Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Hitler ordered the Holocaust

Anyone who thinks this needs to go research Führerprinzip, and Wannsee conference (wherin extremely vague discussions on the final solution occured, and Hitler did not attend). Would Hitler have approved of such measures had he known of them? I assume so. But do we have any reason to think he would have been notified of specifics such as that? I seriously doubt it, based on the style of governance they had. Subordinates painted rosy reports for superiors, sparring them the gory details. This telephone game of misinformation increased as it went up the chain of ranks, and Hilter was much less aware of the circumstances of daily operation than most world leaders of today. In any case, much like the death issue, there is far less evidence to cite than debate and conjecture. Sam Spade 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To expand a bit more, we know AH wanted and enabled it, we can presume he knew the broad truth of the camps, but we do not know specifically how Himmler received his own authority to conduct industrial scale murder. Whatever documentation there was likely got burned in the closing days of the war. To say Hitler directly ordered the Holocaust is not a documented fact. To say it happened and that AH was responsible for it, however, is wholly documented and reasonable to include in the article. Wyss 23:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"responsible for it" is an opinion. My point is he probably didn't know about it, at least the details. He knew Jews were being sent off, presumably to an unhappy death, or at minimum exile, possibly to work as slave labour. All of those would likely have been on his short "to do list" had he been micromanaging the concentration camps, but he wasn't. He was micromanaging the military, which is well evidenced by their spectacular defeat, despire being arguably the sole, or at least predominant world super power not too long before. Sam Spade 23:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will point out as a side note that according to Hitlers own words and Nazi doctrine, he was indeed accountable and responsible for all of what occured during his reign in office. I personally give him less credit than that, as do others, of course. However it should be pretty easy finding a reference, or even a quote from mein kampf suggesting his culpability, if you really think such an insinuation is needed. Sam Spade 23:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To be honest, to whatever extent the Jewish holocaust actually happened, it was probably small potatoes to Hitler at the time. He was losing the war, on all sorts of "exotic" medications (ie. narcotics), physically very sick and even worse so after the assassination attempt. In the last year, he was more concerned about his various scheming generals were up to and clinging to some desperate hope of the tide of the war turning than worrying about what was happening in those concentration camps. They merely became an inconvenience. Whatever aspects of holocaust story you believe, to think that with the German war machine collapsing and the fronts being pushed back every day, that the Germans would have had the resources and time to feed and medicate the hundreds of thoussands of camp inmates is a bit of an ask. In my opinion, what the Allies found when they overran the camps is exactly what you would have expected and barely any kind of proof for genocide. If there was any kind of mass killing mechanism, it's my opinion that it was likely an afterthought of what to do with those starving, disease ridden hoards of humanity, rather than the more fanciful and illogical belief that there was always a genocidal master plan. In this case, it might be argued that it was a more human approach than simply leaving them to starve as Stalin and Mao did.

In my humble opinion, to assert that the absolute (never mind micro-managing and anti-semetic) dictator of a highly developed, bureaucratic world power like Germany during the 1930s and 40s was unaware of the industrial scale slaughter of 6-11 million human beings in a vast network of railway connected camps managed by the SS is... unhelpful. Wyss 00:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" (Adolf Hitler, cited in Joachim Fest's 1975 "Hitler")

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows.

"Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews." (Adolf Hitler, 1922) cited in Fleming, Gerald. Hitler and the Final Solution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 17

In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

"Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his audience

"You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. This realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire world. International Jewry will be recognized in its full demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that."

As unhelpful as attepts at unneeded conjecture in an encyclopedia article? Sam Spade 05:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look who's talking :) (thanks for letting me needle you, pls don't take it seriously) AH was plainly aware of the camps, although I do agree that such a conjecture for an encyclopedia article is unneeded. For all I care, neither is it at all necessary to say he was responsible. When the facts are laid out not much is left to the imagination. Far more interesting to me is the lack of a paper trail documenting his (presumed) orders to Himmler authorizing the industrial slaughter of millions. I assert it's likely (but not certain) at least some documentation existed but was destroyed by German officers and bureaucrats during the closing days of the war. Funny thing (and this remark, of course, isn't directed at you Sam Spade), new information about that era still shows up now and then: In some attic somewhere there could be some verifiable evidence AH directly signed off on the whole thing. My only point in this thread, which is nothing more than table talk, has been to say more or less, "let's wait until something like that shows up before we say AH ordered the Holocaust but on the other hand let's not leave wiggle room for the possibility he didn't enable and encourage it, 'cause one way or another, he did." Wyss 11:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can Sam show us the written orders signed off by Hitler for the invasion of Poland or the invasion of the USSR? Hitler's MO was not to issue signed orders. The quotations above, however, make clear Hitler's intention towards the Jews and the later quotations make clear he was aware of their externmination. AndyL 16:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sam_Spade#AH for a continued discussion of this matter. Sam Spade 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His funny little moustache

A trivial topic of course, but is there any indication why he liked his moustache styled that way? Was it popular in Germany and Europe at the time?

That style of mustache was fairly common in Germany and elsewhere during the early 20th century... Anglo-Saxons have been conditioned to think it's "funny" a) 'cause it's rarer than hens' teeth these days (who wants to have a "Hitler mustache"?) and b) his mustache was extensively satirized in English language cartoons and movies throughout the late 1930s and 40s. Wyss 01:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asian people will sometimes have one, they arn't quite so impressed w Hitler's nefarious legacy as are westerners. Sam Spade 15:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"During the war he had experimented with several types of mustaches and by the end of the war was wearing one that was fairly bushy and ran along the whole of the upper lip almost concealing it. During his training in propaganda and speaking, he thinned out his mustache and wore it close-cropped. Around this time he chose to clip the ends which made it narrower than the width of his lips. This type of mustache was more prominent among the British, but some German officers (like Ernst Rohm) and right wing "intellectuals" (Dietrich Eckart, Gottfried Feder, etc.) to whom Hitler had been exposed in his speaker training period, sprouted such clumps of hair over their upper lip. Hitler was undoubtedly attempting to emulate them". ([1]) Some say it was the "symbolism of Chaplin". In The Enigma of Hitler, SS General Léon Degrelle wrote: "The first thing anyone noticed when he came into view was his small mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he always refused: people were used to him the way he was." —Morning star 16:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With Morning star's contribution thrown in, methinks we've enough here for a helpful wiki article stub called Adolf Hitler's mustache. :) Wyss 18:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I have encountered before was because such a clipped mustache was common among veterans of the trenches of WWI as a way of minimizing lice. He kept it from those days. I can't give a source for this off-hand, but it seems possible.

Ben Bulben 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It is widely claimed that Ernst Hanfstaengl suggested Hitler adopt a distinctive look, he told hitler in 1932 "When you think of Lenin, you think bearded and bald, not an attractive look, but it sticks with you" It is alleged hitler emerged with his new mustache shortly after. Molloy

Heh, heh, an article called "Hitler's mustache." If it matters, with Hansfstaengl's blessing, Hitler apparently copied his mustache from one of Franz Stuck's paintings, The Wild Hunt. It depicts Odin. While there's no doubt a great story here, I'm going to refrain from devoting any encyclopedia space to the mustache. --Sergio 7 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Hitlers death

