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Some is, some isn't. See WP:RS. Obviously one would not expect sympathetic coverage in any Jewish or Israeli publication, but accuracy is not determined by ethnicity. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Would you trust what Hitler said about the Jews? No, of course, so why do you trust what the Jews say about Hitler?
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
What a load of rubbish logic. that is clear logical fallacy. Because one is POV the other is by definition POV?Lihaas (talk) 11:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Because we can find individuals untrustwothy, ignorant ot whatever, but not an entire ethnicity comprising millions of such individuals. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The newspaper in question was Jewish, and may be intrinsically biased. As such, it should not be cited here.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
You cant exclude on the basis of maybe bias. Brits, Poles, Russians and Americans all have reason to biassed against him, so do we exclude all commentary from anyone of these nationalities? Paul B (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
We should exclude commentary in any form on a biographic page, unless it is being quoted in that context. I could say Mariah Carey has a tendency towards fellatio (one of my more recent reverts), but it wouldn't be added, true or not (and can you see my signature, I've received a message that it has disappeared (?)).
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't really know what you mean by 'commentary' as such, but we don't just tell life stories. We also discuss relevant ideas and opinions about their significance. Ms Carey's sexual preferences may be relevant to her biography if reliably sourced. The relevant policies are WP:UNDUE (relevance), WP:V and WP:RS. Paul B (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In posting this particular information, we would be adding irrelevant commentary. That is to say, we would be pointing out what we perceive to be a degree of irony in Hitler's ideology. The selection of impertinent information of such a nature would be bias on our part.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 22:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I can't see any 'impertinence', however that may be defined. But there's nothing more to say here. Paul B (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article seems reasonable. It's just evidence that modern ways of modelling ancestry do not correlate to the categories of race that Hitler understood. There's nothing 'mad' about 'adopting some of Hitler's beliefs just to prove some of Hitler's other beliefs wrong. We do that all the time in arguments: 'drugs cause crime, therefore the penalties should be more severe.'; 'you are right that drugs cause crime, but that's exactly why they should be legalised.' etc. Disagreement depends on a degree of common belief. However the point is that haplogroups are not races. Paul B (talk) 18:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Aside from the Jewish media part (bias if ever I saw it), what relevance has this to the article? Which other biographic pages contain a section devoted to ethnic background? Adding this would be political commentary.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 18:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Article already has a Genetics section [3], the information about his Jewish background should be added there. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
There is no information about his "Jewish background". The information is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews. That does not necessarily mean he had Jewish ancestry. It may tell us something about the non-Jewish ancestors of Ashkenazis. Paul B (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
"The information is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." Pedantic, boring, nitpicky correction: The claim is that a haplogroup found in Hitler's DNA also happens to be found in "18 to 20 percent of Ashkenazi Jews" and that it is the second most frequently occurring haplogroup in them. According to these reports that same haplogroup is found in more than 80 percent of Berbers and Somalis and 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians (plus, one might add, an unknown number of other ethnic groups). No sane person would deduce from this a "Jewish background" of Hitler's, but then this is Wikipedia and sanity is not a requirement to edit.-- (talk) 02:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
You may well be right Mr 82.113..., but I was quoting the source word-for-word: "More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." This may well be confused, why is why I'd be wary of quoting newspaper reports of the findings of geneticists. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
The oldest source (before this game of Chinese Whispers started) is the account on, and I quote what it says in the sub-section "What, How, Why" below. You may also want to look at Wikipedia's article on E1b1b. Cheers, -- (talk) 10:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
If this is not indicative of Jewish ancestry, why are we discussing adding it in such a context? The information is not remarkable except for its Jewish connotations, and if that was not the case then it wouldn't have been proposed for addition at all. I stand by my statement when I said that this would be political commentary.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 19:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
No, it's commentary about the paradoxes implied by the concept of race and identity in the light of modern science. But for what it's worth, I don't think it's worth including. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Commentary nonetheless; Wikipedia is not the place.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 20:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The article is full of commentary. In a general sense it is the place. In this case, I think not, since the info is intriguing, but barely of relevance. The whole stubby genetics section should go. Paul B (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I defer to you, as you are an expert on the matter.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 21:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is another article:[4] "Belgian researchers say they have proof that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had Jewish and African roots" --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalists are not geneticists. This seems a poor source. Paul B (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's another one, this time from a British newspaper: [5]; is this valid, I, Englishman? Now that that's over with, I must say that I agree with him. Where is the relevancy in his supposed ancestral roots? A wee bit of irony, perhaps? What's the point? Besides, if I am not mistaken, the article on Hitler already states that an alleged grandfather of his was a Jew. Forteana (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All these sources are quoting the same results. A mistake made four times is still a mistake. As PaulB has already said, it is not indicative of ancestry, hence it shall not be added to the ancestry section. Let us accept this before an edit war is sparked.
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 11:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion. The info. discussed is poorly sourced and not conclusive by any means. It doesn't meet WP:VERIFY. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. So what? Most people on earth are genetically related to each other. Slow news summer in Britain? Mootros (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion. Poorly sourced, not indicative of anything. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 00:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - As some have pointed out, there's no definitive evidence of anything - only one DNA test that apparently showed Hitler (or his relatives, who presumably don't share his exact DNA) had genes that a whole batch of ethnic groups have. Are we going to list all the groups? No. And for a meticulously-researched family tree of Hitler, see this. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Who, What, Why

Interesting that this was dragged in here by User:Supreme Deliciousness, a fixture on Wikipedia's ANI Noticeboard, where he often shows up to back up editors engaged in edit-warring to promote anti-Israel viewpoints. That old standby -- Hitler as part-Jew -- is a staple among conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis and just plain nutters obsessed with race, who would relish nothing more than the "cosmic irony" of Europe's Jews having been murdered by "one of their own". One wonders why he sources the "news" to Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper. It is a favorite ploy of a certain element to highlight Israeli or Jewish sources, when available, to buttress a point and to be able to say, "Look! They themselves are saying it." In fact, the "story" was broken by Belgium's more than a week earlier (Link), and picked up a week later by semi-respectable papers such as Britain's Daily Mail (Link).

If one were to take the reported findings at face value, then Hitler had Berber North African ancestry much more than Jewish ancestry. "Haplogroep E1b1b komt het frequentst voor bij de Berbers en daarnaast ook in Somalië (> 80%). Opvallender nog is dat de haplogroep van Hitler de tweede vaakst voorkomende haplogroep is bij de Asjkenazische Joden." [My translation: Haplogroup E1b1b is found most frequently among the Berber people and slightly less often in Somalia (prevalence more than 80%). Even more stunning is the fact that Hitler's haplogroup is the second most prevalent group among Ashkenazi Jews.] The Daily Mail, if it is to be believed (always a chancy proposition) writes that E1b1b "accounts for approximately 18 to 20 per cent of Ashkenazi and 8.6 per cent to 30 per cent of Sephardic Y-chromosomes", which would be a much lower prevalence than among Berbers or Somalis. (And please note, according to the article Eb1b1b is found in 25% of Greeks and Sicilians.)

Population genetics is a complex subject. Raw data can only be evaluated by experts -- real scientists. The supposed "findings" would have to be replicated and confirmed by scientists, in a peer-reviewed paper. How likely is that to happen? Well, according to the Daily Mail, DNA was obtained from "American Alexander Stuart-Houston, 61, a grand-nephew of Hitler. He was trailed for seven days before he dropped a used [napkin] which Mulders said led him to the cousin in Austria."

In other words, the "researchers" used highly unethical methods (that would never be used by real scientists) to obtain their supposed data. These "findings" will never be replicated by self-respecting researchers. The story will subside into obscurity and become another addition to the steadily growing staple of conspiracist lore, popping up in the usual places like

The nutters pushing this "breaking news" today will be found next week defending the Khazar converts theory, according to which Ashkenazi Jews have no connection with the Middle East but are descendants of a Turkic people that converted to Judaism in the Middle Ages.

Just another day on the Wikipedia, the world's foremost crank magnet.-- (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right that all sorts of theories - especially the Khazar one - can be tied to this, since the data is so poor. Paul B (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Not what I was saying at all. My point was, the nutters are perfectly capable of arguing one week that Hitler had Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry based on a purported North African / Mediterranean component in his DNA, and the next week to claim that the ancestors of Ashkenazi Jews could not have lived in ancient Israel because they are the descendants of a Turkic people in the Northern Caucasus. The two notions are mutually exclusive, and the only common denominator is the diseased mind in which they are held.
By the way, these "studies" keep cropping up, sometimes with the opposite conclusion. The Dutch Wikipedia's article on Adolf Hitler says that a Y chromosome study proves that Alois Hitler (Adolf's father) had the same male ancestor as the paternal-line relatives named Hüttler still living in Austria's Waldviertel region today. It's all unfit to go in the article.-- (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
Well I've no idea why think what I said was not essentially, if in rather less detail (!), saying much the same as you say here. Paul B (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the sources that I have seen on this story use the words "Suggest" and "May have...". Until there is confirmation, I would say that Hitler remains what he is, not what one test suggests.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Either way its sources by WP:RS not some POV source.
at any rate, say waht you must ynet is certainly NOT engaged in an anti-israeli/jewish conspriacy Lihaas (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant Factoid

Should definitely not appear in the lead. Mootros (talk) 12:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I heartily agree with you. I,E Wouldst thou speak? 18:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
A couple of commentaries from the blogosphere: Dienekes, Gene Expression. I hope everyone here realizes that it is highly unlikely that the "sequencing of autosomal DNA" suggested in the second of these two blogs will ever be carried out (ethics, funding, to name but two reasons). In the interim, we know no more than we knew before, namely that Hitler came from inbred Austrian hillbilly stock and was in no way special compared to the rest of the people from his area.-- (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is and will be biased towards Hitler. This is nothing to be ashamed of. Everything is biased about Hiter in the positive way or the negative way... or both( being unneutral relative to both sides). It is impossible to be neutral. It is not wrong to be biased here, but it is wrong to be biased while claiming to be neutral. Being neutral is one of our basic values, but when it is impossible to achieve, we don't lie about it. Admitting we are biased, unlike being neutral, is not impossible to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's secret family: How researchers tracked down 39 living relatives of Nazi dictator

According to historian Marc Vermeeren, there are still many relatives of Hitler in the Waldviertel region : "All Hüttler living in the Waldviertel region are distant descendants of Hitler, although many of them do not even know, as it was their parents or grandparents who changed the name and never told them". All these people share the same Y-DNA than William Patrick Hitler's sons (which was reported as E1b1b in a previous study mentionned above). So this is very important as it implies that Adolf Hitler's grand-father was a Hitler (either Johann Nepomuk Hiedler or Johann Georg Hiedler) and not jewish (even if his haplogroup is E1b1b)... So I suggest that we insert this information in the right section. Here is the source :

Hitler a Venezia?

It is known fact that Hitler as chancellor flew to Venice in June 1934 and met Mussolini in St. Mark's Place, in front of a huge crowd. However I wonder if pre-WWI young Hitler, the aspiring austrian painter has been to Venice previously?

Most european artists visit the water city at least once for inspiration, but on the other hand Venice was under austrian rule between 1815-1866, including the crushing of its 1848 revolution and maybe the italians were not happy about welcoming visitors from Austria due to historical bitterness? (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

E1b1b haplogroup ethnically germanic?

