Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about Adolf Hitler. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Why so extremely negative introduction?

Why is the introduction of Adolf Hitler now so extremely negative and mostly turned into POV statements? This is not in accordance with our NPOV policy. In the same time, the introduction of Joseph Stalin, the worst mass murderer of all times, is mostly positive and deals nearly only with his economic and scientific achievements and fails to mention his crimes adequately. A complete rewrite of one of them is in order.

We've had this discussion. Unfortunately, it wasn't much good, because as you can see, the intro is back to the good old "Hitler was a bad man" style of intro, including the word "reviled", on which whole tomes were written on this talk page. "Widely regarded" makes everything better, of course. Hum.

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, I'd say it's probably impossible to write an NPOV intro on Hitler that satisfies everyone with its clear neutrality. If you don't mention how he was a bad man with some loaded term like "reviled", some people are going to cry foul for covering up this admittedly "widely regarded" view of Hitler. If you do mention it, others are going to cry foul over such a deliberate POV angle, accurate or not. Who is right? Since the intro can't really be used for citations, and is supposed to be a summary of the whole article, there's really far too wide a battleground. Polls, perhaps? Eternal back-and-forth edits? Wait for someone with the Right Version we just haven't thought about yet to come around? I don't know.

Not playing devil's advocate for a moment, but coming from my personal view, I'd say "for crying out loud, how is it helping any reader to inform them Hitler was 'widely regared' as 'reviled'?" Even if you don't know who Hitler was (humor me, here) "reviled" is too big a judgement to toss around without immediately backing it up. Yes, I know what Hitler did, and once you've gotten the little issue of genocide past the reader, there might be more understanding for the "reviled" bit. But still.

For comparison, here is how Britannica's article starts. Their conventions differ from ours (they don't really start with a concise intro of everything) but it's still instructive.

byname Der Führer (German: “The Leader”)
born April 20, 1889, Braunau am Inn, Austria
died April 30, 1945, Berlin, Germany

leader of the National Socialist (Nazi) Party (from 1920/21) and chancellor (Kanzler) and Führer of Germany (1933–45). He was chancellor from January 30, 1933, and, after President Paul von Hindenburg's death, assumed the twin titles of Führer and chancellor (August 2, 1934).

Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was illegitimate. For a time he bore his mother's name, Schicklgruber, but by 1876 he had established his family claim to the surname Hitler. Adolf never used any other surname.

JRM · Talk 21:01, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

I agree w both of you heartilly, and would like to see a balanced intro. We must always strive for NPOV, even if its unachievable! Sam Spade 22:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying that hitler was bad man in the intro is childish, even if one uses a $20 word "reviled". The current intro pretty much says what he did, and if a reader thinks that WWII and Holocaust were not that bad, we are not going to change their mind by saying "Watch out! Hitler was nasty boy" two lines of text above. Mikkalai 23:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I happen to think that 1k year thing is excellent prose, coupled w him having failed so utterly. Of course I did write it, so I'd like to hear the thoughts of others. Sam Spade 00:38, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I happen to agree with the evaluation of the prose, but this historical irony is so immaterial (in the sense of information delivery) IMO. There is plenty of fine reading around. Encyclopedia serves a different purpose. But I will not insistently argue here. Mikkalai 00:55, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

What do others think? Someone want to break the tie? Sam Spade 00:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"No soliciting!" Mikkalai 01:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's say a reader who has never heard of Adolf Hitler comes to Wikipedia to find out about him. As far as I'm concerned, such a person is done a disservice if we point out that Hitler was "regarded as significant" but not that he is reviled--and, folks, saying that Hitler is "reviled" (not that he's "evil," which is not what we say) is a statement of fact.

I'd be happy with not mentioning (until later, perhaps) how Hitler is regarded, but if we do we must mention that it is in a negative way. To do otherwise it to appear strangely ignorant of Hitler's legacy. Demi ^T/_C 01:11, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

You can't write an intro to Hitler that is remotely balanced if you omit to mention his reputation. To describe him, as was done recently, as simply "a German politician", is like describing Oliver Cromwell as a Member of Parliament for Huntingdon. We don't report our own opinion of him, but we *must* report the most widespread opinion of him. To omit that from the intro, ironically, unbalances the article when the intention is the exact opposite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I think my version, plus the excision of "significant", works fine. The first paragraph of the lead describes him - he was fuhrer and reichskanzler of Germany, his nation controlled most of Europe during this time, and he was head of the Nazi party. All purely factual, all purely NPOV. The second para describes his role in the start of WW2 - again, purely factual and NPOV. (except perhaps for the mention of "unprecedented scale" but come on, it was) Anyone who gets beyond the first paragraph will get to the second paragraph, which makes it very clear that he was a bad man. It doesn't need to be stated explicitly. At first, I was against removing either "reviled" or "significant", but as it stands now, those are implied in the writing, which is probably a better option than saying to the reader, "HEY YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO HATE THIS GUY". And yes, putting "German politican" was needlessly sanitizing it. --Golbez 01:40, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