Please read "Hitler's death". There is nothing resembling clear evidence that events transpired as is suggested, indeed the current "concensus" is simply a bargain between the POV's of a number of historians, essentially none of whom buy into the compromise. I must insist that the narrative not claim he died by suicide, but rather that such is the general agreement. I don't want to dispute the neutrality, but I do insist that a thorough reading of hitler's death be made by anyone who thinks the current wording is acceptable. Sam Spade 20:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read that article, and I prefere the current wording (without the "said to have"). Yes, there is an ongoing debate over whether he died from cyanide or a gunshot, or both. But we aren't disputing this or saying anything about it not being controversial by not having the "said to have" there. In either way he died of suicide, so the current wording is accurate. Shanes 21:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is no "bargain of PoVs". Several eyewitnesses (including the two who doused the bodies with petrol and lit them) repeatedly told the story of AH's suicide with Braun. Yes, eyewitness accounts are dodgy, yes, it's unlikely AH used both a pistol shot and cyanide, but these are details one would expect to be blurred and spun in the aftermath of Berlin's fall. The testimony, evidence and scholarly consensus are overwhelming and leave no room for qualifiers like "said to have died" or "believed to have died". The wording should remain as it is, or the article will have a big, docking, "Elvis sighting" gap of credibility. To put it another way, I have never heard of any scholarly, peer reviewed article or publication by any credible source giving any hint of plausibility to the notion that AH didn't die by suicide in the bunker under the chancellory as Red Army tanks rumbled nearby. Sure, I imagine there are loads of conspiracy and crank books around implying otherwise, skimming a bit of money off the still vast popular market for glossy, sensationalistic publications having anything to do with the Third Reich, but there's no evidence, no documentation, no AH post April 1945. Wyss 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the article then? [2]? Stalin himself never believed the reports, and the soviets (russians) still won't let anyone examine that skull fragment. The article is unacceptable POV as it stands. Sam Spade 00:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for Stalin, he spread lots of conflicting stories about AH's death/escape after the war. Stalin's historical reputation is even worse than Hitler's, never mind his known preference for disinformation and propaganda, so whatever he had to say about it isn't much of a citation. The documentation regarding AH and EB's suicides, partial cremations, sporadic burials and reburials culminating in their ashes being reburned and scattered into the Elbe by Soviet security personnel in 1970 is rather well-established. More telling, however, there is not a shred of evidence AH or Eva Braun were alive after April 1945. Lastly, the skull fragment is interesting but it's never been of much importance to the scholarly consensus of Hitler's 1945 suicide in Berlin. The Russians have historically been paranoid about a re-emergence of fascist extremism, and going back to Stalin, have been known to withold helpful evidence and spread disinformation regarding AH and his death to keep neo-fascists off balance on the topic and discourage the establishment of any shrines or whatever. Wyss 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, I agree the death article could use some cleaning up, it gives too much weight to the possibility that AH may have survived the war (and the oldest man in the world bit seems unencyclopedic to me). Wyss 01:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's something else. I'm somewhat familiar with Magda Goebbels' background along with her longtime relationship with Hitler which overlapped cultish fanatacism and strong personal feelings for him. I find it more or less unthinkable she would have asked an SS orderly shoot her (in suicide), never mind murdered all her children like chickens, unless she knew without question he was dead and saw zero hope. What's more, Eva Braun was a social creature, one way or another. Many members of her immediate family and several close friends survived the war and there is no doubt they were carefully watched for any possible contacts from her. The reason we've heard nothing whatsoever from or about Hitler and Braun since the fall of Berlin in late April 1945 is because they killed themselves, Red army tanks rolling nearly over their heads. I've read blood was found on the sofa in Hitler's sitting room by both Soviet and American investigators. The bodies of other suicides were found in the bunker under the chancellory and even immensely practical Martin Bormann took cyanide after having failed to escape central Berlin on foot (his body was found in 1972 near an old railroad switching area). Himmler took cyanide as well immediately after he was captured. Altogether, the implications are rather plain. There is no hint of a need to qualify Hitler's death in an encyclopedia article based on accepted standards of scholarhsip. Wyss 13:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, if were going to delve into original research here, I find the idea that any of these deaths were suicide unlikely. The reasoning why can be found in bulk at Hitler's death, Odessa, and copious books and sources on the subject. There is no one I expect less honesty from than one of Stalin's officers. The story is absurd, as any historian will tell you. for One reason or other, no one believes it in full. Admit the confusion, cite the sources, and leave questionable stances out of the narrative. Sam Spade 22:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is zero confusion on the basic fact of AH's suicide, and it's far from a "questionable stance." The documented evidence is overwhelming that AH killed himself with a pistol shot from his personal Walther PK pistol at around 3:30PM on 30 April 1945. Now... what original research? (This is a talk page, by the way) Further, the Hitler death article in WP clearly states he killed himself. The story of AH crunching a cyanide capsule while blowing his brains out is indeed absurd, but Stalin was behind that (seems Uncle Joe thought telling the world AH crunched cyanide would make him seem like a coward, not an "honourable soldier" or whatever). Witnesses did report smelling the characteristic aroma of cyanide when they entered the sitting room and found the bodies, but somehow nobody ever seems to dispute that Braun killed herself, with cyanide. Wyss 00:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, there were also a number of conspiracy theories suggesting that the execution of the Romanovs never happened or that one or more of the royals escaped (particularly the Tsarovich and/or Anastasia). Books were written, documentaries were made, some by serious journalists. Nevertheless the discovery of the Romanov graves put these theories to rest, as did the DNA testing of Anna Anderson's remains. Just because some people believe a conspiracy theory and allow their minds to string together plausible sounding arguments for them, doesn't mean they're true or even anything more than furtive imagining.

The strongest evidence that Hitler died in 1945 is the absence of any evidence whatsoever of his presence on this earth following the war. Unless you can show me something that suggests he was in such and such place in 1947 or lived somewhere else in 1953 there's no reason why anyone should pay any mind to the Hitler lives theory unless you want to write a yarn like The Boys of Brazil.AndyL 23:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is all a straw man, I'm not trying to say Hitler is alive, or put a question mark by his date of death, or any such thing. Rather I am presenting evidence that his manner of death is contested. Sam Spade 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow there is some very bad use of logic, even here on Wikipedia. What happened to Hitler is unknown for certain, one can only speculate until any DNA tests are conclusive. Perhaps they have been, I am not sure of any though. Calling something a "conspiracy theory" is a rhetorical technique, a complete appeal to ridicule that has nothing to do with an actual counter argument. The examples of the Romanovs have nothing to do with this particular case, the argument would look like this: The Romanovs executions were contested, DNA evidence confirmed the deaths, Hitler's death by Suicide in 1945 is contested, since the Romanovs executions were contested we can likely conclude that Hitler died as official authorities said. This particular line of reasoning is extremely weak as is obvious. The false dillema is no better: "the strongest evidence that hitler died is that there is no evidence that he was alive". All that says is that there was no evidence that Hitler was alive (he wasn't in the public eye), it doesn't necessarily follow that he therefore died by suicide in 1945. I personally don't know what happened to him, hopefully he died in 1945and did not escape but being an empiricist who requires evidence to back up claims, even by "official sources", I for the time am not convinced by the evidence presented. Shane 11:38, 7 Jul 2005

Argh! (see my good-natured grin :) We say there's a consensus AH killed himself on the afternoon of 30 April 1945 not only because of a complete lack of evidence that he existed after that time (although that is rather good circumstantial evidence), but because of many eye-witness accounts that were unwaivering through the the 40s, 50s and 60s. Linge, Guntsche, Junge and others consistently described what they saw to intelligence agents, reporters, authors and scholars. Moreover, Allied intelligence agents combed through the bunker before the Russians blew it up and found nothing to conflict with the general thrust of the stories eyewitnesses were telling them. A dental technician and his dentist identified his bridgework (and the technician later confirmed this to American scholars). Later, we have the KGB accounts filtering through after Glasnost and the fall of the USSR and it does sound a bit like the Romanavs. Few people understand that the KGB buried several children with Hitler and Braun in Magdeburg- the six Goebbels kids, aged 4 through 12, mostly girls, murdered by their mother hours after Hitler died, distraught at what might happen to them in the hands of the Russians, and apparently thinking they might be re-incarnated into better lives or something.

What we have is an overwhelming probability that he died then and there, either by shooting himself or by both gun shot and cyanide (although the "double" method seems most likely, also based on witness accounts and the forensics that did manage to dribble through the highly spun Soviet autopsy report). It's not a spot on cinch, but near to one as can be and no other scenario I've ever heard of has a shred of evidence to back it up. Personally, I'd be fascinated to hear the old mass murderer hopped a jet (not) and spent his retirement in some posh villa on the Argentine coast, truth is stranger than and all that, but it's so too unlikely. Wyss 7 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

Suicide or Shooting

There is also an accepted theory that he led a final futile assault against the incoming Russians at his fort, who were under strict orders to capture him alive. As he was part of a small group attempting a sally forth approach, naturally he would have been mowed down.

Having to admit to your senior officers that you accidentally killed the man they stipulated you must capture led to the suicide theory and would also explain the attempted desecration by burning (to make unidentifiable) and the hiding of his remains.

This is a conclusion that many historians are begining to come to, which are reflected in quite a few books on World War II I have read over the past year or so in my general studies of it.

Jachin 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His fort? Wyss 05:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yleisradio archive's conversation tape

Does anyone know where this recording can be found? A cursory Google search led me to nothing. --TriniTriggs

You can always try mailing, sending a letter or calling them. One email addy I found was "fbc@yle.fi" and another one "etusivu.toimitus@yle.fi". Their phone number seems to be "+358 9 14801". At least according to www.yle.fi.--HJV 2 July 2005 20:03 (UTC)

"Photographs like this were used to promote and humanize Hitler's populist-nationalist image"

Isn't editorializing in the captions a bit POV?

Photographs like this are used to promote and humanize the image of a politician - (caption altered by Wyss)

--Oipolloi 18:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It's funny how most of the NSDAP propaganda techniques were used by the Allies too, and that many are still used to today, but they take on this magical surreal evil caste when we talk about the Nazis (brooding music helps). It's always curious the way that in documentaries they talk about the Russians raping hundreds of thousands of germans and comitting atrocities against civillians as "Goebbel used these for propoganda" or whatever. It's like saying that the 9/11 attack on the US are just Bush pro-war propaganda.

Hitler geniunely liked children and animals. Sorry if that bothers your cartoonish villainous picture of him, but it's a fact.