So is the E1b1b y chromosome haplogroup ethnically germanic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NICKMELONMAN, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Hey i have some more accurate information on adolf hitler if you would let me edit i could spread my knoledge and it would be much appreatiated ,thank you! NICKMELONMAN (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Your request lacks precision. Rodhullandemu 01:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 29 September 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I believe i have valuable information on this topic such as situations like the Munich Putcsh. (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done Please make a specific proposal, with reliable sources. Rodhullandemu 17:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Just curious, the article makes a point of pointing out that Hitler spoke a Lower Bavarian dialect "as opposed to an Austrian one". These two dialects are very closely related (and are nearly identical when looking at where Hitler was born and raised), so what is the point of including that info? JonnyLightning (talk) 16:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 20 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} There should be a little side note that illustrates what the Axis was and the countries that were involved (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done. There are several links to Axis powers already, including one {{main}} link. -Atmoz (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality and one testicle

I just stumbled to this wikipedia article. I do believe this is discussed to death during the years, but is it really necessarry to put speculation about his sexuality to this article? It looks like the writer wants to degrade him. It is afterall - speculation. Article should be neutral. There is even an article named "Sexuality of Adolf Hitler" which is full of pure speculation! If speculation is sourced, it seems to be OK to wikipedia.. I understand wikipedia reflects the cultural beliefs of its writers, but it should also fight against it for the grand goal of cold and scientific neutrality. As I said, this is probably discussed and decided to be like this, but I just wanted to say what I have to say. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Article claims that Hitler must have suffered from syphilis since no photos of his torso exist to prove otherwise. By the same argument we can conclude that Hitler, Churchill, Roosevelt, and Mother Theresa all come from the planet Zog, and that the Zoggians have destroyed all the photographic evidence. There must be one ball since no photos exist showing two! Long live Prikipedia, Green Peace and Titus Oates! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:26, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Crap. Mao Tse Tung is known to have had only one testicle; no other dictator, including Hitler, has ever bee shown to have had fewer than the normal complement of, er, two. Rodhullandemu 01:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Nonsense. The medical examination records of Dr Theodor Morell describe Hitler's reproductive organs as 'entirely normal'. (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Crap whats the source that Mao Tse Tung had one testicle?
"SAMJ: South African Medical Journal - Mao Tse-tung (1893 - 1976): his habits and his health". Retrieved 2010-09-08.  A secondary source, but follow the source they cite. Rodhullandemu 23:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not need to verify that Hitler did or did not have a second ball for it to be included in an article. Primarily the information needs to be two things. Notable meaning it is a significant fact about Hitler. In this case you seem to be saying many people have argued about it and that argument in itself does make it notable. It also has to be verifiable. In this case that means it is verifiable that people hold the viewpoint hitler has one ball. This is true. As long as it is not framed as a fact but instead as a debated viewpoint fairly presented it's a fine point to make. meitme (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)meitme
Yea but it is a false claim , the fact that people discussed it doesn't make it a shoe in , as in.. although hitler has two balls a rumour or insult was around that he only had one, there was even a song about it, adolf has only got one ball.... and so on... but it was all false. The idea that it is educational and informative about a man like this with such detail historic detail is missing the whole point of the wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
That's the thing if there was a song about Hitler only having only one ball it could be included in an article about him. As long as this song was notable(for example if it was a major hit). But, the writing would be clear to tell the reader of an article that this was a song depicting Hitler with one ball not verifiable historical fact. It would inform people about the song not about the status of Hitler's testicles.
If the information presented in the article is false, biased or misleading in a way please explain why. Please explain why you believe this, in what way the wording is incorrect and hopefully how it could be reworded. If you are presenting facts try to get sources to back up the facts you are presenting.
Now, if you think this section is should no be in the article, at all or in a more limited capacity, This is a very different problem. As there are reference I believe it is verifiable information. But the more important question would be if it was not significant enough to be included. I have absolutely no idea if it is really notable enough to be in this wikipedia article or in the prominence it carries. But, if you are making the argument it is insignificant show that idea not, that an section is wrong.meitme (talk) 00:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Balls, said the queen, if I had them I would king, or if I had one I could be Hitler... (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone tidy up a problematic sentence?

Our article text says:

"Historians who take an intentionist line such as Eberhard Jäckel have argued that at minimum from the time of the 'Prophecy Speech' onwards, Hitler was committed to genocide of the Jews as his central goal."

It's the "at minimum" I'm struggling to interpret. It seems to me that what that is intended to communicate is Hitler had committed to genocide at the latest by the time of the speech. But it could also be read that Hitler had committed to at least genocide (though it does rather raise the question how much further he could have gone, which is why I favour the first interpretation).

I'm not qualified to judge what was meant, so I can't change it. Can anyone tidy up the sentence to make it clear? --bodnotbod (talk) 15:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I rather think that "at minimum" here is probably meaning "at least", in the sense of "certainly from this time onwards, but possibly ealier than that" – perhaps it has been used as the result of a misunderstanding by a non-native English speaker of the difference in usage of "minimum" and "least" (which are similar in meaning, but not always interchangeable, as exemplified here). It seems to me that "at minimum" could be deleted without any significant loss or real change of meaning, or it could be changed to "at least", or even "certainly". I don't think that the meaning is "at minimum genocide" since, as you say, it's hard to understand that he could have intended to go any further than genocide here. Moreover, my first interpretation seems to accord with my understanding of Jäckel's thinking on this subject, namely that Hitler's wish to annihilate European Jewry and his belief in the necessity of this action developed gradually, or in stages, and was not fully formed in his mind until relatively late in the 1930s.
Also, as a separate point, I think the sentence would read better as "... Hitler was committed to the genocide of the Jews ...". Ondewelle (talk) 23:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of any other comments to date, I have changed the sentence to, "Historians who take an intentionist line, such as Eberhard Jäckel, have argued that, at least from the time of the "Prophecy Speech" onwards, Hitler was committed to the genocide of the Jews as his central goal." Ondewelle (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Mental Health

The section about Hitler's Mental Health has no citations. Maybe it should be removed.--Propaganda328 (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree unless someone is willing to clean it up I believe removal is the right thing. It could always be added again. It is currently just cluttering the article.meitme (talk) 02:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)


Hitler was far from a Christian. Actually some scholars have said that National Socialism was the religion of Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 26 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} can i ? (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: The Adolf Hitler article is protected from editing from IP and new users. If you wish to edit this article yourself, you need to create an account and wait 4 days and contribute 10 edits to other articles. If you have a specfic suggestion for this page and don't want to wait 4 days and 10 edits, feel free to re-use the {{edit semi-protected}} template making a detailed proposal for your edit such as: "Please change X to Y", or "Please add Z after A." Thanks, Stickee (talk) 00:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's names.


I'm a french student and I have found an article published in a very famous french scientific magazine Sciences et Avenir in 2009. In the article there was a copy of French "RG"'s file on Adolf Hitler. According to the file, Hitler's full names were Adolf Josh Hitler. Copy of the file can be easily found on Internet. For now here is a link where a scientific journalist from the magazine answer to a web reader about the truth of Hitler's names (it's in french).

Best Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an English-Wiki article, and sources need to be in English. That said, Hitler's life has been researched extensively for decades, and his full name has been established beyond any doubt. Fringe/revisionist source.HammerFilmFan (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan
Actually foregin-language sources are allowed by's policy in certain circumstances. If the french source meets the requirements, there is no reason why it should not be cited along with a reliable translation. However, in this case it seems that the article has is no longer available. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, French sources are perfectly acceptable. It's not difficult to find this online [6]. There's even a You Tube site [7]. I guess this is a hoax, or just a slip up. It's not reflected in any reliable sources. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

The paragraph "Attempted Assassination" gives the impression as if only a single an assassination attempt on Hitler occurred. But other wikipedia articles mention several assassination attempts, some as early as 1939. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, your right. The section needs perhaps a little expansion or just a mention of the other assassination attempts and internal links to those article, you can write something here if you like and I will add it for you, or anyone could write a couple of line to correct this missing detail. 12:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

20 July plot, Rudolf Christoph Freiherr von Gersdorff, Eberhard von Breitenbuch, Axel Freiherr von dem Bussche-Streithorst, Fritz-Dietlof von der Schulenburg ,Henning von Tresckow, Georg Elser .. all these people had a serious attempt to kill him,perhaps a page of its own with a mention of each one .. List of Assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler - comments? Off2riorob (talk) 12:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

"Last visit to occupied territory" image

Regarding the side-image which states that the last occupied territory Hitler visited was in Yugoslavia in 1941, is this meant to refer only to brief official visits? Hitler was residing in Vinnitsa, Ukraine for quite a while in 1942 to direct the Caucasus and Stalingrad operations after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Morgan Hauser (talkcontribs) 20:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

"edit request"

Regarding the beginning of the article. You speak as if the nazis are still active, please edit this out and put that hitler "was" the leader of the nazi party because saying he "is" the leader implies hes still alive or something. The nazi party is still around but it has no power and hitler is surly not alive —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talkcontribs) 08:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

What sentence are you referring to? The opening states "Adolf Hitler (German pronunciation: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ]; 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, abbreviated NSDAP), commonly known as the Nazi Party.". Paul B (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i couldve sworn that i read that on the page but i couldve misread, its fine, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by F.R Durant (talkcontribs) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hitler moves to Munich

In the first sentence of Chap IV of Mein Kampf, Hitler says he moved to Munich in the Spring of 1912. (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2010 (UTC)D. Freund


The images used here (especially the first one) depict a proud Hitler, not even being in need to look into the camera. This must be a well-condidered and selected image taken by Goebbels propagande machinery. I wonder, if there are no non-propaganda images that may even unmask Hitler as a fatuitous politician instead of glorifying him. (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since images of him were carefully controlled, it is unlikely that we'll find many high quality ones of the type you are asking for. Also, what you are asking for is POV in itself. Wikipedia should reflect the sources available, not our personal opinions. However, it may be preferable to note in image captions when the images are from propaganda sources, or in the main body of the article. (Hohum @) 19:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The main images for almost all politicians pages on this site are the official ones. Why should Hitler be any different? Any deviation herein would be propaganda.
--I, EnglishmanWouldst thou speak? Handiwork 01:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
The reliable sources avaliable ARE out personal opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hitler's Sexuality

Hidden History carefully occulted. Adolf Hitler was not a homosexual but he was bisexual and he used Eva Braun to hide his homosexual inclinations from scrutiny. There were 17 cases in wartime of Hitler "intensely befriending" boy members of the Hitler Youth who once they spent time alone with their Fuhrer in private were never ever seen again. This is fact, recounted by an Italian Diplomat to me in 1963, as he hsad been in his time a confidant of Mussolini who told him, and who explained why the Nazis under Hitlers orders persecuted and sent to not concentration camps but extermination camps any limp wristed member of the public. Others unfortunate enough to be known to him personally were just rounded up and executed, by firing squad, sometimes even at night. Fact.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler was not homosexual or bisexual. He was straight and only had relationships with women. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


The article suggests he may have had borderline personality order, which "and would imply Hitler was in full control of himself and his actions." Surely there is a "not" or "not always" missing there? - assuming that the posthumous diagnosis of BPD is justified.Straw Cat (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole section seemd very poor and uncited so I removed it with the edit summary of .. speculation, uncited and tagged as close paraphrasing since March - removing, feel free to cite and assert notability and replace - Off2riorob (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NichtKevin, 2 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In subtopic: Legacy

change "Loosely translated it reads: 'For peace, freedom // and democracy // never again fascism // millions of dead remind [us] '" to "Loosely translated it reads: 'For peace, freedom // and democracy // never again fascism // millions of dead warning '"

This is a more literate translation of the inscription. NichtKevin (talk) 18:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If it were a literal translation then it wouldn't be a loose translation — not to mention that Mahnen is better translated as to remind per this reference. Cheers. My76Strat 06:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Request : Adolf Hitler (Thai version)

The thai version of this article exposes Adolf Hitler as a good person and only this face of this man. Maybe someone needs to edit the thai version of this article or update it to show all his personality. ( (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC))

color Photos

wikipedia is a great site and we can put in it more color photos which will be fantastic to look on. for detailed colored photos of the nazi period, look into — Preceding unsigned comment added by Preethamnewgen (talkcontribs) 09:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from HenryIreton1642, 6 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The assertion that Hitler conquered Asia and parts of the Pacific is unwarranted and misleading. This was done by his ally, Imperial Japan. The article needs to be edited to reflect this. I suggest deletion of these words. HenryIreton1642 (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. The text does presently say that it was Germany and the Axis powers , which appears to be quite correct. Also, could you (and other users requesting an edit) please be a bit more specific as we are all volunteers and it is not easy attempting to understand requests. Perhaps we could change it to ..Germany has this and the axis powers had that...I made an edit to the lede in an attempt to address this edit request.Off2riorob (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Germany and the Axis powers seems more correct. "European allies" might confuse readers with Allied Forces. Perhaps another word for "allies" could be used instead.MusicTree3 (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


Does anyone know if Hitler had a daughter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No, he did not. Kierzek (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
He did not, although the children's book "Hitler's Daughter" by Jackie French is quite interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Does Kershaw count?

Post from banned editor

5 Aug 2010 I posted on Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler: (random questions) “I am not a scholar, I read Wiki but would not think of editing it. But I was disappointed in this article, and many points in the discussion, so I am asking some questions. Perhaps someone else will read and address them. (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)”

6 Aug 2010 I posted on Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler: (random questions) “If I had read Kershaw's Nemesis Chapter 17 note 156 and Epilogue note 1 I wouldn't have wasted your time. You can't get much clearer than that. Should be required reading. Perhaps someone else should read them, and possibly edit the article. Thank you for your time. (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)”

7 Aug 2010 I posted on Talk: Death of Adolf Hitler: (random questions) “I would like to direct people to the work of Ian Kershaw Hitler, 1939-1945: Nemesis ISBN 0393322521. Chapter 17 and the epilogue relate to this article. Please pay attention to his notes and sources. Be warned, his book Hitler: a Biography is a kind of digest which does not include these resources. Wm5200 (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)”

12 Aug 2010 Gwen Gale posted on Talk:Wm5200 (Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler) “Article talk pages are not meant as general forums or question boards about a topic. Moreover, they are not meant as outlets for your original thoughts on topics, even if you put those thoughts as questions. Please either start citing sources (along with thoughts about how to echo those sources in the text), or stop posting to Talk:Death of Adolf Hitler. If you would like to know more about how to deal with (and skirt) plagiarism worries on en.Wikipedia, you might have a look at Wikipedia:Plagiarism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The remark on plagarism was in answer to my concern about copying Kershaw and Joachimsthaler to the discussion. Do you think that “Assume Good Faith” was being implemented?