You know what I'd like? Something more than "Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in much of the world as synonymous with evil. Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are almost uniformly negative." From here to "widely reviled" is just not good enough. I know it's the proverbial elephant, but surely we can dig up some sources on how Hitler is viewed? At least we'd have something to justify those terms with. JRM · Talk 01:38, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

It's the introduction we're talking about. We *should* say he's widely reviled and that his significance in twentieth century history is regarded as great, because those are the most significant facts about Hitler--that long after his death his name is synonymous with evil, that even now it's illegal to publish his autobiography in Germany, and that he's held to blame for the conflagration of Europe. How can we possibly justify an opener that omits these facts? How could we call an article with such glaring omissions NPOV? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I dunno, it seems to work rather well right now. --Golbez 03:05, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Oh well, time to accept the consensus. I'm utterly baffled, the first two paragraphs seem to me to have lost all their former clarity and beauty (how did we end up with the tortuous "He implemented the racial policies of Nazi Germany, including what is now known as The Holocaust, the genocide of millions, including approximately 6 million Jews"? -ugh!) When despite my involvement the language quality and clarity of an article degrades, I find it's best to just give up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey the style and the content of article, especially the introduction get really terrible sometimes. It's very difficult of course to have a good wording there. You can find many other attempts and a lot of discussion here. The current wording was a compromise on many others before.

I read what nyenyec considered the wikipedia-inherent limitations. There is of course a problem with vandalism and very divergent opinions about him. I guess this one here is the most controversial article on wikipedia.

One idea, to have at least the introduction stable and solid, would be to vote on the exact wording of it and then protect it. I mean not protection protection, but to put e.g. a warning there, e.g. . This way any changes could be easier reverted and vandals easily identified. We could at least arrive at a stable version of the introduction. Any thoughts on that? Is it antiwiki? Ben talk contr 05:33, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tony, I agree, and I'm fixing that now. I'm mostly new to this article; hows about we chat and trade constructive criticisms before you throw up your hands and give up? --Golbez 06:56, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I just made another attempt at including reviled, evil and significant; please leave comments. --Golbez 07:31, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Golbez, why don't you look at the discussion we had before back in February about the use of adjectives in the introduction, before you start editing everything. Especially if you are new to this article. It will help you avoiding some mistakes and prevent disappointment later. Ben talk contr 12:21, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Wiki way: Be bold. I'm not married to the words, I just wanted to see how they went over. Far from being "disappointed", the bulk of my edits have remained. Sorry I didn't disappoint. --Golbez 16:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Nobody said you would disappoint, Golby. It's just easy to get disappointed here. Ben please vote! 12:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

This is the intro at 13:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC), which I'm pasting here to have a point of reference:

Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was the Führer und Reichskanzler (Leader and Chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death. At the height of his Third Reich, his armies had conquered and dominated most of Europe. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (commonly known as the Nazi Party).

Hitler's attempts to create a Greater Germany, beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, were the primary cause of World War II in Europe. This total war brought destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale, leading to the deaths of over thirty million people. His racial policies were similarly destructive, eventually involving the systematic genocide of over 11 million people in what is now known as the Holocaust.

He led Germany from the depths of post-World War I defeat to be one of the most powerful nations in the world in less than a decade; however, the war he started was ultimately lost, and his planned "thousand-year Reich" ended shortly after his death, reportedly by suicide, in his Berlin Führerbunker. (See Hitler's death.)

I'm not saying it's perfect at all, but I want to point out three significant facts:

This intro accurately represents the most salient facts about Hitler's life and career.
In particular, it describes the results of his actions in piles of bodies.
It does not use "charismatic", "reviled", "evil" or any other adjective describing common views of Hitler, and I can't say I'm missing them.

Now, I'm sure some of you still think that not mentioning at least something like "reviled" violates NPOV by ignoring a common view. I disagree. The intro is not required to represent common views of Hitler at all. Unlike, say, The Beatles, historical views on Hitler's merits are not significant for establishing his notability. Oh, I'll grant you that they're significant in and of themselves, and belong in the article—but I do not believe we have to use the intro for them. If we decide to do this, then yes, the burden of doing it in an NPOV manner is on us, but do we really need to do this? I think not, and I think insisting on it burden us with a Mission Impossible. Trying to cram everything in the intro is an exercise that may be beyond mere mortals, when it comes to convincing everyone of its neutrality. JRM · Talk 13:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Thanks, I was rather pleased with that; I did have a single sentence which included significant, reviled and evil, and it was easily removed, and it probably works better this way. I put that in there as an attempt to try it. The other edits since mine were equating the Holocaust with his policies; I'll change "eventually involving" to "culminating in". And the first graph may be improvable, but I'm not sure how at this moment. --Golbez 16:43, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Re-reading Tony's comments, it strikes me that there is no reason we couldn't have a paragraph on Hitler's reputation and impact after the mere facts. This seems much better to me than mixing in these sentences in an attempt to get a wondrously clear two-paragraph magic intro. Separating concerns might have merit. JRM · Talk 13:17, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Analogous with Joseph Stalin, there should be someting about the positive sides of his rule, like the economical achivements that pulled Germany out of the depression of the 20s, and technological achievements, as well as lasting things like the social welfare state (and perhaps things like the Autobahn, Volkswagen etc.). Only including negative things in the introduction is POV. Also, Hitler was NOT responsible for all 30 million deaths. Stalin (which Hitler started the war jointly with) was the responsible man for a lot of them, and other allies killed many too. I don't see estimates on how many people Stalin killed in his introduction, or how many people Churchill or Truman killed in their introductions.

