Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Reichskanzler

Andreas11213 claims in a series of edit summaries, culminating in this one, that "Bundeskanzler translates to Federal Chancellor, however Chancellors before or after Hitler are only referred to as Chancellor, not Federal Chancellor, so Reich should not be included" and that there is no such title as "Reich Chancellor," so Hitler couldn't have been one. This is demonstrably false, as (a) Bismarck was Reichskanzler: [1], and this is translated "Reich Chancellor" in English: [2], and Hitler was also Reichskanzler: [3], and this is translated "Reich Chancellor" in English: [4], Bruening was a Reichskanzler, Hinderberg was, others maybe. This is clear from the sources. Why the push against reality here? What's at stake?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that he held the position of Reich Chancellor, the only holder of that title. I think the info box should be put back to the way it was before. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I think there were other Reich Chancellors and that Hitler created the unique office of Führer and combined the two into the new and extra-unique office of "Führer and Reich Chancellor." But we're not solving all the world's problems here, and what Bismarck et al. styled themselves isn't our question. It's clear from the literature that Hitler was the Reich Chancellor and that he is referred to by that term in both German and English, so the infobox should go back how it was. Here's another interesting search: [5].— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are right and it is a position, but if you go to any of the pages you have suggested, such as Bismarck, they do not say Reich Chancellor, they only say Chancellor, so Hitler should be no exception, and should be restored to his original title, Chancellor or Germany. If you have such an issue, raise it on the talk page. Andreas11213 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andreas 11213. I see your edit summary says that you have consensus to make this change. Actually you don't. There's two of us that say the change should not be made, and only one person in favour (yourself). So at present the consensus is actually going the other way. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm... Remember Andreas11213 that Bismarck was chancellor of a "normal" Germany. During Hitler's rule, much more emphasis was put on the idea of a "Greater German Reich". It seems, therefore, more logical to keep it as it is. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• Evans, Richard J. (25 January 2005). The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Group US. pp. 45–. ISBN 978-1-101-04267-0. ...the accession of Kaiser Wilhelm quickly led to a serious weakening of Bismarck's position as Reich Chancellor.
• Hayes, Bascom Barry (1 January 1994). Bismarck and Mitteleuropa. Fairleigh Dickinson Univ Press. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-8386-3512-4. Accordingly, as late as 1889, Bismarck was writing 'a letter of complaint, as Prussian foreign minister, to himself as Reich chancellor and President of the Bundesrat' and, in another, reprimanded a Prussian minister 'for addressing a letter to him as Reich Chancellor instead of as Prussian minister-president' ..."

and on, and on, and on... Don't look at the wikipedia pages, look at the reliable sources. They say unequivocally that Bismarck had the title of Reichskanzler, commonly translated as Reich Chancellor, and that Hitler did too. Wikipedia is often wrong, you know. Let's not make it more so.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with alf laylah wa laylah, this discussion is a little bizarre. That Bismarck was the first Reich Chancellor of Germany is quite common knowledge. The German WP even has an entry for Reichskanzler. The first sentence of the article says, "Reichskanzler war von 1871 bis 1945 die Amtsbezeichnung des Regierungschefs des Deutschen Reiches." ("From 1871 to 1945, Reich Chancellor was the description of the office of the head of government of the German Reich.") Let's not get bogged down in phantom debates. Malljaja (talk) 02:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Health

I see there is a section for Hitler's health and his addiction to amphetamines, but it mentions very little about the his other addictions and the extraordinary cocktail of drugs he was taken, some he injected daily. Hitler, since 1936, had been taken many addictive drugs such as Chineurin, Cortiron, Enbasin, Euflat, Eukodal, Eupaverin, Clucose, Glyconorm, Homatropin, Intelan, Camomilla, Luitzym, Mutaflor, Omnadin, Optalidon, Cocaine-eye drops, and Cocaine, which is highly addictive. Hitler's over-use of these drugs would unquestionably have influenced his military judgment during the 26 November-meeting of 1942 between Hitler and Manstein regarding a breakout at Stalingrad. Morell also said in his patient-dairy that before the meeting he gave Hitler a huge injection of amphetamines. This is not mentioned clearly enough in the article, it only mentions Speer's speculations. Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a large literature on Hitler's health, and my understanding is that historians now generally judge that Hitler's performance as a war leader generally wasn't significantly affected by sickness or the various drugs he was taking. Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the effect of the drugs he was taken might be more used in speculations than serious discussions, but as you said, there's a large literature on Hitler's health, and it's uncommon for any human being to not be effect with an unnatural mix of 60 different types of addictive drugs over a period of years. As the article says, Hitler became an addict in 1942, and it was at this particular time many of the meetings regarding the faith of the 6th Army in Stalingrad was taken, which is generally regarded as a huge setback, if not turning point in the war. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Do any reliable, recent and independent sources argue that Hitler's decision making during the Stalingrad campaign was affected by his health status? I've never seen this argued in what I've read on the campaign. Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I myself have not seen or heard about any recent sources, but then again, I have not looked. I don't think it's a topic or big deal regarding the literature of the campaign, because that is more regarding the strategic and military decisions, not so much political factors or the health of individual world leaders at the time. However, as I said before, it would practically be common sense to assume that any man or women would be effected one way or another by daily injecting so many different drugs at such an amount. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2014

There is a grammatical problem in this paragraph: "After his release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles that had been forced on Germany and promoted nationalism, Pan-Germanism, and antisemitism with charismatic oratory, and Nazi propaganda." -- In this paragraph it isn't clear if it is Hitler who promoted nationalism, Pan-Germanism, and antisemitism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda, or if it is the Treaty of Versailles promoting these things. It should read something like: "After his release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles, which had been forced on Germany, and also by promoting nationalism, Pan-Germanism, and antisemitism, using his trademark charismatic oratory, touting Nazi propaganda."

Tessa DuPree (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have changed it to read "After his release in 1924, Hitler gained popular support by attacking the Treaty of Versailles and promoting Pan-Germanism, antisemitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and Nazi propaganda." -- Diannaa (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted Tessa Dupree. I had to read it through a few times to understand what you meant. Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hitler, the young anti-Semite

The article mentions the confusion and different beliefs among historians and experts regarding the exact time Hitler became an anti-Semite. Last night, I watched a very interesting interview with Kershaw and Anton Joachimsthaler regarding the time Hitler became an anti-Semite. They talked about Hitler's love for Stefanie and most importantly, her Jewish surname, and how Hitler couldn't have been an anti-Semite at that time. In that interview, Joachimsthaler said:

"He knew very well that this girl was called "Isak". A Jewish surname. This is the evidence (showing the camera documents from the Linz city archive). I got the document from the Linz city archive. I researched all this, and if it's said that Hitler was an anti-Semite while he was in Linz. Well, it's not true. He couldn't have known she wasn't Jewish, given her name "Isak". Because she had a Jewish surname, he had to assume she was Jewish."

I see the article mentions Hitler's own opinion on when he became an anti-Semite, but Mein Kampf should (in my opinion) not be mentioned or considered very reliable. Mein Kampf is just a re-written story of Hitler's early life he needed for his political career. Kershaw himself noted in this interview that Hitler lied about the time and reason he drifted from Vienna to Munich. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Italics

I agree that words like Wehrmacht, Panzer, Luftwaffe is commonly used in both British-English and American-English and should therefore not be in italics, but shouldn't "Führer und Reichskanzler" be in italics? Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and changed it from Führer und Reichskanzler to Führer und Reichskanzler. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Alcohol

The article says "Hitler despised alcohol" which would indicate he didn't drink alcohol. Linge noted in his memoirs that "Hitler would occasionally have a beer and drink wine when something had to be toasted." I think it would be more appropriate to change the sentence to "Hitler rarely drank alcohol." or something similar. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The source says "Hitler also despised alcohol, the taste of which was repugnant to him. On ceremonial occasions when he had to drink a toast, his glass was always filled with mineral water." So if we are going to change the content, we have to provide new sources. What does Kershaw say on this topic? -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

According to The Daily Mail, Linge said quote: "Hitler would occasionally have beer with his meal, and wine on official occasions when a toast was to be made. He was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking, but was not opposed to alcohol." (Here's a link to The Daily Mail interview). Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not considered a reliable source. Do you have the Linge book, so it could be checked directly? I can get Kershaw, but not until tomorrow, it's at the library. I checked the books I have here (Speer, Bullock, and Toland) and they don't discuss alcohol. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure The Daily Mail was quoting Linge's book. Nonetheless, it's Linge's words, no matter if it's a quote from his memoirs or interview. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I would not trust the Daily Mail for any purpose whatsoever; here's why. There's no rush: I will bring Kershaw home tomorrow. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, friend. Let me know what you find out. And no, I do not have Linge's memoirs, It was from The Daily Mail. I also wasn't aware it wasn't considered a reliable source. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I can bring in Linge on inter-library loan if nobody has a copy. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not had time to check it in Kershaw; I used to have Linge's re-issued book, but after reading it and using it for citing, I sold it. So, Diannaa, let us know what you find. Kierzek (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not read the book, but Linge was at Hitler's beck and call from 1935 to standing outside the door of room where Hitler and Eva committed suicide. I would consider Linge more reliable than Günsche and Misch. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Günsche is considered the most reliable by historians for the timeframe of the last days in the Berlin bunker. Kierzek (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but I don't think being closer to the Führer in the bunker will make a significant difference in Hitler's attitude towards alcohol. I mean, Linge converted with Hitler every day. Furthermore, Linge was overall closer to Hitler. Günsche might have been more reliable as a source on the last days in the bunker, but I will regard Linge as most reliable when it comes to Hitler's personal life, or at least regarding alcohol. Jonas Vinther (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, I did not say Günsche stated any opinion as to alcohol, I was only replying to your general statement that Linge was "more reliable" in total. Like most things, the context is important. Kierzek (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've long been sceptical of claims like "Hitler also despised alcohol, the taste of which was repugnant to him..." How many people ever taste alcohol on its own? It's always part of a product with other flavours that dominate any flavour that might be detectable of the alcohol itself. It's populist, cliché style writing. We should dismiss it. HiLo48 (talk) 06:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Kierzek, I agree on what you said, that Günsche is more reliable in general and especially regarding the last days in the Führerbunker, but did Günsche ever say anything about Hitler and alcohol? Linge talks a lot about that stuff in his memoirs. All in all, Linge was with Hitler more hours than Günsche. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's what I found out so far. Kershaw (page 25) discussing Hilter's days in Vienna says "Adolf drank milk as a rule, or sometimes fruit juice, but no alcohol." On page 160, he quotes Hanfsataengl, who says from 1924 on Hitler "took only vegetarian meals and alcohol-free drinks." In Speer's first book (page 170 of the paperback edition) he says that at meals at the Chancellery, mineral water, beer, and wine were on offer, and Hitler always chose the mineral water. So my feeling is that with three sources saying he drank no alcohol, we should say he drank no alcohol. I agree with HiLo that the wording is kinda lame and should be amended. "Hitler despised alcohol" should be re-worded to or "Hitler drank no alcohol" or perhaps "Hitler avoided alcohol". Comments? -- Diannaa (talk) 14:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Diannaa for looking. I would say "he did not drink alcohol"; and I agree with you and HiLo that the current wording is lame. Kierzek (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, since there is confusion, I'm not sure what to believe. I think it should say "Hitler normally avoided alcohol". Remember, Hitler could have been drinking alcohol in absolute private, and maybe only people as close as Linge knew about it. But yes, thanks Diannaa. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't see what the confusion or contradiction is really. He clearly hated alcohol. He clearly preferred not to drink it. I guess there may have been occasions when he took a sip at a toast, in deference to the expectations of those he was with and because not to do so would seem to be a slight. Perhaps that was in earlier days when he was not in personal control of the event he was attending. When his personal staff were able to manage events, they would provide water for him. I don't see why the phrase "Hitler despised alcohol" necessarily implies that "he didn't drink alcohol" at all. People hate many forms of food and drink that they also occasionally eat to be polite. I think you are assuming that "despising alcohol" implies an ideological commitment to abstinence rather than personal dislike of the taste or the effects. Perhaps "despised" could simply be replaced by "hated", a term which has less of a moral implication to it (I hate pears, but I don't despise them. Also, I dutifully eat them when I'm visiting my mother. She makes fruit salads which always contain pears, apples and bananas). Your last comment that Hitler may have been "drinking alcohol in absolute private" completely contradicts the source you quote and seems to presuppose that he really wanted to drink it, but had the hide the fact for some reason. He wasn't living in Prohibition America. All the evidence, including the passages you quote indicates the exact opposite. He didn't want to, but felt obliged to do so in public on some occasions. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I can' say I agree, with all due respect. Linge became Hitler's personal valet I 1935, by then, Hitler did unquestionably control personal events. As the article mentions later, Hitler was not shy about expressing his own opinions on smoking and vegetarianism to others at events. It therefore seems illogical that he would refrain his views on drinking. Here's a quote from Misch, and I did not reformulate or change any words:

"I do know he would drink a penabranca before addressing a big gathering, he'd drink a dejestic spirit. And I saw him drinking beer, traveling in the train, I was eating there and I saw him drinking beer."