12 Aug 2010 I posted on Talk:Wm5200 (Kershaw knows): “Joachimsthaler was a used paperback to be read while waiting in line. I throw many of these away, they can be so stupid and/or offensive, but this guy sounded good. So I tried to check him out. When I opened up Kershaw, I tripped over the Rosetta stone of dead Hitlerism. In two footnotes this brilliant man put everything in perspective. For the first time since I was in third grade, all the pieces fit. I have no answers, but I know who does. Nobody will listen. Every question south of Kershaw relates indirectly to either him or Joach. The answers have been on the shelf of the public library for ten years, yet Wiki will not listen. I believe you have been an obstruction to any information which disputes your poison and Russian autopsy garbage. This same stuff happened before. You should be disciplined. I suppose it will be me who gets shut off. Always a pleasure doing business with you.Wm5200 (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC) “

Since 12 August 2010 I have been trying to get an admin (and other editors) to read these footnotes, and see if they may relate to the article Death of Adolf Hitler. For my efforts I have been dismissed, insulted, censored, and blocked. Yet somehow, I still believe that these notes may have some bearing on “the article”.

I am now going to copy these two footnotes, to the best of my ability, and hope that there is one admin in Wiki who will read and deal with them. Gwen Gale not only won’t, but appears to be trying to supress them.

Thank you, here they come.

HITLER 1936-1945 NEMESIS by Ian Kershaw @2000 ISBN 0-393-04994-9


156. Amtsgericht Laufen, Verfahren des Amtsgerichts Berchtesgaden zur Toderserklarung bzw. Feststellung der Todeszaeit von Adolf Hitler, testimony of Otto Gunsche, 19-21 June 1956, Bl.5-6, 8-9; testimony of Heinz Linge, 8-10 February 1956, Bl. 5-8; Joachimsthaler, 230, 232. The meticulous study of the testimony and forensic evidence by Joachimsthaler, 229-73, dispels doubt about the manner of death. The earliest accounts emanating from the bunker were that Hitler shot himself and Eva Braun had taken poison. Below (who left before the suicides) heard this as early as 6 May related by one of the guards attached to the bunker (PRO, London, WO208/3781, Fol. 5, interrogation of Nicolaus von Below, n.d.(but covering letter is of 22 June 1946)). Hugh Trevor-Roper was given the same information by Erich Kempka and Artur Axmann, who saw the bodies in situ, as well as by Martin Bormann‘s secretary Else Kruger. (PRO WO208/3790, Fol. 54 (Trevor-Roper’s handwritten note, on a chronology of events during the last days in the bunker).) The key witnesses give no indication that a shot was heard - counter to some of the unreliable stories (e.g. Michael A. Musmanno Collection, Duquesne University, Pittsburg, interview with Gertraud Junge, 7 February 1948, FF25, Fol.48; IfZ, ED 100, Irving-Sammlung, Traudl Junge Memoirs, Fol.159; Galante, 21, testimony of Junge). The intentionally misleading account of Hitler’s death by cyanide poisoning put about by Soviet historians - see, especially, Lev Bezymenski, The Death of Adolf Hitler. Unknown documents from Soviet Archives, London, 1968, can be dismissed. Equally redundant are the findings of Petrova and Watson, The Death of Hitler. The earliest suggestion that that Hitler had poisoned, not shot, himself appears to come from the reported testimony from about an hour after the shooting by Sergeant Fritz Tornow, who had helped poison Hitler’s alsatian, and said he had detected a similar odour in the room after the suicides (though he had not been in the room before the removal of the bodies)(PRO, London, WO208/3790, Fol.128 (where he is named Tornoff), testimony of Willi Otto Muller, 4 February 1946). Hitler’s pilot, Hans Bauer, claimed on release from prison in Moscow in 1949 that Hitler had taken poison, then shot himself through the head. But Bauer was not present at the time of the deaths, and his evidence is in any case unreliable in several respects. (See Joachimsthaler, 225, 260.) Arthur Axmann, who had seen the bodies, also testified on 16 October 1947 that Hitler had first taken poison and then shot himself through the mouth (PRO, WO208/4475, Fol.39). He repeated this in his interview with Musmanno on 7 January 1948 ((Michael A. Musammo Collection, Duquesne University, Pittsburg, interview with Arthur Axmann, 7 January 1948, FFl, Fols 28-32, 44) saying he had the information from Gunsche, which the latter explicitly denied (Joachimsthaler, 236-7). Axmannís claim contradicted, morever, his earlier testimony from 1946 (see below). Neither of the surviving witnesses to the scene immediately following the deaths - Linge and Gunsche - who saw the bodies in situ suggested that Hitler had poisoned himself; and there was no trace of the acrid smell of bitter almonds on his body (in distinction to that of Eva Braun). This negative evidence in itself also rules out the faint possibility that he both took poison and shot himself. The speed at which prussic acid acts would itself render it virtually impossible for Hitler to have crushed the ampoule of poison and then shot; and if the poison could have been swollowed a split-second after the shooting, the spasms incurred would have caused the blood to splatter on the shoulder and immediate surrounds, which did not happen. (On this, see Joachimsthaler, 269-70 and, including a few lines not to be found in the German original, the English version of his book, The Last Days of Hitler, the Legends, the Evidence, the Truth. London, 1996, 179-80.) The forensic evidence also eliminates the story, first put round by Artur Axmann, though based on hearsay evidence without substance, that Hitler shot himself in the mouth. Axmann had in his earliest testimony, in fact, explicetly ruled out a shot through the mouth and claimed (as Gunsche had done) that Hitler had shot himself through the right temple (PRO, WO208/3790, Fol.125 (Axmann Interrogation, 14 January 1946)). Notions that Hitler was given a coup de grace by Linge or Gunsche - a further surmise of Bezymenski - are utterly baseless. The “theories” of Hugh Thomas, Doppelganger: The Truth about the Bodies in the Berlin Bunker, London, 1995-that Hitler was strangled by Linge, and that the female body burned was not that of Eva Braun, who escaped from the bunker, belong in fairyland.


1. This and what follows is based on Joachimsthaler, chs. 5-7, the most reliable and detailed examination of the cremation of Hitler and Eva Braun, providing, in addition (347ff.), compelling reasons for utmost scepticism toward the Soviet claims to have recovered the remains of Hitler’s body and to have performed an autopsy on it. (For this, see Bezymenski, Death of Adolf Hitler, and, for an early expression of scepticism, the review of Bezymenskiís book by Hugh Trevor-Roper, ‘The Hole in Hitlerís Head’, Sunday Times, 29 September 1968.) It also rests on the testimony of Heinz Linge and Otto Gunsche, given in Berchtesgaden in 1954 (Linge) and 1956 (Gunsche), together with several other witnesses to Hitler’s end. I am grateful to Frau A. Regnauer, director of the Amtsgericht Laufen, for permission to see this material. I would also like to thank Professor Robert Service (St Anthony’s College, Oxford) for translating for me part of one of Gunsche’s interrogations in Moscow (Osobyi Arkhiv ( = Special Archive), Moscow, 130-0307, Fol.282). Even apart from forensic issues, it is remarkable that, had they possessed Hitler’s remains, the Soviet authorities never indicated this, let alone showed the remains, to Linge, Gunsche, and other witnesses from the bunker who they held in captivity for up to ten years. Instead, in countless hours of grilling them in highly inhumane fashion, including taking them in 1946 to reconstruct the scene in the bunker - aimed at ascertaining whether Hitler had in fact comitted suicide - they continued to insist, dispite consistent testimony from independent witnesses to the contrary, that Hitler was still alive. According to Linge (Amtsgericht Laufen, Fol.9), he was repeatedly interrogated about whether Hitler was alive or dead, whether he could have flown out of Berlin, and whether he had been substituted by a ‘double’. When Linge asked his interrogators during the visit to Berlin whether they had Hitler’s corpse in their possession, he was told (Fol.10) that they had found many corpses but did not know if Hitler’s was among them. Stalin himself also appears persistently in the immediate post-war years - not just for propaganda purposes - to have disbelieved stories of Hitler’s death. The opening of Soviet archives following the end of the Cold War brought a flurry of new ‘revelations’ about Hitler’s end and the location of his remains, which were allegedly dug up on the orders of Soviet chief Leonid Brezhnev on the night of 4-5 April 1970 by five officers of the KGB from a plot of land near a garage in Madgeburg, and burnt. The remain had, it was said, had been buried there along with those of Eva Braun, the Goebbels family, and (probably) General Hans Krebs in 1946 and were now to be exhumed because of the danger of discovery through building work on the site. (See ‘Hitlers Hollenfahrt’, Der Speiegel, 14/1995, 170-87, 15/1995, 172-86; also Norman Stone, ‘Hitler, ein Gespenst in den Archiven’, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 19 April 1995; Alexander Lesser, ‘Russians wanted to sell “Hitler skull” story’, Jerusalem Report, 11 March 1993; ‘Kremlin “secretly burned Hitler’s remains”’, Guardian, 4 April 1995; ‘Secret of Hitlerís ashes revealed in Soviet archive’, New York Post, 27 January 2000.) The Soviet evidence was most extensively examined in Petrova and Watson, and was also the subject of a BBC TV documentary, optimistically entitled ‘Hitlerís Death, the Final Report’, in April 1995. Apart from the jawbone, however, the only additional alleged remains of Hitler that have come to light are part of a skull discovered in 1946 (which has never been conclusively identified as Hitler’s). It is unclear how this skull related to the remains purported to have been found in May 1945 and exhumed - presumably headless - in Magdeburg in 1970. If, of course, the Soviets never had Hitler’s body in the first place, the post-Cold War revelations of the disposal of the remains have no standing. Whichever remains they buried in Madgeburg and then dug up and burnt, it is unlikely that they were those of Hitler. In any event, the matter is chiefly of relevence to interpretations of Soviet post-war actions rather than to a study of Hitler’s life.

Thank you for your time.The Pluton (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Wm5200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Moxy (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's real name Schicklgruber

Dear Wikipedia, You should write about how Hitler's real name was Schicklgruber. Because that was his grandpa's name and before his grandpa died he changed it to Hitler because he disliked how people insulted him about his name.He was on his death bed when he changed his name. Being the reason why Hitler has Hitler as his name.Being a family tradition of having your grandpa's name. I find that interesting because that small thing changed History I can't imagine people back then in Germany saying HAIL Schicklgruber. He wouldn't have been such a powerful leader with that name.

Thank you for your time! By: Jamal Ajaj

PS: I am not spamming or anything I am just trying to help out the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

No, you see even if Hitler had changed his own name the title of the article wuold still be Adolf Hitler, because 1) he changed his name to that and 2) it's the name by which he is most commonly known. However, as the name was changed by his grandfather you are referring to a name not only not used by Adolf but not used (for a long time) by his father. So, no. Britmax (talk) 11:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Eerie Book Connection

Is there a connection between the book written by Alexis-Vincent-Charles Berbiguier de Terre-Neuve du Thym and Adolf's Mein Kampf?

Togagames (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Apologetic in the religious section

"the historian Richard Steigmann-Gall (whose views on Christianity and Nazism are admittedly outside the consensus) states, Hitler "can be classified as Catholic."[324] Yet, as Steigmann-Gall has also pointed out in the debate about religion in Nazi Germany: "Nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context.""

These remarks seem awfully apologetic. If he was catholic, then he was catholic. I can understand people want to distance themselves from Hitler, but that's POV pushing, and doesn't change what he was. Apologetics really have no place in an encyclopedia article. ScienceApe (talk) 15:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is he really wasn't Catholic. After the age of twelve, he never participated in the sacraments again. Steigmann-Gall's own book admits that he is outside of the mainstream on the subject of Nazis and Christianity. Calling Hitler Catholic is like calling the famous atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair a Presbyterian because she was baptised and raised as one. If you read the entire section you will see that far from being a believing and practicing Christian (some self serving public statements notwithstanding) Hitler had a well established plan to destroy Christianity which he considered, like Judaism, to be a weak slave religion. Mamalujo (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Time man of the year article

Here is the URL to TIME;s "man of the year" article:

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


I would think that some indication that his name is used as a synonym for evil should make it into the first paragraph. --Ezra Wax (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Is this a comment for encyclopedic discussion, have you got a citation? I searched your comment in google, Adolf Hitlers name is used as a synonym for evil and didn't get any real results? Off2riorob (talk) 19:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
How about "modern day hitler"? --Ezra Wax (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
In the UK we sometimes use the expression tin-pot hitler for an officious authority figure but that hardly reflects his crimes. The expression modern day hitler does get some interesting results but I don't really see it worthy of inclusion, but perhaps others will, or be bold and add it and see how it goes, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
There are two different issues of usage here, I think:
(a) Hitler and his regime are sometimes used as examples of the most extreme evil (not quite synonyms for the concept of evil).
(b) The term 'Hitler' is used to describe someone as authoritarian - e.g. Barnabypage (talk) 22:05, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Referring back to another user-generated wiki is as bad as referring back to a blog. This isn't a legit source. Ekwos (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
It's an example in Talk, not a proposed source for the article. Barnabypage (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Are the results of a google search really encyclopedic material? Are we going to include the results of all google search results in all articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

World War II

It says that Adolf Hitler participated i world war I under the first picture. It should be changed to WWII. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He was a soldier in WWI. Those awards listed were for his WWI service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's contributions