There is a single positive line, about how he helped turned Germany around into one of the strongest nations around. I actually did try to think of a way to mention the Autobahn, but then again, it was done with virtual slave labor; that would be like praising the Confederacy for all the things the slaves grew. This article isn't about Stalin or Churchill or Truman, perhaps their articles should be edited. However, the fact remains - Without Hitler, there would not have been a WW2 in Europe. He started it. Therefore, the deaths are on him. --Golbez 22:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Also, there is no doubt Stalin is as much "reviled" as Hitler. When I put it in the Stalin article, it was removed. I feel "reviled" has nothing in this article to do if it is not also included in the Stalin article. In any event, Hitler was a popular politician in his lifetime in the country he ruled, I feel that is more important. You know, George Bush is very "reviled" both in Europe and the Arab world those days too, but would the US-Americans accept that we added it to the Bush article? The same applies to Ariel Sharon, probably one of the most reviled people in the world and almost universally considered a notorious war criminal. --83

We don't have reviled in the lead, so this does not seem like a current argument. If you mean elsewhere in the article, then that belongs in a new talk section, this is about the intro :) --Golbez 22:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

The current article seems to claim Hitler was the only one responsible for WWII in Europe. This is obviously incorrect. From 1939 on, Stalin attacked Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and a bunch of other countries. Stalin was as responsible as Hitler, if not even more. The German annexations had all to do with incorporating territory where it lived Germans and which had for a large part until recently been part of Germany or Austria. It was the allies who decided to turn it into a world war when they declared war on Germany (however, not on the Soviet Union, for some reason).

His alliance with Stalin could be added in, yes. --Golbez 22:32, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to grasp the dimensions of what you say. If it was Stalin who caused WWII, then go to the Stalin article and argue there. This article only states what every professor for history might tell you: Hitler is thought to be responsible (or one of the responsible) for causing WWII and for killing many many people. To state this is not POV! Ben please vote! 12:29, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarian?

I may have missed something, but has there really been no mention of Hitler's supposed vegetarianism? It may be a myth or an exaggeration or whatever, but it's widely mentioned (a supposed source of humour or "irony") and surely the article should deal with the subject somewhere. Flapdragon 12:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, I see there's a brief mention at Adolf Hitler's medical health, but I doubt many people would think to look there. Being a veggie isn't normally thought of as a medical condition. Flapdragon 15:04, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

His vegetarianism is certainly relevant beyond, being a detail of, his medical history because, although he did advance health reasons, his primary motivation was ethical. — Morning star 16:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Hitler was NOT a vegetarian. He ate meat, his fave food was a type of sausage and something else meaty, and he only occasionally took a break from eating meat on the advice of his doctor. Also, to be a true vegetarian you aren't supposed to use animal products, and he used a lot of leather. Also, if Hitler was a vegetarian, then he would have pushed his officers to be as well, as he pushed them not to smoke. --Silversmith 11:43, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but that doesn't really help since we're not actually discussing whether he was a vegetarian or not, just the fact that there should be a reference to the subject in this entry. Do you have any precise, reliable references? Flapdragon 13:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

In the April 26, 1942, entry of Joseph Goebbels diary, he wrote: "An extended chapter of our talk was devoted by the Führer to the vegetarian question. He believes more than ever that meat-eating is wrong. Of course he knows that during the war we cannot completely upset our food system. After the war, however, he intends to tackle this problem also. Maybe he is right. Certainly the arguments that he adduces in favor of his standpoint are very compelling."

In The Enigma of Hitler, SS General Leon Degrelle wrote: "He could not bear to eat meat, because it meant the death of a living creature. He refused to have so much as a rabbit or a trout sacrificed to provide his food. He would allow only eggs on his table, because egg-laying meant that the hen had been spared rather than killed." —Morning star 14:46, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Article explaining why it doesn't matter if Hitler was a vegetarian. Article explaining that Hitler was not a vegetarian. One might also point out that as he had millions of the animal Homo sapiens slaughtered, he was not an ethical vegetarian. Chameleon 16:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems the belief that Hitler was a vegetarian (or "a person who didn't eat meat reportedly because ethical concerns withheld him even though his other actions show little to no concern for ethics", I'll grant you that) is notable enough in this respect to warrant mention in a more logical place than Adolf Hitler's medical health. Of course we need POVs that the whole thing was made up and/or Hitler didn't fit the bill as well. Start editing, folks. >:-) JRM · Talk 17:24, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Two important points (on top of his eating meat): "If Hitler had been a vegetarian, he would not have banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the occupied countries; nor would he have failed to urge a meatless diet on the German people as a way of coping with Germany’s World War II food shortage." - Rynn Berry, author. See second link supplied by Chameleon. --Silversmith 17:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

