Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 44

Archive 40

←

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

→

Archive 50

Why can't I edit the article?

How are you able to edit the article on your own? I thought it was locked. Don't you have to send a petition somewhere for them to unlock the article? Xanon

That the article is locked only means that unregistered or new users can't make changes. --Delta Tango 11:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, it is "semi-protected", which means that you only can edit it after registering and waiting a few days. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

spell checker

on page 14 under The Holocaust i noticed a spelling error "Besides being gassed to death, many also died of starvation and disease while working as slave laborers" do you no have a spell checker on this site? if not you may want to impliment one so this does not happen as often.

No, there is no spell checker. But there are people who apparently have no idea that there are differences between UK and US spelling, and that there is no such word as "impliment" in the lexicons of either nation. Paul B 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

What an irritatingly pompous response this is. 86.16.223.203 19:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's what happens when you complain about spelling errors and produce them yourself. We all make such errors once in a while, so if you see one, correct it and don't make a big fuzz. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Images

Infobox image

Alright, I just noticed that the infobox image was changed, earlier today [1]; a (very) brief discussion in #wikipedia didn't turn up a consensus as to which image would be preferred. That led me to dig a bit, using Special:Search for "hitler" in the Image namespace. I turned up a few promising candidates, and I'm just wondering what we think of these:

• Image:Hitler Berghof Portrait von Eva Braun gefilmt.JPG, currently used.
• Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG, previously used.
• Image:Mussolini hitler.jpg Hitler and Mussolini.
• Image:Triumph of the Will - Hitler.jpg, Hitler imposing, saluting, sky behind him

And these last two, which look excellent, and which I think have been overlooked in the past:

• Image:Image-Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg, b&w portrait photo
• Image:Adolf.jpg, color, painted portrait

Anybody like these? And specifically, which one do we want to have at the top of the article? Luna Santin 03:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I like the black and white one, in the second group. Midnight Critter 08:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My preference is clear, I guess. The Hitler Berghof Portrait. Why use black and white if colour pics are available? If desired I can also produce a colour picture with Hitler including his military cap and his white oberbefehlshaber jacket at the Berghof? Just ask me.

Because the color picture is blurry? Just because something is color does not make it superior to a black and white. --Golbez 09:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I happen to prefer the one with Mussolini in the background. Not only is it the clearest picture quality but it symbolizes the basic unity and affinity of Hitler's Nazism with Italy's fascism. I'm for crisp clear picture, not blurry. Color is unimportant.Giovanni33 05:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Gio, why this picture disqualifies itself in regard to the infobox:

1. It doesn't depict Hitler but him and someone else.

2. If it really symbolizes "the basic unity and affinity ..." it would be even wronger, as no such basic unity exist.

I myself prefer the "Hitler bigger" (but there were problems with that before) or the one "in Yugoslavia", though cutting of the legs of that one might improve it (I don't know whether we can do it). Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

We don't want a picture that "symbolizes" anything. We just want one that depicts Hitler clearly and recognisably, without presenting him as heroic (like the Breker sculpture that was briefly used a little while ago) or as evil. A photo is preferable to an an art work. The current one is not ideal becasue his tache is rather over-emphasised, but it's srvicable. Paul B 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this ugly, not clear, blurred Yugoslavia picture used again? What's the point of that? It's too dark, black and white, of bad quality and very aggressive. Please reconsider all pictures. Not the one with Mussolini. There is an alliance, but Italian fascism is very different from Hitler's ideology, as much as Japanese Imperialism was from Nazism.Smith2006 11:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Colour has prevalence over black-and-white pics, that's for sure.Smith2006 11:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Says who? Stop saying that like it's some sort of law. If the black and white picture is otherwise sharper, better, and more historic, the color picture does not have "prevalence". --Golbez 15:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my dear Golbez, does the new picture suit you? It's in color, full body, not glorifying, and clear and not blurred, low quality and unclear like the old black and white "yugoslavia" one!Smith2006 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is color is but one of the aspects that makes it good. Not great, but better than the one you were trying to put up there. --Golbez 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Image:Image-Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg is best. --TheM62Manchester 18:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the consensus is leaning that way, and I recall seeing it on this page once before. That is definitely the most appropriate and NPOV picture for the top. Romperomperompe 06:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative is: Image:Hitler Posing Official Colour Picture.jpg. Smith2006 00:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As two individuals keep removing colour pictures and inserting a triumphalist Hitler picture in black and white, I have another proposal. This is a better colour picture with the same "view" as the black and white one. Image:Hitler Posing Official Colour Picture.jpg.Smith2006 21:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

(added colon to yours, Smith2006, sorry if you object and feel free to revert) Personally, my money is still on Image:Image-Adolf Hitler Bigger.jpg, but I'd be open to "Yugoslavia," (cropping might be worth considering). "Eva Braun gefilmt" doesn't look "professional," though I guess I can't quantify that. This last one would be excellent except for the shadows, so I'm kind've undecided on it. If that's where consensus leans, so be it. Luna Santin 04:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling the picture correct is reason enaugh to dislike it for me. The bigger image has been the prefered picture on this article for a long time, but most suggested pictures have to actually pass the copyright test. Agathoclea 09:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Bigger" image is removed by bot because it was tagged as unsourced, and the present image, well, excuse my french, stinks. Anyone want to change it? Aran|heru|nar 10:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh. Apparently it was uploaded with {{pd}} for licensing, and that tag is deprecated -- looking at page history, the uploader suggests that as German images from wartime should be in the public domain; can anybody verify or negate that, so we can stop worrying about it? What we have as I write this, Image:Hitler giving a speech National Film Board.jpg is absolutely excellent for inclusion in the article, even if I have minor reservations about it being the infobox image. Other alternatives might be Image:Adolf.jpg or the old Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG. And please do consider Image:Gayhitler.jpg for my sake. Luna Santin 21:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Basically any German originating picture is copyright under Spanish law due to a leveling of European copyright law. Which then applies in the US due to treaty arrangements with the EU. Smith usually uploads Hoffmann images, which would be copyrighted until 2027 I believe. As there are already at least 2 copyright-free images available we cannot claim fairuse as a general picture to depict Hitler. I do prefer the Feilmspeech pic to the Yugoslavia as it shows him "talking", something apparently he liked doing. 22:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Any photo that's not a nazi propaganda photo would do. Wikipedia is NPOV, so we don't want to adopt the Third Reich's POV, do we ? Thank you !

Right, so are you going to demand that the photos of Churchill be changed because they are "British propaganda photos" and of Roosevelt because they are "American propaganda"? German photographers didn't have magic Nazi cameras. Paul B 15:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned below in the next category, we really should not use the origin of the picture as a criterion for display (outside of fair use, of course). Utilizing origin or intent disregards the fact that a picture is a picture is a picture...regardless of where it came from. The origin of the picture does not make a picture "pretty" or "clear". In fact, using the origin of the picture as a criterion for display applies the individual's opinion of the origin to the picture's quality. Opinions reflect a POV. In this case, since most people do not like Nazi Germany (and justifiably so), chances are they think the Nazi Propaganda was bad as well. So the line of thought becomes "Nazi Germany is bad, so the Nazi's propaganda must be bad as well. Since the Nazi propaganda is bad, then so is this picture". This line of reasoning totally ignores the fact that the picture might just be a GREAT PHOTO! Since Wikipedia strives towards NPOV, we should not use the picture's origin as criterion for display. Rather, we should be looking for factors such as clarity, size, color, brightness, and proportions as the criteria. These represent objective traits as to the photo's aesthetic value...much more palatable than someone's POV. --Tbkflav 01:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

This image comes from a large photo with Hitler and Mussolini together, and is free. It's definitely better than the current photo at top - how about changing it? Aran|heru|nar 12:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly better than the Nazi-propaganda picture Image:Adolf Hitler 1938 Berghof.jpg. Camillus (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The "cropped" version Image:Mountainadolf.JPG is just as bad - why the hell should the english wikipedia use a Nazi-propaganda picture, designed to glorify Hitler? Camillus (talk) 23:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

We want an image that clearly displays his features (no heavy shadows), and is neither designed to show him as a "visionary hero" nor as a "ranting maniac". I guess that all things being equal colour is better, but only marginally (b+w can present physiognomy more sharply). The signed Berghof pic did seem to show him as a "loveable guy", perched tentatively on the balustrade. I think the cropped version is less, as it were, charming. Can you actually explain what is "bad" about it, or how it "glorifies" him? Paul B 23:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, not allowed to alter (crop) a fair use image. --Lysy^talk 00:00, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Sez who? I see no such statement in fair use. Indeed it gives an example of "sampling" in music, which is the aural equivalent of cropping. Paul B 00:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use does not mean the copyright is void. Therefore one has to respect the moral rights of the author, including the right to the integrity. --Lysy^talk 00:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've already said, this is contradicted by the discussion on fair use. In fact cropping for clarity, illustrating a detail etc of both copyrighted and historical photographs occurs every day in newspapers, journals and magazines. It's normal practice. Paul B 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is but it requires the consent of the author or his descendants. That's what the right to the integrity of the work is about. --Lysy^talk 10:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Hitler is portrayed by his favourite propaganda photographer, in his smartest uniform, with a mountain backdrop. That's bad, in my book. As usual, the German wikipedia leads the way in chosing neutral pictures, showing him neither as hero or villain Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG. Previously they had just a plain side-on photograph. Camillus (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

How about not using Nazi propaganda pictures to illustrate Wikipedia ? I second that en.wiki could follow the good example set by German wikipedia here. --Lysy^talk 06:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not! Just because a picture originally served as propaganda is no reason not to use it. In fact, the then-propaganda has its informative value as it also tells us how that person presented himself. We should use a picture that is both of a good photographic quality, representative of the person depicted. Just because Hitler is the greatest criminal in history doesn't mean that we should use a crappy picture to make him look bad. Look at Stalin or Mao - these articles use official pictures too. The "speech" picture or the supposedly "correct picture" are just horrible. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda pictures would be a good illustration for an article on Nazi propaganda but not for an article about the actual person. If Nazi propaganda claimed Hitler was beautiful and 10 feet tall, should we also be using this information in the article ? --Lysy^talk 08:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