Zero editorial. It's fact, NSDAP propaganda tactics are well-documented, photographs like that one were used to promote his populist image, where's the opinion in that? Wyss 18:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] Wyss 23:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: the Bush picture at right was posted by Oipolloi who pasted in the caption I used in the AH article. I thought that was unhelpful and removed Hitler's name from the caption of this Bush image. Both Hitler and Bush, in addition to having had their pictures taken with kids for political ends, are known to have traveled in automobiles... do these two points in common equate them morally? (Hint: no) Wyss 20:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many other similarities between Bush and Hitler but that is not rlevant to either article. Inclusion of photos with descriptive editorial comment should be NPOV. If it is good enogh for Hitler, it is good enough for Bush. If you feel that your own descriptve editorial captioning is factual, it should be good enough for the Bush article but you sought to delete it there? Why? Take your answer to the Bush Talk page. Thanks. And if you have issues suddenly with my edits to Clown article and are not just engaged in petty vandalism of my edits, use the Clown Talk page to explain your position. --Oipolloi 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are baiting, which I consider to be vandalism. Wyss 20:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are reverting legitimate edits without discussion on the Talk page which is vandalism. --Oipolloi 21:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I politely suggest you review Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism and personal attacks. Wyss 21:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oipolloi, this is what Wyss is citing: "No Personal Attacks". This is considered policy, and contains the following line: "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial." (Emphasis mine). So, he has the right to remove personal attacks - whether or not what you said was a personal attack, I may not agree. However, Wyss, I would say let this one slide - it wasn't a blatant personal attack. --Golbez 21:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

It made no reference to article content and it sure wasn't a compliment :) As a veteran of the Sollog wars, however, I'd say I'm rather quick to revert personal attacks when I see 'em. Wyss 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do think the allegations of "vandalism" on both sides are probably personal attacks, but deleting the conversation here was inappropriate. I think we should focus on discussing the image caption here, and discuss other concerns at WP:RfC, WP:AN, eacho thers talk pages, or whatever. Sam Spade 18:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree but let's stay on topic and discuss the article please. I assert the caption is a well-documented fact. Wyss 23:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was uncertain, and taken aback, when I first read it. I didn't feel strongly enough to remove or debate it at that time, but it struck me as odd and inappropriate. I think a rewording is in order. Perhaps User:Wyss could provide an alternate version he would feel comfortable with? Sam Spade 12:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that photos like this were a part of the Nazi propaganda campaign. The question is, were they specific enough to Hitler to include them in the general context of this article? This could be the case if he was the only one to use them (obviously not) or the first one to use them (I don't know, but probably not). IMO, this picture is not a good illustration of the section where it appears (taking pictures with children was not the most central or peculiar feature of Nazi propaganda). It should be in Joseph Goebbels, Propagandaministerium or another article about the Nazi propaganda campaign. Another possible candidate would be a detailed section called "Cult of personality" or similar in this article. Zocky 13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they were. There was even a case of a little girl who had emerged from a crowd of admirers and was subsequently photographed eating strawberries and cream with him (her visits were later curtailed when it was discovered she was part Jewish). Women represented fully fifty percent of the electorate voting for Hitler. Modern readers tend to be given a one-dimensional picture of AH as someone of pure, almost cartoonish evil with no human face. In truth, tens of millions of Germans came to admire this charasmatic leader with a gift for oratory (never mind how coarse and direct it could be), only to realize too late he was a murderous sociopath bent on either ruling a Jew-free world (his take on "saving" it and his country) or dragging Germany into an armageddon. If this article is to educate and inform, then it might do to give readers the tools to recognize the next one who comes along, bouncing kids on his knee (which is also why I object so strongly to the Bush photo having been slapped onto this talk page... that was nothing more than a smearing political jab, never mind that however one feels about Mr Bush, this article isn't about him and any comparison here is unhelpful, to put it mildly). Whatever, readers can't be expected to click into a related article to read in detail how Goebbels masterfully executed this sort of propaganda and image making (like it or not, he pioneered many of the mass media political techniques we still see in use today). Plainly not all Germans, but a majority in the mid and late thirties, were more or less inspired to believe Hitler was their best hope and they didn't arrive at that notion by watching Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (which Chaplin expressed regret over after the war, for reasons along these very lines). Is it deeply unsettling to see that picture with that caption? For me, yes it is and that's the pith of it. Wyss 14:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't post the picture. I only changed the original caption from Adolf Hitler with a German girl to something more informative (and accurate, too). Moreover, it appears in the Economics and culture section. Wyss 14:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see as any historians would disagree with the statement in the caption. And just including the picture with no explanatory text would be worse. (Note, also, that the caption does not say that Hitler didn't actually like small children, which, I think, the evidence suggests that he did). john k 15:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I object to is "humanize Hitler's populist-nationalist image". This presents the POV the populism, nationalism, and of course Hitler were arguably inhuman. While Hitler is viewed as largely inhuman today, that simply wasn't the case at the time this photo was made, and particularly not in the voting bloc the image seeks to appeal to. Also, there is no need to "humanize" populism, which by its very nature reaches out to the ordinary citizen, speaking to him in his language, via jingoism, propoganda, rhetoric, or whatever you want to call it. In summary, the caption paints a factually inaccurate (hitler was seen as inhuman at the time the photo was made) and POV (populism and nationalism are inhuman) picture inappropriate for the image in the article. I think the image should stay (or be moved to another article, we do already have 1 picture of hitler w a young girl here...), the gist of the caption should stay, but the wording be changed to reflect these concerns. Sam Spade 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no PoV in the caption. AH consolidated power partly through a populist-nationalist image and electoral base. After he achieved absolute power, his true popularity continued to rise as propaganda was generated to appeal to that same, widening volkish base. This included ensuring that an attractive "human" face was put on a mass media figure who could truly be quite charming in small social settings (that's well documented, aside from this photo, which happens to exude it) as well as charismatic and hypnotic in sportsplasts. That's why the picture and caption are instructive and maybe a bit unsettling for some: He seduced millions, then he killed millions and for a decade had an impressive public image within the confines of Germany's tightly controlled media (for the most part newspapers, cheap radios and newsreels along with carefully chosen and orchestrated public appearances). Hitler was very human, which may be the most terrifying thing of all and talk about a sore loser. He killed himself in Berlin at around 3:30 in the afternoon on 30 April 1945, having left explicit orders Germany be burned to cinders in his wake. Wyss 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Readers asserting that a reference to AH's populist-nationalist image is PoV may wish to look at these two Google searches: Wyss 17:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Adolf+Hitler+populist&btnG=Google+Search&meta= (26,000+ hits)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Adolf+Hitler+nationalist&btnG=Google+Search&meta= (73,000+ hits)

I agree with all of that, with the posible exception of tha last sentance "He killed himself in Berlin at around 3:30 in the afternoon on 30 April 1945, having left explicit orders Germany be burned to cinders in his wake". Personally I find it far more likely that he was killed by russian infantry or officers, who later feared reprisals and covered it up. That would be the simplest answer, and would explain all the weird and unbelievable stories. Anyhow, as far as this image caption... its not the suggestion that he was a nationalist, or a populist, or is today seen as inhumane. What I object to is the insinuation that he was seen as inhuman at the time, and that populism and nationalism are in need of humanizing. A much needed rewording of the caption is in order. I'll wait awhile longer for you (or someone) to take a stab at it, and then I'll reword it myself. Sam Spade 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We totally disagree on the death thing, I assert that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he died on April 30 1945 in Berlin, after which the Sovs found and identified the body. There is zero documented evidence of AH's existence as a living being after that date.

However, thank you for clarifying your concerns about the caption. I accept that the word humanize appears in a way that could be misinterpreted. I'll remove the word. Thanks. Wyss 18:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this has generated a discussion. The comparison between Bush and Hitler is totally absurd and offensive to the sixty million people who perished during the Second World War and their families. Oipolloi's comments on the talk page deserve no serious response beyond that, and any edits to either the Hitler or Bush article making such a comparison should be reverted on sight as vandalism. If the editor persists, block him. 172 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let us all discuss issues like intelligent people and not call for censorship of others just because we might disagree with them. I questioned Wyss's caption in good faith but did not edit it nor did I ultimately disagree that it is NPOV to caption the photo of Hitler and innocent girl with the phrase "Photographs like this are used to promote and humanize the image of a politician". I thought it was rather arrogant to assert as fact without providing evidence but Wikipedia is populated by all types of editor, some more capable than others. So I let it go. It should be recognized that Bush uses the same image management tactics as Hitler. The White House disseminates photos like this to soften his image among his followers showing him being adulated by rapt audiences and coddling innocent children. The NPOV policy requires that the treatment of Hitler be equivalent to the treatment of Bush. That some users object to this reflects either that Hitler is being vilified in a way that is unacceptable or that followers of Bush are unable to maintain a NPOV approach to editing this encyclopedia. If it is appropriate to caption a photo of Hitler in a way that describes how politicians manipulate the media and public, then it is just as appropriate to show caption similar photos of Bush in the same way. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that Bush and Hitler are both bloodthirsty evil fascist monsters who should burn in hell forever and ever. The issue is whether the encyclopedia is NPOV. To be NPOV, both Bush and Hitler should receive the same non-judgemental treatment. I would never suggest that an editor be blocked from editing for diagreeing with me about the content of an article. That any editor would suggest that a fellow Wikipedian should be blocked on the basis of disagreement over content reflects a blatantly fascistic approach because fascism is defined as an intolerance for opposing or dissenting points of view. --Oipolloi 02:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for making these kinds of comparisons. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. 172 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oipolloi, I strongly suggest you take some time to thoroughly re-read Wikipedia policy regarding these issues. Wyss 09:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

For the record (and I have already mentioned this to User:Wyss), I think the current image caption is excellent, and I applaud him for his high quality compromise. For me at least the issue is resolved. I again suggest that issues not directly related to this page (Discussions of Bush image management tactics, user conduct, wiki policy etc...) be conducted elsewhere. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted as a suggestion "Photographs like this were used to portray Hitler as a kind and loving person". I guess that was the main purpose of such photos, the reality is known and given in the entry. I think that's enough to make the point. Str1977 19:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's true enough the photo promotes "kindness and love" but it contains many other details which act as strong cues for the volkish style of populism and German nationalism they used as their public image during the 1930s. Wyss 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it reminds me of Hitler having walked into a fairy tale. Sam Spade 21:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me someone in the propaganda ministry building back in the 30s thought the same thing. Wyss 22:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I can't see how this picture promotes "Hitler's populist-nationalist image".