His banning of vegetarian organizations is news to me, so I speak with no authority; but I would speculate that the rationale for the ban had something to do with political considerations other than their vegetarianism. Regarding the urging of a meatless diet for Germany, someone told me there was a weekly vegetarian meal adopted by Hitler's household and encouraged for all Germany (when I asked for the source, they thought it might have been in one of Albert Speer's works). In The Nazi War on Cancer, by Robert N. Proctor (ISBN 0691070512), there is at least one chapter on the promotion of soy beans as a positive alternative to meat (going so far as to rename them: "Nazi beans"). —Morning star 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

So, should this topic have its own page (Adolf Hitler and Vegetarianism), or a section of the main article (something like Adolf_Hitler#Diet)? —Morning star 14:41, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Typically these things start out on the main page, and get shuttled off to separate articles as they grow. There's not much point to having a one-paragraph article on Hitler and vegetarianism, for example. This also makes it easier to write appropriate summaries for the main page when the article does get split off. JRM · Talk 14:50, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Ugly image

Image:Adolf.Hitler.jpg seems to be chosen deliberately because it is ugly. Why not using a more characteristical image?

(above comment added by 83.109.148.29 --Demi)

This would be the place to suggest an alternative. Demi ^T/_C 04:16, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

How many hises do we need?

We have "...his Third Reich," "...his armies," "Hitler's attempt..." and especially "His racial policies...." While obscuring the personal responsibility Hitler had for the horrors of the Third Reich, the Holocaust and World War II would be wrong, this makes it sound like he was the sole motivator of all of these, when in fact he had many willing, enthusiastic and creative confederates. The "his..." "his..." "his..." structure leaves little room for culpability outside of the man himself.

I greatly prefer the "his armies" statement to the former (strange) "military-industrial complex he fostered" but I dislike "his racial policies...," which, despite his enthusiastic acceptance, promulgation and direction, were descended from widespread antisemitism and racism that Hitler hardly invented. The Third Reich had many architects; the victims of the Holocaust many murderers.

We should remove some of the "personal ownership" words in the introduction, qualify some and leave others. In particular, I recommend "...the Third Reich," "...his armies," "Hitler's nationalistic attempt..." and "The racial policies he adopted and directed..." or something similar.

Demi ^T/_C 17:43, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

It was his Third Reich, though perhaps we should say "Germany's armies". We could also change "His racial policies" to "Nazi Germany's racial policies", which gives us a chance to link Nazi Germany in the lead. If possible, we could mention Mein Kampf, but that could make it too long. We should still keep his attempt; he was leader. Due to the comments (about not changing the lead before talking about it), I propose the following changes "At the height of his Third Reich, the armies of Nazi Germany had conquered and dominated most of Europe.".

As for the racial policies bit, I do think they were mostly his. Most people, rightly so, see him as the integral person behind the Holocaust, if not the one that actually carried it out or arranged it. Perhaps "The racial policies he fostered" instead of "his racial policies" would work better. --Golbez 17:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

"Well you started it! You invaded Poland!"

I reverted Sam's change of

Hitler's attempt to create a "Greater Germany", beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, was the primary cause of World War II in Europe.

to

Hitler's attempt to create a "Greater Germany", beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland in 1939, was a primary cause of World War II in Europe.

On the ground that there is only one primary cause, by definition (there are other meanings of "primary" that allow plurals ("primary colors"), but "first in rank of importance", the one used here, isn't one of them). "Primary" does not mean "only", so other factors are not excluded by this wording. You can try a reformulation if you think this should be given more prominence, but I think it's clear enough as it is. I dispute that there is more than a very small minority of POVs who contest that especially Hitler's invasion was the primary cause. JRM · Talk 21:18, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

There is only one primary cause. There can be many other causes, but only one primary. And Hitler's attempt to create a Greater Germany was it. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not that happy with this sentence. What one considers causes can vary depending on the scope of your definition. I doubt a reader of Causes of World War II would, however, cast this in quite the way we have, which ascribes so much of the moving force behind the war to one man alone (as in, if he had never thought of it, it wouldn't have happened, which is not a rock-solid assertion).

Secondly, I'm not sure Grossdeutschland actually means what one would think it means from the context here, and the term is not mentioned in either World War II or Causes of World War II (clearly Hitler attempted to subjugate other states, not just unite German-speaking lands under one rule, which is what the term implies to me). How about something more like this:

Hitler's attempt to expand the German Empire led to the annexation of Austria and invasions of Czechoslovakia and Poland which marked the beginning of World War II in Europe.

Hm. I'm not really thrilled with that either, but at least it links the "Causes" article. Demi ^T/_C 22:27, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I only now see that intro is loaded with easter egg links. This is a legitimate use of them, however, which I did not anticipate when I condemned easter egg links on Wikipedia:Piped link; it prevents a lot of "see also"s in the intro, boosts the accessibility of information from the intro, and the primary objections against easter egg links (spoken or print versions cannot have them) are not relevant since the intro is by design expanded on in the article, which has all the relevant links.