No, becuase it would be inaccurate. You are misusing the word propaganda here, because you are equating it with deception. In fact the photo of Hitler you approved of - showing Hitler with his officers - is just as much "propaganda" as the one you dislike. Even photos of Hitler apparently "ranting" were often official images designed to show him as an impassioned speaker. A portrait photograph that is simply showing someone posed is no more usefully described as "propaganda" than the portrait photographs that everyone has of their own family. Paul B 09:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I specifically object to using Nazi propaganda illustrations for general article about a person on wikipedia, where there are non-Nazi pictures available. --Lysy^talk 10:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Moot point. Nazi propaganda is usally copyrighted. Hoffmann died 1957 (+70pma). Free use is either US goverment (or canada) or picture licenced to freeuse like the yugoslavia picture. Using Stalins propaganda picture is no precendent as Soviet copyright was a lot different. Agathoclea 10:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

"Nazi photos" are not imbued with some evil force that makes them somehow fundamentally different from other photographs. Portrait photographs of Nazi leaders are not meaningfully different from portrait photographs of Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin or anyone else. Before photography, portrait paintings served the same purpose. Of course all usually try to show the person in a good light and follow common conventions. We have numerous articles on people from Alexander the Great through Osama bin Ladin in which portrait images are used. Paul B 11:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Funny how Communists never object to the same criteria being applied to Stalin's article or articles pertaining to the Soviet Union, the GDR ect. Reading through it we see "economic reform" or "collectivization" being used to describe some of the more deplorable Soviet policies resulting in tremendous suffering and loss of life, but on Hitler's article the equivelent terminology being used is "repression" or "genocide" or "removing the remaining limits"..... --Nazrac 23:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Nazrac, what you point out is an issue relevant to the articles of Stalin etc. as the mistake lies with them. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think its perfectly relevant to this article to point out the double standards and other counter-productive partizan activity associated with the criteria selection in certain politically charged articles. I am simply commenting on Paul B's remark in response to a claim that any image that does not portray Hitler in some negative light is Nazi propaganda. That sort of silly trite is almost the standard for any discussion about Hitler or the Third Reich, which by itself is to be expected. However the glaring inequity of opinion and the slanting of articles to certain dispositions becomes even more transparent when you compare the framework in which these two relatively equivelent articles are shaped. There is a lack of any real detail regarding Nazi policies which does not deal with genocide. There is very little about Hitler except from a few questionable sources which rehash the same garbage from other sources. Instead of making this article more balanced and comprehensive, it has turned into something resembling a poorly researched term paper. To improve the article I would suggest reframing to include a broader perspective of the man and his policies, not simply the cartoon super villian genocidal lunatic he is portrayed as here. One could easily fall into that trap with the Stalin article, however the authors have done a good job avoiding that. I suppose however that may be due to the fact that the article is policed by Stalinists like Lysy with a fanatical zeal. --Nazrac 00:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe the picture should be an "official" type picture. Just like there is for every other world leader from George Washington to Stalin. Encyclopedias use "official" type pictures. Not some candid battlefield etc.. shot. Not wanting to glorify so and so shouldnt dictate the quality of the main profile picture.

We really should not use the origin of the picture as a criterion for display (outside of fair use, of course). Utilizing origin or intent disregards the fact that a picture is a picture is a picture...regardless of where it came from. The origin of the picture does not make a picture "pretty" or "clear". In fact, using the origin of the picture as a criterion for display applies the individual's opinion of the origin to the picture's quality. Opinions reflect a POV. In this case, since most people do not like Nazi Germany (and justifiably so), chances are they think the Nazi Propaganda was bad as well. So the line of thought becomes "Nazi Germany is bad, so the Nazi's propaganda must be bad as well. Since the Nazi propaganda is bad, then so is this picture". This line of reasoning totally ignores the fact that the picture might just be a GREAT PHOTO! Since Wikipedia strives towards NPOV, we should not use the picture's origin as criterion for display. Rather, we should be looking for factors such as clarity, size, color, brightness, and proportions as the criteria. These represent objective traits as to the photo's aesthetic value...much more palatable than someone's POV. --Tbkflav 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

further copyrighted pictures on this article

see here and here. (Just noting this for the archives). Agathoclea 13:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

At least for me, those links don't go anywhere (just an empty page)...--Frescard 14:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

They probably got some session handling, updated the links to the search pages - then select the picture. Agathoclea 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can see them now. But I don't see any copyright information. Just the fact that they're selling them doesn't mean that they're not in the public domain, or that using low-res copies would violate fair-use. --Frescard 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Clicking on the image gives the lowdown. I have today also been informed that Ullstein threatened to sue Wikipeda last year over pictures taken by Frentz as they now own the copyright. Frentz died in 2004. Agathoclea 16:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done a whole lot of research into 3. Reich copyright issues (which, to put it mildly, are very blurry), but in general keep in mind that copyright restrictions are different in Germany (and for the German Wikipedia), as they don't recognize "fair-use", or the concept of "quoting" images. --Frescard 16:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That is true, but the German copyright is valid in the US. I have not marked the files in question for deletion as fairuse might apply, but the rules for that are rather stringent. Agathoclea 16:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

German copyright law doesn't override U.S. law, just like U.S. law doesn't override Swedish law - even if they wished so: The Pirate Bay...;)

As far as fair-use is concerned, it seems that these photos would fall into two categories Template:Promophoto (they may not have called them "publicity shots" back when they were taken, but that's pretty much what they were used for), and, of course, Template:HistoricPhoto. Also, if you go through the fair-use checklist, it meets pretty much all of the 10 criteria. So it looks like we're pretty safe with those images (especially at the resolutions they've been uploaded at). --Frescard 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The fair-use issue aside, the USA have subscribed to accepting European copyright law on European works. All faily recent. Agathoclea 18:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why should we put the fair-use issue "aside"? That's what these images are being used under. I'm not an international copyright lawyer, but I could imagine that the Wikipedia Foundation probably hired a few before they made these rules the official guidelines for fair-use pictures: Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy.
So, rather than trying to interpret international law myself, I go by what's defined as guidelines here, and by those rules those pictures shouldn't be a problem.

If those copyright laws are changed, then we will probably receive updated guidelines. Until then, I'm not gonna do any "lawyering" myself... --Frescard 19:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The fair-use issue aside, because that is a whole other matter. The copyright issue has been raised enaugh, and a number of pictures that had been claimed "PD" have been deleted because of it. But I agree the whole situation is a minefield. Agathoclea 22:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the "Hitler bigger" picture and what are we doing now? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

It has been deleted. Agathoclea 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious - how did the (IMO more informative) infobox image Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG get replaced by the current head shot? Was it discussed here? --CliffC 13:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

see [2] and [3] Agathoclea 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted now as the user in question did not put this to the talk page, and from reading the surrounding sections I gather that Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG was the favoured free image at the time when the bigger image had to be dropped due to copyright issues. Agathoclea 14:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Infobox picture

As noted further up the page Camptown (talk · contribs) keeps changing to the picture from the one I understand the current consensus to favour. Comments? Agathoclea 08:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but an infobox usually shows the portraits of the person's head - and even preferably without a military cap. The rather blurred image of Hitler in Yugoslavia does not meet this infobox standard. The image of Hitler taken from a Mussulini photo is a compromise, until somebody uploads a better image. Why do you think the Hiler in Yugoslavia image is so great for the infobox? regards, Camptown 09:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC) - copied from my talk page Agathoclea 09:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Clothes make the man" - Image:Adolf Hitler in Yugoslavia crop.JPG conveys far more information than a simple head shot ever could. Similarly, consider how much less informative the infobox image HERE would be were it only a head shot. --CliffC 05:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ive said it before say it again.. Hitler's picture should be an official type portrait picture. Not these silly awful candid pictures because certain people don't want him seen in a "good light". Every world leader on here from George Washington to Idi Amin to Joseph Stalin has an official picture. An encyclopedia uses official pictures so should this site. Not some silly battlefield candids or headshots of candid photographs. It's just silly to think if you put up an official type picture your glorifying Hitler and therefore need to put the worst pictures up. Its silly.

A Picture Worth Including - Munich, August 1914, In a Crowd

This picture, which accidentally captured Hitler in the Odeon Platz: http://germandressdaggers.com/Germany%20Ewache%204.jpg is fairly well-known and quite intersting. As it was taken in 1914 the copyright has surely lapsed. See short explanation of picture in German here: http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/5/0,1872,2400549,00.html. Perhaps it is worth including in the article. Hi There 13:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Versailles Treaty/"Victors' Bill"/"War Guilt"

Article 231 of the Versailles Treaty was really only inserted as a justification for-unspecified-reparations. Too much is made here of the 'war guilt' element, which only really became an issue after the 'victors' bill' became known. White Guard 00:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That is how the Allies intended it. But German perception was different and one cannot blame them for taking the article at face value. And yes, the article was one of the most horrid things and had a tremendous impact,as described in the article. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This is really only a small point to do with perception and impact. The phrasing here-'all the horrors'-is far too emotive. I suspect that 'war guilt' really only became an issue for the Germans in 1921, when they found out what they had to pay. White Guard 00:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, it already was an issue in 1919, when Scheidemann resigned rather than sign the treaty. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference that he resigned over article 231 specifically rather than the treaty in general? Can you provide any references for the impact of 231 before 1921? Be very careful about throwing around words like 'nonsense.' In my experience it always betrays a degree of intellectual-and emotional-insecurity. White Guard 19:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

He did not resign only over that article, but the article was an issue. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Hitler already dead?/Date discrepancies

Inheritance

There are some silly errors in this page which-I assume-I cannot amend because of its protected status. To take one small example-how could Hitler have received an inheritance from his father in 1913 when he had been dead for ten years? A more serious point is that much of the discussion of Hitler and the Jews is speculative to the point of outright nonsense. White Guard 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the details of the inheritance, but 10 years' delay in a legal system is not unusual when there's a dispute. Best place for lawyers? Bottom of the sea.--Shtove 23:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler was entitled to seize the inheritance only after having reached the age of 24. (Sorry for my bad English.)--80.219.3.66 01:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Führer's New, Time-Traveling Clothes?