Both Misch and Linge says he would unofficially and/or privately drink alcohol. I'm sorry, but your suggestions does not seem to emphasize that he did drink alcohol. Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Your comments simply indicate that you haven't understood what I wrote. You say "Hitler was not shy about expressing his own opinions on smoking and vegetarianism to others at events. It therefore seems illogical that he would refrain his views on drinking." And yet I made it perfectly clear that I was emphasising that disliking, even hating, a particular type of food or drink does not mean having a bad opinion of it. As I said. I don't like pears, but that's not because I disapprove of them. I don't have "views on pears" which I want to express. All the evidence indicates is that he did not like alcoholic drinks. Many people don't. But that quite different from puritanically disapproving of them. So there's nothing illogical or paradoxical about any of this. It would also make the odd sip or two every so often quite normal. That's what most of the evidence suggests - the odd sip. It was the effect of alcohol that he seemed to dislike. Also he apparently ruined good wine by adding sugar to it once, which suggests he just didn't really like the dry or bitter tastes that alcoholic drinks generally have. Paul B (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

All I'm trying to emphasize is that Hitler drank alcohol, sometimes. This cannot and is not denied. The current sentence indicate that he didn't think alcohol, or at least to me. At least add something that explains that he did drink sometimes. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's silly to try to say he "hated" alcohol. That's far too emotional. We can describe what someone did, if we know, but we can never really know what they thought. How about something like "Hitler publicly consumed little alcohol"? HiLo48 (talk) 22:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds much better HiLo48. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That wording implies he did something different in private, and we don't know that he did. My preferred wording is "Hitler avoided alcohol". -- Diannaa (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

But that sounds absolute, and we don't know what he did in private. And several posts above suggest that he didn't completely avoid it anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

You can't much more reliable than Misch and Linge. Hitler did drink alcohol in private, Diannaa. It should be told or at least indicated. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Linge supports your new wording, so I will add a citation once the book arrives. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Christmas Eve 1924, Hitler ate at Hanfstaengls' home and after dinner stated that after leaving Landsberg prison he cut out meat and alcohol and Hanfstaengl states he went on to make "a dogma out of it and from then on only took vegetarian meals and alcohol-free drinks." Kershaw (2008), p. 160. With that said, I would like to hear what Linge states in his book, for I don't remember now. Kierzek (talk) 01:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Kierzek. Linge memoirs says: "His diet consisted principally of potatoes and vegetables, a stew without meat, and fruit. Hitler would occasionally have beer with his meal, and wine on official occasions when a toast was to be made. He was strict about his vegetarianism and non-smoking, but was not opposed to alcohol. However, he found drunkenness repulsive and gave up beer in 1943 when he began to put on fat around the hips. He believed the German people would not want to see a corpulent Chancellor." Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, in the sfn format, add the page cites from Linge's book. Also it could be worded better. He gave up beer in 1943 due to weight gain. Kierzek (talk)

Well, I myself do not have the book right now, but I believe Dianna is planning to loan it and cite the pages. I also agree your wording is better and shorter. I will replace it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 20:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I can see on Google books that this content is present in Linge's book, but the version available online does not have page numbers. We will have to wait and hope the book comes soon. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it was page... 49, but that is pure guessing. Yes, we'll have to wait, but even so, I believe the text should remain as it is. I mean, technically, it's un-sourced, but since the matter is more clear now, I think it should remain until we cite pages. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Concern for animals?

The current version of the article says, "An antivivisectionist, Hitler may have followed his selective diet out of a concern for animals." This made me think about the fact that Hitler is often seen wearing a thick leather coat, belt, and boots, in Braun's films and official Nazi Propaganda. It would seem unlikely that he followed his selective diet out of a concern for animals, if he was wearing leather clothes. Was this simply fake-leather or ... ? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:39, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't have access to the source material for that one. I suggest we take it out. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, take it out; it seems more of an opinion, surmise. Kierzek (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Kierzek and Diannaa; I have gone ahead and removed it. It's also important to notice another thing Linge wrote in his memoirs, "By Hitler's calculations, all animals whose nutrition was natural lived eight to ten times as long as their period of development to full maturity. He was convinced we would all live to be 150-180 if we became vegetarian[s]." As Kershaw argues, Hitler feared an early death, it therefore seems very reasonable that he attempted to live as long as possible, and believed that becoming a vegetarian would do that. Not so much his concern for animals (I think, as stated it's more of a guess or personal opinion). It also seems unnatural that a man who was responsible for the holocaust, would refuse to eat meat out of concern for animals, even though Hitler practically showed more humanity towards his dog Foxl during World War I, as he indirectly recalled in Mein Kamf. In short, I feel it was right to remove it, and I think we could add what Linge told in his memoirs, that it was because he hoped to live for as long as possible. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I see you reverted my material, Diannaa? Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

"Hitler believed it was possible to live to be 150 to 180 if you followed a vegetarian diet." Source?? -- Diannaa (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Well ... If you read my comments above, you will see! Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that. But you actually have to add the citation to the article when you add the content :/ Perhaps you could add it to the sub-article Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism instead? This article is already too long. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes well, the previous version of the article already mentioned some reasons why Hitler didn't eat meat, explained by Speer. I though if I removed it, and replaced it with Linge, it would not expand the article. Actually, the wording I added was much smaller in bytes. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Reichsstatthalter of Prussia

There appears to be a mistake here: The infobox says Hitler was Reichsstatthalter of Prussia from 1933 to 1945. However, later, in the "Political offices" section, it says he was from 1933 to 1935? Does anyone known which one is correct? Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

He gave this title to Goering in 1935. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

... Then why is Hitler listed as holder until 1945 in the infobox? Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hitler held the post from 1933 to 1935. I have already changed the info box. I can get Kershaw on Monday and confirm with a cite. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe you. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kershaw pp.283-284 says the post was created on 7 April 1933 and he gave it to Goering on 25 April 1933. So I am removing it from this article's info box. I will also make corrections at Goering's article. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Good job, Diannaa. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Health

I've just reverted the addition of a quote from one of Hitler's doctors which was added in a quote box. Given that there are a large number of primary sources on this topic, it doesn't seem necessary or appropriate to highlight any of them in this way given that there's a large literature which draws it all together which the article is currently based on. Happy to discuss though. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that the average person (who does not now anything particular about Hitler) generally have the opinion that Hitler was mentally or delusionary mad. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Nick-D reasoning on this. Also no need for quotes in an encyclopaedia - makes the article hard to read and lets be honest here...quotes give the impression an amateur is writing - not we are looking for. -- Moxy (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

That's some point of view on quotes, Moxy, but having glanced over the article with a special eye on the articles quotes, I can also agree it was right to remove it; the article already has too many quotes. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Quotes are very non academic, thus can give the wrong impression of who wrote the article - an expert vs someone like a student. Students learn quickly they will not get good marks if they quote to much. Let me quote the University of Pennsylvania - "Do not over quote. Most students do, either from lack of self-confidence, fear of plagiarism, or the erroneous belief they must document every fact they present. In truth, quotations should be rare because too many of them break up the flow of your prose and give your essay a cut-and-paste look. In our judgment direct quotations (rather than paraphrases) are advisable only in the following three instances:.....Editing tips" (see also WP:LONGQUOTE). -- Moxy (talk) 20:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You are conflating quoting from an academic work, as might typically occur in a student paper (e.g. Hodgeman et al. have written that "Xarphlam's pattern of crystallography displays a unique triforce pattern"), with quoting an actual witness' testimony about something they have specific and unique knowledge of (e.g. Joe Smithers, who fought in the battle, in a letter to his wife, declared that "it was the Admiral himself who gave the order of full speed ahead."). Those are two fairly different concepts. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a drive-by opinion, but the quote would be perfectly fine as a WP:Footnote. Would that be a reasonable compromise? -- Kendrick7^talk 02:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Not in my view. Hiding material in footnotes is a bad practice, and there's still the problem of giving undue weight to one of many primary sources on Hitler's health. More generally, given the availability of high-quality secondary sources on this topic, there's no need for the article to refer to primary sources at all, especially given that the analysis of the influence of Hitler's health on his actions can only be supported by secondary sources, and not primary sources. WP:SECONDARY seems to be the relevant policy here. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D; the "high-quality secondary sources on this topic" should be followed and is enough. Kierzek (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Offer to withdraw from Western Europe

I'm putting my contribution here. I think it should be given recognition, because it is not a fringe theory. The Telegraph is a mainstream source. And of course the British government would suppress the truth about Hitler's peace offers in 1940 and 1941, which you are also doing.

On 10 May 1941 Hitler sent Rudolf Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, to Britain with a detailed peace treaty, under which the Germans would withdraw from Western Europe, in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on the USSR. Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR’, Telegraph, 26 September 2013</ref> – Friedlibend 12:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is already well known, and known to be baloney. The academic who "is not named" was, by the way, Tancred Borenius. Also, what exactly is supposed to be being 'suppressed' here? It's not news that Hess wanted to make peace, and it's not news that there were factions in Britain who thought that the country was inevitably going to lose, so compromise was the only viable option. Hess may well have prepared a document outlining his proposals. So what? Paul B (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hess was carrying a detailed peace treaty under authorisation from Hitler. You mean that this is not important and should not be mentioned in the article? Only Allied victors' propaganda is allowed? – Friedlibend 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The information in the Telegraph is part of a book review, of the book Hess, Hitler & Churchill by Peter Padfield. We can't add this, as it's a fringe theory, not established fact. The mainstream view is that Hess went without Hitler's knowledge or approval. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article used as a source here explicitly identifies it as being only the views of the historian. It's a shame that the journalist didn't test these claims against the views of other, more prominent, historians: this is a fringe theory. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What propaganda? Why would it have been somehow bad for "Allied propaganda" (or rather Britain, since there were no other "allies" at the time) to suppress an attempt by Hitler to make a peace deal? Even if it had existed, it was rejected. Paul B (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if such an offer had been made, trust in Hitler keeping his word was so low after the occupation of Czechoslovakia that it would obviously have been rejected. It also wouldn't have made the slightest bit of sense for the west to connive in Hitler attacking and occupying the USSR, knowing full well that that would give him the raw materials, industry and oil to launch a major attack on the west a year or two later. So no, this theory doesn't need to go in. Valenciano (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with you all on this one. Like Valenciano mentioned, Hitler's word would never be trusted by the West after Munich. And even if that untrue, there were still countless and still-existing political differences and disputes that would make such an offer immaterial. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hitler died in the Andes?

Not sure where this would go, but since there is verifiable, reliable sourcing for this, what should we do about it:

• Did Hitler and Eva Braun Flee Berlin…
• Hitler didn’t commit suicide, claims British journalist
• FBI documents

-Jack Sebastian (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The FBI document is headed "Adolf Hitler", but the text starts out "Adolph Hitler (1889-1945) was ...". Should we consider such a shoddily edited source reliable? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's verifiable that the claims are described as "'2,000 per cent rubbish", and that the FBI quite sensibly followed up on rumours before the full facts were known, as the FBI website itself says. Paul B (talk) 10:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It's nonsense.--Policja (talk) 11:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes good fiction reading, but otherwise is "rubbish". Kierzek (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the ... "historian" who created this story was serious. He publicly posted a picture of what he claimed was Adolf Hitler and his new girlfriend from Argentina. The picture (easily found with a Google search) shows Adolf Hitler looking like a healthy, 25-year-old, Caucasian, and not-bended-back man. As for the new "girlfriend" also showed in the picture, she is black - and I don't Adolf Hitler would date a black woman. The face doesn't look anything like Hitler anyways. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Democratically elected?

It would appear there is a disagreement about whether or not Hitler's party was democratically elected or not. The disagreement is essentially whether or not this text should be included in the lead:

"Hitler's party was not democratically elected: the elections were ran under repression, censorship, and interference from Nazi paramilitary. Even so, the Nazis obtained less than 50% of votes, and needed to cooperate with other parties."

I suggest 4idaho and Kierzek, and anyone else who wish to join the discussion, reach a consensus on the talk page. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that's highly inappropriate editorialising. It was a secret ballot. We would need evidence that historians believe this supposed repression and censorship had an effect on the election. Of course it's true that Nazis had less that 50% of votes. So do many parties in elected governments, including almost all modern German ones. Paul B (talk) 12:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed the word "democratically" in my revert to the prior agreed upon text. First: the addition (written above) was only made to the lead section. The lead section is only to be a summary of the main body text which hopefully is supported by book cites; which in this GA rated article it is so. Second, the section added: "the elections were ran under repression, censorship, and interference from Nazi paramilitary", does not appear in the cited body text of the article and therefore it is not proper to add it in the lead section; see WP:Lead. And as Paul states, to add it to the body text then good WP:RS secondary sources would have to agree with the text viewpoint which was added and it would need to be written in NPOV. Kierzek (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, as the balk of the reverted text is not reliable sourced in the main body text I see no reasons to add it back. I'll regard this issue as settled. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Paula Hitler

I was watching some old black-and-white interviews with people who either were related to Hitler or knew him very well. During of these interviews Paula made an interesting remark regarding Hitler's leadership potential in childhood. She said:

When we children played Indians my brother Adolf was always the leader, all the others did what he told them. They must have had an instinct that his will was stronger than theirs.

Do you guys and gals think this should be including the article, perhaps in the childhood section? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think it's very enlightening. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

No, not notable. Kierzek (talk) 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Vegetarian?

I think there is sufficient evidence to say this is false

http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html

"It is well known that Hitler is a vegetarian and does not drink or smoke. His lunch and dinner consist, therefore, for the most part of soup, eggs, vegetables and mineral water, although he occasionally relishes a slice of ham and relieves the tediousness of his diet with such delicacies as caviar..."

"I learned this recipe when I worked as a chef before World War II, in one of the large hotels in Hamburg, Germany. I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though." Dione Lucas with Darlene Geis, The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (New York: Bernard Geis Associates, 1964), p. 89.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.187.88 (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

A trivial book on cooking, based on nothing more than gossip, is not a remotely reliable source. In any case this has already been discussed in great detail at Talk:Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. Paul B (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Role in the Holocaust

It is indisputable that Hitler played a role in the Holocaust. However, he was not "at the centre" of it, as the lead suggests. He played a more passive role, and his subordinates, such as Himmler and Heydrich, did most of its organizational work, planning and the execution. Hitler was largely in the background giving them a "green light", so to speak. It's an exaggeration to suggest he played a central role. JDiala (talk) 05:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not true: Hitler ordered the Holocaust, and took steps to ensure that it took place, and has a major responsibility for what happened. Please see http://www.hdot.org/en/trial/defense/pl1.html for instance. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D. There's too much evidence to the contrary, JDiala. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of evidence that the "Holocaust" is one of the biggest hoaxes ever produced start on: http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/holohoax.htm. But be careful you will step on some powerful toes if you try to dig too deep. Also as from "www.hdot.org..", the stated "Hitler`s...idea of removing the Jews from Germany" do not mean Hitler wanted to kill the alleged millions of Jews. That is misleading the readers; how come there were 1000s of Jews in the German Army and some of the best commanders were Jews. As I understood Hitler merely wanted to get rid of the world bankers (i.e. Rothchilds) having a grip on German economy. Why produce such Hoax then? Well many reasons (apparently), to hide the 3 200 000 Germans killed in Russia alone after 1945, to create a martyr to hide Israeli aggression in Palestine, to hide British and American War crimes.....I only started this research about a year back after wondering how it was possible to kill so many people in a few camps in so little time...would love to hear from you! The Truth it seem Will Find You.Rokko308 (talk) 12:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You might as well be claiming that men never landed on the moon or that the earth is flat. BTW, adding text, especially an entire paragraph, even to a talk page, is **NOT** a minor edit! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 12:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Claiming that he was not "at the centre of it" is just as wrong as claiming that he either had nothing to do with it or managed it all on his own. This phrase claims neither of these things and as such is an excellent balance. Britmax (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Leaving aside the ravings of Rokko308, the OP has a fair point that Hitler was no the main organiser of the Holocaust, but that's really neither here nor there. The lede has to be concise. Without him it would not have happened. His antisemitic rhetoric and his orders were central. Paul B (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The current wording was arrived at after long discussion and consensus was then reached. Hitler was the "drum major", so to speak, even if Himmler and Heydrich were the main ones who carried it out; Hitler was the center of the wheel in which Nazi Germany turned. Kierzek (talk) 19:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you John Alan Elson for again showing how dangerous it is to even mention that there is a chance that it is a hoax (or exaggerated). If there is good evidence why does one get so much resistance for doing research on it? Landing on the moon happened and there is good evidence for it and anyone can do research on it without being compared to some ludicrous theorists, but try to do proper research on the gas chambers for instance, you will find doors being shut in your face and comments like yours ("ravings" realy(?), next you will be calling me racist or hateful). So you want to link Hitler to something that might have never happened? I only want to encourage doing research before just posting anything as facts and to leave room for the other side of the coin, especially this topic with so many facts missing and research being denied or discredited (looks to me that we are told that smoking or leaded petrol is good for you, again). Please post again the topic really interest me, and like I mentioned, a few months back I would have never dreamed there is any doubt about the holocaust. Never even crossed my mind that Schindler's List is actually based on a fictional book. Rokko308 (talk) 09:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: The above editor has been blocked indefinitely. Paul B (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Really? Why? Britmax (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Military performance