Not that this makes writing the intro easier, mind you. I've taken yet another stab at it, cramming in the fact that Hitler's expansion didn't "lead" to the Anschluss but that the latter was a part of it, emphasizing that the expansion wasn't just the surroundings, that the Polish invasion was the beginning but not necessarily the primary cause, and clearing up some links in the process. Feedback & edits always welcome, of course. JRM · Talk 23:20, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

I liked the content of the new sentence, but something about it didn't flow for me. I've taken another attempt, and it contains only one piped link, to avoid repeating "World War II" which still seems like it most naturally goes at the end of the sentence. Demi ^T/_C 23:52, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Much better, thanks. I especially like the way you got rid of the parenthetical phrase. JRM · Talk 23:57, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

"Racial policies of systematic genocide"

I'm spilling a lot of words over edits on the talk page here, but then, this isn't your average article.

Neutrality changed

His racial policies culminated in the systematic genocide of over 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

to

His racial policies of systematic genocide led to the killing of over 11 million people in what is now known as the Holocaust.

I reverted this back to the earlier wording, minus the explicit mention of the Jews, which is not my main beef here (that's a separate issue we can talk about, and I'm not sticking my hand in that hornet's nest). The old version has a few more words, but in my opinion they're well spent. "His racial policies of systematic genocide" fails to cover the entire scope (it certainly wasn't genocide from the beginning), and "culminated" makes it much clearer that what is known as the Holocaust was something that was gradually built up to. JRM · Talk 23:10, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

As established by the linked-to article. By the way, I think the following version reads slightly better and is slightly handier with its usage (note it also addresses one of my concerns, above):

The racial policies he directed culminated in the systematic extermination of over 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

I'm not being bold and changing this sentence because I made that edit once already and was reverted.

Demi ^T/_C 00:26, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Well, for what it's worth, I-as-one-person would love to see that sentence instead of the old one, because it finally gets rid of one of my pet peeves—the ridiculous tautology that is "systematic genocide". Not that this isn't already a big improvement over "genocidal Holocaust", mind you. JRM · Talk 00:33, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

"Occupied most of Europe"

The following sentense in the intro is misleading IMO:

At the height of his Third Reich, the armies of Nazi Germany had conquered and occupied most of Europe

It did not occupy Great Britain, Iceland, Ireland, Germany, Spain, Portugal, Zwitzerland, Italy, Romania, Hungary, Finland,Sweden, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, most of the European part of Russia was still free as well. So the word "most" is quite an exaggerration IMO here, if one bothers to take a glance at the map of Europe. Mikkalai 23:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I returned the sentence with "much" instead of "most." I also used dominate instead of occupy since not all of the power exercised was strictly occupation. An earlier discussion had established the desirability of mentioning the Third Reich and extent of power. Demi ^T/_C 00:13, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Furthermore, I think the case can be argued that Nazi Germany controlled the biggest part of Europe relative to other forces. Not that I think you can state that in an attractive fashion. :-) JRM · Talk 00:18, 2005 May 14 (UTC)

Erm, Kazakhstan is in Europe now? El_C 07:10, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Mein Kampf - not prohibited in germany

Sorry, but there is some mistake in this article. Hitlers book is not prohibited in Germany. The only thing is, that the Free State of Bavaria holds the copyright for it (which will expire around 2015) and doesnt allow any reproductions of it (and will actively pursuit unallowed reprints by means of copyrightlaw). But you are freely allowed to trade old examples of the book. see also http://www.damaschke.de/marginalia/1998/anfrage-1998-07-12.php (in german) i hope this will be changed, because it just boosts a wide-spread misbelieve among many germans about censorship in germany even more (not that there is none).

After reading the German link above I've changed the article's paragraph from the following:

In Germany today it is illegal to distribute or sell Hitler's book Mein Kampf, although heavily commented and excerpted versions approved by the government are available.

to this:

In Germany today it is a copyright infringement, and depending on presentation, an offence against the constitution, to distribute or sell new copies of Hitler's book Mein Kampf, although owning and buying old copies is legal, and heavily commented and excerpted versions approved by the government are available.

Rather wordy, and I saw no mention of government approval in the German link.-Wikibob | Talk 23:06, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

User:Haham hanuka's intro rewrites

I reverted the second paragraph, which Haham hanuka had rewritten to:

Hitler's attempts to create a "Greater Germany", beginning with the annexation of Austria and the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland in 1939 as the invasion led Poland's allies the United Kingdom and France to declare war on Germany. This was the beginning of World War II that brought destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale. His racial policies had reached their peak in the ethnic cleansing which led the word genocide being coined.

Re Greater Germany: see discussion above. Re UK and France declaring war: superfluous. Re "destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale": less factual and more emotional rewriting of "total war [...] that led to the deaths of over 30 million people". Re "the word genocide": the Holocaust deserves mention, not linguistics. JRM · Talk 14:56, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

disagree,UK and France declaring war: NOT superfluous (if you write about WWII), the old version is not objective at all. --Haham hanuka 15:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That's one point out of four. Hitler's invasion marked the beginning of World War II. It did so because others declared war on Germany, which is neatly described in our article on World War II, as well as this article. But is there a particular reason it has to appear in the intro? Furthermore, you removed the link to causes of World War II, which is a lot more useful in providing perspective on matters than saying "France and the UK declared war".