The picture ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hitler_ueber_Deutschland_1932.jpg ) of Hitler apparently 'campaigning by plane' in 1932 shows Hitler wearing what appears to be his military-style 'Supreme Commander' tunic, which he didn't wear until 1939, around the outbreak of the war. Therefore, it seems that this picture was mislabeled and should probably be deleted or relabeled to fit its proper context. --Grimgerde 17:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

World War I: "Field hospital"

The article presently states: "Hitler was admitted to a field hospital". Is this really correct? David Lewis (psychologist) writes in his book (p. 14) that Hitler was taken to a 'casualty clearing centre at Linselle' (later referring to it as an 'aid station') and after that Hitler was driven to a 'hospital' in the town Oudenaarde and then further on to Pasewalk lazarett. A (mobil) field hospital is not mentioned (as far as I can skim) -- fnielsen 21:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Mein Kampf and Back Taxes

I do not understand the point made about Mein Kampf-on the one hand the book did not sell well, and on the other Hitler had accumulated over 405,000 marks in unpaid back tax before he became Chancellor, which suggests it sold very well indeed. Which is it? White Guard 00:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The IRS doesn't lie...;) Yes, it was quite popular, even before he became Chancellor (after all 405,000 Marks is a lot of money, when the average income is about 4,000). Heck, it's even a lot of money nowadays!

I've updated that chapter. --Frescard 03:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

To come to a serious conclusion about the books popularity you would have to count the copies sold and not the money made. From what I can remember Mein Kampf was pretty expensive. Also, the issue is who bought the books - if just Nazi sympathizers then I wouldn't speak of popular. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well...we have the sales numbers:

• 1925 - 9,000, 1930 - 54,000, 1933 - 850,000, etc.[4]
• Translations in 16 languages (even before the war).
• And 4,000 library takeouts in a single year, in a single city (Essen, in 1934) aren't done to impress anybody, or because you "have to". That's proof that there was demand for and interest in the book (as Othmar Plöckinger recently documented).

And whether or not it were just Nazis who were reading the book doesn't really matter. It Nazis make up a significant part of the population, then what they do is, per definition, "popular" (= regarded with favor, approval, or affection by people in general. / regarded with favor, approval, or affection by an acquaintance or acquaintances [5]). --Frescard 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

IMHO we do not need such sweeping statements. Just state the numbers and leave it at that. (PS. When I typed above message I hadn't yet seen the article text on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The endless petifoggery that this discussion page is consumed with boggles the mind. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the underlying motivation for inserting this piece of non-important menutia into the article seems to be to suggest Hitler was some sort of monstrous tax cheat. The German government obsolved him of the back taxes owing in 1933. In an article already brimming over with trivial garbage what purpose does this serve? --Nazrac 23:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Pettifoggery?-perhaps. All I personally am interested in is accuracy. Any fact, or statement of fact, whether large or small, should be logical and consistent, otherwise there is no point in writing history at all. I do not put the interpretation that you do on this point; I simply ask for-and expect-clarification. However, I will say that the sales of Mein Kampf before the Machtergreifung is an important issue by any reckoning, providing a touch on the changing political pulse of GermanyWhite Guard 23:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of mentioning the back taxes is not so much to paint Hitler as a tax cheat, than to prove that the book actually sold, and sold well. If you're trying to make the point that "Mein Kampf" was popular even before Hitler was in power, then using independent number from the tax office are the best way to support that statement. --Frescard 00:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Frescard,

not at all. If that is the point of mentioning his tax evasion, the passage should be removed. The point of mentioning the tax evasion should be strictly to point out his tax evasion, which doesn't sit very well with Nazi ideology, does it.

regarding the popularity of the book that is quite a shaky (and POV) judgement. Let's just state the numbers and get on with it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Str1977 - please stop acting like you own this article, and you alone decide what's appropriate for it or not.

The fact that the book was actually popular and much-read may not fit into your worldview, but that's too bad...

It's a fact, it has been proven via several sources (one of them the tax office numbers), and since this is not an article whose purpose is to whitewash the behaviour of the German population, but rather to describe Hitler's actions and position, this is very significant and note-worthy indeed. Or are you claiming that it is irrelevant whether millions of Germans who voted for him were aware of his policies or not (as they would be, if they read "Mein Kampf")? --Frescard 14:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Frescard on this one. Str1977 why do you think your opinion is of such paramount importantance that every dispute must be ended with your bellowing? Infact it would seem I cannot post a single comment on this discussion page without you immediately within an hour posting some obscure comment about how its lack of relevance to the article, as if you have not even bothered to read the whole thread. Once again I think this boils down to petty semantics, and the bad taste it leaves in your mouth when anyone uses the term "popular" in relation to Hitler or the Third Reich. The popularity of the regime is not in question, or it would never have achieved power, and would not have a cult following to this very day. The popularity of the book is not in question either, as it sold in massive quantities. I do recall reading somewhere, although I'm not entirely sure where, that newly wed couples were given a copy of Mein Kampf. It also also handed out to party members as part of their studies. How many people actually read the book, and how useful or enjoyable they found the experience is another matter and of no relevance. I suggest you stop trying to impose your POV on every contention raised in this article and think about how it could be improved. --Nazrac 00:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

What happened to the info box? It's one thing to turn it into another version of our succession boxes (but do we really need this?), but quite another to use wrong terms and titles - "Führer" does not equal "Reichspräsident". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The article now has a customised "German Chancellor" infobox. H was Chancellor (Head of Government) and President (Head of State) = "Reichskanzler" und "Führer" (the latter was -in the context of German Head of State - H's own term for "Reichspräsident" and H accordingly became "Führer" after Hindenburg's death in 1934). Sometimes these two positions are regarded as the same office (H was officially called "Reichskanzler und Führer"), but that's not correct. Nor is it absolutely correct to call H "Leader of Germany" instead of President of Germany. Certainly, H was "Führer" of the political party of NSDAP even before he became "Führer" of Germany. Camptown 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you deleted your comment but I will address it anyway.

"Führer" was Hitler's title as the leader of the NSDAP. (and not simply "his term for Reichspräsident")

"Reichskanzler" he was as head of the government.

In 1934 Hindenburg died and Hitler succeeded him as head of state but not as Reichspräsident -that title was retired "out of respect for the Field Marshall" (their words, not mine). A special succession law made Hitler head of state under the title "Führer und Reichskanzler". He bore these titles before but now they became the title for Germany's head of state.

If you feel uneasy about leader of Germany (which is a translation just like Chancellor of Germany) you can write either "leader and Chancellor" or simply stay with the German title.

Linking to President of Germany is also okay, as Hitler fits into that list, but we will not call him Reichspräsident. He simply was not President period.

Anyway, I don't like the addition of another succession box in place of the former info box and am tempted to just repost the old one. Also, why are his birth and death given under his terms of office as Chancellor. Doesn't make sense to me. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, H. was at least never officially called "Leader" in the English speaking world, but Chancellor or sometimes President (even if he formally wasn't a President). President was probably an easy way of acknowledge him being a head of state; it also makes sense as regards the succession. I guess the term Head of State is as good as any. Camptown 21:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

He functioned as President but he wasn't President. To say that would be like calling Oliver Cromwell King of England. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

True. H. should have been called the "Leader", but for different reasons he wasn't. Listing him now as the "Leader" in Wikipedia seems to me a bit artificial. And the same goes for "President". How about: Head of State ("Leader and Chancellor")? Camptown 22:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that what I posted? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler is certainly, and frequently, called "The Führer" en English. I don't see what the problem is. john k 22:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If the English term "leader" is uncommon as a reference to Hitler, we should not use it as a title all by itself. We can however use it as a general term for his role, and we can (and this is what I have done) use it as a translation of the German "Führer". But "head of state" in some places is also okay, just not ever ever President.

What about my other question? Do we really need to turn the infobox into another succession box, with birth and death ascribed to the Chancellor but not the Führer and Reichskanzler Hitler? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The present infobox is much more informative than the one that was used before. And even Hitler deserves the same kind of infobox like any other German Chancellor. Bondkaka 07:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Number of WWII Victims dispute

The number of victims as a result of World War II, are, according to a few versions, about 50 million, whether as a result of the war or of Hitler's crimes. Of these, 18 million were Germans. Among the victims of this war were Jews, like other members of the human race, but all of them should be considered victims of the Holocaust.

Don't be absurd. In the context of WW2 the term "Holocaust" refers to the systematic murder of people to eliminate them, not to deaths caused by warfare itself. The vast majority of such victims were Jews, who were targeted simply becasuse they were Jewish. Paul B 12:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

this is another lie. the article says there is no document that proves that he wanted to exterminate anyone. so how can you just jump to this conclusion without proof? (user: david thomas)

Remember that alot of those numbers come from the Chinese losses during the war (about 10 million) so how can anyone claim those as a result of Hitler or his policies? --Nazrac 22:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion above that 18 million Germans died in World War II is absurd to the point of statistical lunacy. I thought it must have been some kind of typo, but I cannot conceive what the correct figure was meant to be (1.8 million?). The best figure we have for German deaths from all causes is round about 2 million. As far as I am aware the term 'Holocaust' originated specifically to describe the mass murder of the European Jews. The wider term Genocide would extend the the murder of other racial minorities, including the Roma. White Guard 04:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read the figure was 8 million - military and civilian, including those killed in the months after the German capitulation.--Shtove 17:07, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Every source I have read puts the total death toll from all causes at around 8 million as Shtove has suggested. There are alot of inconstitent figures out there, mainly due to the fact that massive numbers of captured German POW's were sent to forced labour camps after the war for indefinate periods of time with no communication to home. Hundreds of thousands (some sources state up to 1.5 million) did not return. There are also inconsistent figures on how many German soldiers and paramilitary died in captivity near the end of the war andimmediately after. Some sources I have read listed casualty figures for German POW's well into the mid 50's from the Western Allied captivity with the Soviet captivity deaths being unavailable or highly inconsistent. The number of civilians believed to have perished is also disputed, due to the chaos and collapse of all official order in Germany at its occupied territories at the end of the war and the mass expulsions and displacement that took placer afterwards. Additionally some sources I have read stated up to 1.2 million Germans died (including all causes of death) during the expulsions, displacement and resettlement. These are only a few examples of the difficulty in trying to establish accurate figures, 18 million seems out of proportion, although this may be explained by the Germans living outside of Germany proper in the former states of Prussia, Bohemia et al. who were counted as part of the total German population prior to the end of the war in German census figures. --Nazrac 22:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that information. I confess I was thinking specifically of wartime deaths; but on further examination I accept that my 'guesstimate' was still on the low side. Somewhere between six and eight million would seem to be more accurate. White Guard 22:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The number of people who died in the War will probably not be known. However, it is worth mentioning that the figure for the number of Jews who died/were killed in the holocaust is suspect. Even Jews like Norman Finkelstein in his book "The Holocaust Industry" has questioned whether 6 milion jews actually died. Of course any questioning of the holocaust will have you branded as anti-semitic, at worst, or a holocaust minimizer, at best. Regardless, it is worth noting since even some practicing Jews have doubts about how many Jews actually died in the Holocaust.