There's been some argument about the neutrality of the introduction. I've edited the last paragraph to make the tone more consistent with the rest of the intro: it's clear that there are at least three editors including myself against Tdadamemds specific language, but I do agree that the information is useful, and I think that paragraph has been reverted enough :) Publicly Visible (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is a looooong article. Maybe we should just pull it out. The material is covered later, and the intro isn't even that negative. Publicly Visible (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hitler's leadership created the world's first national freeway system. It created the world's first operational jet aircraft. It created the world's first rocket to poke into space. And I cited a photo from LIFE Magazine that shows his personal involvement with the VW. You all think these facts are adequately covered in the body of the article?
I thoroughly expected all the reverts. That fits the standard for covering Hitler's history. I myself will not edit this article any more for a long time. You all can decide what kind of facts you want to have covered. Certainly there are others here who promote the Wikipedia standard of NPOV. I will be glad to address questions or issues for me here in the Talk, but I'll hold back on editing the article itself until 2012 at the earliest.
And btw, I do not see blaming him personally for the Holocaust while merely crediting "his government" for these other things as being part of a balanced equation.--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Also, when deciding on whether to water down the phrase "spacecraft technology" to "rockets", you may want to keep in mind that the Chinese were launching rockets well over a thousand years ago, whereas Hitler's V-2 was the "First rocket to reach outer space. "This third day of October, 1942, is the first of a new era in transportation, that of space travel..." (Walter Dornberger)"
--Tdadamemd (talk) 08:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Hahaha, this makes me laugh, clearly you are pro-nazi, and no, we cannot have Hitlers 'positive' contributions listed as he KILLED 7 MILLION JEWS! I think that outweighs any neo nazi propaganda about Hitler doing anything good. Now fuck off little man and accept the modern world124.180.186.233 (talk) 13:46, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got to agree with you that the first section is disgracefully lacking in criticism for a man who was basically the most evil psychopathic murderer the world has ever known. For heaven's sake, he was absolutely personally responsible for the deaths of 17 million civilians, yet there is not a note of criticism of Hitler until the fourth paragraph. I know Wikipedia tries to be balanced, but in terms of his deeds he is UNQUESTIONABLY the greatest criminal the world has ever know. The greatest mass-murderer the world has ever known. For this reason, his murderous acts have infinitely more significance than any other aspect of his life. And the last paragraph of the introduction appears to PRAISE Hitler! I know Wikipedia tries to be objective, but this is not objective - this is just misinformed, deluded, inaccurate, poorly-written, insulting nonsense. I love Wikipedia, but this page is an insult to the Jewish race and every homosexual, gypsy, and innocent civilian who was MURDERED by the greatest criminal in the history of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewthomas10 (talkcontribs) 18:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
As a suggestion, the BBC article on Hitler is far superior: mentioning his crimes in the first paragraph, and no mention of his comparatively insiginificant trimphs (whic should only be mentioned later down the Wikipedia article - not in the introduction). But the whole BBC article is just more professionally written. I would suggest a rewrite of the introduction along those lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewthomas10 (talkcontribs) 18:27, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust < > Volkswagen. Hey, no false equivalence here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aileron Spades (talkcontribs) 18:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph is pointless. This is an article about Hitler not his government. We could MAYBE please that stuff into another section of the article but is it not important enough to go into the introduction considering the fact most people will just read that part of the whole article in detail. On another note the last paragraph sounds like "yes he killed millions but hey - at least he gave us motorways". While I do believe in balance - and that paragraph may be trying to equal out the bad stuff - for Hitler there should be not equalling. ---- (unknown user)

Hitler as Chancellor

"Meanwhile, Papen tried to get his revenge on Schleicher by working toward the General's downfall, through forming an intrigue with the camarilla and Alfred Hugenberg, media mogul and chairman of the DNVP" This sentence begins the section and is very confusing. Who is Papen, Schleicher, and the General? It feels like this was copied and pasted from another source, and the continuity of the article becomes severely challenged at this point. (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Joseph G. 01/03/11

Adolf Hitler's Y DNA haplogroup

I do not want to get too involved in discussion on this matter. This is just a passing comment. I have done a fair bit of work on E1b1b.

  • Can it be sourced? Yes, not with perfect strength, but I think the identification of Hitler's Y DNA type is what would normally be considered reasonably reliable sourcing, so in theory there is no reason not to mention it from the point of view of verifiability. I do think it is perhaps worth attributing as a theory put together by a journalist for the time being, because a newspaper organizing testing of relatives is not perfect. But to be honest the basic testing of Y DNA to this level of information is not cutting edge science anymore today.
  • My bigger question would be whether it is notable. The journalist who organized the testing made (or perhaps implied is a better word) some interpretative remarks obviously aimed at making the discovery notable, for example mentioning that Jews and Africans are sometimes in the same haplogroup. This interpretation is pretty poor though. E1b1b is one of the most common haplogroups in Austria. I do not know of any published responses to the journal yet but in the first place this level of interpretation has a higher level of scientific difficulty, and so sourcing should be a bit stricter.

The remark as it is currently in does not mention the interpretation and makes it clear that it was by a journalist, so it is then up to editors of this article to determine whether it is notable enough in that form. Basically it just means Hitler was in a common Y DNA haplogroup that many other Austrians and Germans are in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

We went through all this before; very recently. See: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51. There are WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems and no consensus to add it at this time. Kierzek (talk) 19:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Just in case it was not clear, I posted the above because I saw it was added in again recently, and given that this shows some disagreement still exists, I thought it might help to give editors of this article some insight into how someone editing E1b1b sees it. I don't see how WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY are the issues with any basic report which does not mention Jews and Somalians. There is no mainstream counter theory and nothing controversial about the science of the basic test, or indeed the genealogy work. In any case a journalist is not an unusual source for such investigations. I can imagine it might seem like WP:REDFLAG is an issue, but that would I think be more clear if there was a lot of complex interpretation of the test (the stuff about Jews and Somalians we keep seeing). Here's my point: without the interpretation about Jews and Somalians (which is indeed nonsense) I believe there is then a problem with WP:NOTE, and also a concern that just by including the fact, significance is being implied when in fact E1b1b is common in Austria.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, yes, I think that's the point. Without the "Hitler was a black Jew" aspect, the story is pretty much meaningless and probably unworthy of mention. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree, for two reasons:
* The fact that E1b1b is common in Austria (or even Europe in general) is meaningful, simply because few readers know that it is common. That (in addition to Hitler's fame as a racist) is what makes it interesting and notable: it contextualises Hitler's ideology by linking it to a more general lack of awareness about human history. Are we so timid about challenging preconceptions and putting forward counter-intuitive facts?
* The source is clearly as reliable, if not more so, than others used in this article and those used in many articles.
Grant | Talk 12:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
The fact that few readers know it is common is no more relevant than any other obscure and largely meaningless fact that few readers might know. As for Hitler's ideology, the model of race that he would be familiar with are so different from the genealogical information that haplogroups give us that it is difficult to judge what would be a meaningful statement about the relationship between the two. Race in Hitler's day meant a physical "type" which was supposed to represent a definable grouping of people, whose supposed bodily and mental characteristics were sometimes conceived of as primarily adaptive and sometimes as implying a particular genealogy. So I'm unclear what "counter-intuitive facts" we would be putting forward. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Paul, I don't think it it is an "obscure" or "largely meaningless" fact.
Regarding Hitler's "model of race", it definitely had its basis in genealogy/"breeding" (i.e. genetics); that, after all was what the word "race" meant originally and when Hitler was alive. (Whereas more recent fascists prefer to use cultural distinctions, in part because they know that DNA research has demonstrated the "exotic"/heterogeneous nature of most humans' ancestry.)
The "counter-intuitive fact" is, in a nutshell, this: non-"Aryan" elements (i.e. Semitic/North African ancestors) in Hitler's family tree were and are completely normal for a Western European. Of course you and I know this; I am trying to put ordinary readers first, rather than well-read Wikipedia editors :-) Grant | Talk 08:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
What I am saying is that even racial theorists in Hitler's day had models of ancient population movements that supposed that the "Nordic race" and the "Alpine race" (the ones to which Hitler himself was typically assigned) emerged from earlier ancestors - whether in Asia, North Africa or elsewhere. That's what I meant by race being conceived of as a "type" in which ancestry and adaptive characters combined to create a definite race. Baur, Lenz and Fisher, whose book Human Heredity was the main immediate influence on Hitler's theories, argued that the Nordic race had come into being from pre-Nordic ancestors fairly recently, as a result of adaptation to the harsh northern European environment. In other words the existence of non-Nordic ancestors would not somehow undermine the model, but would be predicted by it. In this model of race, two people could both be "Nordic" even if they had completely different ancestors (far enough back), because the race was created (supposedly) from adaptation, irrespective of very ancient ancestry. Most theorists, of course, assumed that races diverged from one another, and so would likely have some common ancestry at some point in the past. Paul B (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