The "Greater Germany" link is misleading; this is discussed above (under "you started it!").

Why was any mention of the Holocaust removed? I hope we're not disputing that this is a significant (possibly the most significant) aspect of Hitler's rule.

"The old version is not objective": you'll have to be more specific than that. What's wrong with it? JRM · Talk 15:12, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I think that presenting Hitler as a cartoonish monster is inappropriate for encyclopedia. The real life is much more complicated. For example the number of Japanese victims is not mantioned in the intro of Harry S. Truman, by the way the number of Jews victims is DISPUTED. We should not blame Hitler on evey "bad think" that happened in his lifetime. --Haham hanuka 17:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Which is why we take care not to do that in the article. Comparing Hitler to Truman is spurious, because the majority views on Truman do not include that he committed genocide on the Japanese people. Whether the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a justifiable act of war or a baseless atrocity is still contentious. Whether the Holocaust was justified is most definitely not.

It is not seriously disputed by anyone that Hitler had a great personal responsibility in drafting the racial policies of Nazi Germany, and that he likewise personally approved of the Holocaust. For right or wrong, the Jews are the most prominent victims of the Holocaust, being the primary targets of those racial policies, and simply omitting that fact does nothing to make the intro better.

The number of Jewish victims is not disputed by any reputable source, and if you think otherwise, I suggest you get that number altered in all other places, by consensus and referencing sources, before you dispute it in the intro here. See Holocaust denial, in which (among other things) claims of incorrect numbers are thoroughly debunked. JRM · Talk 17:40, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I think it would be better to remove numbers of the victims from the intro, including the World War II casualties. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is not a genocide but the number of Japanese who died as a result is not mentioned in Harry S. Truman, PS the "real" number of the Jewish victims according to Yad Vashem is 5,860,129. --Haham hanuka 09:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, the comparison is flawed. The number of WW II casualties and Jewish victims is much more notable than the number of Japanese victims at the atomic bombings—mainly because they're much larger than any individual number of casualties in any war. I'm not saying this is a good thing or that the Japanese victims deserve to be ignored, but this is the majority view as I see it.

What's more, you yourself put in that World War II caused "destruction and suffering on an unprecedented scale". How is this an improvement over calling it a "total war [...] that led to the deaths of over 30 million people"? The latter is far more informative to the reader than just saying it was "unprecedented". Mind you, we are not saying that Hitler himself killed 30 million people. We are not even saying that he killed 6 million, but we are saying he had a big part to play in both, and that isn't disputed by anyone.

"PS the "real" number of the Jewish victims according to Yad Vashem is 5,860,129" Which, when rounded, is 6 million. Nobody is claiming that exactly 6 million people died. Using Yad Vashem's precise count instead of the number which has less accuracy but more sources backing it up doesn't seem like a good idea. JRM · Talk 10:26, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I think Golbez's reversion to the previous intro structure is an improvement. We've previously established that it's desirable to mention his role in the origins of the war and its consequences. Doing so in an overly-explicated way, trying to qualify for each detail and exception (even in JRM's improved version) doesn't help. We link to the causes article, where those details and subtleties are examined, and we describe Germany's expansionism and invasion of Poland specifically as the start of the war. Haham hanuka's edits didn't improve anything and we are better off where we were before. Demi ^T/_C 21:02, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

Well, Golbez changed it back, partly at my behest (I asked him about his reversion before this comment was made). I think the present version is not beyond saving—at least it fixes the equivocation the earlier version made about the annexation of Austria, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the invasion of Poland to spark the war—only the last thing was the immediate cause, and it is true that the war began with the declaration of war on Germany (the remaining causes are, as you say, much more difficult to squeeze in). I think the intro just about gets away with it now. Haham hanuka's other suggestions I cannot fit in, because they degrade the factuality of the earlier version, as described in my comments above. JRM · Talk 23:47, 2005 May 15 (UTC)

I'll point out that according to World War II, the war began in Europe with the invasion of Poland, not the consequent declarations. Demi ^T/_C 10:13, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Trim "beginnings"

We grew to two sentences now describing the beginning of the war; in the interest of keeping the introduction a mere introduction, I have shortened it again, at some cost of detail. However, I didn't want to see us going down a path I saw adorned with the alcoves of appeasement, the dangerous footpads of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and the uncontrolled zebra crossing of the Sitzkrieg. I also changed "reportedly by suicide" (see previous discussions); while we have agreed that just "by suicide" is too much of an assertion, I've never liked "reportedly" because it implies a specific report or a witness making a report. Demi ^T/_C 09:50, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I think the "reportedly" battle is hopeless, because we're turning on a dime here. I do not want to see us go back and forth between "reportedly", "apparently", "allegedly" or anything else ending in -ly. Any ideas we can all agree on? "Most likely"? "Generally accepted as"? "Commonly held to be"? While "reportedly" may be very concise, the implicit overtones of it being based on just one (probably unverified) report are too strong. JRM · Talk 10:03, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Yes, I let it alone. Demi ^T/_C 10:21, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I just reverted this here because it's too long:

Hitler began an expansion of Germany through the annexation of Austria and invasion of Czechoslovakia. Historians advance many causes of World War II in Europe, but it was the Polish September Campaign (the conquest of Poland by the armies of Nazi Germany and Soviet Union) that provoked a declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France. The resulting total war...