I'd much rather see this handled by more than one historian. Anthony Beevor is reputable, but controversial. Those of us that have read this subject to death, and are knowledgeable about the German-Prussian style of warfare from the Napoleonic era to the Third Reich, will know that the German defeat stemmed in large part from the failings in the German approach to war that were inherited and perpetuated by the Wehrmacht. Most of the General Staff officers stood by him through these decisions. The Halt Order in May 1940 was the brainchild of his senior staff, the Battle of Britain was mishandled by an incompetent senior command in the Luftwaffe, the Moscow debacle was a result of German shortcomings, not Hitler's failings. The strike at Kiev had to carried out first. Stalingrad was the first real error. He had overwhelming support for Operation Citadel (Kursk), and was encouraged into it. Only when the war was hopelessly lost, by the autumn, 1943, did he really start to make grave errors of judgment. But by then, any realistic chance of victory had long since passed. On the battlefield the military brass were equally, if more, culpable. Hitler's contribution to his demise lay in the weakness of planning and economic preparation, and the inability of Germany to sustain a long war. Dapi89 (talk) 17:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

You make a very good point, Dapi89. I agree that instead of having one single controversial historians opinion, it should be that of military experts, or as you said, "those of us that have read this subject to death". The halt order from May 1940 was indeed the brainchild of one of his senior officers (von Rundstedt), the Battle of Britain was also (in my opinion) lost due to the poor promises and overconfident Göring, not necessarily Hitler. Moscow, as ever, is debatable, although I would, looking at the map table, most likely also have eliminated that huge gap in the front line that exposed the southern flank of Army Group Center if I were Hitler. After all, it was the biggest military encirclement in history, with almost 5 million soldiers trapped, as well as thousands of square miles. However, I don't quite agree on Kursk. I have sources that indicates that very many of the high command such as Guderian and Keitel was extremely opposed to the plan, Guderian in particular questioned the strategic significance of Kursk by saying directly to Hitler, "How many people do you even think knows where Kursk is? It is completely irrelevant whether we hold the city or not." But I overall agree with you. Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Keitel made no official complaint to Hitler and was not usually forceful in his resistance. If he did air his views to Hitler, they would likely be noted and disregarded. Guderian was a non-entity by that stage; hence Hitler's dismissal of his misgivings. That said, Guderian was supportive of an earlier operation after Kharkov as was Manstein. These men and their attitudes to Citadel were curious. They advocated offensive action in unfavourable weather and with depleted forces versus Hitler's decision to wait for good weather and the rebuilding of the Panzer forces. In fact, after Citadel was brought to an end, a significant number of senior officers believed they had dealt the Red Army a heavy defeat.

Re: the Battle of Britain; more down to a flawed command structure, lousy logistics, poor intelligence and bad strategy. Nothing new for the Germans there. Goring was just the figure-head of a flawed air force though he didn't help. Dapi89 (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Keitel frequently doubted Hitler's military plans. He sent Hitler a warning before Barbarossa, warning about the faith of Napoleon. He also resigned just before the French campaign; but Hitler refused to accept it. The Keitel-coined phrase "the greatest commander of all time" was (in my opinion) merely something he said in a moment of triumph (which is understandable giving the German military situation in July 1940). You also said, "Keitel made no official complaint to Hitler and was not usually forceful in his resistance." This is certainly not my understanding. Here's a quote from Bernd von Loringhoven, one of Keitel's closest associates during the war:

Ultimately Keitel always submitted to Hitler's will. When he wanted to leave, Hitler said, "No, stay." He [then] usually buttered him up with a few nice words that plated quite a part in Keitel withdrawing his letter of resignation.

However, the point your making Dapi89, I still agree with. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an interesting view. But when I said Keitel made no official complaint to Hitler, I meant specifically about Citadel. In a way that quotation still reinforces the perception Keitel was weak and easily disregarded by Hitler who I believe kept him in place precisely because of those reasons. If Keitel had really felt strongly he would have gone surely? We can only speculate how serious he was about resigning. I doubt he would have offered to relinquish that level of power if he really believed Hitler would have accepted his resignation. I think that military personalities do it for the historical record. If anything goes wrong they can claim to have possessed clairvoyance. Those points you make are valid though. I'm happy to concede that Keitel was perhaps not as passive as I painted him in that second post. Dapi89 (talk) 10:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well; I think we overall agree and understand one another. Anyways, lets remember the topic - we should defiantly replace Anthony Beevor's remarks with military experts or a more universal opinion, Dapi89. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Dapi89, I have gone ahead and removed Antony's remarks, and is keen on replacing it. How about something like:

Most of Hitler's generals had been staff or artillery officers by training, and had not have fought in the trenches of the Great War like himself. On this basis, Hitler distrusted his generals and frequently overruled their opinions. Indeed, virtually all his greatest military triumphs had been taken against the explicit advice of the high command. After the 20 July plot Hitler became utterly paranoid and unceremoniously sacked general after general right up until the end of the war, and replaced them with officers regarded as "safe Nazis".

What's your thoughts on that? Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please list the sources you plan to use as citations for this content. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 17:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, I was thinking more if agree or like the formulation? Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't comment on that until I assess the quality of the source material. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have sources from Cambridge University, World Media Rights, and Public Broadcasting Service, Diannaa. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide exact details so that the sources can be assessed. Are these online sources? If so please provide links. If it's web content or TV shows, who prepared the content? Well known historians, or TV commentators? If they're books, please provide author, title, and page number at a bare minimum for initial assessment and full citations before adding to the encyclopedia. What makes these sources better than Beevor, the source for the previous content that was recently removed? -- Diannaa (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To put it another way, you can't decide on the content you wish to add and then cherry-pick sources to back up the content you wish to add. For analysis of Hitler's career, it would be better to prepare prose using as source material the analysis of mainstream historians, the type of material you will find at the library, not on the television or the internet. Sorry if that seems harsh, but this is a Good article, one that gets 7.3 million views per year, so it's extremely important that any content added is absolutely the best that it can be. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand; I don't care that much anyway. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, don't worry I'll handle it. Dapi89 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheers, Dapi89. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, I see the article supports my earlier formulation regarding Hitler's distrust of his army officers with Kershaw 2000 page cite. Therefore, I can ignore PBS sources and don't have to find out whether it's written by historians or TV commenters. My sources from Cambridge University will support the rest. I think we should add it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide exact details of your sources so that they can be assessed. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, Diannaa, give me a few minutes and I will find + link them to this talk page. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Jones, Bill (creator, director) (1989). The Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler. Televesion documentary made by Cambridge University.
• Martin, Jonathan (2008). World War II In HD Colour. Television documentary made by World Media Rights.
• Flitton, Dave (director, producer, writer) (1994). Battlefield. Television documentary made by Lamancha Productions Ltd..

Diannaa, If you doubt whether Lamancha productions Ltd. should be considered a reliable source I can point out their documentaries has won Emmy Awards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think YouTube videos are adequate sourcing for a Good Article on such an important topic. Besides, the reader (or myself, for that matter) should not be obliged to watch several hours of videos to determine whether or not the material is present in the cited source or is your own synthesis. I would rather restore the previous wording, as the content by Beevor is backed up by what Kershaw says on pp 779 forward, particularly on page 783. Which distilled, says that Hitler was successful at the beginning when he had the element of surprise and could act with lightning speed. His sole defensive tactic was to hold a position to the last man, never allowing for retreats, which was a totally inadequate inflexible defense to take against his highly trained professional soldier opponents. His distrust in his own generals and his belief that he alone was competent to make military decisions led to the loss of the war. So I suggest restoring the Beevor content, and adding Kershaw's concurring analysis, thus:

Hitler personally made all major military decisions. Historians, including Kershaw and Antony Beevor, agree that he was successful at the beginning of the war when he had the element of surprise and could act quickly. However, his belief that will alone could win a battle meant he often gave orders that a position should be the held to the last man, usually with disastrous consequences. His distrust in his own generals and his belief that he alone was competent to make military decisions ultimately led to the loss of the war. After he took over operational control of the army in 1941, Beevor states "he became completely sclerotic. He would not allow any form of retreat or flexibility among his field commanders, and that of course was catastrophic".

References

-- Diannaa (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, the Youtube links was just to prove they existed. Of course Youtube vidoes and links don't belong on a Good Article. But, you don't have to provide a link: It's like citing a book - you don't have to have a link to Google Books, as long as you have all the other book information. All the other AV media information is listed, so why not? I still don't think Beevors, or Kershaw's for that matter, should be added. I believe a wording similar to mine would be better. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for drafting this Diannaa. I have to say that Beevor's broad statement here is factually wrong, and would not be taken seriously by most other historians. There are no shortages of examples of Hitler refusing to grant his generals flexibility or authorise retreats, but there are also lots of examples of this occurring (as an obvious, and dramatic, example, he agreed to withdraw from all of southern France following Operation Dragoon, and also agreed to the evacuation of mainland Greece and much of the Balkans at about the same time. German forces on the eastern front also conduced many withdrawals with Hitler's approval, and Albert Kesselring was given considerable authority to manage the war in Italy as he best saw fit). The reference to Kershaw might also need to be revised: Nazi Germany had a fair chance of winning the war as long as the USSR kept out, but once Hitler started such a war and then expanded it further to include the USA the consensus of historians (including, from memory, Kershaw) is that he was doomed regardless of the quality of his leadership due to the superiority of the forces now aligned against Germany. As I understand it, the main criticism of Hitler's generalship (for want of a better term) is that he expanded the war beyond Germany's capacity to win it, and then inserted himself into the military command structure in a range of entirely unwise ways (aside from being under qualified for the role he took on and unrealistic, he also centralised decision making to an unhealthy degree). I'll suggest some alternate wording tomorrow (it's getting late here: sorry to be negative without also suggesting an alternate). Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D, you formulated that perfect. I agree on everything. One must also remember that Hitler studied Napoleon's and Genghis Khan's life extremely well. It was obvious that he dreamt of a German empire twice the size of the Mongol Empire (here's a very interesting speech where he talk about that specifically about the "second storm of Genghis Khan"). And, as you also pointed out, Germany was doomed regardless of Hitler's skills has a commander because of the superiority of forces fighting Germany. Even if Hitler had indeed been "the greatest commander of all time", he would still have lost - explicitly because of the superior forces. Therefore I feel it's wrong to disregard his generalship because of his "no retreat" policy on the Eastern Front (from Stalingrad onwards) because the war was lost anyways! Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Nick-D. What would you suggest for source material? I have access to inter-library loan and can bring something in if you can suggest what to do. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, perhaps we could merge mine and your version and create a whole third version? Jonas Vinther (talk) 18:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

my suggestion can be thrown out if it's incorrect. Let's wait and see if Nick-D has any suggestions for sourcing before we try to write the content. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest the following for consideration (though it's probably a bit wordy):

Hitler dominated Germany's war effort during World II to a greater extent than that of any other national leader. He took on the role of supreme commander of the armed forces during 1938, and subsequently made all of the major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy. His decisions to mount a risky series of offensives against Norway, France and the low countries in 1940 against the advice of the military proved successful, though the diplomatic and military strategies he employed in attempts to force the United Kingdom out of the war ended in failure. Hitler deepened his involvement in the war effort by appointing himself commander in chief of the Army in December 1941; from this point forward he personally directed the war against the Soviet Union, though military commanders facing the western Allies retained a degree of autonomy. Hitler's leadership became increasingly disconnected from reality as the war turned against Germany, with the military's defensive strategies being often being hindered by his slow decision making and frequent directives to hold untenable positions. Nevertheless, he continued to believe that only his leadership could deliver victory. In the final months of the war Hitler refused to consider peace negotiations, regarding the complete destruction of Germany as preferable to surrender. The military did not challenge Hitler's dominance of the war effort, and senior officers generally supported and enacted his decisions.

References

Thoughts? I've selected the The Oxford Companion to World War II as the main source as it's an excellent source of middle of the road-type analysis of the war (eg, analysis which reflects the consensus or majority opinion) and is widely available, and Kershaw's most recent book discussing Hitler's leadership as he is probably the leading expert on the subject (and it's also widely available). Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it and I think we should add it. Word count is 227 words, compared to the 91 words in the removed Beevor anaysis, a modest net gain of 136 words. I think the first sentence should be changed to read "Hitler dominated his country's war effort during World II to a greater extent than any other national leader." -- Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I like it also. Good job, Nick-D. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I have added it with book sources and sfn cites. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 10:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Good job guys. Kierzek (talk) 12:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Alternative spelling "Adolph Hitler"

Hitler's first name is frequently spelt Adolph in English (and other foreign-language) sources. Google Scholar reports 12,400 hits, and shows full 100 pages' worth of results, i. e., 1000 results (apparently the default limit), mostly in English. There's also Toland's 1976 biography, titled Adolph Hitler. (For comparison, "Adolf Hitler" yields 92,600 hits, many in German. Limiting results to English, the ratio drops to 11,700 vs. 65,700.) Such a spelling can hardly be dismissed as too rare, archaic or insignificant to mention. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The spelling "Adolph" is already a re-direct to this article, as it should be; therefore, any reader which uses that spelling with get to the article without delay or trouble. With that said, it is not the correct spelling and "Adolf" is more commonly used in English text. Kierzek (talk) 12:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It is customary to mention redirect titles in Wikipedia articles, at least the more common alternative forms or spellings, excluding only those generally considered mistakes. Adolph Hitler is not incorrect; it is merely an Anglicisation. That's why reliable sources (our standard) use it, and if you claim it is incorrect only because it is not the German spelling, that needs a justification and reliable citation. Similarly, Hanover is not a misspelling of Hannover. Both are acceptable. One is the customary English spelling, the other the original German spelling. In English, both are pronounced exactly the same.