It has always been accepted that the figure is an approximation. That doesn't make it "suspect", just imprecise. Acknowleging that imprecision has nothing to do with "questioning the holocaust". There is, however, a legitimate debate about which deaths should be included in the "holocoaust" and which in "warfare". Do the reprisals following the death of Heydrich count as "holocaust", "war", "non-holocaust war crimes" or something else? Are all concentration camp deaths part of the holocaust - even those of the ordinary criminals who were housed in the camps? There is a huge grey-area of Nazi brutality and murder that can't neatly be fitted into the concept of the holocaust and which accounts for some of the inconsistencies in the figures. Paul B 10:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like this changed "By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in a genocide of eleven million people, including about six million Jews, and the systematic killings of many other groups and nationalities, in what is now known as the Holocaust." Holocaust comes from two Greek words. Holo = Body Caust = Burning. Not necesarily refering to just the Jews It is fine except you are missing Roughly 6.5 million people. These are just estimates. 3.5 million of which were Catholics. This is the tragedy of our history books in our schools. When they teach about WWII they only speak of the Jews and not the rest of the people. I think the 6.5 million other people should be listed as well and not forgotten. That is a very large number to be ignored and leaving only the Jews to have all of the attention. Very disturbing in my eyes. Hopefully this will be changed and the real truth come out.

Greetings. The reason for the phrasing is because killing Catholics was not a racial policy, but a political one. The primary group targeted by the Holocaust was the Jews. However, if you examine the article The Holocaust, you will see that other groups--including the Catholics--are included in the tally. Justin Eiler 01:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always understood that Holocaust has religious connotations ie. burnt offering, and is only appropriate in referring to the jews, since their murder was motivated by notions of religion and race.--Shtove 09:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

German territories lost by Treaty of Versailles

"The Treaty of Versailles deprived Germany of various territories"

What territories? Surely, it is not an encyclopedia's job to be so vague.

No, but go and read the article on that topic. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

perhaps it should be mentioned that the treaty imposed upon German deprived it of about 15% of its territory and displaced approximately 10% of its pre-WW1 population, rather than simply "various territories" in which I am fairly certain the author of the article could neither name nor point out on a map without googling it. --Nazrac 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

For those who are interested in this issue the territory in question-besides the colonies-was Alsace-Lorraine (to France), northern Holstein (to Denmark), Eupen-Malmedy (to Belgium), West Prussia and parts of Silesia (to Poland), and Memel (to Lithuania). Some of these territories were detached by means of plebiscites carried out after the conclusion of the Versailles treaty. In all of these territories-with the exception of Eupen-Malmedy (and the city of Memel)-the ethnic Germans were in a minority. Apart from the case of Eupen-Malmedy the one obvious injustice was the detachment of Danzig from the rest of Germany. However, compared with the earlier treaty of Brest-Litovsk Versailles-in its territorial aspects-was relatively mild. White Guard 00:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Upper Silesia (with a major German population) became Polish despite a contrary result of the plebiscite held before.$Insertformulahere$

Hitler and African-Americans

It has come to my attention on the view that Hitler had of African-Americans, I hope someone can help verify the following information. Where the Tuskegee airmen really treated respectably by the Nazis, and did Hitler really shake Jesse Owens hand in the Berlin Olympics?

The answer to your second question is explained in detail on the Jesse Owens article. --Golbez 04:16, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

World War I service

I have read several books about Hitler and never have I seen any author describe his WWI service or behavior as a soldier as 'sloppy'. Please state your source on this matter. I would like to read it myself.

It seems a bit 'sloppy' to me.

White Guard 05:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler served from 1914 till ,I think,1916,in the army.He was in the infantry and after an chemical attack he was sent to the hospital.Before he could return to the fighting troops,the war ended. For his bravity,he earned a medal.

((User:Der Scheich)) 15:06, 27 Decembre 2006 (MEZ)

Hitler's Health

Height

Perhaps someone could add in a brief discussion of hitler's height, which is, i think, a question of interest. The height is disputed, but probably about 1.74m (or so i hear). 81.103.144.82 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and we could also have a section on his shoe size. Paul B 00:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the shoe size should be in the height section..

What other questions of "size" for Hitler could possibly occupy this new section? Could lead to some kind of Freudian analysis? hehe!

Yes, Gio. That was a good one.hehe! PS. You were talking about his nose, of course, or weren't you? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know, Rosenbaum has a whole chapter on his nose. Paul B 13:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Then, at least, it wouldn't be original research. ;-) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The best sources (including his military physical) place him at 5'8" tall -- however, since he wore a military uniform that included boots throughout the entire war, that probably added about 1-1.5 inches to his height (not to mention the hats they often wore back then that made people seem taller). But between 5'7"-5'10" are the most accurate figures reported, with 5'8" being Hitler's accepted height by the most reliable and thorough historians. --205.188.116.74 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the military records would give his actual height, without boots or helmet. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler did speed 5 times a day?

I saw this bold claim on a History Channel add for a program about drugs, and was wondering if it had any merit, and if so should it be included under trivia or the relevent heading? ----Kurtas, 3 october

I'm not sure speed was used as a drug in Hitler's day. I think it was prescribed by doctors in the sixties, because it's side effects were unknown. However, he may have used other drugs; I have no information regarding that. Xanon

Actually, I looked into the wikipedia article about the drug and i found this: "Adolf Hitler received three daily IV injections of methamphetamine and steroids from his personal physician, Theodore Morell.[citation needed] After World War II, a massive supply of amphetamine, formerly stockpiled by the Japanese military, became available in Japan under the street name shabu[citation needed] (also Philopon, its tradename there.[7])" Xanon

hitler's alleged monotesticularness

Should speculation of this topic be included in the article? please see Hitler Has Only Got One Ball#Did Hitler really have only one testicle? WIZARD826 17:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed this before, and the consensus is no. See Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive_43#Testicles. It is discussed in Adolf Hitler's medical health. Paul B 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro Paragraph Changes

I propose a rejig of this para as follows:

• Hitler took advantage of Germany's crisis after World War I to gain power. He used charismatic oratory and propaganda to appeal to the economic needs of the lower and middle classes, and to their nationalism and anti-Semitism, and managed to establish a totalitarian or fascist dictatorship. With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), and in 1939 he ordered the invasion of Poland, which triggered World War II in Europe. At the height of its power, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe, but was eventually defeated (along with the Axis Powers) in 1945 by the Allies. By then, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the genocide of 11 million people, including about six million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

I know there are alot of sensitive phrases, so all I've done is rearrange the sentences to make them more readable (IMHO). I did try this before and was chased out of it - but I can't resist, so I'm back for more. Also, the Holocaust seems to refer to the 11 million, but I'm not going there.--Shtove 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The only problem with that proposal I see right now is the inclusion of the word "their" with nationalism and anti-semitism. I think it's better to simply leave out determiners. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you should change this part: "in 1939 he ordered the Invasion of Poland, which triggered World WarII in Europe". WWII was started when Britain and France declared war on Germany. Your phrasing makes it seem like the opposite is true. Wars aren't "triggered", they are declared (or undeclared) and then fought. If neutrality is the goal here, then who is to blame should be left out.

Nonsense. World War II started with the invasion of Poland. Period! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The point of the rejig is to make the para a better read - not to rehash an argument that took place months ago.--Shtove 13:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Why do you say that "World War II started with the invasion of Poland"? That's clearly untrue. Poland wasn't a partcipant in WWII, the war was fought between the Allies and the Axis. Poland was neither. History books are written by the winners, you should sort them for lies - there will be many. Shtove, I wasn't around months ago, but I am here now and I heard that Wikipedia's articles are continuosly updated. I propose we change it this way: "In 1939 he ordered the Invasion of Poland, after which Britain and France declared war on Germany." It's more historically accurate.

Yes, Shtove we have discussed this before and triggered was the compromise.

Yeah, I remember.--Shtove 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear Anon (could you sign your posts?), what I said is clearly true, as Poland was a participant in WWII. The war began pitting Germany vs. Poland and subsequently her allies UK and France. And Poland was an ally all the way through, though it was de facto defeated quickly (but so was France). There was a Polish government in exile in London and Polish troups took part in the invasion of Normandy. That Poland was the big loser of the war, regaining her freedom only after fifty years is another matter but doesn't change the fact that Poland was part of this war and that this war started with the attack on Poland.

What you call "more historically accurate" is IMHO not the proper, concise form for the intro.

Neutrality doesn't mean that we hide facts. And clearly stating the facts is not blaming anyone. The reader is free to consider the attack on Poland to be legitimate, but he must be made aware of the consequences. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Poland wasn't fighting, and its government in exile cannot be viewed seriously, as cannot a few Polish soldiers that fought on the side of the Allies, since I am guessing there were some that fought on the side of the Axis. I am willing to suggest a compromise: "In 1939 he ordered the Invasion of Poland, after which Poland's allies - Britain and France - declared war on Germany". What do you think of that? "The reader is free to consider the attack on Poland to be legitimate, but he must be made aware of the consequences." Maybe the reader should also be aware of the fact that Hitler probably wasn't trying to start WWII by invading Poland, while you are making it seem like he did? Anon.