It seems to be useful though and could be integrated in a discussion at the end of the article. Ben please vote! 12:51, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Intro

Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889–April 30, 1945) was the Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (better known as the Nazi Party). At the height of his Third Reich, the armies of Nazi Germany and its allies controlled the larger part of Europe.

Hitler began an expansion of Germany through the annexation of Austria and invasion of Czechoslovakia. Historians advance many causes of World War II in Europe, but it was Germany's invasion of Poland that provoked a declaration of war by the United Kingdom and France. The resulting total war between Allied and Axis Powers led to the deaths of over 30 million people. The racial policies Hitler directed culminated in the systematic extermination of over 11 million people, including 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

He led Germany from the depths of post-World War I defeat to be one of the most powerful nations in the world; however, the war he started was ultimately lost, and the planned "thousand-year Reich" ended shortly after his death, reportedly by suicide, in the Führerbunker in Berlin during the final days of the war.

Please discuss

Hmm. 4.250.198.126 just cut everything to leave just this two-sentence intro:

Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889–April 30, 1945) was the Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor) of Germany from 1933 to his death. He was leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party (better known as the Nazi Party).

I don't know whether this should be considered good or bad. On the one hand it suffers from the "Hitler was a German politician" syndrome (that is, it completely avoids everything of interest to Hitler's life); this is more like Britannica does it, but it's not usual on Wikipedia, and it also suggests that this is all there is to tell on Hitler if you had to summarize it.

On the other hand, it's hard to argue that what is there isn't completely neutral. That's a lot of endless discussion out of the window right there. Opinions? JRM · Talk 14:59, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

One can be non-neutral by omission as well. Demi ^T/_C 17:40, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

While one would wish to at least add "known for starting WWII and killing lots of Jews" one can not do that on wikipedia without opening the pandora's box of unending battle. At least a short intro like this keeps the fight and reverts to subsections and also allows a full discussion where those topics ARE mentioned so people can't cut off the other side of the story by saying it has to be kept short. In a provocative subject, a short intro helps keep the wasted energy to a minimum. 4.250.198.126 16:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If the intro doesn't mention World War II then something is very wrong with it. It would be like writing an article on Abraham Lincoln without mentioning the Civil War. Nobody can seriously be in any doubt that Hitler started WWII; whatever other causes or provocations he may have had, he undoubtedly personally and repeatedly took decisions that clearly and knowingly led to the war. The persecution and killing is also without question. The only possible concession to the holocaust revisionists here might be not stating the number up front. DJ Clayworth 17:32, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I actually think, depending on your definition of "start," you can be in such doubt. We do mention the war (twice, actually), but trying to add detail about whose fault it was just isn't working. Since that (and the consequences of the war in terms of bodies) seemed the really contentious point, I added some of the other things back in. Demi ^T/_C 17:36, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue over the definition of 'start', any more than the definition of 'is'. To the level of accuracy required for an introductory paragraph, Hitler started WWII. You can argue that other people caused him to start it at some level, but even then he had the choice. His actions were the ones that initiated the war. Either way, the intro has to mention WWII. DJ Clayworth 17:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

By all accounts hitler didn't want to fight england. He also may not have wanted to fight france (he thought they were both aryan, after all). He probably thought no one would be ballsy enough to do anything about him chopping up poland. A perfectly good question is why england and france didn't declare war on the soviet union, and why russia isn't blamed for starting WWII? Sam Spade 19:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sometimes we make life too complicated. Sure Hitler probably thought he could get away with what he was doing, just like thie guy who broke into my car thought he would get away with it. Doesn't mean he wasn't responsible. DJ Clayworth 20:40, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but why not Russia too? And if you call the police on the guy who breaks into your car, and they attack him (but not his partner in crime), did he start the fight? ;) Sam Spade 20:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Was the guy who broke into your car (so to speak) a gifted orator with a talent for politics and industrial-scale genocide, maybe along with an advanced case of syphillis, who thought he was saving the world?

Anyway, yeah, my impression is that he was surprised by the reactions of France and England in September 1939. Wyss 14:26, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The racial policies Hitler directed...

There's been a lot of wrangling over this part of the intro. I believe previous discussions have established it's desirable to mention Hitler's connection with establishing, or implementing, or directing these racial policies, though the exact verbiage has been a matter of some debate. I thought "directed" would be good, since it didn't imply Hitler invented these policies, which after all were influenced by others and grew out of racism and antisemitism that already existed; yet he did lead the effort and they were certainly "his" policies (we had a version that described them this way, but I thought that left no room for others who shared the policies).

