Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 46

Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

Birthplace

Technically, he was born in what was Austria-Hungary. Should that be clarified in the article?

Relatives

While visiting the Czech Republic in the summer of 2004 I came across a piece in the Czech daily "Blesk" asserting that the four remaining descendants of Hitler had all voluntarily undergone sterilization. If a reference could be found would this be something for inclusion in the article? Thanks, Gibaudrac.

I question the reference to Hitler's "descendants," as these four persons were not his offspring or their issue, but rather the descendants of his half brother Alois or other more distant relatives (his sister Paula never had any children).Jeff 03:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Jeffrey Frawley

It's a story about the four children of William Patrick Hitler, but it's apparently not true. Paul B 12:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Strategic Blunder: Evidence of Crazy Hitler?

How about some discussion of whether or not Hitler was mentally ill? Wikipedia users seem to be in agreement that the mentally ill get stupider with time (see Talk:Joan_of_Arc). Perhaps this would explain Germany's strategic blunder of invading the USSR? Arkhamite 16:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• First of all, wouldn't this be a better addition to Adolf Hitler's medical health? Secondly, you need to cite any proof that Hitler's invasion of the USSR was an indication of mental illness. Srose (talk) 17:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler had always aimed to attack Russia. His expansion policy was directed eastwards, and he had never really wanted war with Britain or France. At the time the Russian army had been severely weakened by Stalin's purges. They had dismally failed to defeat the tiny Finnish army in the Winter War, so Hitler had good reason to believe that the mighty German army, with its new allies in Hungary and Romania, could readily crush it. Anti-Communists in the Ukraine and Baltic states would rally to the cause. At this stage in the war Britain was his only major active opponent, but was isolated and on the defensive. Hitler had failed to invade it, but if, instead, he attacked Russia he might gain more eastern allies and change attitudes among the elite in Britain, who might now see him as primarily an anti-Communist. Previously, he had been in league with the Russians. Britain had even contemplated declaring war on Russia too - in support of Finland. So invading and crushing Russia might help bring the Brits on-side, once they saw that Hitler's support-base was now overwhelmingly powerful, and that the war had become essentially an anti-Communist crusade. So perfectly sensible reasons existed for the invasion. Of course he turned out to be seriously wrong, but if every stategic error is a sign of mental illness, then many of the Allied decisions were signs mental illness too! Paul B 15:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly, Paul. For instance, Allied strategic incompetence leading up to the Nazi successes in the Battle of the Bulge clearly prove that Eisenhower was mentally ill.

General consensus on this service seems to hold that mental illness is usually accompanied by stupidity. So I propose that we find instances of historical figures being stupid and use their relative degree of stupidity - perhaps on a rising scale of one to five - to retrodiagnose them with mental illness. My feeling is that Hitler's invasion of the USSR, with winter coming no less, rates a five on the stupidity scale, and thus he clearly had a major psychotic disorder. Eisenhower's failure to anticipate a German attack in the Ardennes would probably rate about a two on the stupidity scale, indicating a diagnosis of mild to intermediate depression.

FDR's failure to anticipate a Japanese Attack on Pearl Harbor was not stupid; he wanted it to happen. Thus Roosevelt gets a clean bill of health, except for the paraplegia.

Arkhamite 07:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh I see. You are not interested in Hitler, only in making a point to defend the sanity of Joan. Paul B 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Maid of Orleans was mad as a hatter, much like Hitler. Examine these two historical figures without religious prejudice, and I think you will find the parallels in their fanatically charismatic, "visionary" leadership styles undeniable.

Arkhamite 16:37, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler wasn't mad at all. I have no opinion about Joan. If you wish to debate the question whether being mad necessarily makes you stupid, then this is not the page on which to do it. Paul B 01:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Hitler showed symptoms throughout his life that might be interpreted as indicative of mental illness, including, but not limited to: mania, depression, delusions, paranoia, sudden and uncontrollable rages, extreme grandiosity of self-concept, and, finally, suicide. There is much more evidence for Hitler being mentally ill in his biography than there is for his being totally sane. I also think it is beyond doubt that Hitler was a psychopath, a personality disorder that is characterized by remorseless cruelty. Psychopathy has an entry in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV) as "Antisocial Personality Disorder", meaning that psychopathy currently holds the status of a mental illness. I reiterate that Hitler was mentally ill by any definition of the term.