Note that I am not advocating for a move. The German spelling is indeed considerably more common (although my impression is that this was not always so, even in scholarly literature). But the alternative spelling is also encountered in scholarly literature and deserves to be acknowledged as valid and equally correct. (Surprisingly, Google Ngrams indicates that the Anglicised spelling, while relatively rare, has remained constantly in use, although predominantly in American English, see here.)

Just in case it is necessarily to stress this, I am aware that some Wikipedians are elitist pedants (*cough* grammar nazis *cough*) who hate traditional English exonyms with a burning passion and would prefer to move Moscow to the title Москва just because we can thanks to Unicode, but they fail to acknowledge the reality that exonyms are not wrong (let alone disrespectful of natives!) and neither places nor people have only a single name across all languages. English exonyms are parts of the English language, and as long as they are common, there is no reason to sweep them under the rug and treat them as errors (let alone puristic, offensive, oppressive or "colonial"; come on, that's just silly: calling the capital of Poland Warsaw in English or Warschau in German does not mean that you have anything against Poles or wish to make the city English or German, nor is usage of the exonym Jerusalem anti-Semitic; this push against exonyms in a misguided attempt to be "politically correct" is out of touch with reality). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving on from that strawman-like diatribe, I'd really like to see a citation from a reliable source to the effect that "Adolph" is the anglicised form of "Adolf". Neither looks remotely English to me. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of strawmen, why is that even relevant?

But yes, Adolph is the more common spelling of the name in English. It's probably influenced by French Adolphe or Latin Adolphus. Etymonline has only an entry for Adolph and does not even mention Adolf. No idea if it counts as a reliable source, but I still don't see how that Anglicisation question affects the issue of the correctness of the spelling. Fact is, the spelling is frequently found, and I have seen no reason to judge it as incorrect.

I take it you are not aware of the violent opposition towards exonyms exercised by certain interest groups on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English). The belief "names cannot be translated and using exonyms amounts to linguistic imperialism/irredentism" leads to unending debates everywhere.

It's no different from John Calvin, another Anglicisation. The man probably did not even know English, and never called himself John. Does that mean John Calvin is wrong? No. I don't know why that's so hard to understand for many people. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What change exactly are you proposing here? Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Florian, there is no reason to be combative given the comments thus far. I do believe that Adolf, when referring to Hitler is the more commonly used spelling in German, English and all round; and it is not a matter of say the surname: Heß or Hess. I find myself in agreement with Paul in his posts, below. But with that said, Nick-D asks a fair question, what are you proposing? Kierzek (talk) 13:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

The "Adolph" spelling is archaic. It's hardly ever used in English these days, and was never common (look at wartime newspapers; they almost always use "Adolf"). It seems to have been a minor trend in the 1970s. In fact if you click on many of google hits for "Adolph" you will find that the spelling is not present in the relevant pages (though that's seemingly not true of google scholar). I can see no reason for listing the "Adolph" spelling. It's not like "Mark Antony" for "Marcus Antonius". In that case, the anglicised version is simply more common. In other cases we used anglicised versions of some names but not others. It's John II of France, not Jean, but it's Louis II of France, not Lewis (if you type Lewis II, you don't even get a redirect, just some obscure album). I would not want to have some bracketed addition to the lede saying "alternatively spelled Adolph" or some such, not just because it's not "correct", but because it really isn't used these days.
I also think we need to make a distinction between intentional use of a spelling and simple errors. It's not always clear whether or not "Adolph" is just a mistake. For example there are several references in the google scholar link to the book Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler which misspell the title with a "ph". This is simply an error. Indeed, most of the google scholar links which use "Adolph" are to journals on topics unrelated to history, and contain merely passing references to Hitler. Guiseppe Verdi exists as a redirect, because "Guiseppe" is a common misspelling of "Giuseppe" and it gets google scholar hits, but we would not include it in the article. Paul B (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

p.s. John Toland's 1977 biography is entitled "Adolf Hitler". If there was ever a version published with the spelling "Adolph", I can't find evidence of it. [6]. Again, this seems to be simply a mistake. Paul B (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Why a picture of Buchenwald by the Holocaust section?

Buchenwald was not a death camp. A picture of victims from Auschwitz, Treblinka, Belzec, etc would be more appropriate. Steeletrap (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The image is rather powerful (and totally horrifying), and is obviously relevant to the topic of the section. Which image do you suggest be used to replace it? Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The Holocaust was the deliberate attempt to exterminate European Jewry. So an extermination camp should be used in the picture. My main fear with using the picture from Buchenwaldi (and erroneously implying it was an extermination camp like the aforementioned ones) is giving fodder to deniers. Steeletrap (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that fear is groundless, indeed I can't understand your reasoning at all. However, there are many comparable images from Auschwitz etc. Also there is no rigid definition of "the Holocaust", as the relevant page discusses. Paul B (talk) 17:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no "rigid definition of the Holocaust"? The definition includes the following, incontrovertible claims: That 5 to 6 million Jews died; that it was a deliberate genocidal policy; and that gas chambers and mass shootings accounted for most of the murders. If every camp had been like Buchenwald, the Holocaust wouldn't have been the same sort of event -- though it still would have been an atrocity at a massive scale, of course. Steeletrap (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's necessary to use an image from a death camp rather that a concentration camp. We don't have any similar images from Treblinka or Belzec. There's some of Auschwitz. I am open to suggestions. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa (and I note that this horrifying image was taken in 1945, but which time the extermination camps had been closed or liberated and the death rates in the other forms of camps were high). However, Steeletrap which image are you proposing using to replace it? Nick-D (talk) 11:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you actually read the Holocaust article and the talk page debates, you will see there is indeed no rigid definition of the "holocaust" because of disputes about the reasonable scope of the term, especially with regard to manners of death and debates about what ethnic and other groups can reasonably be included. To take one obvious example, Anne Frank is generally accounted a holocaust victim, but she died of typhus in Bergen-Belsen, which was not a "death camp" (see also Category:People who died in the Holocaust). You are the one who is - unintentionally - pandering to the agenda of holocaust deniers. Paul B (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there can be any doubt that concentration/internment/forced labor camps were a part of the Holocaust, even if their immediate purpose at that time was not directly intended to kill all their inmates. Deliberate brutality, overwork, hunger, and preventable disease killed large numbers anyway. The Nazis had made quite clear their intention to eventually exterminate the Jews and other groups completely, and I don't think we need have any doubts about the eventual planned fate of all their inmates were the Nazis to have prevailed. -- The Anome (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa, et al., that the photo which is currently present is a fair representation and as Paul-B states, "...there is indeed no rigid definition of the 'holocaust' because of disputes about the reasonable scope of the term, especially with regard to manners of death and debates about what ethnic and other groups can reasonably be included." Kierzek (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with all of you. I think Auschwitz is a more salient and appropriate symbol of the Holocaust than Buchenwald. I am sorry that this makes me a panderer to deniers in your eyes. Steeletrap (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

You are quite free to change the image yourself, if you think that would improve the article. -- The Anome (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

"Nazi"

Would you start an article on joseph stalin or VI lenin and say they was a member of the Commie party of russia? of course not, so why use the epithet form of the NSDAP party in the opening paragraph. just because the brit redtops popularised the term doesnt give it legitimacy in a article that proports to be of encyclopedic quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.218.114 (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is the policy that applies. While the term NSDAP is instantly recognizable to the student of German history, the majority of readers will not know what it means. "Nazi Party" is the most common name used in English, and it's where our article on the subject is located; hence its usage here. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's also the term that's universally used in the literature, including that by scholars [7]. I've no idea why you think the term has anything to do with "British redtops". It was an abbreviation used in Germany, on the model of "Sozi". Paul B (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: military performance

I know we just had a long discussion and consensus about Hitler's military performance, but while I was watching some interviews with, Johann von Kielmansegg, I noticed he was asked about Hitler's leadership and remarked:

Good leadership can be judged by the size of the losses ... the idea and aim of good leadership at the front is to do everything with a mind to keeping the losses as small as possible. He didn't care about that.

You people think is of any importance? I'm serious when I say I'm not getting quote-freak syndrome, but Johann von Kielmansegg is pretty notable, respected, and worked with Hitler throughout most of the entire war. If the quote is not needed nor considered very important, it could be used as a footnote to demonstrate the tense Hitler-and-his-general-staff-disagreements. Jonas Vinther (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not of much use. The article already includes meta-analysis of how Historians view Hitler's military performance, and assessments of this from individual military officers are not worth including. The accuracy of the quote here is debatable anyway given that the German Army was mainly defeated by an Army which generally had a much higher tolerance for losses. The bigger issue is that Hitler didn't care how many Germans died to further his goals during the early years of the war, and prolong the survival of the regime in its last years (which modern German historians note was one of his larger crimes, though of course not as significant as the programs of murder he unleashed). Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's incident with Johan Rambor

There was another case when someone witnessed Hitler at battle when he was close to death (like with Henry Tandey). Man who after war was polish citizen, Johan Rambor, has not article on wiki, I found unsourced info about him here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_possible_monorchism#World_War_I_medical_records, and in polish newspaper here: http://www.dziennikzachodni.pl/artykul/381167,johann-jambor-uratowalem-zycie-adolfowi-hitlerowi,id,t.html. pwjb (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I'm pretty sure this has already been discussed and can be found in the talk page archive. Second of all, Wikipedia cannot use other Wikipedia articles as a reliable source (see: WP:RS). Third of all, is the Polish newspaper a really respectable or known Polish one? I'm under the impression only worldwide-known magazines or newspapers should be used - and such articles should contain facts, not speculation or recent debates by historians or experts. Last of all, where in the article did you imagine this part should be placed? Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FA status?

I assume the reason this article, despite it's incredible attention and work, is not an FA-article is because it's content is often being changed, which is not a FA-status criteria. If I'm allowed, I would like to do a FA-preb review of this article and hope for the best. What do you guys think? Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think pursuing FA status for this article is a good use of my time, considering that most of our MILHIST articles are C-class or below. I'd rather work on bringing further articles up to GA standard. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

But should that be an excuse not to make it a FA-article, if it can be one? Jonas Vinther (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, would you actually mind if I did some FA-preb on this article? Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Article improvements are always welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Especially given the subject matter, I believe this article is quite stable. I also don't believe that "pursuing FA status for this article is a good use of my time", either. Frankly, it does not need a lot of changing, at this point in time; but with that said, I don't know what you have in mind, Jonas, either. Kierzek (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Kierzek and Diannaa, your minds will soon be blown when you see all the FA-preb I have done for this article. I have, so far, spend roughly 6 hours of time on it. I am soon finished and will post it on the talk page very soon! Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

47 and 50 hours a week?

The average working week increased during the shift to a war economy; by 1939, the average German was working between 47 and 50 hours a week

Why is this statement of any importance? It sounds like 40-50 hours was relatively long working ours in the 1930s, but was it? According to sources from Danish National Archives, the average Danish worker was working from 6 in the morning to 6 in the evening, with one lunch break hour, in the 1930s. That's 72 hours a week (note: Europeans worked on Saturdays at that time). By 1939, Germany was a far more developed nation than Denmark with a much larger economy, and given the fact working days was generally longer during those days in most of the world, was it really so long? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't sound long by today's standards either. I don't have access to this particular source book so I have no way of checking to see if the author gave any context or comparison with other nations. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I will check it, when I have the time. Tomorrow night; I have the book. Kierzek (talk) 01:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the issue here is that the real wages and working conditions of German workers deteriorated during the 1930s as a result of the Nazis' policies. The article notes that real wages dropped, and I believe that working conditions more generally became worse. Nick-D (talk) 08:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true Nick-D, but if 47-50 hours is not considered unusually long by today's standards or the 1930s, I don't see the importance of mentioning it in the first place. Anyways, lets wait and see what Kierzek digs up. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Average working hours in most developed countries today (especially European countries) are around 40 hours per week for full-time workers, with lots of people working part-time. Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I'll assume the consensus is that there the mention is of no really significance - and should be removed. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Today is the first day I could devote time to Wikipedia. Jonas, there was no consensus to remove the RS cited sentence; never "assume" consensus, it is either shown or not shown. With that said, I don't feel strongly about the sentence inclusion in and of itself.

I can tell you that the point of the sentence was to show that by the first year of the war, the German economy was not operating on a true war footing, nor had the Nazi policies greatly turned things around for the better, overall for workers. While unemployment did drop a great degree (largely due to public works schemes, rearmament and conscription (recruitment), the average work hours were not that high. German wages had not greatly increased as workers had thought they would and the unions had been crushed, as you know. The average wage per hour index in 1939 was 107.2 and in 1936, for example, it was 100; back in 1932, inspite of the high unemployment, those with jobs showed an average wage per hour index of 106.4. Further, Germany's blue collar force only grew by 10% between 1928 and 1939, the huge growth was the white collar workforce which grew by 25% during the same time due to the sprawling Nazi civil service in both the Party and government. McNab, pp.54-58. Kierzek (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Kierzek. I have re-added the content. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Offer to withdraw from Western Europe

I'm putting my contribution here. I think it should be given recognition, because it is not a fringe theory. The Telegraph is a mainstream source. And of course the British government would suppress the truth about Hitler's peace offers in 1940 and 1941, which you are also doing.