Anon - your points will be given more credence if you create an account and log in. And take a look at the discussion on this point from a few months ago (sorry, don't have a link). Thanks.--Shtove 23:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this user has-or had-an account, because I recognise both the plodding literary style, and the specious mode of argument, from other talk pages. I am really not surprised that he chooses to hide behind 'Anon.'

I am reluctant to offer any view on what gives all the appearance of a sterile 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin' style of polemic. The Second World War began as a process: Germany invaded Poland on 1 September and Britain and France declared war two days later in fulfilment of their guarantees. To say that Poland did not participate in the war is both ignorant in point of fact and profoundly offensive in point of detail. Poles fought in their thousands-hundreds of thousands- against the Nazis, both in the west, the east and at home. My grandfather, if I can offer a personal observation, fought alongside Polish formations in both Africa and Italy. Hitler wasn't trying to start WWII? Possibly not; he was most certainly misled by Ribbentrop on Britain's reaction to the invasion of Poland. Of course, the alternative view, promoted by the Führer himself, was that it was the Jews who were propelling Europe into a new world war, for which they would face dire consequences. Let me say that I am alert to all attempts at pseudo-intellectual Nazi revisionism, whether by any Anon. or 'W' or anyone else.

On a more sober point can we please drop 'charismatic' from the opening sentence above. People have this quality, not oratory or propaganda. White Guard 01:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

As with "triggered", the use of "charismatic" has been gone over before. Any views on the para as rejigged?--Shtove 09:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Anon - your points will be given more credence if you create an account and log in" It just seems like a lot of effort. I used to have an account, but I lost the it a long time ago. And no, you couldn't have seen me on other pages, since I only asked questions at the reference desk.

"The Second World War began as a process" Good, so you admit that much. Then let's describe the process in a bit more detail, so that we don't turn wikipedia into an Ally propaganda site.

"Germany invaded Poland on 1 September and Britain and France declared war two days later in fulfilment of their guarantees." Whether it was in fulfillment of their guarantees or because they felt threatened by Germany can be left out as it is not the object of discussion, yet quite arguable.

"Poles fought in their thousands-hundreds of thousands- against the Nazis, both in the west, the east and at home. " I'm not too familiar with that part, but it's irrelevant. Before Poland there were another half-a-dozen minor conflicts. However, it seems logical to consider the start WWII not the last one in he series, but the declaration of war between the "major players".

"Of course, the alternative view, promoted by the Führer himself, was that it was the Jews who were propelling Europe into a new world war, for which they would face dire consequences." Nobody said that, and don't pretend that you saw that in my words.

"Let me say that I am alert to all attempts at pseudo-intellectual Nazi revisionism" Good for you. Anon 02:49, 22 September 2006 User:199.230.34.82

There, I registered. I can't see what anybody gained from that. Where should I look for the old discussion? Xanon 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, all events are a process but we have already reflected that in our compromise back in the day. And still we can savely say that the war (the on titled World War II) started on 1 September 1939, 4.45 a.m., when German troops began to invade Poland.

Anon/199.../Xanon (guessing you are all the same), every now and then someone comes along and shouts propaganda: first some oppose a certain picture as propaganda. Now you say the article is propaganda. I can't see how such utterances could be justified.

It is quite rich to say that Poland didn't fight. Of course they did fight, as other have also posted here.

More details is uncalled for in the intro. Other places are a different matter.

Of course, Hitler didn't want to start World War when he attacked Poland. He wanted to start it with the Sudeten Crisis and conciously extended his demands for that purpose. Only Göring had other plans and got Mussolini to organize the Munic Conference, thus thwarting Hitler's plans by a compromise.

The allies certainly declared war in fulfillment of the guarantees. They gave thes guarantees because they felt threatened by an ever more aggressive Third Reich, that had violated even the Munich Agreement, supposedly Hitler's "last territorial claim in Europe".

Finally, Guard, I think one can call the oratory of a charismatic man also charismatic. But I am willing to be convinced by a number of native speakers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 06:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Of course, all events are a process but we have already reflected that in our compromise back in the day." No compromise with my point view has been reached. My opinion, so far, was simply ignored. The compromises reached between other points of view do not count, that should be obvious.

"guessing you are all the same" Correct.

"Now you say the article is propaganda." It contains some.

"first some oppose a certain picture as propaganda" Are you implying I did that?

"More details is uncalled for in the intro." Misleading statements are also uncalled for in the intro, especially since the reader might never read to the point where things are clarified.

"He wanted to start it with the Sudeten Crisis and conciously extended his demands for that purpose." Can you give the source of this information? That Hitler wanted it to escalate into WWII?

"The allies certainly declared war in fulfillment of the guarantees." In war, there is always a pretext. The only one simplistic enough not to have one was the famous barbarian who attacked Rome. The pretext should not be confused with the reason for the war.

"It is quite rich to say that Poland didn't fight." It was taken over quickly and was only one of a series of lesser conflicts, as I have already said. You might as well say that the war started with the takeover of Czechoslovakia. I suggest you take a look here to see that this isn't only my opinion: http://experts.about.com/e/w/wo/World_War_II.htm#hd4

Xanon 09:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I can't see any propaganda. Point out factual errors or POV problems. I mean real ones and not stuff like what you have put forth until now.
• I also can't see where the intro is misleading. Hence no clarification is needed, only a elaboration.
• It shouldn't be very hard, though I don't have it on hand right now. How about reading Kershaw's bio?
• "In war there is always a pretext" - says who? You or Carl Schmitt? They might have very well waged war for the stated reasons. BTW, the proper distinction is not reason and retext but reason and occasion (Anlaß in German): the reason is Hitler's expansive and aggressive foreign policy - the occasion was his overstepping a line that been drawn by the guarantees: the attack on Poland.
• "It was taken over quickly" but still it is part of the war (leaving out the exile effort for now) - and since that campaign was part of the war, the war must have started at least at the beginning of that campaign. Hence: 1 September.
• As for takeover of the CSR - that was no war. Legally, Hitler bullied President Hacha into asking for protection. Hence the Czech army did not resist the occupation. The Poles did not "ask" for protection and indeed resisted their occupation. Please stop rewriting history - it is no matter of "you might as well say" or "it could have been ..." - the facts are the facts. Period. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

PS. Wikipedia articles can never serve as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, even when mirrored on some other webiste and even when possibly outdated. Good day! Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon, Please stop boring everyone with pointless demands for responses to every minor point. Read the Hossbach Memorandum, which clearly records Hitler's intention to start a war at the optimum moment for likely success. Hitler knew that Britain and France has agreed to support Poland should Germany invade. He knew what he was going back on his own undertakings in Munich. Yes, I guess you can say he hoped the western powers would back down, so that he could rape Poland unopposed, but he knew that was unlikely. He knew he was almost certainly triggering a major war. His actions were the main cause. Paul B 09:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

For starters, could some people stop being rude? Thanks.

"Yes, I guess you can say he hoped the western powers would back down, so that he could rape Poland unopposed, but he knew that was unlikely." You can't be certain of that. And since by "WWII" people generally mean the conflict between the more powerful countries, it's logical to consider the start of the fighting between these more powerful countries to be the start of WWII.

"Wikipedia articles can never serve as a reference for other Wikipedia articles, even when mirrored on some other webiste and even when possibly outdated." Are you sure it's a Wikipedia article?

"As for takeover of the CSR - that was no war." That's the point.

"In 1939 he ordered the Invasion of Poland, after which Poland's allies - Britain and France - declared war on Germany" So, what exactly do you have against this phrasing? It's not concise enough? Really, all I am suggesting is that "which triggered World War II in Europe" be replaced by "after which Poland's allies - Britain and France - declared war on Germany". No need to get upset. Xanon 11:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon, World War II is the name applied to that big military conflict which in the end pitted Britain, (France,) the USA and the USSR and China against Germany and Japan, with warfare encompassing Europe, Northern Africa and the Pacific and South East Asia. But that war didn't start global (no war does) but local - and the local kernel it developed from was the German-Polish war beginning with the invasion on 1 September. Two days later Britain and France were added and so on and on and on. But the name describes the entire war and that began on 1 September 1939, 4.45 a.m.

"Are you sure it's a Wikipedia article?" - It looks like a mirrored WP article to me. It certainly is not a reliable source.

""As for takeover of the CSR - that was no war." - "That's the point." - Then why do you bring it up. No war started in March 1939.

What do I have against the phrasing you propose? Counterquestion: Why are you insistant on removing the fact Hitler began that war? In your version the word "war" is causally connected to a declaration by Britain and France, so as if only their declarations made it a war. Granted had they remained silent, the war would have been over pretty quickly (well, until next time), but it smacks of shifting the blame.

"No need to get upset" - Then why are you buggering us with your strange demands? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"But that war didn't start global (no war does) but local - and the local kernel it developed from was the German-Polish war beginning with the invasion on 1 September." No. There is no reason to consider that lesser conflict the start of the war. It may have been one of the causes of the greater conflict, but it wasn't part of it, just like the takeover of SudettenLand, Austria and RhineLand weren't.

"It looks like a mirrored WP article to me. It certainly is not a reliable source." It looks to me like you are ignoring arguments you can't counter.

"Counterquestion: Why are you insistant on removing the fact Hitler began that war?" Because it is not a fact! It is a reflection of your desire to blame him for the war, which prevents you from being objective.

"Then why do you bring it up. No war started in March 1939." Because when Hitler attacked Poland, no WWII was started either. WWII was started when the Allies declared war on him. You can argue that they were right to do so, since Hitler was a threat to peace and prosperity of all of Europe. You can argue that Hitler probably would have started a war against Britain and France eventually. You can argue that Britain and France didn't want a war, especially one of such unseen proportions. But you can't argue that he started WWII, because he didn't.