Arkhamite 09:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

What nonsense. To medicalise him is to excuse him. He was perfectly sane, and therefore responsible for his actions. People with serious mental illness do not have successful careers as politicians, or impress people with their skills as Hitler did. I see no evidence in his biography of any of the "symptoms" you cite, beyond the normal behaviour of the head of what was in effect a criminal gang. Other crimial capos behave in the same way - they just don't tend to articulate their behaviour as an ideology. Paul B 16:07, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that discussing possible mental illnesses of Hitler is the same as excusing him - I mean, this may be analagous in for example the New York District Courts but not everywere. :-) I think we could mention this in the article as it has often been discussed both during the second world war, when for example the US government commissioned a psychological profile of Hitler, and in the subsequent decades, when he has often been referred to as insane. Also I'm not convinced that deranged people cannot become leaders of countries, what about where for example that is effectively by inheritance as with historical figures, or where the madness only comes on in office? Some people even say Margeret Thatcher went slightly mad in office. It has become quite fashionable in some sections of the media to psycho-analyse leading politicians. MarkThomas 16:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

*whispers* Psst and Winston Churchill was bipolar. (Don't tell Paul.)

Arkhamite 17:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Shh. Don't tell Arkhamite that none of his biographers agree. Paul B 00:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are these biographers? Are they psychiatrists? Are any of them mentally ill? They have no standing to judge Hitler or Churchill's mental health. As someone with a similar illness to those of Churchill and Hitler, I'll lay them plain for you: when manic, they displayed delusions of grandeur that far exceeded anyone else on the world scene at the time. When depressed, they were incapacitated, suicidal, or in Churchill's case, blind drunk as he was for most of World War II. Paul, shouldn't you be vandalizing E Fuller Torrey or something with the rest of the antipsychiatry crowd?

As for a verifiable reference on Hitler, John Toland's Adolf Hitler is a classic study of a charismatic psychopath and is instructive for anyone interested in this disorder. Pardon the offtopicness, but for Churchill, read the entirety of the two published volumes of The Last Lion. It is a detailed psychological profile of a mentally ill person, one with a mood disorder and one who frequently displayed acute psychopathic tendencies, such as Churchill's insistent masterminding of the strategically inept butchery that occurred at the Battle of Gallipoli.

Arkhamite 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I very much doubt that any of Churchill's biographers were mentally ill. That's not normally considered to be a qualification. Your comments abaout Gallipoli and Churchill's drinking are downright silly and really rather pointless. Gallipoli was part of a failed strategy, but, again, one which had its reasons. You seem to want to pathologise every failed military plan. Yes, I know Toland's book. "Psychopath" is such a loose term, I doubt it has much value in judging Hitler's behaviour, beyond the fact that he was clearly capable of emotional detachment, but so are many gangsters. Paul B 01:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Psychopathy is about as loose a term as "cancer" or "AIDS." Please note that a standard diagnostic tool (PCL-R) exists for this disorder, one that predicts recidivism rates in forensic populations time and again.

Give my regards to Xenu, Paul.