On 10 May 1941 Hitler sent Rudolf Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, to Britain with a detailed peace treaty, under which the Germans would withdraw from Western Europe, in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on the USSR. [8][9] – Tseno 12:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

This is already well known, and known to be baloney. The academic who "is not named" was, by the way, Tancred Borenius. Also, what exactly is supposed to be being 'suppressed' here? It's not news that Hess wanted to make peace, and it's not news that there were factions in Britain who thought that the country was inevitably going to lose, so compromise was the only viable option. Hess may well have prepared a document outlining his proposals. So what? Paul B (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hess was carrying a detailed peace treaty under authorisation from Hitler. You mean that this is not important and should not be mentioned in the article? Only Allied victors' propaganda is allowed? – Tseno 21:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The information in the Telegraph is part of a book review, of the book Hess, Hitler & Churchill by Peter Padfield. We can't add this, as it's a fringe theory, not established fact. The mainstream view is that Hess went without Hitler's knowledge or approval. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. The article used as a source here explicitly identifies it as being only the views of the historian. It's a shame that the journalist didn't test these claims against the views of other, more prominent, historians: this is a fringe theory. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

What propaganda? Why would it have been somehow bad for "Allied propaganda" (or rather Britain, since there were no other "allies" at the time) to suppress an attempt by Hitler to make a peace deal? Even if it had existed, it was rejected. Paul B (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Even if such an offer had been made, trust in Hitler keeping his word was so low after the occupation of Czechoslovakia that it would obviously have been rejected. It also wouldn't have made the slightest bit of sense for the west to connive in Hitler attacking and occupying the USSR, knowing full well that that would give him the raw materials, industry and oil to launch a major attack on the west a year or two later. So no, this theory doesn't need to go in. Valenciano (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with you all on this one. Like Valenciano mentioned, Hitler's word would never be trusted by the West after Munich. And even if that untrue, there were still countless and still-existing political differences and disputes that would make such an offer immaterial. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This information has been known for some time outside mainstream historians' works, and has now been acknowledged by The Telegraph, which is a mainstream source, who undertook the publication of the book. It is therefore not a fringe theory. The offer to withdraw from Western Europe did not rest on trust, it was going to be implemented or the peace treaty would not have taken effect. It would have been bad for Churchill to have been shown as the warmonger he was, and Hitler to have been shown as the anglophile he was. Therefore the British have suppressed evidence of Hitler's several peace offers in 1939-41. It did make sense to support Hitler in his war against the USSR. The events before, during and after the war proved that the USSR was a greater threat and a greater evil than Hitler's Germany ever was. And even if you don't trust Hitler, even if you take this to have been a subterfuge on his part, still it deserves to be mentioned in his article. You pride yourselves on being a neutral encyclopedia, but denying and rejecting any information that might show a person in positive light is by far not neutral. It is perpetuation of a policy established by the Allies to justify their unnecessary in the case of the Western Allies war, and the Allied war crimes on both fronts. - Tseno 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Tseno, I believe your beating a dead horse. You also said that the Telegraph published the book - if that is the case, it's obvious they would make a peace on it in order to sell as many copies as possible. Also remember that the at Casablanca Conference, the Allies made it explicitly clear that the would be no negotiating or Munich-style conferences, they would keep fighting until all countries and people occupied by the Nazi's are free - this would included many German-speaking countries which Hitler would never give up (considering everything he did). It's also plainly obvious that the vast majority of the Allies country's population hated both Hitler and Nazism; if they Presidents and Prime Ministers were suddenly doing deals with Hitler and the Nazis, they would lose virtually all their political appeal and without doubt trash their already highly respectable and notable not to mention historically careers. Lastly one should remember that Anti-communism was, sort of, put on hold during World War II (since America joined the conflict). Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You have provided no credible evidence that Hitler ever made any peace offers, though there is no doubt thst he did hope to negotiate a pe ace with Britain in 1940. No one has ever disputed that. I've no idesa why you think this puts Hitler in a "positive light". What's positive about it? No specific deal was ever brought to the table, because the British never entered into negotiations. You claim that "The events before, during and after the war proved that the USSR was a greater threat and a greater evil than Hitler's Germany ever was." Frankly, that's baloney. Events before the war are obviously irrelevant, since they had already happened. After the war, the USSR was oppressive, but not genocidal. Generalplan Ost envisaged massive deaths in Eastern Europe. We can't know what really would have happened if the Nazis won, but the idea that the USSR was a "greater threat and a greater evil" is not supported by the facts. Paul B (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Gütmann vs Gutmann

Available sources, including Kershaw, our Wikipedia article, the German wiki article, and the sources used to prepare the German wiki article, all spell the name as Gutmann, not Gütmann. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, I am glad you could get to the "gut" of the matter, Diannaa; but seriously, I just checked and Weber in his writings' also states, "Gutmann". Kierzek (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's Gutmann then. Jonas Vinther (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

FA-prep

Featured article preparations and comments.

• Well written

The overall article is well written, its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard, with only minor errors which I will list below.

1. "Adolf Hitler was born on 20 April 1889 at the Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn located at Salzburger Vorstadt 15, Braunau am Inn, Austria-Hungary, a town on the border with Bavaria, Germany" - Seems like way too much information just to establish his birth. It should be shortened to, "Adolf Hitler was born on 20 April 1889 in Braunau am Inn, a town close to German border in Austria-Hungary".

2. "Hitler attended Volksschule (a state-supported school) in nearby Fischlham" - Volksschule's are not state-supported; they are state-owned. Should be changed to, "Hitler attended Volksschule (a state-owned school) in nearby Fischlham".

3. "He became fixated on warfare after finding a picture book about the Franco-Prussian War among his father's belongings" - Is this supposed to be important because he would be a soldier and warlord-politician in the future? If so, I don't think it should be included as virtually all boys play war games with their buddies at some age to an individual degree.

4. "The death of his younger brother, Edmund, from measles on 2 February 1900 deeply affected Hitler" - Sounds wrong. Should be changed to, "The death of his younger brother Edmund, who died from measles in 1900, deeply affected Hitler".

5. "Ignoring his son's desire to attend a classical high school and become an artist, in September 1900 Alois sent Hitler to the Realschule in Linz" - Sounds wrong. Should be changed to, "Ignoring his son's desire to attend a classical high school and become an artist, Alois sent Hitler to the Realschule in Linz in September 1900".

6. "He enrolled at the Realschule in Steyr in September 1904; his behaviour and performance showed some improvement" - This sounds wrong. Should be changed to, "He enrolled at the Realschule in Steyr in September 1904, where his behaviour and performance showed some improvement".

7. "He worked as a casual labourer and eventually as a painter, selling watercolours." - Hitler mainly painted the streets and buildings of Vienna, so should be changed to, "He worked as a casual labourer and eventually as a painter, selling watercolours of Vienna's sights".

8. "The Academy of Fine Arts Vienna rejected him twice, in 1907 and 1908, because of his "unfitness for painting" - The beginning sounds wrong and the sentence is unnecessary long. Should be changed to, "Vienna's Academy of Fine Arts rejected him in 1907 and again 1908, citing a lack of talent".

Y9. "The director recommended that Hitler study architecture, but he lacked the academic credentials" - This sentence does not mention that architecture was also an interest. The word "he" is also not necessary as "Hitler" is mentioned previously in the sentence. Should be changed to, "The director recommended that Hitler study architecture, which was also an interest, but lacked academic credentials".N Not grammatically correct; it needs to be "The director recommended that Hitler study architecture, which was also an interest, but he lacked academic credentials."-- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

10. "On 21 December 1907, his mother died at the age of 47" - Does not mention his mother died of breast cancer. Should be changed to, "On 21 December 1907, his mother died of breast cancer at the age of 47".

11. "After the Academy's second rejection, Hitler ran out of money. In 1909 he lived in a homeless shelter, and by 1910, he had settled into a house for poor working men on Meldemannstraße" - This also appears to be unnecessary long. Should be changed to, "After the academy's second rejection, Hitler ran out of money and was forced to move into shelters for homeless and poor men".N How about "After the academy's second rejection, Hitler ran out of money and was forced to live in homeless shelters". -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

12. "Kubizek's account has been challenged by historian Brigitte Hamann, who writes that Kubizek is the only person to have said that the young Hitler was an anti-Semite. Hamann also notes that no anti-Semitic remark has been documented from Hitler during this period. Historian Sir Ian Kershaw suggests that if Hitler had made such remarks, they may have gone unnoticed because of the prevailing anti-Semitism in Vienna at that time" - Why is all this mentioned? This particular part of the article is simply meant to show individuals take on when Hitler became an anti-Semite and not whether it is true or not. Hamann is also a controversial historian when it comes to Hitler's anti-Semitism.

13. "Posted to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (1st Company of the List Regiment), he served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium, spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines" - Does not mention the discrepancies of Mein Kampf. In Mein Kampf, Hitler claimed to be posted at the front much more than half the time. Should be changed to, "Posted to the Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment 16 (1st Company of the List Regiment), he served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium, spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines, contrary to what he himself claimed in Mein Kampf".N I don't agree with this amendment; we don't need to mention self-serving stuff Hitler said in Mein Kampf. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Y14. "Recommended by Hugo Gutmann, he received the Iron Cross, First Class, on 4 August 1918, a decoration rarely awarded to one of Hitler's rank (Gefreiter)" - Does not mention Gutman was a Jew, and "Gutman" is spelled wrong; it's spelled "Gütman". Should be changed to, "On a recommendation by Hugo Gütman, Hitler's Jewish superior, he received the Iron Cross 1st Class, on 4 August 1918, a decoration rarely awarded to one of Hitler's Gefreiter rank".? Why is it important that Gütman was Jewish? What is your source for this information? -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

15. "Hitler's post at regimental headquarters, providing frequent interactions with senior officers, may have helped him receive this decoration" - I call bullocks! This is a guess of a single historian, and Hitler was always praised for his constant bravery, and on one occasion he caught five French soldiers in no-mans land with a single pistol all by himself; more than enough for an Iron Cross. Hitler was also one out of thousands runners. I don't think the senior officers could definitively distinguish between them all, especially not a common-looking Bavarian, nor does favoritism match the reputation of the Imperial German Army. Guess should be removed.

16. "Though his rewarded actions may have been courageous, they were probably not highly exceptional" - The previous sentences does not indicate his actions were "highly exceptional", and like stated above, this is an individual guess. Should be removed.

17. "Hitler described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", and was praised by his commanding officers for his bravery" - Is Hitler describing the war itself or his own involvement in it? And the fact that he was praised for his bravery is also stated and cited earlier in the article. Hitler's description should be clarified and the bravery-remark by his senior officers removed.

18. "To increase its appeal, the DAP changed its name to the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party – NSDAP)" - I thought the name change first occurred after Hitler became leader? If I'm right and this is incorrect, it should removed.N< You are not correct here. The name was changed on 24 February 1920 while Hitler was still ascending; he was elected chairman officially on 28 July 1921.> Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) There is also no need for a link to the Nazi Party in this sentence as it's already linked in the lead.

19. "Hitler soon gained notoriety for his rowdy polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians, and especially against Marxists and Jews" - Should not contain the word "against" two times. Should be changed to, "Hitler soon gained notoriety for his rowdy polemic speeches against the Treaty of Versailles, rival politicians, and especially Marxists and Jews"N I disagree; I think it's clearer and easier to understand in the existing version. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

20. "Members of its executive committee, some of whom considered Hitler too overbearing, wanted to merge with the rival German Socialist Party (DSP)" - Why mention some specific reason? There was properly very many individual reasons among the executive committee as to why they wanted Hitler out of the party. Unless there is a source that says that this was the main reason for the munity, it should be changed to, "Members of its executive committee wanted to merge with the rival German Socialist Party (DSP)"

21. "The committee members realised that his resignation would mean the end of the party" - Makes absolutely no sense? Why would they start a coup against Hitler if they knew his removal would destroy the party? It must have been Hitler's angry speech to the mutiny that made them change their minds, and this is not mentioned. Should be changed to, "Hitler's angry response to the mutiny made the committee members realised that his resignation would mean the end of the party".N< I already tweaked this recently; no need for further change, I don't believe.> Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

22. "He still faced some opposition within the NSDAP: Opponents of Hitler had Hermann Esser expelled from the party and printed 3,000 copies of a pamphlet attacking Hitler as a traitor to the party" - When followed up by the previous sentence, the beginning sounds stupid and unprofessional. Should be changed to, "Despite being back as party chairman, he still faced some opposition within the NSDAP: opponents of Hitler had Hermann Esser expelled from the party and printed 3,000 copies of a pamphlet attacking Hitler as a traitor to the party".N< I tweaked this already recently, as well.> Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

23. "His strategy proved successful: at a general membership meeting, he was granted absolute powers as party chairman, with only one nay vote cast" - Sounds very wrong. Should be changed to, "His strategy proved successful, and at a general membership meeting, he was granted absolute powers as party chairman, with only one voting against".

24. "Psychiatrist Carl Jung commented in 1938 that Hitler "is the first man to tell every German what he has been thinking and feeling all along in his unconscious about German fate, especially since the defeat in the World War" - The quote begins too early. Should be changed to, "Psychiatrist Carl Jung commented in 1938 that Hitler is the "first man to tell every German what he has been thinking and feeling all along in his unconscious about German fate, especially since the defeat in the World War".

Y25. "Alfons Heck, a former member of the Hitler Youth" - Alfrons Heck is also a notable historian on the Nazi Era. Should be changed to, "Alfons Heck, a former member of the Hitler Youth and later historian".? How about "The historian Alfons Heck, a former member of the Hitler Youth" -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Y26. "We erupted into a frenzy of nationalistic pride that bordered on hysteria. For minutes on end, we shouted at the top of our lungs, with tears streaming down our faces: Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil! From that moment on, I belonged to Adolf Hitler body and soul" - Such a long and significant quote should be in quote-box, otherwise one might not notice it.

27. "The journalist H. R. Knickerbocker noted that non-Germans seemed immune to Hitler's magnetism" - Firstly, this is obviously not true, as many Danes, Norwegians, Belgians, French, English, Spaniards, and many other from non-German speaking countries joined the Waffen-SS or supported Nazism or Hitler. Secondly, an American journalists opinion on Hitler that was published at the height of the war? Really? Should defiantly be removed.

28. "Early followers included Rudolf Hess, former air force pilot Hermann Göring, and army captain Ernst Rohm" - Göring was recognized as a very skilled ace of the air force, which is why he became commander of the "Richthofen Squadron" after the Red Baron's death. Should be changed to, "Early followers included Rudolf Hess, former air force ace Hermann Göring, and army captain Ernst Rohm".

29. "However, Kahr, along with Police Chief Hans Ritter von Seisser (Seißer) and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow, wanted to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler" - There is really no need for the "(Seißer)" addition. Should be changed to, "However, Kahr, along with Police Chief Hans Ritter von Seisser and Reichswehr General Otto von Lossow, wanted to install a nationalist dictatorship without Hitler".