"In your version the word "war" is causally connected to a declaration by Britain and France, so as if only their declarations made it a war." See, you just don't like it that the blame seems to have shifted to the Allies. Either mention that the starting point of WWII is a subject of argument, and then list all the events leading to it consequtively, or adopt my phrasing. Xanon 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the amended paragraph (not the above!), and would never seek to reinvent the wheel. Beware of dark forces! White Guard 00:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Once more, I hereby ask the participants of this discssion to stop being rude. I don't want it to turn into a flame war. Xanon 01:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon, you say you don't want a flame war but your posts are simply insulting to intelligence.

"It looks to me like you are ignoring arguments you can't counter." - There anyway was no point in your link.

"There is no reason to consider that lesser conflict the start of the war." - Rubbish. The war started at that moment. Before that there was no war in Europe, not after the Rhineland, not after the Austrian Anschluß, certainly not after the annexation of the Sudetenland by agreement, not after the occupation of the CSR. But with the invasion of Poland war began. It is simply a matter of fact. It wasn't yet global but this is were the war began.

"Because when Hitler attacked Poland, no WWII was started either. WWII was started when the Allies declared war on him." - repeating your wrongheaded view does not make it right. One moment there was no war, the next moment there was. Hence war started at that moment.

To say that "Hitler began that war" is "not a fact" is the most extreme form not even of POV pushing but of spreading false information. It is hard to think you not a Nazi apologist when reading such utterances.

And your statement "you just don't like it that the blame seems to have shifted to the Allies" clarifies that exactly that is your aim. Shift the blame from innocent Hitler who just occupied another country to the Allies who started a global war. It is disgusting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"Xanon, you say you don't want a flame war but your posts are simply insulting to intelligence." If you continue to insist on starting one, you will get one. My patience isn't infinite. It seems being polite is rather unfashionable around here.

"Rubbish. The war started at that moment. Before that there was no war in Europe, not after the Rhineland, not after the Austrian Anschluß, certainly not after the annexation of the Sudetenland by agreement, not after the occupation of the CSR. But with the invasion of Poland war began. It is simply a matter of fact. It wasn't yet global but this is were the war began." The invasion of Poland was a separate conflict. You wouldn't have said that WWII started with the invasion of Czechoslovakia if there had been fighting then, would you? Or if USSR invaded Finland a year earlier, with no other countries getting involved, you wouldn't have called that the beginning og WWII. Of course not, because that war would have been unrelated to WWII. Britain only signed a treaty with Poland because Britain thought that Poland would get invaded. Basically, Britain needed a pretext, and it got one, when Hitler invaded Poland.

"To say that "Hitler began that war" is "not a fact" is the most extreme form not even of POV pushing but of spreading false information. It is hard to think you not a Nazi apologist when reading such utterances." I can't say I care what you think of me, as long as you keep it to yourself. This is not false information, and I am attempting to prove that in this debate. You are free to disagree with me. Hating me for trying to be historically accurate is pretty dumb.

"And your statement "you just don't like it that the blame seems to have shifted to the Allies" clarifies that exactly that is your aim. Shift the blame from innocent Hitler who just occupied another country to the Allies who started a global war. It is disgusting." You just ignored the word "seems", didn't you? As well as anything else I said that didn't fit into your prejudiced image of my position.71.135.33.214 21:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is frankly ridiculous to describe the invasion of Poland as a "pretext" on the part of Britain. Britain and France had not replied militarily to a series of Nazi actions from the occupation of the Rhineland to the invasion of Czechoslovakia. They had then established a public pact with Poland to guarantee support (see Polish-British Common Defence Pact) in the event of a German attack. Every effort had been made to avoid war. To this day the "appeasement" policy is criticised, but apparently you think that the nasty Brits were just itching to blast away at innocent little Germany, whose only crime was to invade and subjugate other countries. Paul B 21:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"They had then established a public pact with Poland to guarantee support in the event of a German attack."

Paul, just listen to yourself. Are you suggesting that Britain wanted to guarantee itself support of Poland, in case Hitler attacked Britain? Of course not. Britain could be fairly ceratin that Hitler wouldn't attack it any time soon. Instead, Britain wanted to prevent Hitler from taking over Poland, by threatening it would declare war on him, if he did. Hitler decided it was a bluff and acted accordingly. If you are not convinced, look at the time they made that treaty and how little time passed before Hitler attacked Poland. Clearly, the treaty was made in anticipation of that.

"To this day the "appeasement" policy is criticised, but apparently you think that the nasty Brits were just itching to blast away at innocent little Germany, whose only crime was to invade and subjugate other countries."

Don't ascribe me views which I haven't stated. I am not trying to make British the bad guys here, and I am not trying to make Hitler look innocent. I am just trying to get the idea that WWII wasn't fought over moral issues, but over territory and power through to people. Germany wanted more power and territory, British felt threatened by it, and probably - rightly so. As far as drawing a moral portrait of the two countries (or rather of their governments) - they are both repulsive. Vilifying the enemy is a standard war tactic and its effects are obviously still felt today. It's much easier to convince a nation to fight against absolute evil, than against people, who might be a lot like them. Do you understand my position now?71.135.69.36 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Having restored that bit, I might as well reply to it:

71/Xanon (could you stick with your new username please), I think you are mistaking Paul. Of course, Britain made a pact with Poland to protect Poland and to confront any future aggression by Hitler, which foreseeably would be directed at Poland.

You say the "WWII wasn't fought over moral issues, but over territory and power through to people" - but these are moral issues (and also political issues): whether one state should attack another, whether one state should control this or that territory. And the appeasement policy so often criticized (and misunderstood) nowadays, clearly shows that Britain (and France) in the mid-thirties were open to Germany's reasonable demands (after having failed in that earlier). They said, why shouldn't Germany control all of their territory militarily in 1936, they said: Austrian wanted to be German all along in spring 1938, they said: well, the "Sudeten Germans" don't like being governed by the Czechs and Hitler has stated that he will ask for no more (which is BTW a perfect indicator that Hitler wanted to start the war right then) in autumn 1938. And in spring 1939, after Hitler had broken the Munich agreement, they said: Enough is enough! His next move we'll oppose. And this they did.

"drawing a moral portrait of the two countries (or rather of their governments)" - yes, rather of the governments (I was about to write: don't equate the German nation with Hitler before I wrote the bit in brackets). But it is hard to go beyond the villainous reality of Hitler's government. No doubt, it can be done (e.g. breeding camps), but this article isn't doing it. We have to call a spade a spade, even if it narrating villanous deeds in all their villany (don't know whether all these words exist). We do not pronounce judgement over whether somethin is evil but we related the facts as they are. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon, our patience is limited too.

The invasion of Poland is factually the beginning of that war we call World War II and not "a separate conflict".

You say, "You wouldn't have said that WWII started with the invasion of Czechoslovakia if there had been fighting then, would you?" - first of all, it is a hypothetical quesion but I will answer it nonetheless: If the Czechs would have resisted, it would have been a war. Given the odds it would have been a short war in that theatre. However, if that war would have soon implicated the western powers and a little later all the world, then yes it would have been the beginning of World War II.

I don't hate you and have not stated what I think of you. Only what you sound like. Your talking about pretexts doesn't change that impression. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Somebody has been erasing my posts. That is hardly an honorable debating strategy. I will re-write them later. 71.135.69.36 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to. I have restored them for you. You are right that deleting posts from the talk page is a no-no except in cases of spamming or some cases of personal attacks. But I am convinced that this happened by mistake. Nothing is actually lost here on WP, you can go into the history and look up any previous version. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Str. "You say, "You wouldn't have said that WWII started with the invasion of Czechoslovakia if there had been fighting then, would you?" - first of all, it is a hypothetical quesion but I will answer it nonetheless: If the Czechs would have resisted, it would have been a war. Given the odds it would have been a short war in that theatre." And you wouldn't have called that short war WWII, correct? "However, if that war would have soon implicated the western powers and a little later all the world, then yes it would have been the beginning of World War II." That's the point. If Britain didn't involve itself, then it would have been just another minor conflict. The beginning of WWII is the beginning of the fighting between the "major players", from my point of view. There were other conflicts long before the invasion of Poland - Italy's conquest of Ethiopia, Japan's aggression against China. None of them are considered to be the beginning of WWII, because they were local and didn't lead to the massive amount of intense fighting WWII is famous for.

"Of course, Britain made a pact with Poland to protect Poland and to confront any future aggression by Hitler, which foreseeably would be directed at Poland." Exactly. The motivation behind that decision doesn't have to be as pure as you probably think it is. Britain had no means to actually defend Poland against Germany (no army located on the Polish border), so basically Britain declared that it would go to war with Germany, if Germany invaded Poland. Germany invaded Poland, (that is, didn't back down before Britain's threat to use force), Britain went to war with Germany.

"You say the "WWII wasn't fought over moral issues, but over territory and power through to people" - but these are moral issues (and also political issues): whether one state should attack another, whether one state should control this or that territory." That's self-righteous hypocrisy on the part of the Allies. Britain was a colonial power, about which the opressed natives of India weren't too happy. In USSR there were concentration camps for the "politically unconforming". US had a habbit of taking over Latin American countries, was largely racist and didn't really give a damn about Jews, which can be seen from the incident when a ship full of Jewish immigrants was turned away. Really, none of the countries let the Jews in - only several tens of thousands were allowed to enter. If you think back to the first World War, Britain and France showed Germany no mercy what-so-ever. Overall - Allies were just villanizing the enemy, while nobody really cared about morality.

"And the appeasement policy so often criticized (and misunderstood) nowadays, clearly shows that Britain (and France) in the mid-thirties were open to Germany's reasonable demands (after having failed in that earlier). They said, why shouldn't Germany control all of their territory militarily in 1936, they said: Austrian wanted to be German all along in spring 1938, they said: well, the "Sudeten Germans" don't like being governed by the Czechs and Hitler has stated that he will ask for no more (which is BTW a perfect indicator that Hitler wanted to start the war right then) in autumn 1938." Yes, leaders say those things and it's up to the population to figure out that their words are just propaganda. Leaders try to present the problem as a battle of Good (that's them) against Evil (that's the enemy, of course). Britain avoided going to war, because going to war didn't seem to be worth it. However, eventually it was unable to ignore the threat of Germany. Then WWII began. By the way, how does Hitler's comment prove he wanted to start WWII back then?