Arkhamite 17:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Arkhamite, it's not remotely clear what you are trying to achieve, so I will just sum up. The term "psychopath" is very loosely used (as in the book Psychopathic God). I think it's in fact far less clearly defined than cancer or AIDS (unless one equivocates the term AIDS as any "syndrome" involving immune deficiency). But that's neither here nor there. If you have any serious up-to-date professional literature relating to Hitler's mind we can discuss it. Your personal opinion is no more relevant to the article than is mine. There is the further problem that so much debate and "scientific" terminology in psychiatry becomes rapidly obsolete (how valuable now are all those Freudian "explanations" that we have heard). The fact is that Hitler, so far as we know, never murdered anyone or showed any urge to do so, so comparisons to "normal" psychopaths (as it were) are of rather limited value. He behaved in a way that can be compared to other gangsters and warlords in that he ruthlessly made decisions that cost lives. Add to that the factor of Revolutionary ideology, then the lives lost become part of a crusade of a kind that we can trace the "purification" of France in the Reign of Terror, through to the other well-known examples we can all trot out (Naploeon, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot...). Does the concept of mental illness help here? I don't think so. Hitler fits into his time in this respect. But as I say, in the end what matters is whether we can cite meaningful discussion of this issue in current literature. Paul B 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't wish to go against the flow but the invasion of the USSR was not a strategic blunder. People forget that Stalin knew his truce with Hitler was short term and as such had began preperation for a German invasion. Germany had no choice but to invade the Soviet Union when it did or else a prepared Russian army would have halted the Blitzkreig and halted Hitler's hopes for a quick victory over Stailn.Gavin Scott 23:25, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Well whether it was a blunder or not can reasonably be disputed, but that's also what makes it useless as evidence concerning sanity. I have no clear idea what Arkhamite is trying to prove. It's reasonable to discuss Hitler's mental state, but I know of no serious argument that Hitler suffered from any definable mental illness. It's comonplace in popular commentary on self-aggrandising dictators to declare that they are "mad" - we've heard it said of Saddam Hussain and others in recent times. Bur such rhetoric is very different from serious diagnoses of recognised mental illness. We have to distinguish that from the normal psychology of dictators. Yes, Hitler worried about plots against him - as have all dictators from Emperor Qin Shi Huang to Stalin. Of course you can call this "paranoia", but it's only a mental illness when its palpably nonsensicality reveals an abnormal processing of information in the brain - fears that your neighbours are agents of Interpol etc. Sheer ruthlessness has never been seen as evidence of illness. Paul B 01:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

To help form an opinion on this matter, reading this book is useful: The Mind of Adolf Hitler. Walter C Langer. London: Secker and Warburg, 1973.Pzzp 23:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a series of published documents which clearly show Hitler's mental state to be one way or another it cannot be included in the article. We need sources!!! Gavin Scott 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "clearly show"? Hitler was not psycho-analysed during his rule, as he had psychologists and analysts sent to the camps. As already discussed though it is well known that US psychologists carried out an extensive psychological profiling of Hitler during the war, drawing amongst other things on hundreds of interviews with people who had personally known Hitler. There are therefore sources on his mental health of some credibility, although no doubt those who reject the very idea that he might have had some kind of illness or disturbance won't accept any source of any kind! The question that remains about Nazi leaders in general is "is it rational" to have masterminded and carried out mass-murder and genocide. I think many would argue that already is evidence of severe mental difficulty. Those on the other hand who think such behaviour is a sign of normality must to many have a strange view of normality! MarkThomas 12:21, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are confusing two issues: unless you genuinely believe that all Nazi leaders, gangsters, Stalinists etc etc were mentally ill. One may be abnormal in several different ways. A gangster is abnormal in the sense that he is outside of the norm of human behaviour, but is not necessarily abnormal in the sense that his brain is diseased. Paul B 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The last comment posted is ridiculous unwise and sensless. Gangsters, stalinists and German leaders are not mentally ill you are comparing your culture to theirs. Some could consider a country in need of better education more prisons and hospital space with millions of pounds circulating around a football league paying vast amounts of money out to performers. This to some is insanity ask a German and you'll find Hitler or many other German leaders role models in a class confederation. 24 January 2007 02hormks 19:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Jailtime

Umm...if he was jailed for over a year how come it shows he was sentenced in april and freed in december?

Note the phrase "including remand". Paul B 14:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Religion

It says he was Roman Catholic and blah blah, where was he baptised or went to Church when he actually attended it? 24.92.57.119 16:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Nilator

What is your point? It's not disputed that he was born into a Catholic family. Paul B 17:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

If it's more details you want, 24, I can say that he was baptised in Branau parish church and attended church as a child/pupil. The last time he did so was before he left home and once more for his mother's funeral. (Not countin social occasions such as weddings.) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, Hitler was a very typical "European" Catholic. I mean to say that, he never went to mass, never read the Bible in his life and had no clue whatsoever about the most basic rudiments of the faith. Hitler's Catholocism was scant outward symbolism and non-existant substance.His religion had no bearing whatsoever on his personal or public life. It is much more correct to say that Hitler was a "Wagnerian" and a "Houston Chamberlainian" in his metaphysical persuasions. Both of those men had far more impact on his philosophical bent than the founder of Christianity ever did. And, lets not leave out the influence of Luther.... Good Day Jon Hartley (hartley8184@yahoo.net) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.96.160.208 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

References.