30. "Sixteen NSDAP members and four police officers were killed in the failed coup" - The "sixteen" mention should be in numbers because it's over ten and "NSDAP" should be replaced with "Nazi Party" because "NSDAP" is already used countless times earlier in the article. Should be changed to, "16 Nazi Party members and four police officers were killed in the failed coup".N You are wrong about this; per WP:NUMERAL, numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words. Larger numbers can go either way; here where we have two numbers in the same sentence, they both need to be the same format. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

31. "Hitler was barred from public speaking, a ban that remained in place until 1927" - Does not mention why it was first lifted in 1927 and not with the lifting of party ban in 1925? Should be explained as it might cause confusion.? Is it important? Do you have sources that say why the two things happened at different times? -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Y32. "Hitler used the campaign slogan Hitler über Deutschland ("Hitler over Germany"), a reference to both his political ambitions and his campaigning by aircraft" - Does not mention that Hitler was one of the absolute first politicians to campaign by using aircraft. Should be changed to, "Hitler used the campaign slogan Hitler über Deutschland ("Hitler over Germany"), a reference to both his political ambitions and his campaigning by aircraft, and was one of the first politicians to use aircraft travel for political purposes".? Okay to add in my opinion, as long as you cite a source as to where you got the information. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

33. "According to Kershaw, the consensus of nearly all historians is that Van der Lubbe actually set the fire. Others, including William L. Shirer and Alan Bullock, are of the opinion that the NSDAP itself was responsible" - Kershaw claims it is a consensus that it was the communist, while Shirer and Bullock is convinced of the opposite? It's clear there is no real consensus and, like stated earlier, there is really no need to hear the diverse opinion of individuals, even if they are historians. Should be removed.N I disagree with the removal of this passage; I think it should stay in. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

34. "While the international community and some Germans were shocked by the murders, many in Germany saw Hitler as restoring order" - The last bit sounds wrong. Should be changed to, "While the international community and some Germans were shocked by the murders, many in Germany believed Hitler was restoring order".

35. "Reconstruction and rearmament were financed through Mefo bills, printing money, and seizing the assets of people arrested as enemies of the State, including Jews" - Of course Jews where targeted. I doubt anyone would think the Nazi's regarded Jews as "friends of the people". It's plainly obvious even for a person who didn't read the previous parts of the article. The "including Jews" bit should be removed.

36. "Britain, France, Italy, and the League of Nations condemned these violations of the Treaty" - Does not mention that while they protested they did nothing on a serious scale to prevent it (economic sanctions did not happen until Italy's attack on Abyssinia in October 1936).Y I am okay with adding something on this, as long as you cite a source. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

37. "On 12 March 1938, Hitler declared unification of Austria with Nazi Germany in the Anschluss" - What does "in the Anschluss" mean? Should be changed to "following the Anschluss".N Disagree; I think this should stay the way it is. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

38. "In April 1938 Henlein told the foreign minister of Hungary" - Why is the foreign minister not named? Lack of notability? Name unknown? Foreign ministers of Hungary has an article of it's own, maybe the name can be found there.

39. "Whatever the Czech government might offer, he would always raise still higher demands ... he wanted to sabotage an understanding by any means because this was the only method to blow up Czechoslovakia quickly" - Why in the world is the person in quote referring to himself in third-person?? I believe he is talking about Hitler? -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Y40. "Germany was dependent on imported oil; a confrontation with Britain over the Czechoslovakian dispute could curtail Germany's oil supplies. Hitler called off Fall Grün, originally planned for 1 October 1938" - The Fall Grün part sounds wrong. Should be changed to "This forced Hitler to call off Fall Grün".N I disagree that the date should be removed. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

41. "He expressed his disappointment in a speech on 9 October in Saarbrucken" - Would be worth to include that Hitler told Ribbentrop in private that the Munich Conference "meant nothing". Jones 1989 reference can support such an addition.

43. "3.8 million Axis troops attacked the Soviet Union" - It was much more than 3.8 million troops. I have sources that says between 4-5 million troops. Should be confirmed or corrected.

44. "Following the allied invasion of Sicily in 1943, Mussolini was removed from power by Victor Emmanuel III after a vote of no confidence of the Grand Council. Marshal Pietro Badoglio, placed in charge of the government, soon surrendered to the Allies. Throughout 1943 and 1944, the Soviet Union steadily forced Hitler's armies into retreat along the Eastern Front" - Does not mention Germany's invasion of Italy after Mussolini's removal.

Y45. "He awarded Iron Crosses to boy soldiers of the Hitler Youth" - Should be changed to something like, "He awarded Iron Crosses to boy soldiers of the Hitler Youth, whom were now fighting the Red Army at the front".N Not grammatically correct. Needs to be "He awarded Iron Crosses to boy soldiers of the Hitler Youth, who were now fighting the Red Army at the front". -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

46. Kershaw is often mentioned in the article, although in an unprofessional way! The first mention of Kershaw should say, "Historian Ian Kershaw", and when he's mentioned later in the article simply write, "Kershaw" and not "Historian Ian Kershaw" again. This naturally also counts for other historians, experts, Hitler relatives or other people mentioned in the article. This mistake happens many times in the article

47. When over ten, numbers should be written in words (with exception of dates). This mistake occurs all over the article.N This is incorrect; you have it backwards. WP:NUMERAL -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comprehensive

The article certainly doesn't neglect any major facts. It covers Hitler's ancestry, childhood and education, early teenage years, the First World War, entry into politics, the DAP, the NSDAP, the Beer Hall Putsch, rise to power, political rivalry and opposition, struggle to the chancellorship, Reichstag fire, Enabling Act, the Third Reich, many economy-related bits and culture, rearmament, political and military alliances, the Second World War, famous political "victories", his major political and military mistakes, his final defeat and death, the Holocaust, his personal life and leadership style, legacy, and his image in popular culture. None of these subjects neglects any important or vital information.

• Well-researched

This article is extremely well-researched. It has more than 200 different reliable, independent, third-party sources referenced to the article. All books has ISBN, OCLC, or JSTOR numbers, while all the online sources can be accessed (meaning they're not dead links, not that non require subscription) and have acceptable source-information. The bulk of cites used in the article is references to worldwide-recognized, award-winning, best-selling, or very notable authors and journalist with their own Wikipedia articles.

• Neutral

The article is fair and neutral. Many of the most notable historians on the subject has their opinions displayed in the article, and those regarded as unimportant, unnecessary, misleading, or non-neutral has been stated above in the "Well written" section. Otherwise, it's neutral.

• Stable

It is not subject to ongoing edit wars because most potential edit-wars are started by IP-editors, who is usually warned or blocked before starting an actual edit-war. Its content does not change significantly from day to day (except in response to the featured article process) because most major changes are discussed on the talk page first, which generally results in consensus of irreverence or falsehood. The most significant things in Hitler's life has already been heavily discussed in one of the 56 talk page archives of the article. Holocaust denial claims are usually rebuffed, overruled, or removed instantly.

• Lead

The lead itself has been the subject of a long discussion in the talk page archive. A consensus was reached on the exact wording of the lead that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.

• Appropriate structure

The article contains a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents.

• Consistent citations

The article uses Harvard referencing and contain no broken templates or cites.

• Media

It has images and other media where appropriate with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status.

While the copyright status of the images are fine there might be too many, with almost too images per section. Is this too many?

• Length

The current version of the article contains slightly over 10,000 words, although if all the formulation errors addressed in the "Well written" section is corrected, the article would be overall shorter, and while the article contain the comprehensiveness of each section, the length should not be problem.

Finally done! Now I'd like some people's opinion on this FA-preb. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Kierzek, thanks for your recent inputs and tweaks. Is the reason you've only replied to three of the points stated in the "Well written" section because you only agree that those sound or are wrong? Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, my time has been far more limited the last two years and still is in relation to working on Wikipedia; I have not reviewed this section in depth; I still feel our time could be better spent on other articles, but if Diannaa is up for it, I will help, when I can; with that said, there is no reason to write something like "sounds stupid and unprofessional" when critiquing herein, given this is a GA rated article and the main editors who have worked on it know the subject and grammar, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I completely understand Kierzek, I just wasn't aware. Just a klein reminder: this article was GA-listed in December 2011; I'm pretty sure majors changes have been made since then, so I would not automatically assume it's grammar-ly correct just because of that.

However, unless other editors will voice their opinion on the points mentioned in the "Well written" section I will correct them according to the suggestions I made in the section itself, so as to finish the FA preparations. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have given some opinions above. I strongly suggest you do only a few changes per day, or even a few changes every couple of days, to allow other editors the opportunity to challenge / remove your amendments if they don't agree with them. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, you are missing my point above; at any rate, I agree with Diannaa, be patient with making changes herein. Kierzek (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, instead of continuing to write in the "Well written" section, I'm going to refer to the points by their numbers below - so it's easier to find each others comments without getting pain in the eyes! I also naturally thank you both for inputs.

• 9 I agree on your version. We just need to add the ", which was also an interest," bit.

• 11 I also agree on your version with this one, although one must always remember to differentiate between someone who's poor and someone who's homeless. The two can be very different things, but in this case I don't think it would make such a difference. Should add your version.

• 13 I can also agree with you on this one.

• 14 I think it's important to mention Gütmann was a Jew out of obvious reasons! I have a source here to support the fact he was Jewish and that he served in the Great War with Hitler. Y I had read this before, as well; I could not check the cite earlier today; Jonas, is correct, the cite to use (in sfn) would be: Kershaw, Hitler bio., 2008, p. 59. States: "On August 4, 1918, Hitler received the Iron Cross, First Class from the regimental commander, Major von Tubeuf. By a stroke of irony, he had a Jewish officer, Lt. Hugo Gutmann, to thank for the nomination." It then goes on to state why the award was made. You can "sfn" the book the citation. Kierzek (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• 19 I can also agree with you on this one.

• 25 Very good reformulation; we should defiantly add your version

• 30 If that is the case, I have made a shit load of wrong number-edits!

• 31 I don't have any sources regarding this subject as s whole; it was simply stated in the article, both the 1925 party ban-lift and the 1927 public speaking-lift, so just wondered why there was not some sort of clarification or explanation. I suppose if it's not important it should be removed rather than staying and possibly cause confusion (or maybe it's just me being dumb).

• 32 Good then, we should add it then. I have a very good source to back up such a claim.

• 33 If virtually all historians, as Kershaw claims, agree it was the communist, and people who shared the opposite view was non-historians, self-proclaimed experts, or amateur historians, then I would be in favor of keeping it. But, as both Shirer and Bullock are respected and notable historians, it's more of Reichstag fire-discussion among historians to me. If the version I mentioned in the section itself is not acceptable, how about something like "It remains uncertain who exactly caused the fire, with historians having diverse opinions".

• 36 Wunderbar. Should not be too difficult to find a reliable source. I shall add the content as soon as I can.

• 37 I'm also willing to ignore this one and agree with you.

• 39 It would appear I misunderstood this sentence while I was labeling it was as "grammarly incorrect".

• 40 I don't think the date should be removed either, simply that "Hitler called off Fall Grün" is replaced with "This forced Hitler to call off Fall Grün". (it's only the Fall Grün part I was referring to).

• 45 I totally agree on this one, it's virtually the same as I wrote, just with "who" spelled correct.

Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 23:00, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• 14: http://www.historyextra.com/oup/new-evidence-uncovers-hitlers-real-first-world-war-story looks like a reliable source, a BBC-affiliated website.
• 33: As soon as you say "some historians", someone will come along and say {{who}}. If it's to be mentioned at all, we have to give the names of specific historians who hold the opposing views. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• 33: One could mention "some historians" and then have a footnote that contains all the Kershaw-consensus and Bullock-Shirer disagreement text? Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• 33: I think it's better to leave it in the prose, to be honest -- Diannaa (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, Diannaa, I will agree with you on this one as well. I will make the agreed changes immediately. Question though: what about all the other points I mentioned? Should we ignore them? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If I didn't make a comment on a point, that's because I have no objection to it being implemented. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, I have now made the last of my FA-preparation edits. If you wish to do some tweaks to them, please do so. Jonas Vinther (talk) 21:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I made some minor tweaks; otherwise, I agree with the changes made (in there present form pursuant to Diannaa's input as made to the article herein). Kierzek (talk) 01:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I have been following along and am okay with the amendments made. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Diannaa and Kierzek. I suppose that sums up this FA-preparation. Unless someone else has some last minute input or suggestion, I'm going to nominate it for FA-status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you should do a peer review first. WP:Peer review. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

With much respect for the editors who have worked on this article, I also don't think that the article's structure or prose is of FA standard at present. I'd also suggest that the next logicial step would be a military history Wikiproject A-class nomination, but the structure and prose needs work first. Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Diannaa, Nick-D, I concur; having put a lot of work into this article over time, I will gladly help out when I can, if that is the consensus to carry forward, as to this article, at this time; there is always something to work on and improve whether it be this article or others which sit at "start class" or "C class". Kierzek (talk) 12:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I overall agree. Kierzek, you say there is "always something to work on and improve". That is, of course, true, especially considering the subject of matter, but I feel it's kind of an immaterial argument in the face of FA-nomination - because you can always work on or approve any article regardless of it's standard or status. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, with due respect, it's not "immaterial"; with the recent edits and tweaks, the article is improved; with that done, it doesn't mean it is up to FA status as of yet. The query is then, how best to use the time available; we all have real life things to do and there is a lot of work on Wikipedia which can be done. I am not a "hat collector" herein but believe in the joint cause of working together and making Wikipedia better as a source of information for general readers. Now, if the main editors above want to carry on further, then I am on board; IF that is the consensus. Kierzek (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, from having developed or co-developed 27 articles to FA status I can assure you that this article would not pass a FA nomination, and that such a nomination would likely be closed within days given that it is not supported by several of the main editors working on the article. I agree that it would be a good idea to develop the article to FA status, but it ain't there yet. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Jonas, thank you for your thoughtful edits, which have led to some nice improvements. But I agree with Nick-D. While the article is not brilliant, it is more than adequate for use as a general overview of the subject for its main audience (high school students). I feel my time is better spent elsewhere and do not intend to participate in an FA nom at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all, Nick-D, thanks for your message. Having "only" spent 8 months on Wikipedia I fully agree that you can defiantly tell whether an article is FA-worthy or not. Although I can't understand why you weren't/is more involved with this FA-preparation more than you already is then. You can assure me that this article is currently not of FA-class which must mean you see distinctive things in the article that, according to your FA-experience, should not be there. If you point them out that should be most helpful. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to be more involved, but RL commitments mean that the amount of time I can devote to Wikipedia is only a fraction of what it used to be I'm afraid (hopefully I'll have more time in a few weeks). As a general comment, when assessing articles for FA status it's important to consider what isn't in the article and needs to be added, as well as content which should be moved within the article or removed. It's a really difficult process. A good starting point is to consider FAs on comparable topics. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So, kind of like comparing it to other FA-articles and note the big difference between them? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2014

please replace Childhood and education to Adolf's education and Childhood becuase i believe you need to keep the subheadings some what in order Lillyrose5701 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

 Not done It is correct the way it is presented. Kierzek (talk) 17:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Never convicted of a crime?