"And in spring 1939, after Hitler had broken the Munich agreement, they said: Enough is enough! His next move we'll oppose. And this they did." Like I said - presenting the events as a battle of Good against Evil is what leaders do. At any rate, they are the ones who started "opposing" Hitler, not the other way around.

Are some of you beginning to see, why I think that blaming the war entirely on Hitler is wrong? So how about a compromise? For instance, we could list several events leading to WWII, without saying who actually started it.Xanon 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

This is strange... My comments don't appear when I view the talk page normally, but when I try to edit they are there... I will paste my post, which I recovered from the history page, just in case. Thank you, Str. "You say, "You wouldn't have said that WWII started with the invasion of Czechoslovakia if there had been fighting then, would you?" - first of all, it is a hypothetical quesion but I will answer it nonetheless: If the Czechs would have resisted, it would have been a war. Given the odds it would have been a short war in that theatre." And you wouldn't have called that short war WWII, correct? "However, if that war would have soon implicated the western powers and a little later all the world, then yes it would have been the beginning of World War II." That's the point. If Britain didn't involve itself, then it would have been just another minor conflict. The beginning of WWII is the beginning of the fighting between the "major players", from my point of view. There were other conflicts long before the invasion of Poland - Italy's conquest of Ethiopia, Japan's aggression against China. None of them are considered to be the beginning of WWII, because they were local and didn't lead to the massive amount of intense fighting WWII is famous for.

"Of course, Britain made a pact with Poland to protect Poland and to confront any future aggression by Hitler, which foreseeably would be directed at Poland." Exactly. The motivation behind that decision doesn't have to be as pure as you probably think it is. Britain had no means to actually defend Poland against Germany (no army located on the Polish border), so basically Britain declared that it would go to war with Germany, if Germany invaded Poland. Germany invaded Poland, (that is, didn't back down before Britain's threat to use force), Britain went to war with Germany.

"You say the "WWII wasn't fought over moral issues, but over territory and power through to people" - but these are moral issues (and also political issues): whether one state should attack another, whether one state should control this or that territory." That's self-righteous hypocrisy on the part of the Allies. Britain was a colonial power, about which the opressed natives of India weren't too happy. In USSR there were concentration camps for the "politically unconforming". US had a habbit of taking over Latin American countries, was largely racist and didn't really give a damn about Jews, which can be seen from the incident when a ship full of Jewish immigrants was turned away. Really, none of the countries let the Jews in - only several tens of thousands were allowed to enter. If you think back to the first World War, Britain and France showed Germany no mercy what-so-ever. Overall - Allies were just villanizing the enemy, while nobody really cared about morality.

"And the appeasement policy so often criticized (and misunderstood) nowadays, clearly shows that Britain (and France) in the mid-thirties were open to Germany's reasonable demands (after having failed in that earlier). They said, why shouldn't Germany control all of their territory militarily in 1936, they said: Austrian wanted to be German all along in spring 1938, they said: well, the "Sudeten Germans" don't like being governed by the Czechs and Hitler has stated that he will ask for no more (which is BTW a perfect indicator that Hitler wanted to start the war right then) in autumn 1938." Yes, leaders say those things and it's up to the population to figure out that their words are just propaganda. Leaders try to present the problem as a battle of Good (that's them) against Evil (that's the enemy, of course). Britain avoided going to war, because going to war didn't seem to be worth it. However, eventually it was unable to ignore the threat of Germany. Then WWII began. By the way, how does Hitler's comment prove he wanted to start WWII back then?

"And in spring 1939, after Hitler had broken the Munich agreement, they said: Enough is enough! His next move we'll oppose. And this they did." Like I said - presenting the events as a battle of Good against Evil is what leaders do. At any rate, they are the ones who started "opposing" Hitler, not the other way around.

Are some of you beginning to see, why I think that blaming the war entirely on Hitler is wrong? So how about a compromise? For instance, we could list several events leading to WWII, without saying who actually started it.Xanon 21:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Sanity

I think a quotation from Winston Churchill will suffice-"There are some things up with which we will not put."

I am trying very hard not to lose my temper, but I will take this opportunity to make my 'POV' plain-World War II was started by Naaazi Germany. No Naaazi weasel-like redefinitions of the truth will ever suffice.

White Guard 01:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My lungs began to crow like chanticleer,

That fools should be so deep-contemplative,

And I did laugh sans intermission

An hour by his dial. O noble fool!

A worthy fool! Motley's the only wear.

...and in his brain-

Which is as dry as the remainder biscuit

After a voyage,-he hath strange places cramm'd

With observations, the which he vents

In mangled forms

As You Like It. William Shakespeare

White Guard 10:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this isn't the appropriate place to quote Shakespeare. If you want to discuss Shakespeare, go to a forum about literature. Meanwhile, I would appreciate it if you didn't flame and didn't spam this talk page. I suggest you delete this little poem. Xanon

I am happy to say that your point of view absolutely doesn't matter, if you can't back it up by solid arguments, which you are having a hard time doing. Xanon

Xanon, could you please try to make your post more concise (maybe by restricting quotations of other editors to the bare minimum)?

• You are still putting forth hypothetical questions "If Britain didn't involve itself, then it would have been just another minor conflict." But did Britain and France did involve themselves. And your "The beginning of WWII is the beginning of the fighting between the "major players", from my point of view." is just, as you state, rehashing your POV without any argumentative value. Other conflicts are not considered the beginning of WWII as they are unrelated to WWII and as the powers involved entered WWII only later.
• I am sorry to say that but your wording betrays your intention: I didn't say Britain was "pure" but the attempt to defend oneself and other nations against aggression is pure enough for me. And your lauding words for the brave Hitler that "didn't back down before Britain's threat to use force" makes me shake my head.
• Hipocrisy is never an argument. If they were hypocritical, so what. (Still, the UK did not put up death camps in India. The USSR was, if anything, on Hitler's side at the start of the war.)
• And neither is your unsubstantiated claim about propaganda. There is propaganda on all sides but there are also proper reasons and reflections on policy. (And you are twisting my words again when you ask "How does Hitler's comment prove ..." - it is no proof but evidence. If I am aiming at conquering Eastern Europe I will only announce that something is my last claim - in contradiction to my real aim stated internally - if I am expecting the outbreak of war which would render such announcements void. Once the war is started I can then conquer all I can get. Propaganda does not vainly issue just lies, at least good propaganda doesn't.)
• It is you and no one else that constantly talks about "Good against Evil". I know perfectly well who was evil in this fight but it is not the article's business to state that and it doesn't do that.
• "why I think that blaming the war entirely on Hitler is wrong?" - maybe I am beginning to see but the sight doesn't please me at all.
• "So how about a compromise?" - No, we shouldn't compromise factual accuracy!
• Finally, solid arguments I have not seen from you. Only evasion, hypothetical questions, and equivocation. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I will try to be more concise. Hypothetical questions are a valid tool in an intellectual dispute and you didn't answer mine. Looking back as far as the Punic Wars, the Romans had an interesting political tactic - they allied themselves with nations or states that were likely to be attacked soon by Rome's enemies in order to gain a pretext for war. British did something fairly similar. Perhaps there was an added interest in Poland remaining a sovereign state, but don't go asigning altruistic motives to all of Britain's actions. As Hitler stated in one of his speeches, Britain was interested in a divided Europe.

On the same note, the cause of the war should not be mistaken for the beginning of the war. Why do you say that WWII should include the fighting in Poland? If you don't like hypothetical examples, here is a real life one: the plane crashing into the World Trade Center was a cause for the Iraq war, but it was Bush who declared war on Iraq. (Well, he didn't declare it officially, but you get my point.) So, who started the Iraq War? Bush did, since the plane crashing wasn't a war act performed by Iraq. Iraq, likely, had nothing to do with it. Britain was the first to declare war on Germany, Germany only responded.

• My opinion (the beginning of WWII is the beginning of fighting between the major players) is based on my understanding of the war as conflict between two camps. USA, Britain and USSR on one side, Axis on the other. All others were merely forced to one camp or another, not quite the core of either. Britain's decision to invite Poland into its camp was just that - Britain's decision, with which it sought to alter German policy. Germany did not alter its policy, however, Germany did not declare war on Britain either. Germany merely attacked Poland. The decision to engage in war with Germany was Britain's, not Germany's. That's how the two camps clashed.
• Hipocrisy is indeed an argument. The unsightly practices of Hitler's government were brought to public's attention only to make the public hostile to Nazis and Germany, not because those practices were actually that different from the policies Allies and USSR put in place when they could get away with it. British policy did come a little short of death camps, which were probably judged to expensive. Remember, they were there for the profit. However, if you take into account that there were many times more natives of India than there were Jews... A lesser evil multiplied out by that number of times might turn out greater than the great evil against a comparatively small population.
• "unsubstantiated claim about propaganda." That was typical falsification of information by the leaders of the Allies. If you want to know how exactly Hitler misrepresented the situation - read one of his speeches. I assure you, he is just as convincing as his counterparts and draws a picture just as compelling and just as false. The thing the two cases have in common is that each leader claims his country is motivated only by the concern for the common good of the world, while the enemy's - by egoistic greed and the desire for world domination.
• "I know perfectly well who was evil in this fight but it is not the article's business to state that and it doesn't do that."

The article not-so-subtly implies it, which is unethical academic conduct. At any rate, regardless of whether all of the governments's leaders were monsters (which I strongly doubt), the War was fought by ordinary people, who were either coerced into becoming soldiers or did so voluntarily because they believed it was the right, patriotic thing to do. There was no good side and no evil side.

• Factual accuracy will not be compromised if the events leading to WWII will be listed without statements clearly intended to distribute blame and force a certain moral view on the reader.

I will offer one more compromise. Instead of: "With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space") which triggered World War II in Europe by ordering the invasion of Poland", how about: "With a restructured economy and rearmed military, Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space") which contributed to the start of World War II in Europe when he ordered the invasion of Poland". Xanon

Xanon, first of all could you please properly sign your posts by typing four tildes (~). Thanks.