Haham hanuka has several times removed mention of Hitler from the policies section, describing them only as policies of Nazi Germany. I invite others to suggest wording of this section of the intro that might be better. Perhaps "The racial policies Hitler and others directed...?" "...implemented...?" Demi ^T/_C 17:20, 2005 May 19 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have inserted "that" into that sentence for stylistic reasons. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 17:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

"Hitler is said to have died"

I don't think this is an improvement, because a) it's not clear who's saying it, thus it's weaselly and b) it's not clear whether the weaselliness applies to the fact Hitler died, or that it was by suicide. I have left it alone, in part because we're not well-served by the Hitler's death article in trying to summarize, but I would like others' opinions. I have, however, restated "his dreams..." as overly prosaic. Demi ^T/_C 00:51, 2005 May 26 (UTC)

In my not so humble opinion we are putting way too much weight on small minority speculations and unfounded rumours by including that "said to have" part in the intro. It opens up for the possibility that he actually didn't commit suicide and even escaped. He didn't. Just as Elvis is dead, the Earth isn't 6000 years old and the aliens didn't build the pyramids, Hitler didn't escape to Argentina. There are people questioning all of those statements, but we can't drop "said to have"s all over the wikipedia because of them. I'd like the intro to read: Hitler died by suicide. Because he did. And thats how every other wikipedia states it (that I have checked), not to say every other encyclopedia. But we've had this debate on en before, and I don't have any hopes of getting ridd of the weaselwords this time either. They are sort of a compromise, and I'm only glad nobody is trying to be consistant and add question marks after the date of death in the header, too. Shanes 02:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Almost everybody agrees he died, but some feel he didn't (altho if he isn't dead by now, he'd be the worlds oldest man ;) Stalin didn't believe the reports of his men, and for good reason. They were incredible, nearly impossible to believe if you read them in detail. Look into it. I agree it is unlikely he escaped, but the widely accepted account of his death - biting a glass capsel of cyanide while shooting himself in the head, both he and eva braun promptly burned and buried, and the area severely shelled. The evidence of this being an eye witness, a dentifrice, and a skull fragment (which Russia won't allow inspection of) - is nearly impossible, and most experts agree it is unlikely in its entirety. Sam Spade 10:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

From the first week of May 1945 until the present, the consensus among oberservers and historians has been that Hitler committed suicide with his bride in that bunker. The details have shifted here and there, the story of suicide by both cyanide and pistol shot is obviously suspect, possibly related to propaganda (or spin) after the fact. My own impression is that, with Red Army tanks but metres away over their heads, AH shot himself after Braun bit into a cyanide capsule. Lovely couple. Wyss 22:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also rewrite the Elvis Presley article so it says "Elvis is said to have died..."AndyL 00:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Elvis#Death_and_burial. Sam Spade 23:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Deleted text

I've removed the following text, I don't think this stuff is suitable for encyclopedia article.

Please DO NOT revert it. --Haham hanuka 14:50, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and Popular Culture

Hitler has left an indelible mark on mankind's perception of the ultimate villain. In recent times, it has become common practice to compare all megalomaniac villains in popular culture to Hitler. Among others, he has been compared to Saruman in the book Lord of the Rings, The Emperor in Star Wars, and Dr. Doom in the Marvel universe.

Tolkien, I believe, specifically denied that Saruman was inspired by or analog to Hitler. The comparisons were made because he wrote a good part of LTR during WW2. I'm happy to see the above was deleted, it's too fuzzy and likely overstated, unreferenced, not encyclopedic and the term villain seems somehow too narrow, even misleading. Besides, I'm one of those who think making AH into a characature of evil isn't helpful, since it weakens peoples' ability to spot the next genocidal sociopath who shows up in the guise of a charismatic, talented populist politician... along these same lines even Charles Chaplin, after the war, said he regretted having satirized AH. Saying any of that in the article would be unencyclopedic as well. One might rather be happy with keeping the article objective, since the documented background on this topic speaks plainly, glaringly. Wyss 15:40, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Wyss. I believe we "inherit" this section from the editors of Palpatine (see Talk:Palpatine#Comparison To Hitler, Belongs In Hitler Article?). I think it's improper organization to mention the "inspiration" of anyone who might have created a Hitler-like villain in this article--surely it goes in the villain's? Secondly, the comparison would have to part of notable debate, discussion and criticism, not our own speculation or that from some Internet forums or movie reviews (which are, after all, not proper sources of Hitler scholoarship). I could see including information about artistic criticism of Hitler himself, such as from The Great Dictator, but not this business with Palpatine from Star Wars. Demi ^T/_C 17:39, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

FYI, it appears this material was added by 207.200.116.139 [1]. It's been there for a while; had I been watching the page closer I would have brought this to discussion earlier. Demi ^T/_C 17:53, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

I agree w the removal, but assume good faith in regards to the anon, and don't suspect he'll need any special watching. This info should be on the palpitine/Saruman/Dr. Doom articles, if anywhere (IMO its a very shoddy comparison). The fact that I (and clearly others) am dubious of if its worthy even of an article on a movie villain makes it pretty clear its unworthy of an important historical figure. Sam Spade 19:02, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)