What other details? The Bavarian dress of the girl, the grain in the background?

The focus is on Hitler and the girl and IMHO it promotes him being kind, loving, fond of children - all features NS propaganda considered to be essential to the "model of a leader of the German people" - other example his public appearance as being single and only married to Germany. Reality in all these cases of course was quite different.

This all might be summed up as populist (i.e. pandering proximity to the people), but if one reads the current caption one might ask, what this "populist-nationalist image" actually was.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thing to you guys.

Str1977 09:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lots of Germanic Europeans were asking a similar question by 1942. Wyss 10:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What question? Str1977 21:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "one might ask..." question towards the end of your post. Wyss 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I think the numbers of the victims shouldn't be here. For example imagine that in the intro of the article about George W Bush the following text would be written "Bush directed the war on Iraq and the War on afghanistan, he led to the death of X Iraqi citizens, Y Afghan citizens and Z American soldiers" --Haham hanuka 09:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't about George Bush. Otherwise, Mr Hitler is notable for lots of stuff, including having precipitated one way or another the deaths of tens of millions. Wyss 10:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't you know? It's all about repetition. The 6 million figure has to be mentioned at every opportunity.

Anon edit

An anon changed " In the September 1930 elections the Nazis suddenly rose from relative obscurity to win more than 18% of the vote along with 107 seats in the Reichstag, becoming the second largest party in Germany." to 38%. (emphasis mine) which is correct? --Golbez 07:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The anon was wrong. Though in July 1932, NSDAP received almost 38% (37.2%), so I guess the anon just got those two elections mixed up, or something. Shanes 08:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Btw, see here for the election statistics for NSDAP here on wikipedia Shanes 08:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

I want to put here this tag because the intro of this article is too negative. Blaming Hitler as the responsible to the death of 11 million people is totally wrong. In addition I think that all the "good" stuff about Hitler and Nazism are not mentioned here (e.g. social policy, welfare, green policy, VW and etc). --Haham hanuka 14:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's have an actual discussion first before you add the totallydisputed tag. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

He has a point, but on the other hand, out of all 601,581 articles, this is perhaps the least likely to achieve NPOV ;) Sam Spade 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's still not true to say it's "totally disputed". That implies it's a completely ludicrous opinion that absolutely no-one holds - clearly not the case. Ben Bulben 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The opening is not "totally disputed", even among WP editors. AH appeared to be doing some good in the 1930s, however, stuff like the autobahn, the VW (the list is long), even the positive elements of ethnic German nationalism weren't created by him from a void but rather taken from pre-existing elements of German technology and culture. His public image was mostly the result of expert, modern propaganda techniques and ruthless tactics by various internal "security" groups controlled by him. One of the most significant characteristics about him (and this can be gleaned even from his own sometimes- but not always- cryptic remarks on the topic during the early 40s) was his obsession with what he called "International Jewry" and his efforts to "save Germany and the world" by exterminating "it" along with other social and racial impurities as he perceived them. This, one way or another, resulted in the deaths of over ten million people through a program of industrial genocide with few precedents as to scale and method in history and is central to his legacy. The evidence (his last conversations, his political will and testament and so on) indicates he would have largely agreed with this and blew his brains out not from shame, but from the realization of a rational although drug and illness impaired individual that the game was up and the remainder of his life was likely to be short and rather brutal in its suffering. IMO the article begins with an apt and accurate summary for all, even those who might support what he did. Readers are also reminded that he left Germany in ruins, with tens of millions dead including a high proportion of German youth, which is to say (only making a point here), even an extreme, racist German nationalist should be aware of the breadth and depth of Adolf Hitler's catastrophic incompetence and failure as a national political leader. Wyss 14:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think they are well aware of his failings. If you look into the NPD, they by no means mirror the fuhrerprinzp and leader worship of the NSDAP. Anyhow, I would ask mr. hanuka to make the needed edits emphasising the good deeds of hitler, rather than putting an ugly dispute header up. Lets do whats best for the reader, they want to read an excellent article, not become aware of the extent of our editorial disputes ;) Sam Spade 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last line of AH's political will and testament essentially exhorts the world to continue exterminating jews. He didn't even see it as a "negative", so I don't fully grok how Haham hanuka, who in the past has promoted edits depicting AH as a one-dimensional characature of evil, has now decided that mentioning genocide in the opening is "too negative" and "totally wrong." ;) Wyss 15:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was quite taken aback as well; I wondered if his account had been hijacked. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alleged abuse by Alois

I reverted an edit likening Alois' discipline of AH and his siblings to that of a concentration camp. Tacitly transferring responsibility for the deaths of millions over to his father is not only rash (gross speculation), but unsupported by the evidence. Paula Hitler, for example, when debriefed by American intelligence agents after the war, made no mention of receiving abuse from her father and while she did say AH was punished frequently for misbehavior such as tardiness she gave no indication it was excessive or unusual for the circumstances in that time and place. Wyss 13:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've always heard the abuse was severe, but I believe thats interpretive. Hitler himself suggested he often recieved a beating, but also seemed to feel it was deserved and appropriate. He had a quote to the effect of "I loved my mother, but I respected my father". Sam Spade 17:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's rather the same sense Paula seems to give in the transcript of one of her OSS debriefings. Lots of biographers have tried to characterize Alois' treatment of young Adolf as harsh physical and psychological abuse but the primary sources don't support it. For example, there is zero evidence these "almost daily thrashings" were pummelings or woundings. The vocabulary must be taken in the context of the time and place (and by the bye I've never read in any scholarly source that Alois ever thought he might have killed the boy, as one editor recently asserted). To make a point, throughout history lots of stern, slapping fathers have created problems for their sons, most of whom didn't go on to choose careers in industrial genocide. Wyss 05:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Economics

from [3]

Nazi Economics

By Michael McMenamin

Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, by Ian Kershaw, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 845 pages, $35.00

Adolf Hitler was "wholly ignorant" of economics, Ian Kershaw boldly writes in his excellent new study, Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris. What the dictator did know was politics and how to achieve public support--Hitler was an immensely popular leader with approval ratings even Bill Clinton would envy--and early on, he made it clear that economics would be subordinate to politics.

One odd result of Hitler's decision is that few of his biographers have paid much attention to his economic policies prior to the Nazis' first overt military act, the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. Indeed, if they pay any attention at all to the subject, most merely accept Nazi propaganda claims of Hitler's "economic miracle" in restoring Germany's prosperity. Kershaw's book is a welcome exception to this tendency.

The general view that Germany's shattered economy surged to life in the first few years of the Nazi regime is typified by Sebastian Haffner, a German writer whose short book The Meaning of Hitler (1979) received extravagant praise in John Lukacs' recent The Hitler of History. As Haffner put it, "Among these positive achievements of Hitler the one outshining all others was his economic miracle....In January 1933, when Hitler became Reich Chancellor, there were six million unemployed in Germany. A mere three years later, in 1936, there was full employment. Crying need and mass hardship had generally turned into modest but comfortable prosperity.

"Almost equally important: helplessness and hopelessness had given way to confidence and self-assurance. Even more miraculous was the fact that the transition from depression to economic boom had been accomplished without inflation, at totally stable wages and prices. Not even Ludwig Erhard succeeded in doing that later in post-war Western Germany."

Haffner is hardly alone in his glowing evaluation of Hitler's supposed economic miracle. In his highly influential Origins of the Second World War (1961), British historian A.J.P. Taylor similarly gave the Nazis credit for creating widespread prosperity, concluding, "The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics. Government spending provided all the happy effects of mild inflation; while political dictatorship, with its destruction of trade unions and rigorous exchange control, prevented such unfortunate consequences as a rise in wages, or in prices."