My point is that (regardless of the theory of race) Nazi ideologues clearly regarded any "non-Aryan" ancestors as undesirable (even when they considered that individual cases did not warrant genocide) and that they, often (perhaps mostly) held "one drop" theories of race. That is exactly why individual Nazis (including Hitler) concealed, contested or tried to suppress knowledge/suggestions of such ancestry in their own cases. When more recent science, using techniques that were not available in the 1930s or 40s, shows Hitler to be something that he is famous for holding in contempt, I think that is obviously relevant and interesting to many readers. To a lesser degree, as I have said before, there is added interest because this research refutes misguided, but lingering, misconceptions about the "homogeneity" of the European gene pool. Grant | Talk 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Why on the Ancestry bit does the DNA result says "likely" when that is just what the article says which is absolutely rubbish it makes the whole bit of information above it sound hyprotical and stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieNUFC (talkcontribs) 20:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Reverted once again afer being added back on as a "minor" edit; which it is not. There is no consensus for the addition (see discussions above and prior); it has been discussed at length. It is speculation, conjuncture and has RS problems. Kierzek (talk) 16:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
How is it "speculation", "conjuncture" and "RS problems"? Hitlers genetic background has been reported in several reliable sources, yet for some reason people don't want it here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's a clue: the sources in question note that some of Hitler's relatives have Haplogroup E1b1b1 in their DNA, which is rare in Western Europeans, but more common in several other groups. That's all we know for sure. Now, given the fact that tens of thousands of pages of reliable material have been written on Hitler, and given the limit on the size of this (and all) Wikipedia articles, how on earth would this be important enough to actually mention here? Please frame your answer in relation to WP:UNDUE. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
But I see now this was already explained to you 6 months ago: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Hitler's DNA. Why are you continuing to waste time with this? Jayjg (talk) 03:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE, there are many reliable sources including the telegraph, haaretz, bloomberg and the huffingtonpost that have reported about this. This is something that has been discovered recently, so its not surprising that old material doesn't bring it up. This information is not contradicted by any reliable sources which is the only way we could start talking about if it were UNDUE. In the previous discussions as can be seen in your link, some of the arguments for not having the information is one guy saying: "I consider that to be anti-Nazi propaganda" , and some other claiming its "poorly sourced", but as mentioned above, its reported in several reliable sources, so how can it be poorly sourced or anti-Nazi propaganda? These arguments are not valid. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is some source on this. Can someone let me know why this article can't be edited in the normal Wikipedia way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It can "be edited in the normal Wikipedia way", which includes adhering to WP:UNDUE. Please review that policy. Jayjg (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Let me cite the relevant part: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.". Do you really think Hitler's DNA is something more than just a funny stuff that catches headlines for a moment? --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
ElComandanteChe, how come you showed up at this talkpage? The information does not violate that quote you provided. If we ad a couple of sentences about this, there is no problem with UNDUE.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
This horse has been beat to death. Besides WP:UNDUE, the matter can't be presented as fact; it is not a main stream theory; and you have NOT been able to get consensus to include the fringe theory. Kierzek (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
What UNDUE? Actually it is a mainstream reported fact and not a theory, as it has been reported in several mainstream RS and no RS contradicts this information. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Science article in the popular press.Moxy (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
That is an essay that anyone can write, so it doesn't mean anything.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok letsbe more blunt...pls find a science journal article that stats this conclusions. Some things are just best left to the experts.Moxy (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Reliable sources like the telegraph, haaretz, bloomberg and the huffingtonpost is more then enough. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep insisting that the sources are reliable. What you don't seem to understand is that even if a journalist's interpretation of scientific data was accurate, that would not make this information significant. If the scientific data (not the reports gleaned from it) said that Hitler's DNA meant that he was definitely descended from Jewish people that might be significant. It doesn't: it says that DNA from some of Hitler's relatives is the same as some of the DNA found in Ashkenazi Jews. Can you not see why this is an obscure piece of information of interest only to a few geneticists? Or am I oversimplifying the case? Britmax (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you know that its a "journalist's interpretation of scientific data" ? DNA of his relatives shows his DNA, thats how genetics works. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE. On the other hand we can have separate article about Hitler´s ancestry and statemets about his African, Jewish or/and Czech descent where this information will be appropriate. --Dezidor (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Not undue. First, worldwide media coverage = QED and second, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so we do not have to sacrifice text in the interests of space.
A brief, nuanced and cautious wording can deal with this in the article. (As an aside, it is interesting to witness strident resistance from fellow editors, to the little-known genetic diversity of Hitler [not to mention most white people then and now], especially Middle Eastern, North African and/or Jewish ancestry, something that he at least would have found profoundly embarrassing.)
Grant | Talk 05:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, your comment in no way addressed the WP:UNDUE issue, and veered off into "strident" insinuations about the motives of other editors, which was "interesting", but irrelevant. Also, the studies don't actually tell us anything about Hitler's genetic diversity, they tell us about the genetic diversity of his relatives. And they certainly don't show that any of them have "Middle Eastern, North African and/or Jewish ancestry", since the E1b1b haplogroup is present in all sorts of ethnic groups. As an actually relevant aside, claims that Hitler had Jewish ancestry date back to the 1930s, and were first promoted by his enemies, but we don't write articles on individuals based on what we think they "would have found profoundly embarrassing". Jayjg (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
You continue to say "WP:UNDUE", without proving that it is.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it has been explained quite clearly why it is WP:UNDUE. Please review the comments above. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You only linked to the policy, that's not an explanation on how it violates it, ElComandanteChe's comment also doesn't show it as undue weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we both actually explained why it was undue weight, we didn't "only link to the policy". Please make more accurate talk page statements. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Jayjg, on the contrary: WP articles include any and all kinds of material that is referenced.
It seems to me that there are essentially two different arguments being run against the inclusion of material about Hitler's DNA: first that the sources/science are not good enough and, second, that this is "undue"/not relevant enough for inclusion.
The science is solid: the DNA of an individual can be deduced from that of numerous relatives (unless of course Hitler was the product of cuckoldry). No other problem with the sources has ever been specified and they are news media pubs of a kind that are referenced in countless WP articles.
Second, I am bemused at the supposed "undue" issue (as I said) a brief, nuanced and cautious description of these recent discoveries. Since Hitler, perhaps more than any other individual in history, was famous for his genetically-based racism and it underpinned many of his most notorious policies, people are interested in his DNA, read news stories on the subject and come to this article looking for more information.
Therefore we are failing our readers as long as we do not deal with this matter.
I have to wonder: what do you consider would "address the UNDUE issue" and convince you that this is worthy of conclusion?
Finally, I wasn't aware that "interesting" could constitute a personal attack, but I will bear that in mind from now on. :-)
Grant | Talk 03:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Grant65, unfortunately your statement is incorrect. Wikipedia articles do not contain material simply because it is "referenced"; rather, the material must also comply with policies such as WP:UNDUE, WP:NOTNEWS, etc. In addition, the "science" is not actually that "solid", but rather, still in its early stages. Third, you haven't commented on the obvious fact that these news stories do not actually address Hitler's DNA, but rather that of his relatives, and in any event do not show that he has any of the speculated ancestries. And finally, it's not the "interesting" that was the personal attack, but rather the insinuations about the motives of other editors here, and their statement that their opposition was "strident". But you know this, of course, so the comment was disingenuous. Jayjg (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
The material does not violate UNDUE (you have said this repeatedly without explaining how) or NOTNEWS (its notable information). Reliable sources has reported about it, so its solid, journalists at reliable newspapers wouldn't have reported about it if it wasn't. His relatives DNA shows Hitlers DNA. Thats how genetics works.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
People have explained exactly why it is WP:UNDUE; see, for example, my comment of 23:34, 30 January 2011 or ElComandanteChe's comment of 15:35, 31 January 2011. Please desist from further WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jayjg (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You only linked to the policy, that's not an explanation on how it violates it, ElComandanteChe's comment also doesn't show it as undue weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we both actually explained why it was undue weight, we didn't "only link to the policy". Please make more accurate talk page statements. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
If you revisit the relevant post, I said it "it is interesting to witness strident resistance from fellow editors". The word "strident" is excessive; I withdraw it and apologise if you or anyone else is offended by it. But I always find such debates interesting, especially when they centre on the inclusion/otherwise of very brief factoids.
As for the rest: I am sure you don't intend to appear offensive either, but I don't believe you have fully understood my posts on this matter, especially the last, because you have: (1) interpreted them in a narrow way that does not reflect their overall content (or my intent) and/or (2) not responded to all of the particular points I have made (some of them more than once) in detail. You seem to be an editor of comparable, if not greater, experience and as I'm sure you will agree, the impression of being selectively ignored and/or misrepresented is not pleasant, even if it is not what the other party intended.
Anyway, whatever the case may be, it seems that consensus is against me on this and so I will drop this matter for now. Grant | Talk 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Consensus is based on the arguments not votes, non of the people who have claimed "undue" above have explained exactly how it is "undue". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
People have explained exactly why it is WP:UNDUE; see, for example, my comment of 23:34, 30 January 2011 or ElComandanteChe's comment of 15:35, 31 January 2011. Please desist from further WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Jayjg (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You only linked to the policy, that's not an explanation on how it violates it, ElComandanteChe's comment also doesn't show it as undue weight.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, we both actually explained why it was undue weight, we didn't "only link to the policy". Please make more accurate talk page statements. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ive done some reasearch on this and to my knowledge it is true that Hitler did have Jewish ancestors. but there is nothing that scientifically prove iether way. does anyone have any info that can shed light in this? Loki1488 (talk)Loki1488 —Preceding undated comment added 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC).

DNA tests show that: "Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." [8], "Belgian researchers say they have proof that Nazi leader Adolf Hitler had Jewish and African roots, the British Telegraph reported on Tuesday." [9] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
That's what the sensationalist newspaper stories wrote, but that's not what the studies actually showed. That's just one of the reasons why the material is inappropriate, as explained. Jayjg (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

To make it point blank, the whole section is biased or at least edited in what can be viewed easily as biased style. First, the opinion of Stiegmann- Gall is given the lead of the section and almost an entire paragraph-that's completely incompatible with Wikipedia guide lines about Academy main stream according which main stream sources should be given the credence and priority in Wikipedia's articles. Secondly, the religious aspect played minor role in the third Reich, and it should be referred in the section. Also, in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" a discourse between Rosenberg and Hitler is mentioned, where the first suggest to label Jesus as an Aryan prophet who couldn't be of Jewish origin since his ideas were Aryan in nature and quality and Hitler reject Rosenberg's suggestion with despise -stating that Jesus was Jewish and clearly showed no sympathy through the Christian faith.--Gilisa (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

interested how Hitler would have looked at the age of 88 or 91 years old?

how would he have looked at 91? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Old. Jayjg (talk) 01:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hahah, very old.--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's movement disorder

I was disappointed to see that this page was locked (though not entirely surprised), as I hoped to clear up what is a significant misrepresentation of equivalence between arguments as to the nature of hitler's neurologic disease. More specifically, the article as it reads now, suggests that the arguments for tertiary syphilis and post-encephalitic parkinsons are based on equal levels of evidence. In fact, one author goes as far as to place a statement qualifying the parkinson's argument with a statement suggesting that syphilis is the better diagnosis.

This is a significant misrepresentation of fact, and really understates what most specialists in movement disorders and others with background in these diseases really think. Most people with any experience in this field are pretty certain that hitler had post-encephalitic parkinsons disease. There are videos near the end of his life with a clear cut 3hz rhythmic hand tremor (classic for parkinson's), hypophonia, a shuffling gait, micrographia, decreased arm swing, and masked facies, all of which heavily point to parkinsonism, and are not typical of tertiary syphalis. Typically, when I have seen these videos shown to a group of physicians with a background in these diseases, there is a relatively rapid consensus that he did have parkinsonism. Further, subsequent investigations of Nazi records demonstrate concerted efforts to hide this tremor by holding something in his left hand (a common trick to reduce tremors) reducing public appearances after 1940 and instructing staff to film him from advantageous camera angles (ref: Shaking up Parkinsons disease, By Abraham N. Lieberman P117-119).

one of many such videos on this topic

Further, Hitler has a pretty clear history of Von economo's encephalitis (Hitler's encephalitis? Am J Psychiatry. 1981 Jul;138(7):999-1000.) which is the likely etiology of his subsequent early in life parkinsonism ( Parkinsonism & Related Disorders Volume 2, Issue 2, April 1996, Pages 95-103). This occurred to him in a military hospital while he was recouping from being gassed during the first world war, and occurred in the context of the mass influenze pandemic of 1918. Post-encephalitic parkinsonism is well described and his case has many of the cardinal signs (ref: Shaking up Parkinsons disease, By Abraham N. Lieberman P117-119)

The bottom line is that the evidence for Parkinsonism in Hitler's later life is extensive and widely accepted. This article really should be changed to reflect that this is the dominant explanation for many of hitlers neurologic symptoms and behaviors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


Big Mistake!!!! in biography! Battles/wars World War I? what?! maybe whan i plus? hitler in office 2 August 1934 – 30 April 1945,and First world war,which was 1914-18? :D funny.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ!--Wustenfuchs (talk) 12:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation Request for Hidlar / Hidlarcek

The Austrian author Franz Jetzinger claimed that Hitler was of partly Czech descent and that the name "Hitler" has its roots in the Czech language area, where the names "Hidlar" and "Hidlarcek" were frequent. (Franz Jetzinger "Hitlers Jugend. Phantasien, Lügen - und die Wahrheit". Vienna, 1956) (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement to the first paragraph

There is no mention of the (undoubted) crimes of Hitler in the first paragraph. In fact, to read the first few paragraphs would leave you with the impression that Hitler was one of the finest statesmen ever to walk the earth. I'm all in favour of balance, but this is simply inaccurate, and this article will never be a "good" article until this is reflected. Hitler is generally assumed to be one of the biggest criminals of the 20th century and this should be reflected in the first paragraph (see the BBC article for an excellent model: "Adolf Hitler, military and political leader of Germany 1933 - 1945, launched World War Two and bears responsibility for the deaths of millions, including six million Jewish people in the Nazi genocide.") I would suggest something along those lines.

If it is seemed too controversial to directly link Hitler with the Holocaust, then some indirect link should be added, something like: "Hitler's anti-semitic views, as described in his book Mein Kampf, were the inspiration for Nazi Germany's genocide against the Jews in the Holocaust". That statement is not controversial. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Inheriting Alois

"Hitler received the final part of his father's estate in May 1913" -- Alois died in 1903, how come this took ten years? Hexmaster (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Declaration of War and the Siberian Brigade

After Pearl Harbour in 1941 Hitler declared war on America. Does this make him the last head of state to formally issue a Declaration of War? Nobody seems to have declared war since.

Hitler probably did this hoping that his Japanes allies might do something by attacking west and relieve some of the pressure on the German army at Stalingrad. When Stalin realised that the Japanese had enough to cope with and weren't going to cause him any trouble, he moved the Siberian Brigade to Stalingrad.

Accounts vary as to the number of men in the Siberian Brigade but the BBC quoted 80,000 men. To men who were used to living and fighting at minus 40, the minus 20 of Stalingrad must have seemed warm.

It was probably these who broke the back of the German army at Stalingrad and were the "slavic looking troops" who fought their way into Berlin.AT Kunene (talk) 12:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WW2 technicality.

Although by 1941 the Germans had invaded Russia, technically the war was confined to the European nations.

Immediately after Pearl Harbour America, as the great superpower, was only at war with the Japanese, who were under no treaty obligation to militarily assist the Germans.

When Hitler declared war on America all the industrialised nations, including the two superpowers, were then at war and it has become WW2.AT Kunene (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not that is true, this talk page is where we discuss how to improve the article. Were you looking ho have something changed?
I,E Wouldst thou speak? 17:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the first section should be deleted

The last paragraph metions inventions such as the jet engine and the Volkswagen which are utterly irrelevant in a personal biography of Adolph Hitler. Did Hitler design the Volkswagen? Did Hitler design the jet engine? Of course not. With no personal involvement, this paragraph should be moved to the section on Nazi Germany, and should not be on a biography page. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Hitler's personal views and influence were central to World War II and the Holocaust; but what was his personal role in the jet engine? Jayjg (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

BogdaNz (talk) 12:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Stop talkings shit without before investigating.Hitler is the founder of volskwagen.and the designer of VW beetles,nr one selled car in the world.And take the refference that Hitler always talked about secret weapons that will win the war for Germany.Every project(rockets,jet plane)had his consent and he knew everything and supported them. so just not be jealous

Hitler's involvement in the Beetle is mentioned further down the page (I'll admit, I wasn't aware of it). His relatively small role does not merit a mention in the first section, though. Other aspects of his life were far more important, obviously. (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

One more agree. Germany had one of the finest science bases in the world after WW1 (all the achievements in math, quantum physics, chemistry, etc.). After Nazis came to power, they have reduced the quality of the science (by pursuing bogus science such as those that aryans are dominant over other races). Also, they have prevented numerous German scientists of Jewish origin from working at Universities. Details on this can be found in book "Hitler's Scientists". Anon (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Very good point. The Nazis contributed nothing to science. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the lede to remove the material, and moved the Fascism, WWII and Holocaust material to the first paragraph. Those three things are, without question, what Hitler is known for, and they should be put at the beginning, per WP:LEDE. Wernher von Braun was 100 times more significant in the development of rockets than Hitler, and Hitler was as responsible for jet aircraft as Richard Nixon was for the Internet. Jayjg (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a no brainer -- Fascism, WWII and Holocaust material clearly belong in the first paragraph. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. It looks much improved. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 13:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


Kai, so millions upon millions are dead because of this bastard and you PROTECT HIS WIKIPEDIA PAGE?... hmm.. this is why I will never move to USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure the page is mainly protected from neo-Nazis. It's a good thing. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 20:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. This is protection of the integrity of the article, not some sort of protection of Hitler's reputation (as if one could). It's really not worth getting worked up about. Barnabypage (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Information regarding a citation request - cf. Hidlar / Hidlarcek

The Austrian author Franz Jetzinger claimed that Hitler was of partly Czech descent and that the name "Hitler" has its roots in the Czech language area, where the names "Hidlar" and "Hidlarcek" were frequent. (Franz Jetzinger "Hitlers Jugend. Phantasien, Lügen - und die Wahrheit". Vienna, 1956) (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, citation added. Also, the source in English can be found here --ElComandanteChe (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler and the Children

Please do not feed the trolls.