I added the unreferenced tag to the sections with no refs or long sections with only 1 or 2. I think it only let a few tags remain though, because of a bot. I think an article on such a central historical person as Hitler should have thorough citations. -- Kevin Browning 07:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed text

Edits contributed by Foundby removed from article. Please work on them here since they drasticaly change original text and don't comply with WP:Manual_of_style and other guidelines. Thank you.--Pethr 00:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

===Opening moves===

This section is based on Germany's View Point with Facts.

File:Antonescu and hitler.jpg

Hitler with Romanian leader Ion Antonescu (far left).

• On March 12, 1938, Hitler pressured his native Austria into unification with Germany (the Anschluss) and made a triumphal entry into Vienna. Germany conquers Austria.

• Next, he intensified a crisis over the German-speaking Sudetenland districts of Czechoslovakia. This led to the Munich Agreement of September 1938, which authorized the annexation and immediate military occupation of these districts by Germany. British prime minister Neville Chamberlain hailed this agreement as "Peace in our time", but by giving way to Hitler's military demands Britain and France also left Czechoslovakia to Hitler's mercy. Hitler ordered Germany's army to enter Prague, Czechoslovakia on March 10 1939 and from Prague Castle proclaimed Bohemia and Moravia a German protectorate. Germany conquers Czechoslovakia.

• After that, Hitler was claiming territories ceded to Poland under the Versailles Treaty. Britain had not been able to reach an agreement with the Soviet Union for an alliance against Germany, and, on August 23, 1939, Hitler concluded a secret non-aggression pact (the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact) with Stalin on which it was likely agreed that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany would partition Poland. On September 1, Germany invaded the western portion of Poland. Not long after this, on September 17, Soviet forces invaded eastern Poland. Germany conquers Poland.

• Britain and France, who had guaranteed assistance to Poland, declared war on Germany.

• On April 1940, Hitler ordered German forces to march into Denmark and Norway. Germany conquers Denmark and Norway.

• In May 1940, Germany conquers Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium.

• Hitler ordered his forces to attack France. France surrendered on June 22, 1940. Germany conquers France, the country that declared war on her.

aa

Eh not here, I want the whole article to work on eh --Foundby 01:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to comment on the recent back and forth on the article and the talk page:

• Foundby made varios edits that are IMHO disimprovements. Basically he split up paragraphs differently, transformed into agenda items and added "Germany conquered X" every time. I don't understand what his "This section is based on Germany's View Point with Facts." was supposed to mean, but in any case such a note is utterly unencyclopedic and against WP principles. Therefore I reverted him.
• He then reverted to his version, asking me to "talk to me on my talk page before reverting all my edits" - why should I do this. The proper place for that is the article talk page and not necessarily before I revert what I think bad changes to a long-standing version. I could as well ask him to justify his changes on talk. However, both ways, the changes were not that huge in substance to warrant it either way, they are just stylistically bad.
• Foundby reverted again after Pethr's appearence with the summary "I insist my version be kept for 24 hours while I improve it".
  • Quite apart from the question of whether it is well-mannered to "insist" instead of making his case, there is no such thing as a 24-hour-ownership-of-an-article period. If you edit you can see at the bottom the note saying "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." If you want a space where you can methodically reword an article to what you think a better version (a legitimate goal) you can do it either on this talk page or on your own user talk page. Of course, you can revert back and forth but only within WP's rules on this.
  • Also there is no need to suppose that Foundby was cut short in his work: he actively worked on his version for half an hour and then stopped for another 45 minutes, only returning half an hour after my intervention. His new edits apart from that revert were scant.
• As for the to-and-fro on the talk page, Foundby should understand that Pethr moving his version to his page to provide a space for working on it was an act of good faith and shouldn't be taken ill. (Again, demanding "I want the whole article" is out of line, as are his later summaries: the laconic "forgot" and the one levelling "falsely spoken" accusations on Pethr, who had done nothing of the sort.) Certainly reverting back and forth is not a good thing, but I don't think that Foundby should be forced to work on his version on this talk page if he doesn't want to. If he wants to remove his version from the talk page, then we should not hinder this (even if it is strictly speaking the removal of another editor's comment - but this comment consisted mainly out of Foundby's version). If he stops now, that's good, but I wouldn't advise pursuing this further, should Foundby reverts the talk page again. Letting his removal from the talk stand does of course not mean that we grant him his wish of temporal ownership of the article, nor does it dispense with the 3RR.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive summary. I agree, that his behaviour was inappropriate, but I think we already reached agreement with Foundby. I think he took lesson from all of this and will be better member of this community from now on.--Pethr 01:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ROHA