Kershaw's version of things more accurately reflects what was really happening in Germany from 1933 through 1935. Hitler's economic policies were systematically wrecking the German economy and were rapidly painting him into a corner where his only choices were war or a loss of power.

Hitler, argues Kershaw, was deathly afraid of inflation and a repetition of the early 1920s. Nevertheless, he had to reduce unemployment or he wasn't going to last long enough to begin rearming Germany, a public goal of his since the '20s. Increasing exports was not a possibility since, unless the German government devalued the mark (as Britain had done with the pound and the United States with the dollar), German exports couldn't compete in a way that would add new jobs or bring needed foreign exchange. Hitler nixed devaluation because he thought it was a step on the road to inflation. Tax cuts were also out of the question because he believed they led to less revenue not more growth.

Hitler's solution for both the rearmament and unemployment problems was the same: massive deficit spending. In fact, by Kershaw's account, the Nazi government guaranteed some 35 billion ReichMarks to the German armed forces alone over an eight-year period, along with massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations, and bribes to women to get married and stop working.

Did such policies reduce unemployment from 6 million in 1933 to 1 million three years later? Not exactly. Statistics from Dan Silverman's Hitler's Economy (1998) show that unemployment was reduced in Germany from 34 percent or about 6 million people, in January 1933, to 14 percent, or 2.5 million people, in January 1936. That's a dramatic reduction, to be sure, but hardly full employment. Even the 2.5 million number is extremely unreliable, as Stephen Roberts, an economic historian at Australia's University of Sydney who lived in Germany in the mid-'30s, explained in his 1937 work, The House That Hitler Built.

The "official statistics naturally tell only part of the story," wrote Roberts. "They do not take into account the Marxians, Socialists, Jews and pacifists who have lost their jobs and are cut off from relief; such persons do not appear in the official figures of unemployment. The refugees are ignored. In addition, at least a million people have been absorbed in the army, the labour-service camps, the Nazi organizations, and various partly-paid forms of labour on public works. Half a million women have been taken off the labour market in the last four years by means of the marriage allowance paid by the Government to entice them away....What they have done has been to introduce a series of emergency steps which have drastically reduced the number of unemployed; but such steps, by their very nature, are in many cases temporary. On the other hand, the reduction [in unemployment], however artificially it may have been achieved, has had a tremendous propaganda value for the Government, and there is the fixed belief of most Germans today that Hitler has achieved wonders in providing employment."

Hitler paid for his economic "miracle" partly by depleting his nation's gold reserves, which he used to import critical raw materials for the manufacture of weapons. When he took office, the Reichbank had reserves totaling 937 million ReichMarks; four years later, that figure was down to only 72 million ReichMarks. Massive government borrowing financed the rest of the government-driven economy. As Roberts put it, "The Nazi state is being financed by short-term [90 day] loans--up to 15 billion Reichmarks by the end of 1936....In short, Germany is going round and round. She can get nowhere until she returns to normal economic conditions, but she is afraid to try and get back to those, because she fears economic collapse and social upheaval if she does so."

Kershaw makes the same point and suggests that it was this fear of social unrest, heightened by serious food shortages in Germany during the fall of 1935--themselves largely the result of government policies--that played the major role in Hitler's decision to reoccupy the Rhineland in March 1936. Keep in mind that Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland was considered one of his "brilliant" strokes precisely because it was so unexpected--Germany was unprepared militarily or economically to carry out any extended effort in support of what even Hitler conceded to intimates was nothing more than a bold bluff.

Conventional wisdom holds that Hitler moved on the Rhineland when he did because the world was distracted by Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia. Kershaw allows that motive as a contributing factor but contends that turmoil in Germany occasioned by the food shortages is the real key to the timing of such a risky initiative. Indeed, he argues that Hitler invaded precisely because he knew it would be extraordinarily popular within Germany and divert public attention from his domestic difficulties.

Contrary to A.J.P. Taylor, by late 1935 Germany was experiencing anything but the "happy effects of mild inflation" and "freedom from orthodox principles of economics." As Kershaw writes, "A summary of price and wage levels prepared for Hitler on 4 September 1935 showed almost half of the German work-force earning gross wages of 18 ReichMarks or less per week. This was substantially below the poverty line...Wages, then, remained at the 1932 level--substantially lower than the last pre-Depression year of 1928 in the much-maligned Weimar Republic. Food prices, on the other hand, had risen officially by 8 per cent since 1933. Overall living costs were higher by 5.4 per cent. Official rates did not, however, tell the whole tale. Increases of 33, 50, and even 150 per cent had been reported for some foodstuffs. By late summer, the terms `food crisis' and `provisions crisis' were in common use."

These facts were well known at the time, both within and without Germany. Roberts and others had written about them, attributing the food shortages to Hitler's centralized agricultural policy, which had virtually eliminated food imports while implementing government controls. The predictable result: Germany produced less food, causing both shortages and price increases. According to Roberts, wheat went up 15 percent, eggs 50 percent, butter 40 percent, potatoes 75 percent, and most meat 50 percent--all despite "official" and ineffectual price controls which Hitler for appearances' sake refused to lift. Well into Hitler's "miracle," Kershaw notes, "poor living-standards, falling real wages, and steep price increases in some necessities...[were] the dismal reality behind the fine facade of the Third Reich."

At the same time, a ferocious economic policy battle was being waged over foreign exchange reserves: Should they be used to buy food imports or raw materials for armament production, the latter being Hitler's primary purpose since he first took office? Hitler appointed Hermann Göring (who knew less about economics than Hitler) to mediate between Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht, who wanted to purchase raw materials for armaments, and Agriculture Minister Walther Darre, who wanted food to cover up his failed policies. Schacht, a social friend of Göring's, expected a rubber stamp in favor of raw materials for arms. To everyone's surprise, except Hitler's, Göring chose food, an answer that set Germany on the road to foreign conquest.

As Kershaw sees it, Hitler gave priority to food imports because the "immediate prime need was to avoid the damaging psychological effects of the only alternative: food rationing." But this decision, in turn, adversely affected German rearmament. "By early 1936," says Kershaw, "available supplies of raw materials for rearmament had shrunk to a precariously low level. Only one to two month supplies were left. Schacht demanded a slow down in the pace of rearmament....As Hitler entered his fourth year as Chancellor, the economic situation posed a real threat to rearmament plans. At the very time when international developments encouraged the most rapid expansion possible, the food crisis--and the social unrest in its turn--was sharply applying the brakes to it....Any slow down in rearmament...would inevitably bring increased unemployment in its train...[Hitler] saw this as all the more reason to hasten expansion to gain `living-space.'"

In other words, if Hitler had to spend foreign exchange reserves for food to keep the people happy, he would have to get the raw materials for armaments by taking them. Otherwise, there would be more unemployment when the arms workers were laid off due to a lack of raw materials. Hitler knew he couldn't survive both food shortages and a resurgence of unemployment.

Commenting in early 1937 on Göring's Four Year Plan for economic self-sufficiency, Roberts had presciently predicted the inevitability of either war or Hitler's fall from power. "There are 34 vital materials without which a nation cannot live, and unfortunately, Germany is worse off than any other great state insofar as these are concerned," he observed. "Whereas the British Empire is largely dependent on outside sources for only nine of these, Germany has only two in ample quantities--potash and coal. That means she must turn to the foreigner for all of her supplies of 26 of these and for part of six more. Yet this is the Power that sees fit to launch a plan for complete self sufficiency. It is ludicrous, unless she looks forward to obtaining control of the vast raw materials of central Europe or the lands beyond the Ukraine by some adventurous foreign policy....That is [Hitler's] basic dilemma. If he persists in the [economic] policies he has enunciated, he plunges Europe into war; if he abandons them, he can no longer maintain his position within Germany."

It's not that Hitler lacked contrary advice. Kershaw tells us that in October 1935 Price Commissioner Carl Goerdeler sent Hitler in October, 1935, "a devastating analysis of Germany's economic position." According to Kershaw, Goerdeler "favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive--in his view at the root of the economic problems....If things carried on as they were, only a hand-to-mouth existence would be possible after January 1936." But Goerdeler was ignored and later dismissed. Instead, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, to widespread popular acclaim, and Göring unveiled his Four Year Plan, putting the economy firmly on a war footing.

Hitler himself apparently never had a clue that the economic policies he had followed for the first three years of his regime were responsible for his production problems. By 1936, Kershaw makes clear, Hitler believed his own press clippings regarding his economic acumen. Thus, for Hitler, the food crisis only confirmed his preconceptions. In the secret memorandum on which Göring's Four Year Plan was based, Hitler wrote, "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. The solution ultimately lies in extending the living space of our people, that is, in extending the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs." That is, the problem is not my fault and the answer is war, not economic reform.

Hitler's fears of losing power were not without foundation. His great nemesis, the Soviet Union, found that out 50 years later. In the 1980s, it could not keep up with increased U.S. defense spending and sustain what William E. Odom in The Collapse of the Soviet Military (1998) terms "a permanent war economy" in which 20 to 40 percent of the gross domestic product went to the military. The Soviets faced the same choice as Hitler: economic reform or war? Thankfully, the Soviet leaders chose economic reform, even though it didn't save them or their regime. Freeing yourself from orthodox principles of economics can be a tricky thing.