According to some articles I've read on some other sites, like yahoo answers. Hitler had trusted children more than adults. He had believed that if he could brainwash the children then he could end up with the next generation with the National Solicialist ideology. On the other hand though, the propaganda films had protrayed that he had loved children, so he could only be using them to work for him only. It'd be like our president, now or in the future, using propaganda that he had loved kittens when in actuality, he despised kittens, and only used them for his own gain. Which view is correct. Hitler was fond of little girls. There are pictures of him recieving bouquets of flowers, or wreaths. So, my question is, did Hitler honestly like children? Or, does he only like using them as his puppets?Puppetmaster1234 (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for general discussion of Hitler's character, but my impression is that yes, he certainly had a sentimental streak (perhaps not atypical in someone of his country and generation) manifested, inter alia, in affection for children and animals. Barnabypage (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


Although his religious views have been disputed, he was raised and never formally left the Catholic Church.. should he be categorized under Roman Catholics? --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:CAT, it's better to categorize in the most specific way, like German Roman Catholics or Australian Roman Catholics. But not sure that "raised and never formally left" is enough to be accounted a catholic. Also, including this article in any of these categories is equal to stating "Hitler was Roman Catholic." --ElComandanteChe (talk) 21:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hitler was an Australian Catholic? the things you learn on Wikipedia ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was meaning Austrian. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 22:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitlers DNA

This is totally wrong that has been put here :

Adolf Hitler Adolf Hitler, German politician and leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party), and Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b. According to Ronny Decorte, genetics expert at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, "the results of this study are surprising" and "Hitler would not have been happy". [5][6]

The DNA was NOT Hitlers but supposively relations which is nothing but a hoax and does not prove it was his at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

First Speech as Chancellor 01 Feb 1933, not 10 Feb 1933

Hitler's first speech as Chancellor of Germany occurred 1933-02-01, not 1933-02-10.

Max Domarus's Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932--1945, which seems to be the definitive collections of Hitler's writings, states in volume 1, p. 232, a radio broadcast occurred 1933-02-01T22:00 entitled a "Proclamation of the Reich Government to the German Volk". See @Book{domarus90:_hitler,

author = {Max Domarus},
title = {Hitler: Speeches and Proclamations 1932--1945: The Chronicle of a Dictatorship},
publisher = {I.~B. Tauris \& Co., Ltd.},
year = 1990,
volume = {Volume One: The Years 1932 to 1934},
address = {London}}

See also page 128 of @book{helmreich1979german,

title=Template:The German churches under Hitler: background, struggle, and epilogue,
author={Helmreich, E.C.},
publisher={Wayne State University Press}


for an additional citation. (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's Toothbrush Moustache

The toothbrush moustache article is rife with references to Hitler, but no mention at all is made on his page. I have attempted to add a line about the style falling out of favor due to it's association with Hitler, but it is repeatedly removed for being "trivial". I am acting fully in good faith and this is without any doubt a well known part of Hitler's legacy. What gives Wikipedia? Le Douche? But of course! (talk) 00:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

It is trivial. The page is already too long as it is. The information is already on Wikipedia, on a different page, which is correct. The cataclysmic events of WW2 desribed here take precendence over a bit of facial hair. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

'Hitler and the Occult' - his suicide and body burned on 'Walpurgisnacht'

I've seen the History Channel documentary Hitler and the Occult more than once. HC is a legitimate resource. Hitler's suicide on April 30 and his command to have his body burned was no 'coincidence' - There Are No Coincidences (there is synchronism). Hitler believed in reincarnation and saw committing suicide and having his body burned on Walpurgisnacht as a vehicle to control his next reincarnation. This is an important fact and should be listed in the article with History Channel as its resource. - Brad Watson, Miami (talk) 10:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you want added runs into WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems. Kierzek (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Hitler not Jewish

Another good source which should be added into ancestry is : — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeordieWikiEditor (talkcontribs) 07:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 24 April 2011

Adolf Hitler had born in Austria. The town was near the German border .Adolf Hitler was a German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, commonly known as the Nazi Party, and served as the headman and the Prime Minister from 1934 to 1945. Adolf Hitler was the fourth of six children to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl. When he was three years old, his family moved to Germany. His younger brother died by the disease, causing the negative changes in Hitler. He went from a confident, outgoing boy who did very well in school, to a sully boy who always battled his father and his teachers. Hitler was really caring to his mother, but he had a troubled relationship with his father, who always beat him. His father wanted him to be a customs officer, so this became a huge source of argument between them. Although Hitler wanted for to go to classical high school and become an artist, his father sent him to another school. In September 1900, Hitler rebelled. Hitler's childhood is unhappy. There are historians think that Hitler had been bullied, so he had a strong result in retaliation. After Hitler’s father died in 3 January 1903, Hitler's behavior at the school became chaotic. He was asked to leave that school. After a while, he was 15 years old. He lived with his mother and younger sister in Vienna. Hitler said he first became an anti-Semite in Vienna. In 21 December 1907, Hitler's mother died of cancer at age 47 .Hitler became an orphan .he was very poor and lonely, so he joined to the army of Germany. He joined into politics. He was been cause the outbreak of Beer Hall Putsch. Hitler's beer hall oratory, attacking Jews, social democrats, liberals, reactionary monarchists, capitalists and communists, began attracting adherents. In 1 April 1924, Hitler had a punishment and he jailed at Landsberg Prison. While at Landsberg Prison, he writes a book My Struggle. Before the World War II, Hitler was to improve German-Polish relationship, signed the "German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact”. The reason that Hitler signed this contract was he wanted to get back his land of Germany. The most important event of Hitler was Massacre. The Germany army killed 1100 - 1400 million people, including Jews, Pole, Communists, Political opponents, opposition party, homosexuals, physical disabilities, soviet prisoners of war, and Union activists. Many peoples died of hunger, poison gas, and disease, or died of overwork. Hitler was an unhealthy and guy. He had the addiction of drug and skin lesions. In 28April, 1945, the Soviet army attacked Berlin. Hitler told everyone that he wasn’t the headman April 29, Hitler and Eva Braun held a wedding ceremony. After that, Hitler used a gun to suicide and his wife, Eva Braun ate the poison drug to suicide. Many people don’t like Adolf Hitler, because he is ferocious headman. He killed a lot of innocence peoples and causes the outbreak of World War II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, your comments are headed "edit request", what did you want changed? Britmax (talk) 08:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Way too big

At 250K, this is way too big and should be sub articled more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from MalusBam, 25 April 2011

The actual german pronounciation of Adolf is ˈʔadɔlf

MalusBam (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mein Kampf/My Struggle

In the lead, I've changed <"My Struggle" (in German Mein Kampf)> to <Mein Kampf (in English "My Struggle")>. It is now consistent with the treatment, in the same section, of Lebensraum. Note that the English translation here is so unused that it does not even gain the italic status of a book title. Spicemix (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Poison Kitchen

Shouldn't this be removed from the see also... If the holocaust for example isn't linked there, then why should this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Length of lead

The lead runs to five paragraphs. MOS:LEAD is clear that four is the maximum. The potted history of WW2 arguably has far too much detail. Spicemix (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Five paragraphs seems to divide into five themes quite nicely (overview/early years/rise to power/the war/the end). The events are so major, the section entitled to be quite long (any "four paragraph" rule seems arbitrary). However, the first three sentences of the "war" paragraph could simply be removed and that would improve the intro. The rest of the page is more of a problem as it needs splitting into sub-pages. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

1918, 1939-1941

Hitler might have been in the Red Army in Munich in 1918. He was allied with the same from 1939 to 1941. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not at all, he hated the Reds at the time, blaming them for many things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Citation Badly Needed

4.3. The Holocaust

"Göring gave a written authorisation to Heydrich to "make all necessary preparations" for a "total solution of the Jewish question". To make for smoother cooperation in the implementation of this "Final Solution", the Wannsee conference was held on 20 January 1942, with fifteen senior officials participating (including Adolf Eichmann) and led by Reinhard Heydrich. The records of this meeting provide the clearest evidence of planning for the Holocaust. On 22 February, Hitler was recorded saying to his associates, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews"."

Needs citation or at least a [citation needed] at its end.

March, 7th, 2011 - 7:35 GMT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Absconditus87 (talkcontribs) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


I thought Adolf Hitler was in World War II not World War I Cafeolay2 (talk) 00:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

He was a minor officer in the German Army in WWI, and started WWII. That's about it. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, he was not an "officer" but a Gefreiter (Lance Corporal) in WWI. Kierzek (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Kierzek, Lance Corporal is a non-commissioned officer, albeit the lowest ranked one there is.Hoops gza (talk) 04:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
True, but when one uses the word "officer" it implies, one of commissioned rank; I should have been more clear and said-he was not a "commissioned officer". Kierzek (talk) 12:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
So did the military uniform he wore in WWII signify any rank?Straw Cat (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Hitler birthplace

Really Braunau? Offically, definitiv? Legal source? Just like the Obama issue, but well you know... -- (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Leopold Frankenberger

Is there any evidence that Leopold Frankenberger ever existed? If there isn't, that probably should be mentioned in the article. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

No, no evidence. Paul B (talk) 15:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Is there a (sourced) way to add that to the article? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Sources are included here Leopold Frankenberger. Paul B (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Solublefawn, 31 May 2011

I am a renouned historian and teacher at the caimbridge university in yorkshire, England. I have been studying Hitler and nazi germany for over 10 years now and have discovered some very interesting information about Hitlers private life and his thoughts and aspirations. I now wish to show that information to the world, i hope that people can have a better understanding of what really went on inside Adolf Hitler's mind.

Solublefawn (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding... I've marked this request as answered for what I hope are obvious reasons. —James (TalkContribs)10:14pm 12:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you!! I kinda thought the misspellings were a little weird, after all, coming from a renowned historian... :-) --Funandtrvl (talk) 12:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


The article on Henry Ford says that Ford did not finance the Nazis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The article on Kurt Ludecke says clearly that Ford refused to produce any money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Questionable paragraph

"In his first four years of government the number of unemployed dropped from 6 million to 900 thousand people, the gross national product grew 102%, he doubled the per capita income, augmented companies' profits from 175 million to 5 billion reichsmarks and reduced hyperinflation to a maximum of 25% a year.[citation needed]"

Should this paragraph be struck? In addition to no references given, it is preposterous to imagine that any head of state, no matter how powerful, personally "doubled per capita income, augmented companies' profits [...] and reduced hyperinflation [...]." (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Just see the section on Mefo Bills ( to discover how the German economic improvement was based purely on debt. However, the economy did undoubtedly improve. As to whether the paragraph should be removed - well, the raw facts might actually be correct, but it constantly uses the word "he" as though Hitler had any knowledge or involvement! It was not due to Hitler, though, who, according to Laurence Rees's book "The Nazis" knew "next to nothing about economic theory". The improvement was down to Hjalmar Schacht who Hitler appointed Economics Minister and gave him complete control of the economy. And the improvement was based on debt. Unless a citation is given, I think the paragraph should just be cut. It's shockingly badly written and inaccurate. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Michon00, 6 June 2011

I, Michon00, hereby request permission to edit this page, for correction reasons (such as correcting the name Ellie Hitler in infobox)

Thanks in advance.