Diannaa, I recall you reverted an edit which classified Hitler as a criminal with the words, "never convicted of a crime". This was also my first intuition, but then I remember the Beer Hall Putsch, and his prison time in Landsberg - is this regarded as fruitless argument because Hitler was under Austrian citizenship at the time? Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. You are right, he was convicted after the Putsch and served jail time. "German criminals" is incorrect though, as he was an Austrian citizen at the time. If anyone thinks I did it wrong, please feel free to fix; I don't usually tinker with cats. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Adding "Austrian criminals" would be fine, as you already have. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Historical place

I noticed on Napoleon's article the lead mentions, "He remains one of the most studied political and military leaders in all of history". Wouldn't it be worth to mention how much Hitler, in both political and military terms, is studied to the point where's his possible monarchism has an article of it's own? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean monorchism. He was never royalty!. Britmax (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course, Britmax. I have desire to see the parts of the monorchism article in this article, what I am trying to say, is that there is virtually no information in this article about his historical impact. There is some in the legacy section, but, after looking at Napoleon's article, it seems there could be more on his individual impact. I believe I heard some German historian say that Hitler is "one of the most studied men in history, and has been the subject of more than 75,000 books". Perhaps one have to see Napoleon's article first. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have NO desire* Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

President or Führer?

The Holocaust Museum website says that Hitler became President on August 2, 1934, and later abolished the title on the 19th of that month. http://www.ushmm.org/learn/timeline-of-events/1933-1938/hitler-abolishes-the-office-of-president --76.105.96.92 (talk) 03:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what your question is? Our article states that "upon Hindenburg's death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor". -- Diannaa (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that he became Führer on August 2nd, but this says that he became president first. --76.105.96.92 (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The unification of the offices of Chancellor and President was proclaimed on 1st August, the day before Hindenburg's death, when it became clear that his death was imminent. On the 2nd, after Hindenburg died, officers in the army swore allegiance to Hitler under the new title of Fuhrer. On the 19th August there was a plebiscite to approve the merging of the two posts, giving Hitler 90% approval for the move. It's difficult to say whether the 19th can be said to be the 'official' date at which the title was abolished, since it had already been proclaimed. You could say it confirmed the abolition. Paul B (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

76.105.96.92, Hitler merged the offices of chancellor and president, thus forming the office of "Führer". Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's in dispute. It's a question of the date. I don't think this article needed to be bogged down by niggling details. Many sources say he declared himself Leader/Fuhrer on the 2nd, so I think the current wording is OK. The plebisite on the 19th is also clearly explained. Paul B (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B. Kierzek (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit war

The edit warring over whether this article belongs in Category:Antisemitism in Austria and Category:Antisemitism in Germany without any discussion here is getting a bit silly. I'd suggest that people discuss things. I note the guidance at the top of Category:Antisemitism, but it seems somewhat academic in the context of this particular article given that what Hitler did and continues to represent (and disgustingly, to still occasionally motivate) means that this article could potentially be considered an exemption. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly "academic". The consensus for many years now is plainly stated at Category:Antisemitism: "It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly anti-semitic." It was repeatedly pointed out during the June-July RfC which attempted to remove this language, that refusal to do so would result in removing Hitler, of all people, from the category (and obviously its subcategories). The administrative close was clearly on the side of supporting the original instructions from the 2011 CfD, later amended to include media, etc. I didn't support that outcome, and would welcome a new RfC on the matter. Until that occurs, I am going to abide by the longstanding, unbroken, multi-year, and repeatedly affirmed in multiple forums, WP:Consensus. -- Kendrick7^talk 08:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I have also been accused of edit warring for supporting this consensus. Please read up on this consensus before accusing me of edit warring on this basis again. Britmax (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to point 2 of the standard edit warring message: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right". Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

From now on I will watch to see if I am "ganging up" with another editor to defend consensus, in a manner that appears to be edit warring. If I thought you were gaming the system to defend your version against consensus I would be very annoyed. Britmax (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in this dispute at all. Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't agree that Britmax's revert (with edit summary) really fits what constitutes an "edit war"; but the real point is that, I agree it does seem "academic" as to where the subject of this article falls as to whether "Antisemitism" should be included in the cat or not. Kierzek (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust quote

Instead of this:

"Henriette von Schirach, wife to Baldur von Schirach, directly confronted Hitler about the Holocaust after she accidentally witnessed Jews being rounded up in Amsterdam:

So I told him what I had seen ... his reply was, "You are sentimental". He stood up, I stood up, [and] I said, "Herr Hitler, you ought not to be doing that." I thought I could allow myself to say such a thing because I had known him [for] so long. I have hurt him deeply, what's more in front of other men who were there. Then Hitler said, "Every day 10,000 of my best soldiers die on the battlefield, while the others carry on living in the camps. That means the biological balance in Europe is not right anymore."

— Henriette von Schirach

How about this:

"Henriette von Schirach, wife to Baldur von Schirach, directly confronted Hitler about the Holocaust after she accidentally witnessed Jews being rounded up in Amsterdam. After criticizing him about mass killings, Hitler stood up and told Schirach:

Every day 10,000 of my best soldiers die on the battlefield, while the others carry on living in the camps. That means the biological balance in Europe is not right anymore.

— Adolf Hitler

Essentially I'm trying to safe bytes and put more weight on Hitler's response. It's also shortens the quote - making it easier to read. Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that this quote adds any real value, and giving it prominence miss-represents Hitler's motivations in launching the Holocaust. He wanted to murder the Jews because they were Jews, and not to somehow gain vengeance for his military losses. The quote also acts to obscure the mechanics of the Holocaust: Jews weren't maintained in camps until Hitler decided to kill them, but instead were sent to ghettos in eastern European cities (where they were placed on starvation rations and suffered terrible rates of disease and death) or simply taken from their homes and murdered within hours or days. Do any historians identify it as being a key quote? More generally, while the evidence for Hitler's central role in launching and overseeing the Holocaust is clear, it's also somewhat complex as he never issued a written order and no direct verbal order was recorded, and we do our readers a disservice by suggesting otherwise. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D that the quotation is not very enlightening and may even misrepresent. I think it should be removed altogether. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, but do what you want. Jonas Vinther (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As the article is about Adolf Hitler, an anecdote giving his own explanation and justification for the persecution of Jewish people seems to me to be extremely relevant and of great historical value. Nick D's and Dianna's reasoning are based on their own personal opinion. Would not the article be better served by asking whose opinion on this matter is of more value to the reader: the opinion of a few individual wiki editor's of what Hitler's "real"(?) motives were, or the opinion of the subject of the page himself. I.e. I don't think it is in accord with wiki policy to keep verifiable and reliable information of what was said by the subject out merely because we don't personally like what was said, or don't believe he meant it. --212.214.4.167 (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Small typo under Leadership style

The article reads: "Hitler dominated his country's war effort during World II" -> should be "World War II" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.194.163.74 (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Kierzek (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2014

edit semi-protected Adolf Hitler's Testicles Jcossio97 (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It already exists under the admittedly esoteric title Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, though there is also the rather more... unambiguous Hitler has only got one ball. Paul B (talk) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it just shows that many WP:fringe theory and "odd-ball" subjects have articles on Wikipedia, for better or worse. Kierzek (talk) 02:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Short-man Syndrome

There is much debate about the so called Short-man Syndrome. For example:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2789037/did-winston-churchill-short-man-syndrome-new-book-boris-johnson-claims-wartime-leader-driven-desire-fight-bigger-bullies.html

The article states Hitler was 5foot 8 inches tall, although I always remember being told he was 5 foot 4 inches or less, as 5' 8" is actually not that short. Does anyone know the Fuhrer's height? 81.156.242.141 (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

I have a better, more appropriate image for the portrait of Adolf Hitler at the beginning of the article, which is in color and from 1938. I ask permission to use this file to make the page more visually appealing by seeing Hitler in color. Orihara1 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Great. Put it on this page and let's check its quality and copyright status. Britmax (talk) 16:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Section of article needs to have substantive content. Media->Culture

Wikipedia pages suffer from a syndrome in which the further down the page one goes the less real content one finds. Sections like "Hitler in culture" need to have a least a couple few paragraphs or they become mere link bins and belong in "See also". I suggest that the section on media and culture be left as is with normal editing as there has been no substantive objection to the content. (I took a graduate seminar at a respected history department and thus am subject-matter competent). No, I am not an admin but I have eight years on WP and think I am on good ground to expect more than someone flashing an "Administrator" credential and then engaging in deletionist editing without even bothering to provide an edit comment explaining any WP-compliant rationale. Comments? Wikidgood (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wikidgood: Please provide diffs to support your claim that Diannaa cited her access to the admin tools to justify her edits to this article. I can't see where this might have happened on the article history or her contributions, and such conduct would not be in keeping with her behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Pending edit proposed

Per WP:NPOV something about Hitler in contemporary German culture, eg "Our Hitler" and the museum story. Obviously much more content at the sub article but there has to be a BROAD OVERVIEW of the most WP:NOT features. Thanks. Wikidgood (talk) 00:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I moved the new content to the sub-article, Hitler in popular culture. It's good, well-sourced content, but the main article is already too big (11,685 words; the upper limit is supposed to be 10,000) so I moved it to the sub-article and used it as part of the lead, as it gives a nice overview. --Diannaa (talk) 00:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC) I see you have already re-added the content. You're not supposed to do that; when your edit is challenged, you are supposed to discuss on the talk page, not revert the removal. Please see WP:BRD. I object to this addition, as we don't have room for it in the main article and already have a sub-article where it fits in perfectly. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a structural problem with having a full section with bare content. The section was also really not about its named title it was basically just a list of a few Liefenstrahl films. These films were not even really about Hitler per se they were themed with the so-called resurgence of the Tuetonic volk, etcetera. (Of course his Nurenbourg speech was a central part of one of the films, but these were not specifically biographical films and as such are not the best exemplars of the putative section content).I an flattered that you take my modest contribution for lede material, sincerely, that is actually quite a rarity. But I hope that you will give me a bit of leeway to cultivate a few more edits to this section and/or discuss the below shift.

I too dislike overly long articles however the bare fact that an article is long does not mean that the dynamic editing that makes Wikipedia a vibrant living resource should grind to a halt. A .05%b increase in length is tolerable if there is qualitative increase. I think that we should Discuss structural revision to accomodate the length issue if it is a problem, But is there consensus in the archives to make the article shorter? I am not crying censorship by any means but a somewhat heavy handed concern with lenth amounts to a blockade of critical thinking and article improvement.

If you really think that turning a one paragraph section into a two paragraph section is a straw breaking a camel's back regarding article length then frankly there is no justification for maintaining the section at all, as a section, and it should be converted to a mere link. But then that should have been done already. As it stands now it is an open invitation for a skilled editor to turn it into a real section rather than a stub section, but considering the notability of the article topic that could have been done a long time ago. Wikidgood (talk) 00:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Dianna explained her move of the addition and I agree with it. It fits and flows better in the sub-article where she added it. With it having been transferred to Hitler in popular culture, it is redundant here. The section is not meant to be so all encompassing; that is what the sub-article can be for the general reader. Kierzek (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

While I usually agree with Dianna, I don't agree that the new para is good or well sourced. The first sentence "In popular culture, generates a high level of controversy" is badly written and hopelessly vague - what is this controversy? The citations given to support the statement that " This treatment is not confined to fiction but is widespread amongst nonfiction writers who have discussed him in this vein" don't have page numbers, and I can't help but suspect that they've been selected on the basis of their titles, which are chosen by the publisher and not the author. Moreover, this is simplistic as many works are careful to not use terms such as "evil" in relation to the Nazis on the grounds that that such concepts are meaningless and don't explain what happened: why is this not acknowledged? Anyway, this is historical analysis, not "culture", and confusing the two is a bit odd: we can talk about how historians see Hitler, or how he's portrayed in fiction and the like, but mashing the two togther is rather unhelpful. The significance of the statement that "Elie Weisel has described him as "the incarnation of absolute evil"." is also unclear to me - Weisel is certainly entitled to his position, but we end up again with endorsing the use of "evil" and not acknowledging other views. Overall, I don't think that this material is very good, and I'd suggest that it be removed. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the new content. After thinking about it overnight, I agree with you Nick that you can cherry pick from the thousands of books about Hitler and come up with any number of conclusions about what the trends are. If we are going to include any material on this topic, it should be based on scholarly analysis, and not a short list of books and magazine articles. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Didn't think that the Riefenstahl films were such a big part of the picture - I thought the media impact of Hitler exceeded just a small number of films.

There is something odd when the most paramount aspect of the whole Hitler phenomena in the minds of so many observers = the personification of the dark side of the German soul - is completely wiped out,kaput, eradicated. The deletion, the denial of the dimension of evil seems to miss the point, the tragedy and the ironies of Hitler, Nazism, nationalism in general. His swagger as the baddest of the bad is something our biography can quite frankly present. It is well known to secondary sources. Even his admirers concede, if not indeed revel in, the dance of evil and mission in the figure of Adolph Hitler. He is an inspiration to forceful cliques who terrorize those who oppose them, in no small part due to that hint of menace. Is wikipedia too timid in its editorial consensus democracy to abstract the secondaries on this? Is the convenient deletion of the Weisel quote a craven capitulation to the prosepect that some admirer of the fuhrer will become annoyed? Worry not. The remarks of Weisel are so spot on that even a devout Hitlerphile would concur that Wiesel is a man whose understanding of Hitler surpasses that of so many others.

Looks like I am outvoted. Alas. Wikidgood (talk)

There's certainly a strong case to have material discussing how Hitler is seen, but your material fell short as it presented only one view, and not the scholarly view at that. Scholars of this period tend to focus on the institutional and societal factors which led to and drove the Nazi era, and not the easy answer of describing Hitler and his political movement and government as being simply "evil". I recommend Ian Keershaw's summation of Hitler's life in his two volume biography for a good example of this. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn

Stable-page bias.Wikidgood (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, not really. Your material was removed because it wasn't terribly good I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

why are there pictures of baby Hitler and Hitler's mom?