Contributing Editor Michael McMenamin is a lawyer in Cleveland and a regular contributor to Finest Hour, the quarterly journal of the Churchill Center. Additional research for this review was provided by Patrick McMenamin, a history major at the University of Rochester.

(end of article) 4.250.132.180 21:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been told that for many intellectuals (including economists), during the 1930s "the writing was on the wall" Hitler was gearing up for nothing else but war. His lack of economic understanding is widely documented (although this could be said of many economists too). However, I'm not sure I'd ever go so far as to say AH believed his own press clippings about anything. Wyss 04:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Industry support for Hitler

I have added a paragraph about the support from German industry leaders for Adolf Hitler. The list of names can perhaps be summarized somewhat, however, this part of Hitler's rise to power is still very, very underrepresented in the article (Hjalmar Schacht was not even mentioned before this addition, even though the article about him describes his role in supporting the nazis). What exactly did Hugenberg, Schacht et al. do to support the NSDAP? I think this should eventually become a section or article of its own. For example, while the NSDAP was financially self-sufficient, its popularity was very much based on propaganda funded by Hugenberg, such as the Dolchstoßlegende and the mythology that the "red republic" had betrayed Germany.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 11:46 (UTC)

I think this belongs in Nazi economics. The article is already too long and makes it aboundingly clear Hitler was supported (some might say aided and abetted) by much of the German establishment on his way to power. Wyss 29 June 2005 13:18 (UTC)

Please make a stronger case for utterly omitting this letter, which may have played a key role in swaying Hindenburg's opinion to support Hitler. It is also important because it does much more than provide evidence for the fact that the industry supported Hitler -- the signatories explicitly spoke of a mass movement "enthralling millions" led by a strong "presidential cabinet" with powers transcending parliamentary democracy and the exclusion of the communists from politics. This is an important distinction, as it does not allow the rationalization that those who supported Hitler did not understand what he stood for (perhaps true of his anti-Semitism, but certainly not of the nature of his movement and future government). I also find it hard to understand why such information should belong in an article about "Nazi economics", that is, the economic policy pursued by Adolf Hitler's regime. Perhaps you are referring to the section above my comment? Why should key supporters of Hitler such as Schacht and Thyssen not be mentioned by name and deeds?--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 13:37 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think one should make a stronger case for mentioning the letter at all, although Schacht's support might be worked in since historians generally recognize his role. However, it's widely understood that many of Hitler's supporters thought he was more or less benign (from their perspective) and any alert observer could see he was a talented charismatic with the potential to sway millions, so any letter written along these lines in November 1932 is clearly an echo of AH's existing influence and success. He conned the whole frickin' country into armageddon so (to greatly exaggerate my point) who cares about what a bunch of greedy Berlin plutocrats put in some clumsy letter to an aging president when AH already had them in his pocket? Wyss 29 June 2005 13:49 (UTC)

First of all, on Wikipedia, our general approach is to be inclusive, indeed granular, and to summarize sections of the article into sub-articles when it gets too long. A future Hitler's rise to power article is not out of the question. For the time being, however, this section is still very inadequate, and I find the inclusion of the nature of the industry's support for Hitler in this section entierly justifiable.

To paint Hitler as a skillful conman neglects the fact that he himself was the victim of indoctrination -- of anti-Semitic and anti-Democratic propaganda such as the "national thinking" courses he participated in after World War I. When Erich Ludendorff participated in the Beer Hall Putsch of 1923, he expected to become the future leader of Germany, with Hitler nothing more but a young deputy who could be done away with if he caused trouble. The view of Hitler as a single individual acting alone and conning everyone else is discredited by historical fact. It is also historical fact that a military government was supported by politicians and generals other than Hitler, and that pro-military nationalist forces had actively been campaigning ever since the end of the War for a new military build-up, an aggressive foreign policy and the end of reparations or restrictions of any kind. Even without Hitler, such a build-up was very likely (and already predicted by Ferdinand Foch in 1921) if other countries would allow it to happen.

Thyssen, Schacht and others saw themselves as the captains of industry who would be favored by Hitler's new regime, and this did indeed turn out to be the case for many of them (Shacht, indeed, was after all a member of Hitler's government from 1935 to 1937). It is also worth noting that Hitler's gang was already engaged in murder and terror before his actual rise to power, so again, anyone who supported him in 1932 knew that more murder and terror would be on the agenda (and again, their continuing support even after the bloodshed of the first years of his government confirms that Hitler's government met their expectations). While I would agree that many of them did underestimate Hitler's totalitarian and anti-Semitic ambitions and saw him as a figurehead who could be substituted with any other, to characterize their role as naive and ignorant carries the connotations of apologetics. There was certainly a strong expectation of a brutal military government that would "clean up" Germany from communists and labor unions, and such a government was explicitly supported by the signatories of the letter.

This support, in my opinion, should be fully documented, though the full documentation does not necessarily have to take place in this article. However, a brief mention of the letter, and other support for Hitler from German industry leaders, does, I believe, have a place in a biography about Hitler (and, indeed, a brief check of Britannica reveals that it has a more detailed presentation of Hitler's backing in German business circles than our article does).

So, I would suggest as a compromise the restoration of this fact in summarized form. I would also like to invite you to help in adding more details about the support Hitler received on various fronts, as I believe this is quite critically relevant to a biography. We can always move material to separate articles if the level of detail becomes overwhelming, however, in my experience it is a good idea to start putting it in the main text. By removing it completely, on the other hand, the matter will likely be simply forgotten and the information lost.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 14:16 (UTC)

The text of Mein Kampf is sparkly clear, by 1923 AH planned on saving Germany by ruling it himself. He had used Ludendorff, even if the old geezer thought he was using AH. That said, I have no problem with trying to add a succinct sentence or two about the role of German business in AH's rise, but am uncomfortable using a political letter sent so late in the chronology as a basis for it. I'd rather see more mention of the relationships he built in Munich during the mid twenties, both before and after he was in prison. Wyss 29 June 2005 15:54 (UTC)

Uhm, I also think we may have an honest disagreement on what constitutes "too much granularity" or length in a WP encyclopedia article. I think this one's too long already, but still helpful and ok because of the subject. Wyss 29 June 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Oh, by the bye, to call Mr Hitler a "victim" of anti-semetic indoctrination is a bit thick IMHO. Millions of Germanic Europeans were exposed to virulent forms of it from birth yet somehow most managed to avoid pursuing industrial genocide as a career. Wyss 29 June 2005 16:33 (UTC)

Yet, many Europeans who were exposed to virulent forms of anti-Semitism would later enable or tolerate Hitler's genocidal programme, either because of Hitler's anti-Semitic propaganda, or because of the beliefs they already held. To isolate Hitler as an "evil man" and accept this as an explanation is perhaps one of the most dangerous possible responses. The only way to learn from history is to fully understand it. Who enabled Hitler financially and politically, and why? Where did his politics of racial purity, extermination and his rabid anti-Semitism come from? Why did so many Germans accept it, and indeed, why did the rest of the world accept the military build-up, the persecutions and the terror of Hitler's regime for so long? There are many answers to these questions, and some of them should be included in this article. To look at causes and effects should not be seen as apologism but as rationalism.

Certainly, Hitler had dictatorial ambitions from the beginning. Whether these ambitions could have been realized in 1923 is another question. The 1932 letter is relevant exactly because it happened at a key turning point, shortly before Hindenburg appointed Hitler. Whether it actually influenced Hindenburg is difficult to judge, but I would strongly argue that it is a good snapshot of the views of this particular group of people at the time, which in turn helps to give a more accurate picture of who Hitler's supporters were, a critical question for his biography. I agree with you that earlier support by Hugenberg, Thyssen et al. should also be included. In the long term, I would like to see a very accurate and full account of who supported Hitler and when. For the time being, such information should be added to this article or to NSDAP, though we should try to find compromises in trying to make the text balanced and keep the prose natural.

The approach to add detail where relevant and to split and summarize an article when the level of detail gets too high is, however, generally accepted on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Page size and Wikipedia:Summary style. If you think the time is there already to summarize sections and create separate articles, I would encourage you to do so.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 16:51 (UTC)

I strongly second what Eloquence has said. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 29 June 2005 16:54 (UTC)

• You might want to take a look at my past posts to this talk page before you infer I'd ever assert AH was even close to being a one-dimensional characature of evil.

• Most Germans had no idea about the genocide until it was too late to do a thing about it. True, they were desensitized by a culture imbued with hatred for a small minority and getting into the psychology of all this makes one shudder a bit to be human but calling AH a victim is too hard core for me. Never mind the paper trail, he murdered millions after skillfully building the bureaucracy, infrastructure and hysterical social climate that made it possible. He thought he was saving the world, after all.

• Back to the letter and the long list of businessmen who signed off on it, the letter's too late in the chronology to have enyclopedic significance relating to AH's rise to power and listing all those names out of context is unhelpful to understanding.