Michon00 (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection prevents edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has ten or more edits to Wikipedia) or confirmed. 'They may also request the confirmed userright by visiting Requests for permissions.Moxy (talk) 16:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 June 2011 (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC) i would like to request and edit sire

That's not how it works. You need to propose what exactly you'd like to change/add. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Length and Readability

It seems to me that the article is perfectly readable, and most people accessing this page will be wanting access to all info at once, rather than separate articles which may be overly frustrating having to access several articles. I suggest we get rid of the banner given that, with Hitler being an individual, not an historical period, a single article makes more sense, and we can always clean up if necessary; it's only really the rearmament and alliance section which is too long. What're your thoughts? Crease7 (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's readable, but even with DSL, the page loads slowly, especially when editing it. When I was cleaning up the images, the page froze up a few times. I haven't had a chance to read the assessment notes to why the article got de-listed, but maybe there would be some suggestions there too. I'll look into it when I get a chance. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I also like things all on one page. I absolutely agree - don't split it into annoying sections. But some of the sections on the page are just way too long. Just huge uninviting blocks of text. I think some of the sections could be reduced by half their length. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree also, about things being on one page, and that several sections are way too long and need to be pared down, especially those sections that have a "main article". --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's First Honorary Citizenship

This may be of interest: I own a document that may show that Rosenkopf was the first German town to grant Hitler with honorary citizenship, not Bad Doberan, which was brought up (to the town of Bad Doberan's embarrassment) during the 2007 G8 Summit there by ABC News and the story also ran on the BBC. Link: Here is my document:

(Kevin Canada (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC))

You might want to read up on WP:RS. If you have a real document, then it has some scholarly value. Wikipedia, however, isn't the place to determine the authenticity or historical value of your document. Take it to a researcher interested in it, let them publish it, and someday, we can write one sentence about it, while citing that source. Otherwise, it means little to this article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:46, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler and the surname Salomon? I came across this video and googled "Hitler Salomon"

In fact, there is one single and excellent explanation to the theory of Hitler's jewry. In 1932, still worried about his family's origin, Hitler asked the Austrian genealogist Karl Fiedrich von Frank to investigate his family tree : number 45 in the tree was a great great great Catholic grandmother named Katharina Salomon from the parish of Döllersheim. It was the appearance of the jewish-souding name that started speculations about Hitler’s jewish background. In fact, Frank had made a mistake and corrected it : the ancestor was in reality a Maria Hamberger from Nieder-Plöttbach. Frank corrected the mistake as early as August 1932. But the print run containing the error had already been shipped, a lot of newspapers men picked up on it and once a false rumor concerning a figure like Hitler was in the air, it was extremely difficult to stop it.

Who is Karl Fiedrich I tried to google him and can't find anything?--Jimmyson1991 (talk) 11:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There was a Karl Friedrich von Frank (you missed out the r). There is also his lawyer Hans Frank, who he asked to check up on the matter. Paul B (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)


Done [10]. Removed the following text:

Tobby72 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Death toll

I would like to propose the following additions: [11] concerning the Polish and Soviet victims of Hitler's war and genocidal policies in occupied territories.

Almost six million Polish citizens perished during the war — nearly one-fifth of Poland's population — half of them Polish Jews.[1]
The Soviet Union lost as many as twenty-seven million people during the war,[2] at least half of them civilians.[3] Some historians speak of the siege of Leningrad operations in terms of genocide, as a "racially motivated starvation policy" that became an integral part of the unprecedented German war of extermination against populations of the Soviet Union generally.[4] The Russian Academy of Sciences in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR at German hands, including Jews, totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR.[5]

Also, I am going to reduce several overly long sections, text can be copypasted elsewhere (German re-armament, Munich Agreement etc.), but feel free to revert my edits. Tobby72 (talk) 20:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Do remember that this article is about Hitler, not the war. Britmax (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I have found a lot of interesting information:

Although he ruled only 13 years, Adolf Hitler swept away much of traditional Germany, overthrew numerous governments, and caused the deaths of approximately 40 million people. ... The death toll in Europe during World War II is Adolf Hitler's darkest legacy. Nearly every European power sacrificed large numbers of soldiers and civilians, with the Soviet Union suffering a staggering 27 million dead. — David W. Del Testa, Florence Lemoine, John Strickland (2003). Government leaders, military rulers, and political activists Greenwood Publishing Group. p.83. ISBN 1573561533

Hitler hated Poles only slightly less than Jews. The Nazi annihilation of the Poles in fact began when the Wehrmacht crossed the Polish frontier in September 1939. German soldiers had been directed by the Führer himself to kill "without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language. Only in this way can we obtain the living space we need." From the Nazi point of view, Poles were untermenschen (subhumans) who lived in an area coveted by the superior German race. Poland was not simply to be defeated and occupied, as the nations in Western Europe later were. "The aim is not the arrival at a certain line," declared Hitler, "but the annihilation of living forces." — Richard C. Lukas (1989). Out of the inferno: Poles remember the Holocaust. University Press of Kentucky. p.2. ISBN 0813116929

Hitler gave repeated instruction to the military not to treat the Red Army as normal soldiers, to ignore the rules of war, and give no quarter. From the very beginning of the planning stage the Wehrmacht was deeply implicated in the criminal conduct of this unspeakably frightful campaign. Most of his generals enthusiastically endorsed Hitler's demented vision of a crusade against these Asiatic-Jewish-Bolshevik sub-humans. — Martin Kitchen (2006). A history of modern Germany, 1800-2000. Wiley-Blackwell. p.301. ISBN 1405100419

Hitler ordered that when Moscow and Leningrad (Saint Petersburg) were surrounded, no surrender of those cities would be accepted. Instead, they were to be razed to the ground when they were taken, along with their population. — Alan J. Levine (1996). Race relations within western expansion. Greenwood Publishing Groupp. 106. ISBN 0275950379

Hitler ordered that Moscow and Leningrad were to be razed to the ground; their inhabitants were to be annihilated or driven out by starvation. These intentions were part of the 'General Plan East'. — Ian Dear, Michael Richard Daniell Foot (2001). The Oxford companion to World War II. Oxford University Press. p.88. ISBN 0198604467

Tobby72 (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
This isn't an anti-Naziism propaganda poster. WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV for more details. --Σ talkcontribs 06:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of context Röpke quote

"Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great.[30] Wilhelm Röpke, writing after the Holocaust, concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful."

The Röpke quote is out of context. Röpke did write this, but he wasn't talking about Luther's anti-Semitism and its potential influence on Hitler at all. Rather, he basically faulted Lutheranism for nurturing: (1) a separation of the spheres of political and private life, justifying obedience to the State despite the theoretical Christian morality held privately; and (2) collectivist morality, in which the sphere of the state intrudes into the sphere of private life. Although these factors in turn contributed, according to Röpke, to the overall German national character, which in turn somehow conditioned anti-Semitism, the connection is still rather indirect. The book is available on Google Books and one can easily verify this by browsing it.-- (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Holocaust template

Removed from this article?! What shall be the reason? Hitler's name is in the template.--Eleven Nine (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Only a second one was removed which was considered redundant. The original one is still at the bottom of the article. See same therein; click to "show" it. Kierzek (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
I do not see any. Where is the first one? I'm talking about the template \{\{The Holocaust\}\}--Eleven Nine (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Its there and its easy; click on: Links to related articles. Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not there. There are only two links to the Holocaust article, which is not necessary to have if the navigation template (\{\{The Holocaust\}\}) is placed.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
YES, it is. I just clicked on it; its the last one under "Nazism". Don't click on Holocaust that will take you to the article; click on the right side across from it where it is listed "show"; the whole template will come up. Kierzek (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
No, it is not. What you are referring to is not the \{\{The Holocaust\}\} template. However, it looks like this template and it is hidden at the end of the article behind two nested 'show' expansion links. A nav bar is useful only if it is on surface of the page it was supposed to be in use. Moreover, there is no need to have a large number of photos in this article. If some photo gallery of Hitler is necessary, then a good idea is to have it as a separate Wikipedia entry. That way hiding a nav bar, the \{\{The Holocaust\}\} template would not be necessary and it would serve its purpose.--Eleven Nine (talk) 12:10, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The "original version" of the template is there and its presentation works. The consensus is that what is there is fine, therefore, you don't have consensus to change it. I see you are new to Wikipedia and I would suggest you read some of the guidelines and tutorials to become more familiar with how it all works. Good luck. Kierzek (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

  • My point is: a navigation tool is useful (i.e. will be in frequent use) only if it is not hidden. My intention was to suggest a solution that makes sense. For this I do not need tutorials nor guidelines for being a web application/software engineer for many, many years. No one has consensus as long as a single person is against something. So, consensus is already dead. I'm out of this discussion and pretending that I did not suggest anything.--Eleven Nine (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You are misinterpreting what I meant. I meant it does one good to become familiar with how Wikipedia works and its guidelines when one is new. I see no one has put the standard welcome with the links on your talk page, so I just did it. Consensus, btw, operates by majority. I understand your point, but you must admit, the sidebar is redundant. It was apparently added and removed almost two years ago by another editor, herein without objection at that time; in more recent times, the redundant sidebar was added to a few other articles where it was discussed and removed. I do agree with you that this article needs edits for concession; it is too long. Kierzek (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The Template:The Holocaust (end) navbox is there, but maybe Eleven Nine was refering to Template:The Holocaust sidebar, which was removed by one editor without consensus with this edit on 29 Aug 2010. I think that sidebar should be put back into the article, which I will do now. If anyone objects, I'd be curious to know why. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Funandtrvl, it is really not needed and it adds further clutter to an article that needs editing down, as it is. The side bar is redundant. The Template has the same info. and more. In more recent times, the redundant sidebar was added to a few other articles where it was discussed and removed; Talk:Concentration Camps Inspectorate & Talk:SS-Totenkopfverbände. Further, it was discussed on the editor's talk page who added it to those articles and he agreed to removal. As for the addition here, I would ask you to re-consider the matter and I will wait to see if anyone else voices an opinion. I will go with consensus. Kierzek (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I see your point also. However, the template addition only added 23kB to the article (see revision history), so size is not the problem here, because a photo or two could be removed, instead of the sidebar. I am thinking that there are editors that would like to see the sidebar there, because A. Hitler was the major perpetrator of the Holocaust, and "The Holocaust" sidebar template emphasizes that fact very clearly. Because the related Holocaust navbox is down below and hidden, due to the large number of navboxes related to this biography, it does not seem to emphasize the fact enough, at least to some editors, that Hitler was significantly related and responsible for it. So, I am concerned that removing the sidebar template seems to be controversial to editors, such as Eleven Nine (see above) because it is taken as a "slight" to them that it is not displayed in the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is not the size (kB) as much as the space involved which it takes up. And one could say, you are making assumptions that have not been stated by "other editors" herein. And given the fact it was removed almost two one years year ago speaks for itself. I could go on but don't feel that strongly about it as to inclusion in this article. I will let it go and agree (as I said above) that more edits for concession can be made. I have already looked at one or two photos I thought could go. Like many articles, the editing down just takes time, which we don't always have; it seems. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
When you stated that the template "was removed almost two years ago", were you referring to the sidebar template? If so, as I stated in my response above of 21 July 2011 at 20:00, the sidebar template was removed in August 2010, just under 11 months ago. Also, it was previously placed at the beginning of the article, just below the main infobox template. When I added it back into the article on 21 July, I placed it into the relevant Holocaust section, not at the start of the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I, of course, meant almost "one year ago"; that's what I get for writing a reply late at night. Anyway, enough has been said and the matter is really moot at this point. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


I delete a part (maybe done by a jewish) that said Hitler was responsabile for the death of 40 million people. The war, and specially the communism and the Stalin was responsabile for mostly of these deaths. Also the Holodomor article doesn't say nothing about who was behind this genocide (jews). Let's leave the article impartial please. --Santista1982 (talk) 14:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the section you deleted was properly cited, and blamed Hitler for all the WWII deaths. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Did you read the section and the reference before revert? Please leave your opinion before edit the article. --Santista1982 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Your saying Stalin and the communism party was responsible for the war? Moxy (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Why not? They did a try to invade Finland (fail), they invaded Latvia, Ukraine, the next would be Poland if Germany not did it first. Stalin is much more responsable for these death tha Hitler. --Santista1982 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
You said the Jews were responsible for the genocide at Holodomor, which is utter fiction and unrelated to this article. You said that Hitler was blamed by a Jewish writer for 40 million deaths, also utterly unfounded. You are headed for a block because of 4 reversions, and you are wrong to remove cited text. Binksternet (talk) 15:28, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, Lenin, not Stalin, was the one who invaded Finland. --Σ talkcontribs 06:07, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
No, Santista1982 is referring to the Winter war. However, his wider arguments are either drivel or difficult to decipher. Paul B (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

was he ever on line of becoming president? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "president" but he was the chancellor of Germany, which is indeed the German equivalent to "president" or "prime minister". Although he was a dictator and had too many powers. NHRHS2010 the student pilot 18:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The president was Paul von Hindenburg. Hitler abolished the distinction between the presidency and chancellorship on Hindenburg's death. See the section Adolf_Hitler#Removal_of_remaining_limits. So in a sense he became president and chancellor, but had the new title of "fuhrer". Paul B (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh okay, thanks for letting me know. My apologies if any part of my comment was false. I don't know much about Hitler (other than the part where he rose to power in WWII). However, I dealt with a group of trolls on YouTube who has been harassing me for a long time by calling me Hitler and assume that I am Hitler even though I am not, so some of the words (i.e. Fuhrer) look very familiar. NHRHS2010 the student pilot 19:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Film not listed

There's a film not listed under that heading, film name "Hitler," released in 1962, with Richard Basehart in the title role, Cordelia Trantow as Geli Raubal and Maria Emo as Eva Braun. John Banner (Sgt. Schultz in the TV series Hogan's Heros) plays Gregor Strasser, a party associate, sometime political rival and alleged rival for Geli Raubal's affection who did not survive the Night of the Long Knives (brief pause for gasps of amazement). The film was released in 1962 by Three Crown Productions, Inc. It is in black and white, and is apparently notable for having done an excellent true-to-life job of casting the various major political figures. Cinematography is good, but the mono sound is tinny by modern standards. The film was re-released as "Women of Nazi Germany" a few years later. It depicts Geli Raubal's death as an execution-style murder carried out by Heinrich Himmler at Hitler's express orders, then covered up as a suicide. This is probably accurate: the Wikipedia article on Strasser,, notes that Raubal did receive a Catholic burial and quotes the priest who conducted the service as confirming this and stating in a French newspaper in 1939, "From the fact I gave her a Catholic burial you can draw your own conclusions"