What other articles show this? Why would you need to see someone's baby picture? And why is a picture of his mother there? Dream Focus 23:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Standard biographies of Hitler include many photos of him and his relatives. Such photos are standard in book biographies. I see no problem here, nothing to fix. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm tempted to say that it is a stupid question. The article is about a man and men don't start out as adults. A lot of what Hitler did as an adult was tied to his childhood and his family background. It has often been stated that Hitler's mother was the only person he ever truly loved and she was unarguably important in his life. A picture of Hitler as a baby is one thing people would expect to find in an article like this. Look at the article on Ronald Reagan. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Reagan's article has a family picture, but not with any baby/toddler pictures of him. Does looking at a picture of Hitler at that age help you understand him better? [10] Seriously now, how is this encyclopedic? Dream Focus 01:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The article on Ronald Reagan shows him as a very young child, clearly long before he did anything noteworthy. The family picture includes his mother as well. The only real differences are that Reagan was a few (very few) years older and the picture of his mother is in a family portrait that includes him. Neither distinction is worth mentioning, let alone being given serious consideration. Making those distinctions weakens your argument rather than strengthening it! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 23:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a biography; the article covers his life. There is no problem with having them herein. Kierzek (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It so happens that a picture Hitler as a baby exists, so we use it. Why is this a problem? Paul B (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia:Image use policy states "Images are included in articles to increase the reader's understanding of the subject. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and explicit or even shocking pictures may serve an encyclopedic purpose, but editors should take care not to use such images simply to bring attention to an article." How does looking a baby pictures increase your understanding of the subject? If his mom was important, a picture of her makes sense, but there is no possible reason to have a baby picture of him. Dream Focus 15:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"No possible reason"? This is a biographical article covering the subject's entire life. The photo is in a section discussing the subject's childhood. It shows the subject as a child. That is the reason it is used. It is entirely appropriate. You ask if the picture helps readers understand the subject better; yes, I expect it does. There is a common urge to cast people like the subject as outside the realm of "normal" human experience. It can be instructive to be reminded that they did not in fact spring from the earth as fully-formed monsters. Eron^Talk 18:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Eron that the lesson to be learned is that monstrous actions can come from a person who is human, with a childhood and a family. Monstrous actions do not come from inhuman monsters. Binksternet (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

How many pages have paintings or photos of people as kids? Loads. In a few minutes I've found John Ruskin, Giovanni de' Medici (cardinal), William Milbourne James, Charles II of England (and endless other monarchs, including Elizabeth II, who has two). What about contemporaries of Der Fuhrer? Winston Churchill has one (arrogant looking little brat, eh?), Franklin D. Roosevelt has one (bet that was embarrassing later) and if we had one of Stalin I'm sure he'd have one too, but we have to do him as a snotty-looking teenager. Basically, if one exists we usually use it. Why do we have to make some special case for having baby Adolf? Paul B (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

In a biography a baby photo is one of the more obviously correct things to include. Anyone wanting it excluded is the person who needs to present the case for doing something unusual. HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler is one of the most studied men in history, so obviously there is a billion photos of the man from all stages of his life. Since the article describes, in detail, his birth and childhood it seems very suitable to have such pictures included. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 14:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

When I was in school in the 1970s there was a picture of Hitler as a baby in one of my history books, probably the same picture. A student who had the book before me drew a Hitleresque mustache on it. John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 03:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay ... I don't quite see your point in that message?. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Uncle Adolf, the tax-evader

I don't know if it's a known fact or considered to be of any importance, but I have sources from the Bavarian State Archive in Munich which proves that Hitler was a tax-evader plus dozens of other records which show somewhat of a tax-war between Hitler and the tax office. Do you people think this is of any importance? If so, I can link the sources and it could be included in the article. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, guess it is not of great importance. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Post WWII Survival?

There's not a single mention of Argentina or his possible escape from Germany. I mean, the FBI has declassified files. How much more evidence do you need to at least put a rumor section in if not a fully confirmed fact? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.39.139 (talk) 00:17, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

To me, a Rumour section seems like a very bad idea. Rumours abound about most politicians, not just the genuinely nasty ones. How would we decide what deserves to be included without having massive shit fights? HiLo48 (talk) 00:35, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole Hitler-never-really-died-in-Berlin-and-escaped-to-Argentina rumor has already been discussed on countless occasions on virtually all articles related to Hitler. Hitler is one of the most studied men in history and there is a billion rumors about him. Since Wikipedia is only interest in what reliable sources say, I don't think it should be included either. This article is already to long anyway, so a new section would meet heavy opposition. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 02:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it should not be included here and if one bothers to read the FBI file material, as I have, one will see there is nothing but WP:fringe reports there. Further, there is already this article Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death which is linked under "See Also" of the Death of Adolf Hitler; per consensus, it was not included in that main article there, either. Kierzek (talk) 13:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Richard Wagner

He is not mentioned once in Hitler's article. I'm guessing that this matter has already been discussed somewhere ad nauseum? - Hoops gza (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It was discussed on the Wagner page in some detail when that was prepped for FA, but not much here. What do you think should be imcluded? Paul B (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

He is also discussed in Political views of Adolf Hitler. He could be added as a "See also", if need be. Kierzek (talk) 17:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion in political views should suffice. I should have looked there. - Hoops gza (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Another image

I have added another image, a suggestion by User:Hoops gza. See what you think. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Its okay with me; the images have been used in publications before and no reason not to add them herein. BTW, no one knows exactly when they were taken. I have seen, "reportedly taken in 1925", the most often; others state "in the 1920s"; and some, "after Hitler's release from prison" (so after Dec. 1924); so the caption should be changed even if dated "created September 1, 1930". Kierzek (talk) 17:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I will remove the date. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The date I found was 1927, and the source was on de:Heinrich Hoffmann (Fotograf), the man who snapped the photos. - Hoops gza (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Weasel words

So,i dont know how to do comments correctly,bear with me:this article seems to contain weasel words.i think this is degrading for this wikipedia,and i expect better of it.delete all weasel words ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.159.187.76 (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

You may have a point, but it would help if you told us where you thought the weasel words were in this very long article. Britmax (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014

The DNA of Eva Braun has recently been sequenced. Astonishingly, her DNA contains DNA sequences specific to Ashkenazi jews. Due to the importance that Adolf Hitler placed in preventing marriage between aryans and jews (see Nuremberg Laws), I feel it is important to include this information in the Adolf Hitler wiki page.

"The source is Dead Famous DNA Season 1 Episode 3. Channel 4. The DNA of Eva Braun was obtained from a sample of her hair obtained by a US serviceman who obtained it from her hair brush which he obtained as a spoil of war from the Berghof. In light of the laws preventing marriage between aryans and jews, I think it is important to highlight this historic piece of irony. Zacpujic (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really. We went through all of this a few years ago with Hitler, and the result was, put simply, that DNA doesn't work that way and it doesn't prove a thing. Britmax (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

I have reverted recent changes by Cwobeel to the last sentence of the lead. The figure of 11 million other victims does not appear elsewhere in the article, and thus does not belong in the lead. Also, the sentence was the subject of extensive discussion in the past, and I believe the wording should not be changed without consensus. Interested parties can find previous discussion regarding leaving out the 11 million figure at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:35, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussions notwithstanding, it is very surprising that The Holocaust is not mentioned in the lede. Therefore I ask that a discussion is entertained about this simple edit. If there is a de facto consensus, consensus can change. I will wait for comments, and start an RFC if needed. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

This wasn't a simple edit. Diannaa reverted the changes and then Cwobeel changed it back after adding more to the body without any discussion. Just because someone is "surprised" that something isn't there doesn't mean that it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.24.193.20 (talk) 06:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

The holocaust is mentioned in the lead, it just isn't called the holocaust. Read the last sentence, just above the contents list. Britmax (talk) 09:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Cwobeel, there has been long discussions about this both on this talk page and in mediation; it was more than a "de facto" consensus. The fact is, the Holocaust is already mentioned as Britmax states; it covers the subject. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the content Cwobeel added to the body, which does not have adequate sourcing to meet Good Article standards. I've replaced it with some well-cited content from Nazi Germany. Feedback welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC) For attribution sake, it's best to mention that Cwobeel copied the content from The Holocaust. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks fine to me and the RS sourcing you added is better. Kierzek (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Good edit, thanks Dianna. Now, how is it that the lede does not mention the total Genocide numbers? The lede now reads least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other victims. Why to use a generic "millions", when we have sources that state the numbers? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Because it's the lead, which is only a summary and not the article. Britmax (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Before the mediation began, the sentence read "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the systematic murder of eleven million people, including an estimated six million Jews, and indirectly and directly caused the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II." If I recall correctly, the gist of the mediation was that since Hitler could not directly be blamed for all these deaths, it should not go in the lead. There was a lot of discussion about the 6 million figure as well; stating "at least 5.5 million" was a compromise solution. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not read through all the long mediation notes, but I find it quite puzzling that we include a figure for the genocide of Jews, but not for others. Why the difference? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a figure you can suggest be used in the article? My understanding is that there are quite wide variations in the credible figures due to differences in definitions, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:25, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The mention of the Jews in the lead is the use of the prime example to illustrate the point. Repeating the other examples would turn the lead into a list of these things, and a copy of the article, rather than a summary. The lead is supposed to be a summary and its length is limited. Britmax (talk) 10:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Britmax. And Nick-D, FYI, we went through all this in long drawn out detail with cites at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution/mediation and it was discussed in a RFC yet again thereafter (see:Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 54). Currently the body of the article covers the numbers with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough (I had forgotten that - thanks for the reminder). My comment to Cwobeel was intended to ask them to make a constructive suggestion rather than imply some form of bias. Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, Nick-D. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Should we have an article on Day of Potsdam?

I just wanted to suggest to regular editors of this article (who are better versed in this topic) that we should have an article on Day of Potsdam. Any volunteers to write it? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if a full sub-article is needed. Some could be added as to its "meaning" in several other articles to state: On 21 March 1933, Hitler used the inaugural celebrations of the newly elected Reichstag for propaganda purposes, etc. He used the occasion to show symbolic deference to Paul von Hindenburg and the military which helped lead to the Enabling Act of 1933; something along those lines. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Kierzek (talk) 19:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

As an idea, this might be covered in a more interesting way as part of a broader article covering the Nazis' accession to power. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we do already have an article known as Adolf Hitler's rise to power; so it could be added therein. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek. Seems most relevant. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2015

Adolf hitler spoke spanish to his mistress Lupita sema delores, in 1938. sources from his great great granddaughter samantha cortez who is lupitas niece.

Lexxzilla (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Hitler's Relationship with Mussolini

I would like to request the following text to be included in the Entry into politics section as a new paragraph after "Hitler designed the party's banner of a swastika in a white circle on a red background." I believe this connection between Hitler and Mussolini is of deep significance when attempting to understand the origins of German National Socialism.

This is the text to be inserted, (the quote is taken from http://www.greatwar.nl/books/meinkampf/meinkampf.pdf ):

Hitler was profoundly influenced by Mussolini, who had become Prime Minister of Italy in 1922, and openly admits this influence in "Mein Kampf":

At that time--I admit it openly--I conceived a profound admiration for the great man beyond the Alps, whose ardent love for his people inspired him not to bargain with Italy's internal enemies but to use all possible ways and means in an effort to wipe them out. What places Mussolini in the ranks of the world's great men is his decision not to share Italy with the Marxists but to redeem his country from Marxism by destroying internationalism. - Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf

References

Historicat (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

-Response to edit request:

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  19:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I am new to editing Wikipedia. I shall investigate getting a consensus. Historicat (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am opposed to including the content, for several reasons. First, Mussolini's influence on Hitler and the NSDAP is already briefly covered (in the opening paragraph of the "Beer Hall Putsch" section). Second, it's not appropriate to quote extensively from the writings of the subject of a biography, as our articles need to rely for their content on secondary sources such as reputable historians and reliable web content. Please see WP:Primary for more information on selecting sources. Third, content on Mussolini's influence would be better added to the sub-article Political views of Adolf Hitler. This article has to be kept as an overview, and it is already too large, so we have to be extremely selective about additions. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa's points on the matter. Kierzek (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I also think this addition would be better in the Political views article. Britmax (talk) 11:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

It was added there and I did copy edit work to it; retaining the points made above. Kierzek (talk) 13:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The subject of the shaping of Hitler's political views and weltschantz is so large that I agree it properly belongs in the separate article Hitler's political views. American In Brazil (talk) 11:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

We don't actually have content in this article regarding pop culture mentions or appearances of Hitler. There's simply too much material, and it was all moved to the sub-article Adolf Hitler in popular culture at the time the article passed GA. I have re-named the section as "In propaganda films", as that best reflects what content the section actually contains. Feedback and discussion is welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

How about ... "Propaganda appearances"? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Most public appearances by political figures are, in some form or another, propaganda. It might be best to discuss how Hitler was portrayed by the German media and Nazi propaganda machine (until they became one and the same thing) rather than highlight particular instances. Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You make a compelling point. I will write a suggestion for implementation tomorrow. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Since we are only listing propaganda films appearances, I agree with Diannaa here. Kierzek (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I also agree with the section title, "In propaganda films." A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the looooong delay! How about replacing the current content with this:

Hitler exploited documentary films and newsreels to inspire a cult of personality and give the impression of a strongman. He was involved and appeared in a series of micromanaged propaganda films throughout his political career—such as Der Sieg des Glaubens and Triumph des Willens—made by Leni Riefenstahl, regarded as a pioneer of modern filmmaking.

References

What's your thoughts on this? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 21:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I like it, except for the phrase "give the impression of a strongman." I would like to omit that part. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm no grammar Nazi (haha!) but I think it should be "such as", not "like". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, I think it would a blunder to omit "give the impression of a strongman", but maybe we could reformulate it? The article strongman has a list of notable politicians who were presented as strongmen and Hitler is included as the strongman of Nazi Germany. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 13:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How does the source book word it? -- Diannaa (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Google Books, it says, "Following the Nazi electoral breakthrough in the fall of 1930, that strongman, Adolf Hitler, clearly had arrived". Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't view the book via the Google link; "Buy the book", says Google. The quoted passage does not say that he wished to appear as a strongman or used propaganda films to achieve that aim.-- Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so the final wording is this:

Hitler exploited documentary films and newsreels to inspire a cult of personality. He was involved and appeared in a series of micromanaged propaganda films throughout his political career—such as Der Sieg des Glaubens and Triumph des Willens—made by Leni Riefenstahl, regarded as a pioneer of modern filmmaking.

References

I will implement it later today. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the propaganda of the Third Reich constituted a vital element of the Nazi regime and should be included in any discussion of Hitler's dictatorship. American In Brazil (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)