• Most scholarly AH biographies (in book length) have some discussion of his early (1920s era) contacts with the German business community. For the most part, he told them what they wanted to hear and gradually promised concessions (competitive advantages) to many. He had a talent for that. I've no objection to the article citing documented examples but that letter doesn't cut it on its own and the article's too long as it is. I was sincere when I suggested the Nazi Economics article, the whole system was based on arms buildups and concessions, after all. Wyss 29 June 2005 17:26 (UTC)

You are merely repeating the assertion you already made about the significance of the letter, so I refer you to my arguments above. In any case, I think my recent addition is sufficiently short to address your concerns, and flows well with the rest of the narrative. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your comments as this would distract us from the core of this discussion.--Eloquence* June 29, 2005 17:52 (UTC)

:) Wyss 30 June 2005 04:17 (UTC)

Hitler's love affair (ahh history, gotta love it..)

This was recently deleted:

During World War 1, Hitler had a love affair with a young woman in France. He found ut that the woman he impregnated gave birth to his child while in a field hospital. During WWII, when he took over France, he ordered te Gestapo to find his son. When the Gestapo found him, Hitler gave him a high rank in the German police.

It was placed by 24.193.204.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). S/he does not seem to have a vandal history, and poor spelling, grammar, grasp of English notwithstanding - I think it's worthy of at least putting on the talk page to consider. I am not a Hitler scholar at all. So, I'm hoping someone more knowledgeable can credibly and categorically affirm or deny this rumour.--Muchosucko 3 July 2005 16:52 (UTC)

Didn't happen. I think I've heard of this rumour once before- likely on a list of debunked rumours... Wyss 3 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)

What was Hitlers reproductive history. It is true that Hitler unmarried until his last and has at least no well known issue. However it is fairly well documented that Hitler was a hetrosexual and had relations (of some sort) with woman. Such would create the possibility of issue. Some have explained his lack of children because of physical mality. However this is in question, there are some stories that Eva Braun was pregneant at the time of her suicide. If the story was true, and presuming she was carrying Hitler's child, such would suggest Hitler was not infertil. The story about a illegitment French son. Does anyone know if there been anyone claiming to be Hitler's biological children? William

One one question is does

Schicklgruber to Hitler

I think 1876 must be a mistake as the date when Hitler changed his surname, as he wasn't even even born then. Can someone check this?

Alois Hitler was born out of wedlock, and, until he was 40, used his mother's surname, Schicklgruber. In 1876, he began using the name of his stepfather,

BillC38 8 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)

The 1876 date refers to AH's father Alois and is correct.

• Adolf Hitler was born in wedlock.
• Adolf Hitler was never named Schicklgruber, he was born Adolf Hitler.
• His father Alois Hitler was born out of wedlock, Schicklgruber was his mother's last name.
• In 1876 Alois had his last name changed from Schicklgruber to Hitler, probably to secure an inheritance from his stepfather and possibly for social reasons (many scholars think his father was indeed one of two Hiedler brothers, a name later written as Hitler when spellings were standardized in Austria).

This is a rather common confusion btw, maybe because the names Adolf Hitler and Alois Hitler don't look that different in print... BillC38 even pasted the whole sentence from the article without noticing it refers to Alois, not Adolf) Wyss 8 July 2005 16:23 (UTC)

King Kong

I see anonymous users keep contributing the data "His favorite childhood movie was King Kong." I'm assuming this is false, and just a comment snuck in for the purpose of trolling, but don't know for sure. Even if it is true, is it encyclopedic? --Blu Aardvark 07:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

King Kong was made in 1933, the same year 43-year-old Hitler became chancellor of Germany. —Wayward 08:42, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

He liked watching movies privately (like other tyrants during the 20th century he enjoyed seeing Hollywood stuff that was otherwise banned in his country, too). I've never heard he liked King Kong but he likely saw it. I do know for a fact that one of his favorite films (according to him) was 1932's Das Blaue Licht (The Blue Light), in which Leni Riefenstahl acted. I've seen it on European TV... beautifully photographed and Leni looks wonderful, I imagine AH liked it for those reasons... combined with its many Wagnerian-style references to Germanic myth and symbolism (his crimes and sociopathic ineptness as a leader do constitute a monumental abuse of German culture, which he usurped for political ends- but that's only my opinion). Polar opposite of King Kong btw. Wyss 10:12, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

11 millions in intro and subsection

The reference to the death toll caused by SS, death camps etc. includes an article that actually states a much higher number - it starts with a list of 5-7.5 million Ukrainians, 6 million jews, 3 million Russian POWs, 3 million Russian civilians... so I think it is inconsistent to reference a number to an article that actually does not contain this particular number - we should change the 11 million figure to either a higher number or a range like "between 25 and 11 millions" - also see the details of the death toll on The Holocaust. Themanwithoutapast 22:05, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Some of the discrepencies arise from differences in subjective determinations surrounding how deaths are "assigned" to either the Holocaust or military action. This is way controversial. Wyss 22:13, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

In any case we should at least state that the exact number is controversial - I've been over a couple of sources in the internet now - from encarta over articles in the london telegraph etc. the figures are spread from 10 million to 15, to 21 up to 26 million. In any case we should note that the 11 million figure is a figure associated specifically with the holocaust, whereas the number of non-military people killed like described in this sentence Between 1939 and 1945 the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed approximately 11 million people (6 million of whom were Jews[5]) in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere.[6] is not certain to be 11 million. Themanwithoutapast 22:24, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Whiteleys HQ?

Dpr posted the following question on the Whiteleys talk page:

"Is it true that Adolf Hitler declared that when (if) he captured London, he wanted use Whiteleys as his headquarters? If so I can add this to the article."

If this could be verified, it would be a fantastic fact to add to the Whiteleys page. However, it sounds a bit far-fetched to me and a Google search only returns a handful of relevant matches (which seem to reference each other) including this one

Can anybody verify or debunk this? Cheers TigerShark 11:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard this one. Speculating now... it's possible Whiteley's happened to be unscathed by bombing and an urban legend got started that this was intentional on AH's part... etc. Moreover, it's unlikely AH would have wanted a personal headquarters in London, and he had never visited there (nor did he ever set foot in the UK during his lifetime). Finally, although I'm no expert in armaments, in historical terms I can say for sure that the way airplanes dropped their bombs 65 years ago was "imprecise", even "sloppy" compared to the accuracy they have today, which is to say, an "order" to save a particular landmark would have been way impractical. Wyss 00:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hitler and Christianity

An anon posted the following into the article. There are some obvious issues with the wording and PoV, and along with the already long length of the article this might be a more helpful addition to the Hitler and religion article. I've put it here for discussion. Wyss 00:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Hitler also had abiding hatred and a desire to destroy Christianity -- a religion that he described as the "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity" (Hitler's Table Talk, p. 6-7 as cited at http://kevin.davnet.org/essays/hitler.html#TableTalk")

These plans were revealed in a document "The Nazi Master Plan: The Persecution of the Christian Churches" prepared July 6, 1945 by the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) Research and Anaylysis Branch. "The document was posted on the web in 2001 as part of "The Nuremberg Project" Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion. It can be found in pdf format at http://www.camlaw.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nuremberg/nurinst1.htm.

According to document "National Socialism by its very nature was hostile to Christanity and the Christian churches . . .Althought the pricipal Christian churches of Germany had long been assoicated with conservative ways of thought, which meant that they tended to agree with the National Socialists in their authoritarianism, in their attacks on socialism and communism, and in their campaign against the Versailles treaty, their docgtrinal commitments could not be reconciled with the principle of racism, with a foreign policy of unlimited aggressive warefare, or with a domestic policy involving the complete subservience of Church to State. Since these are fundamental elements of the National Socialist position, conflict was inevitable. "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation by the complete extirpation of Christianity . . ." (pages 4-6)

My take... this sounds like early post-war spin by the allies to distance certain German church officials from the possibility of prosecution for war crimes as a result of their cooperation with the Nazi government. Wyss 00:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the Nazis really hated the church maybee they didn't like some of the church practices but we know they didn't try to disrupt the Papacy The pope at the time saw Germany as the lesser of the two evils(Germany and USSR). Mussolini gave land to the papacy so they can have Vatican City The Germans kept the Iron Cross(a symbol of the crusades and Prussia). and today we have a pope who was a member of the NDSP and the german army. Dudtz 7/26/05 1:55 PM EST

Wyss, it's definitely not "post-war" spin... See for instance the 1938 book "Inside Europe" by John Gunther; among other interesting things, it quotes Hitler's plans to eventually replace Christianity with Woden-worship in Germany. Codex Sinaiticus 18:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The quoted report is OSS (American), not German. The allies were deeply concerned with "de-nazification", war crimes trials, post-war occupation schemes and the geo-political consequences from at least 1944 onwards (as soon as it became clear that the war in Europe would inevitably be won by attrition, which I've been told some thought was forgone as early as November 1942). With regards to John Gunther, he was a popular author in the late 1930s (I've got several of his first editions) who wrote many pleasantly worded books about several countries but there has been lots of scholarship since then. As it happens, Goebbels was much more interested and vigorous in promoting Woden-worship and other revivals of ancient Germanic culture than was AH, who wasn't "against" it, but had much more pressing "practical" priorities like effecting the colonization of eastern Europe (which also included much of the industrial genocide we now call the holocaust). Wyss 18:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact Hitler at least wanted to weaken Christianity is well known. Hitler ealier in his regin ordered Christian religious symbols out of public school class rooms. In addition he did put other restrictions on religious worship. Such is documented in the Goebbels diarys, where Goebbels la,laments such restrictions. Goebbels laments such restrictions out of fear that they alienate the masses and harm the war effort. While it is true that Hitler when asked what his domination was answered "Catholic" and as late as the 1940's recieved communion such would have little meaning. In Europe Christian practice are often not though of in a religious context, but instead thought of in a more "cultural" context. In Europe people occasionally attend service, and recieve communion and have there children baptised because it is part of there family and cultural traditions. Such explains that in France and Italy while the vast majority of people are nominally Roman Catholic such countries have extremly high abortion rates. William.