I'd suggest adding the film to the list in the article. Given the note at the top of the page, I'd also suggest breaking the article into two sections, one for Hitler's political career and another for his personal life. It might be good to cross-check articles on other characters such as Strasser for conflicting or contradictory information. The information on Geli Raubal on the Strasser page, for instance, seems better authenticated than that on this Hitler page. I'd volunteer to do that, but I'm a total newbie at this, and I'm not ready to make major changes on my own. I'll assist with the cross-checking and research if somebody with more experience will do the heavy lifting. Jgr 51 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC) Jgr 51

I added the low budget 1962 film, "Hitler" which starred Richard Basehart (better known as Admiral Harriman Nelson from the old VTTBOTS TV show); with cite link. I had forgotten about that film (having viewed it years ago on VHS); thanks for the reminder. As for the info. on Geli, what is in the Strasser article is not better as it is hearsay and has WP:VERIFY problems. What is written on the Hitler page does not discuss the speculation over Geli, although I have read it before. Kierzek (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


I was thinking that some photos could be taken out as Funandtrvl and I discussed above in another section. This to help with the flow and streamlining of the article. The ones I was thinking about are: "Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler" and leaving the Nuremberg shot of September 1934. Then taking out the 1934 Hitler and Mussolini photo; leave the more important 1938 photo of when the Axis was declared. Then taking out one of the two crowd cheering shots-either, Hitler welcomed to Vienna by cheering crowds, March 1938 or Hitler (standing in Mercedes) as he drives through the crowd in October 1938, Sudetenland photo. One could say the "Anschluss" shot of March 1938 relates to an event of greater notoriety. Kierzek (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've pared down a few, but I'd keep the Oct. 1938 Sudetenland photo since it relates to the section. --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Good job. Kierzek (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, now we need to work on getting citations for where they are marked "needed". --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Volpiceli, 5 August 2011

Health Hitler's health has long been the subject of debate. He has variously been said to have had irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, Parkinson's disease,[182] syphilis,[182] tinnitus,[256] and Asperger syndrome.[257][258] I suggest to place this phrase, after the previous one: While other researchers say there is not sufficient evidence to draw conclusions that he had any such conditions. Reason: to alert that they are theories without evidence.

Volpiceli (talk) 15:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of name

From listening to quite a few authentic German recordings, the IPA pronunciation as well as the .ogg soundbite illustration seem to be wrong. It would be better if we could get clarification on this issue as well as someone with a Germanic background to record the soundbite. The Indian guy doing the recording seems to me quite inaccurate - not that I'm racist or anything, since I'm Indian as well.

I'm of German extraction, and I cannot find fault with the sound recording—the pronunciation is generally accurate, the hint of an Indian accent notwithstanding. A native German speaker may also give it some additional inflection depending on local dialect. The IPA transcription also seems ok, though I'm not an expert on that. Malljaja (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
The pronunciation of "Adolf" given in the .ogg file does not quite fit with other web examples of German pronunciations, for example, here and elsewhere. In the .ogg file on this page the first syllable of "Adolf" is pronounced almost as a neutral schwa and the emphasis is on the second syllable. In the example that I've linked to here (representative of other pronunciations available on the web), you will notice that the first syllable is a more obvious flat "a" (as in "hat"), not the long "a" used by American-English speakers (as in "hay"). Also, the emphasis is on the first syllable, not the second. --621PWC (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with 621PWC. Therefore, the current pronunciation in the .ogg file is incorrect. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 16:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but most of the inogolo examples are laughable. I'm not aware of anyone in the German-speaking realm pronouncing Adolf as AH-dahlf— an American with a mid-Atlantic or an English person with a received accent might do so, but not most German native speakers. The emphasis is typically on the second syllable, Adolf, not on the first. Think of someone from Ringsend Dublin saying Adolf, and someone from, say, Oxford enunciating Hitler (not Hitlur like the gent from the deep South in the example). The German pronunciation there is ok, but it's not free content. If anyone has a usable alternative audio file, I'd be happen to listen. Malljaja (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The stress in Adolf is certainly on the first syllable (as the IPA correctly indicates), the .ogg soundbite has it on the second. It is wrong. The .ogg soundbite also seems to cut off the second syllable of Hitler, which is the tough one to pronounce properly. It needs to be replaced. (If it's relevant: I'm a german native speaker with a university degree)-- (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I appear to have stumbled across what, in my opinion, is the closest pronunciation. The speaker is Austrian, and Adolf Hitler, being in-part an Austrian name, I believe this to be the perfect fit. Luckily, what I found is in the public domain and freely distributable, so with this in mind, it will soon replace the current pronunciation. If anyone objects, feel free to revert changes, and discuss on reasons why. --Huss4in (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you give us a link so we can listen before you make the change? Rumiton (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's already done. Try clicking 'Listen' in the article, in order to hear it.

Contradictory statements

The material quoting Hans Frank needs to be clarified. Did he or did he not believe there was a 19-year-old Jewish bedhopper? Rumiton (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Audio Recording

The current audio file used for the pronunciation of his name is frankly, quite horrendous. I urge someone with a native German accent to do their part, and supply the article with what is needed. I would make such a contribution myself, but my British Lancastrian accent wouldn't be desirable. --Huss4in (talk) 15:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sure my Australian accent is just what is required. I volunteer. Rumiton (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The offer is appreciated, but an Austrian German accent would be quite the bit more suitable, given Hitler's origins. --Huss4in (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is tricky sometimes, when you don't know if someone is joking or not. Rumiton (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Link for name

Would someone with access to this page please make the reference to Adolf_Eichmann into a WikiLink? Ben Atkin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC).

Done. The second mention was linked, but you are right. It should have been the first. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Is it correct that "Hitler's racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic annihilation of as many as 17 million civilians". How many people were systematically killed because of their race? Certainly not 17 million. Stalin killed a lot more people at the same time because of their race. That isn't mentioned in his Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"Stalin killed a lot more people at the same time because of their race". What evidence do you have of that? Stalin purged political opponents, there were no death camps for people based on race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrann (talkcontribs) 23:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Source #3 in the list should not be accepted at face value, because there is no proof for the actual figures mentioned. There is a strong tendency to include native Ruassian victims that were actually killed either by unknown assassinators or by Stalinist terrorist that "cleansed" the country from "capitalist agents", "fascist agents", "counter-revolutionary individuals" (and there families of course) as well as "bourgois subjects". As the Stalinists were able to manipulate all documents and even forge complete archives, all research based on Soviet sources must not be accepted at face value.

Remark: Russia had been a strong colonial power committing a lot of racial and other crimes as monarchy already, but even more as the country came under a regime of mere and ultimate terror, esp. Leninist/ Stalinist terror of the 1930s and 40s. The last wave of murdering Jewish population in central Europe was committed unter Stalin in 1947/48, "eliminating"/ assassinating the still existing academic and intellectual elite. The accurate numbers of victims of Stalinism is still under discussion because there had been a lot of comprehensive forgery in the Soviet archieves, committed by the regime. In any case, the numbers are extremely high, probably more than 20 million victims in Ukrainia already over the decades of terror. On the other hand, the criminals ruling through Leninism/Stalinism and Post-Stalinism had much more time to commit crimes in Russia and the related regions, because they first were supported, than tolerated by Western Countries, as well as by the Nazi-regime ("Hitler-Stalin-Pact") - and later on, as the Stalinists/ Post-Stalinists had the Atomic Bomb, no one could stop them anyway. (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's policies were in large part motivated by his ill-founded conviction of a racial and genetic "supremacy" of the German people, which is mentioned and supported by multiple sources in the entry. The systematic killing of more than six million Jewish people, along with those with disabilities, homosexuals, and so forth, coupled with the killing through warfare, forced labour, or ethnic cleansing of millions of Polish and Russian people also considered "unfit for life" because of their ethnic (or "racial") origin allows for few other explanations than that this was done because of Hitler's and his consorts' racial views. That Stalin may have done worse is immaterial here, since this entry is about Hitler; if you wish to include a similar statement in the Stalin article, you're welcome to do so, as long as you have sources supporting this assertion. Malljaja (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

36 howevers

I trimmed some of the superfluous (and in many cases wrongly-used) instances of this word which I have a particular bugbear with, but have twice been reverted. I propose a cleanup tag on the article to encourage some improvement in the writing here; one or two of these you could argue with but 36 is a record in one article and it is hard to argue this is appropriate, except presumably to the editor who restored the version with the 36 howevers. --John (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In this great However Battle, I tend to side with the pro-however camp. We can't just follow rules rigidly. Language evolves; we also have to take into account flow and rhythm. Just cutting link-terms like 'however' can lead to harsh jumps between sentences or clauses. However, I am open to persuasion, however hard it may be to change ones ways. Paul B (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Maybe there is a compromise to be had here, there usually is on Wikipedia. But 36? It is hard to argue that all of them are required for this article to work. Can you point to any of my elisions that caused a "harsh jump between sentences or clauses"? --John (talk) 21:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I looked at all the words (howevers) which were removed and must say it was heavy-handed. I can see in some instances were the change was of no importance; but, in several it took out the point of nevertheless and disrupted flow as a word to connect sentences, as well. I am glad you believe a compromise can be obtained. Kierzek (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've just left a more wordy response on my own talk page, including one example in which the omission of "however" makes for rather rough reading. As the editor who reverted the recent "however" cull, I'd like to emphasise that I'm by no means particularly married to any of them (the wife wouldn't allow it), and that there surely are ways to recast sentences/add in alternative connectors to bring down that number. I only took issue with the wholesale editing spree, which initially struck me as some kind of mischief. The number of 36 may seem high, but the entry is rather chunky, something I've been working on the last couple of months, so you're not alone in your effort to streamline this article. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's ancestry seems relevant to someone who killed millions over racial identity..? From Haaretz in Israel. Similar stories appeared in several US and British newspapers.

Why does the main article ignore this story? Since Hitler had millions of people killed over concepts of racial purity, is his own ancestry not relevant (especially since he was known to be sensitive about the subject)? The main story lacks balance in emphasizing old evidence of the relatively low odds that Hitler had Jewish ancestors, while ignoring recent DNA evidence that vastly increases such a possibility.

"In research for the Flemish-language magazine Knack, journalist Jean-Paul Mulders traced Hitler's living relatives in the Fuhrer's native Austria, as well as the United States.

Geneticists identify groups of chromosomes called haplogroups, 'genetic fingerprints' that define populations.

According to Mulders, Hitler's dominant haplogroup, E1b1b, is relatively rare in Western Europe - but strongest in some 25 percent of Greeks and Sicilians, who apparently acquired the genes from Africa: Between 50 percent and 80 percent of North Africans share Hitler's dominant group, which is especially prevalent among in the Berber tribes of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, and Somalis.

More surprising still, perhaps, is that Hitler's second most dominant haplogroup is the most common in Ashkenazi Jews." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rlomax69 (talkcontribs) 16:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past. Claims that Hitler had a recent Jewish ancestor are completely different from claims that he may have had an ancient one. In any case, a haplogroup proves nothing about religion. Paul B (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Religion is not relevant. Jews were killed because of their "race". Converting, as many did, to Christianity did not save them. Rumiton (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
A spectacularly silly remark, which simply shows you have no idea how this research relates to the modelling of race used used by the Nazis. The point is that ancient ancestor cannot be given a religious ethnicity because of a haplogroup, thus making meaningless any genealogy of "Jewishness" pertinent to the mid 20th century. Paul B (talk) 15:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I will ignore what could be an attempt at provocation and freely admit that I know nothing about haplogroups, but your statement still makes little sense to me. Perhaps the confusion is arising because of the term "religious ethnicity." Would you care to define it? Rumiton (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

As per many previous talks Hitler's so called DNA was removed - "newspapers and popular magazines are generally not considered reliable sources for scientific and technical matters" - as per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine.............PS - E1b1b is not rare in Europe.

These DNA results don't prove he had Jewish or African ancestry the tabloids just have blown it way out of proportion and you're only taking journalists not scientists word for it.--14Adrian (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. ^ Wojciech Materski and Tomasz Szarota. Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami. Institute of National Remembrance(IPN) Warszawa 2009 ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6, pp. 29-30
  2. ^ Geoffrey A. Hosking (2006). "Rulers and victims: the Russians in the Soviet Union". Harvard University Press. p.242. ISBN 0-674-02178-9
  3. ^ Geoffrey P. Megargee (2007). "War of Annihilation: Combat and Genocide on the Eastern Front, 1941". Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0742544826
  4. ^ Ganzenmüller, Jörg (2005), Das belagerte Leningrad 1941-1944, Ferdinand Schöningh Verlag, Paderborn, pp. 17,20, ISBN 350672889X 
  5. ^ The Russian Academy of Science Rossiiskaia Akademiia nauk. Liudskie poteri SSSR v period vtoroi mirovoi voiny:sbornik statei. Sankt-Peterburg 1995 ISBN 5-86789-023-6