"Hypothetical questions are a valid tool" but they shouldn't be overdone. And I do think that I did answer yours.

You say the "British did something fairly similar", but why did they sign a naval agreement with Germany then. You are selecting facts to fit your interpretation that the UK had some aggressive aim and actually wanted to wage war on Germany just for the sake of it. And I am not assigning altruistic motives to anyone, the U.K. or Germany. Altruism IMHO anyway is overrated and can be just as bad as egoism.

Your parallel with 9/11 and Iraq is of course untenable, as a) WTC and Iraq are not linked, b) the attackers were no state and hence no war could have begun. Unless you are talking about the war pitting the US and allies against international terrorism. That is not a war in the legal sense of the term (though it might involve actual war), but if you want to take it that way, the war was indeed started by the attacks, which led to the American response in Afghanistan. The war in 1939 started when Germany invaded Poland. It wasn't started by any Polish actions (e.g. alleged mistreatment of her German nationals) and not by the Gleiwitz incident that served as a pretext. It started with the invasion. When one nation's army crosses the border to another country and begins to occupy it, that is usually considered an act of war, isn't it?

On the same note, the cause of the war should not be mistaken for the beginning of the war. Why do you say that WWII should include the fighting in Poland? If you don't like hypothetical examples, here is a real life one: the plane crashing into the World Trade Center was a cause for the Iraq war, but it was Bush who declared war on Iraq. (Well, he didn't declare it officially, but you get my point.) So, who started the Iraq War? Bush did, since the plane crashing wasn't a war act performed by Iraq. Iraq, likely, had nothing to do with it. Britain was the first to declare war on Germany, Germany only responded.

"My opinion (the beginning of WWII is the beginning of fighting between the major players) is based on my understanding of the war as conflict between two camps. USA, Britain and USSR on one side, Axis on the other." - and if you see it that way, WWII didn't start until 1941, as the US was neutral until that time and the USSR well, you know. And your opinions, and your understanding don't matter, as historians see it otherwise. Ever heard of WP:NOR?

And of course, "Britain's decision to invite Poland into its camp" is your strange version of reality. There was no camp into which Poland was invited. The camp (the former Entente) sided with a threatened nation.

I guess "Germany did not declare war on Britain either. Germany merely attacked Poland. The decision to engage in war with Germany was Britain's, not Germany's." sums up your ever more bizarre postings. Please, repeat after me: Ger-ma-ny in-va-ded Po-land. Ger-ma-ny star-ted the war."

"The practices of Hitler's government were brought to public's attention only to make the public hostile to Nazis and Germany, not because those practices were actually that different from the policies Allies and USSR put in place when they could get away with it." - You sound like Carl Schmitt. But where actually did Britian set up death camps?

"Unethical" I would consider your postings, though they are definitely not "academic" in the best sense of the word, only as much as academics have often been more than willing to play the propagandist for horrible, horrible things.

"Factual accuracy will not be compromised if the events leading to WWII will be listed without statements clearly intended to distribute blame and force a certain moral view on the reader." - No, it won't be compromised in that case. But that is what the article already does. But your "compromise" tries to hide a fact - a fact already "neutralized" a bit by saying "triggered" instead of "started". We will go no further.

I think you, Xanon, had enough chances of making your case and you haven't come up with a stubstantive argument. I am asking you to desist from such practices in the future. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that expecting supposedly intelligent people to be civil was absolutely unreasonable of me and I shouldn't have bothered with it myself. Most likely, this was inevitable, given the lack of communication culture.

• You certainly didn't answer my question.
• I have no idea what naval agreement you are talking about. Cite your sources or, preferably, post link. I definitely didn't say Britain wanted to fight Germany "just for the sake of it", you are lying.

"a) WTC and Iraq are not linked" as weren't Poland and England. "b) the attackers were no state and hence no war could have begun" except for the war against Iraq, with which, thanks to Bush administration, americans subconciously associated terrorism. "and if you see it that way, WWII didn't start until 1941, as the US was neutral until that time and the USSR well, you know." Amazingly enough, for one you have a point, but the fighting between two major players is enough to consider it the beginning for me, although there are those who disagree. "as historians see it otherwise" I assure you, I am not alone in my view on WWII. Some historians share it.

"There was no camp into which Poland was invited. The camp (the former Entente) sided with a threatened nation." The intellectual feat that you have just performed, called demagogy in common parlance, changes absolutely nothing. Whether the camp moved to Poland or Poland to the camp, it was still a voluntary decision.

• I don't know, maybe the people who you usually talk to are primitive neanderthals, or maybe you are used to people talking to you like that so you would understand, but there is no need to break up words into syllables. Of course, if that's the way you need to talk, I will be patient enough to listen. For a while. If you are unable to counter my arguments - admit it instead of humiliating yourself. There is nothing wrong with changing your point of view, when errors in your thinking have been pointed out to you.

"where actually did Britian set up death camps?" I told you, death camps were probably considered too expensive. Besides, Britain was creative enough to invent its own ways of abusing human rights and oppressing the population.

"unethical I would consider your postings" without any reason, as usual. Also, as usual, you are evading responding to my arguments.

"No, it won't be compromised in that case. But that is what the article already does. But your "compromise" tries to hide a fact - a fact already "neutralized" a bit by saying "triggered" instead of "started". We will go no further." That is not a fact. I have tried to prove that to you, and just because you are too stubborn to admit you are wrong, doesn't mean I failed. You intentionally try to make it seem like Hitler wanted a war with Britain and France, when he didn't at that time.

"I think you, Xanon, had enough chances of making your case and you haven't come up with a stubstantive argument. I am asking you to desist from such practices in the future." Sure. I won't try to persuade you anymore. You are rude and your arguments are weak. I will just change the article.Xanon 13:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon, now you absolutely blew it:

• Have you ever seen the footage of Chamberlain returning from Germany after his talks with "Herr Hitler", announcing peace for our time? One of the things he mentions is the 1938 German-British naval agreement. Please, I cannot educate you on every basic fact. Go read some serious history book.
• "death camps were probably considered too expensive. Besides, Britain was creative enough to invent its own ways of abusing human rights" - with this you have now convinced me that you are indeed what I suspected above. I will not respond to your trolling anymore. Go and pester someone else. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• You really don't know what critical thinking is, do you? Hitler has been talking about what a peaceful guy he is all along. That means nothing.
• The naval agreement was just another concession of Brits to Germans. It's quite irellevant.
• You wouldn't happen to be British, would you? Because it appears you believe every word your politicians say. Had you lived in Germany, you would have made a perfect Nazi.
• I will change the article to reflect historical facts, rather than your cheap, opinionated propaganda as soon as I have access to it.

Without any respect what-so-ever, Xanon 21:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Xanon, this might be the last time I will address you, but only because:

• I had to fix your messing up the signature as well.
• To inform you that I have not only lived in Germany but have done so my entire life, except for one year. I happen to be German. But nothing is further from me than Nazism, a term of which you apparently do not understand the meaning. Anyway, it was a personal attack. You will see what comes of it. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a personal attack, it was a statement of fact. Get over it. At any rate, your apparent fascination with the British is annoying. If you really want to know what they were doing in India, go here: [6]; [7]; [8]; [9]

OR you can just do a google search on your own. These are all a result of one, anyway. I don't really care about signing my posts. Deal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:Xanon (talk • contribs).

If you want to slag off the British record in India do so on relevant pages related to the British Raj. It has no place in an article on Hitler. You may just as well point out that French perpetrated the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre. You are the one who seems to be pathologically obsessed by Britain, not Str1977 or anyone else here. The fact that you don't care about signing you posts indicates your lack of interest in reasonable debate. We can say that the world war began on the 3rd rather than the 1st of September (that was the date I was taught in school), but it is perfectly reasonable to say that the invasion of Poland "triggered" it. Paul B 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The British record matters in this discussion, because it proves that all the claims about WWII, which Hitler supposedly started, being fought for moral reasons are naught but hypocrisy. Indeed, I may just as well point out a number of other perpetrations by the French, the USSR and the USA. They would all be appropriate. It seems to you one way, another to me. "...indicates your lack of interest in reasonable debate" Your words suffer from a lack of logic. It does no such thing. "...it is perfectly reasonable to say that the invasion of Poland "triggered" it" The war was hardly "triggered". Britain intentionally allied itself with Poland in preparation for Germany's attack on the latter. The war resulted from deliberate actions on both sides. Using "triggered" gives a false impression to the reader. The version I offered as a compromise doesn't. So why are you reluctant to make the change? Is it because you want to imply Hitler is to blame for the war? Xanon

All he would have needed avoid a war was to not invade Poland. Quite simple really. Then again Hitler despite being a "brilliant" tactician made some extremly stupid decisions. Agathoclea 16:49, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that could have delayed war for a while, I suppose. Like I said - deliberate action on both sides. However, do not forget that Hitler probably thought he had no time - USSR could invade any moment. Or he might have expected France and Britain to. At any rate, what's being discussed is whether the word "triggered" should be used, not whether Hitler could have avoided the war. Xanon 22:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

3RR Warning given. Agathoclea 07:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agathoclea, just one question. Did you resort to giving me that warning before or after you got tired of editing the article to look the way you want it to? Xanon 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

It was just a courtesy, as with 6 reverts in 24 hours you were already way over the limit. Agathoclea 12:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

(unimportant little detail) "Poland wasn't a partcipant in WWII, the war was fought between the Allies and the Axis. Poland was neither." . . . The WWII begs to differ. Apparently the Republic of Poland was a member of the Allied forces. Ryuugaki 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Was it Hitler in that fire?

Sorry to sound... naive or stupid, but the other day I was watching a program on one of the History channels, and it suggested it may not have been Hitlers corpse discovered, as he had never had a full medical examination, and due to fire damage, there wasnt much evidence to prove it was him. Just wondering if there is reference to prove me wrong (or right?) Popher 23:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question, I'd like to know the answer to that as well. --B34nz 06:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)