Why not make this a featured article?

Looks concise and good looking. I would suggest this is a candidate for a featured article if one can throw away the negative attitude on hitler. --Idleguy 10:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed (whole comment). Wyss 13:17, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Then nominate it if you think its featured quality. -83.129.6.192 02:17, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

While I am certainly no expert on this subject, this article needs considerable work before being considered again for a featured article or as acceptable as a Wikipedia article, period. There are references done with oblique generic descriptions rather than links to the article with precise details such as the "physically handicapped and mentally retarded" instead of the full clarification of Hitler's evil with a linked reference to the T-4 Euthanasia Program. There is much excellent work here but there is also terminology such as the following and other such phrasing and structuring which is not acceptable and might be construed as sanitization.

• "Under Hitler's leadership Germany ascended from the depths of post–World War I defeat to rebuild its economy and decimated military. "

The statement is documented fact. Wyss 16:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• "While no specific order from Hitler authorising the mass killing of the Jews has surfaced "

No order has ever been found, no paper trail survived the war (but, for the purposes of this talk page, we all "know he did it", and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming). Wyss 16:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

• "The Treaty of Versailles imposed crippling reparations and declared Germany guilty for the Great War horrors; thus was perceived by most Germans as a humiliation and was an important factor in the social conditions encountered by Hitler and his party in seeking power. "

Historically accurate and documented. Knowing about this is essential to understanding his rise to power. Wyss 16:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

AND, in the reverse are crafted statements such as:

• "However, historian Sebastian Haffner refers to Hitler's experience at the front as his only education and suggests he did have at least some understanding of the military. "

Is the veracity of this statement disputed? Wyss 16:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

User Idleguy was wrong to suggest it and User:Wyss, for whom I have the utmost respect, was wrong to agree. User:Wyss suggested above an article on Nazi economics and this must be done and linked to Hitler so as to enunciate the massive debt financing for forced make-work projects, the confiscation of wealth from one segment of society with the direct (or by the vacuum created) handing over of their businesses and jobs to others while not counting them as "unemployed" and not paying them even "welfare" from state funds after forcing them into poverty, the defacto absence/elimination of laws to protect labor abuses, and the non sustainability of such financial policies without the benefit of war and so on and so on. -- Ted Wilkes 13:15, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

The article mentions the massive financing and military-driven economy. It is also quite direct about the persecution of the jews... conflating victims of genocide with the unemployed, I think, would be a non-standard interpretation and too PoV. The article describes AH for what he was, a charismatic genocidal sociopath, not a caracature of evil. Objectivity is important, readers are helped by being given the tools to recognize the next one like him who comes along. Wyss 16:25, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"the non sustainability of such financial policies without the benefit of war"

Nazism was at heart a militarist and expansionist philosophy, so I have to say this criticism is unwarranted. The idea of Nazi germany refraining from conflict was never seriously entertained by any knowledgable parties, I assure you. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

True. The only surprise I've heard about is that he took it so far (war with the USSR, England, later the US). Wyss 17:36, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes the spectacular extent of his failure is rather shocking, rather reminds one of Napoleon, only more so. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 19:44, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Legacy quotes

user:Codex Sinaiticus deleted the Kennedy and (as I recall) former SS member quotes. His edit summary, "not supported by current scholarship" was incorrect and nothing but a swipe at yours truly but that's ok, I don't mind. I'm editorially neutral on whether or not they should be there, though in terms of aesthetics and balance I much prefer his sister's "architect" quote as a stand-alone. So I agree with the deletion, but for different reasons ;) Wyss 17:14, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"legal"?

"The Enabling Act, passed by the Reichstag after Nazi SA paramilitaries had physically expelled the Communist deputies, gave Hitler legal dictatorial authority."

Is this some sense of the word "legal" I am not aware of? I tried to remove the word "legal" from this sentence, and got accused of POV for having the sentence without "legal". But it seems to me the alleged "legality" of this act is the POV, and one that I do not share. What exactly is legitimate about seizing power with paramilitaries and expelling one of the main opposition parties in order to achieve a majority? By calling his dictatorial authority "legal", it really sounds like you are trying to legitimize it in some way. This will surely lead to a disputed pov. Codex Sinaiticus 03:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the term, this is one of the most disconcerting things about AH. Slipping in as chancellor with a coalition cabinet, using the SA for intimidation to be sure and fear mongering over communists, AH was able within weeks to get the (emergency) Enabling Act through his cabinet and then passed by the Reichstag, legally, obtaining absolute dictatorial powers in what had been until that moment the Weimar Republic. The passing of the law itself was utterly legal. No reason for quotes or qualification. It was an astonishing political achievement. We know he was a genocidal sociopath (the article makes that clear), but he had a combination of charismatic charm, criminally brutal pragmatism, understanding of human weakness and organisational skill that enabled him to persuade the German government (which was keenly worried about stability and suspicious of democracy) and people (who were increasingly susectible to his oratory and rhetoric) to legitimately hand everything over to him. Maybe we should make that more plain in the article... which clearly concludes he was a criminal anyway. Wyss 03:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Re the grammar, yipes, sorry, I was focusing on something else in the sentence since we're having what seems like a PoV misunderstanding. Wyss 03:53, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

August eletcion

Whyss, I think that this edit doesn't really clarify anything. Rather, it is only weasel language. Can you find any references for the accusations that the election was a fraud? --malathion ^talk 22:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't like it either, I was trying to at least clean it up into more encyclopedic language. Glad it got your attention, I'll further NPoV it. Wyss 00:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Further note, this was a referendum to consolidate the offices of chancellor and president after Hindenburg died, a clever political move by the Nazis, but not a "show election" of Hitler, which the article has asserted for some time. Wyss 00:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Intro Picture

Ive followed this article for about a year and I've seen the intro picture go up and down and change about three times. The one we have up now is not the best around. I have to say, it really doesn't even look like Hitler. More like an actor in a staged prose. I say the it should be changed. I could upload a better one from the National Archives and Records Administration but what do other people think? The last one we had up was pretty good. -Husnock 23:40, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Please try? I've noticed that when a picture making him look too "human" is used, people tend to raise copyright issues. AH was very human, not a caricature, therein lies the terror. An appropriate picture in the header would help illustrate that. Wyss 07:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

First thing I noticed about this page is how bizarre that picture looked. First of all it barely looks like him. Second his eyes simply don't show on the pic. Either: 1) hitler is blind or 2) he's adopting the super-evil marylin manson 'eyes rolled backward' look. I examined the larger picture and noticed the same thing. There must be a lot of photographs in the public domain, why not change it to something better? 86.130.209.208 23:40, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

That man in the intro picture doesn't look like an actor to me, it's just Hitler in one of his propaganda photographs showing his seriousness as an important aspect he tried to convey. His features seem obvious to dispute its not him. I do agree, however, the previous image was better and in any case there should be a vote on what image to use best. Husnock, do you have a link to the image you want to use? --Dynamax 06:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I shouldn't giggle at the mention of marylin manson (who I truly respect and think at times has a cool sense of taste) in these talk pages, but I did :) Anyway here's my nod in agreement that the AH pic in the header should be changed. Wyss 10:21, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Heres the old one. It would do until I get a hold of the National Archives collection on him. -Husnock 02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

bush? hitler?

Herta Däubler-Gmelin, agerman-slovac politican, says that Bush´s methods are the same like Hitlers. That´s right!

A common way to insult someone is to compare them to AH or a Nazi. Nothing significant or notable about that. Wyss 12:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

A common way to insult someone, is also to compare them to George Bush --172.133.159.102 13:37, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Hittler is not George Wl

no he isn't, that doesn't change the fact that George W's name is used as an insult too, all I'm saying is maybe this Daubler guy is just making fun of Hitler, I mean that's allowed? isn't it?--172.166.227.71 20:23, 13 August 2005 (UTC)