Is he still editing this article and Bob Dylan - and if so, how often?? I've heard a bit about him, and the fact he uses dynamic IPs in Germany, but what's the full situation with this?? --SunStar Net^talk 18:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't think we've seen him lately. --Golbez 18:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a question

What languages did Hitler speak? Josh 04:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Only German as far as I know. Why? Paul B 17:11, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

No reason, I was just curious. Thanks. :) MinnesotanConfederacy

About fascism link

Fascism is, as defined from it's wikipedia article, a "political ideology and mass movement that seeks to place the nation"..."above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community." I don't think this is in any way NPOV, although in the modern day many people see fascism with a negative connotation. However, this reason is mostly because of Hitler, so I think that it should stay. - Kevin ^(TALK) 19:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversial changes on the introduction

It seems that someone is trying to spin the intro [1].

Wikipedia is not a medium for demonizing and Hitler doesn't need any help in that department, like User:TheQuandry wrote.

Blaming Hitler for "near-total destruction of much of Europe" is non-encyclopedic. Writing mass-murder instead of "genocide" is also not a good example.

Try to reach consensus on talk page before making such major changes. --Haham hanuka 23:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

For once, I agree with Haham. "near-total destruction of much of Europe" is a bit too much hyperbole. --Golbez 00:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Just revealing your ignorance. At the end of the war, the allies reported that 85% of Germany was in ruins. France was "67%" destroyed and Italy "82%". European Russia was "91%" destroyed. How deep and widespread would the destruction have to have been for you to accept that this is "near-total"? Also, the sentence "an immense amount of deaths" sounds like something a semi-literate 10 year old would write, not one of the key articles on Wikipedia. I ask other editors to review. MarkThomas 09:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Calm your tone, do not call me ignorant, sir. --Golbez 17:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MarkThomas that writing "an immense amount of deaths" is unnecessarily vague. I am not sure about "near-total destruction of much of Europe" which sounds a bit vague too, though I admit that there is some truth in it. Andries 09:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In second thought this is even not true: Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the ..., and the near-total destruction of much of Europe. --Haham hanuka 10:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

"Near total destruction of much" is an equivocal and therefore unhelpful phrase. The phrase "immense amount of deaths" is ungrammatical. It should be an "immense number of deaths". Paul B 11:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It is "immense number of deaths"... --Haham hanuka 11:19, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Destruction of Europe wasn't caused by Hitler's racial policies though.. --Pudeo (Talk) 11:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't - it was previously "an immense amount of deaths" - Haham has changed the line once he realised how stupid it looked. The war was caused by Nazism but true that the destruction wasn't directly due to the racial policies so that bit changed.. MarkThomas 12:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't change it back until you reach a consensus on talk page. --Haham hanuka 19:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Change it back to what exactly? The current edit is good. The version you keep trying to re-impose is grammatically defective and innacurate. MarkThomas 23:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Mark is on the mark regarding the "immense number of deaths" bit (both genocide and mass murder are accurate), but the "near total destruction" is a bit too pushy and better covered by the reference to WWII. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

genocide is better. "near total destruction..." is nonsense and POV. --Haham hanuka 19:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't care much for the "near total destruction" bit, but anytime, Haham, you post something about the "immense number of deaths" you will get reverted. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Pethr,

either the terms "mass murder" or "genocide" are okay (I put in genocide as Haham suggested it) while "extermination" implicitely reduces the victism to vermin.

Also, 11 million is not one of the highest numbers. You seem to confuse the 6 million Jews with the entirety of victims.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Str1977, I don´t confuse those numbers but even in the Holocaust article you can find various figures. I don´t object the general meaning or anything but the lack of sources. There has to be hundreds of sources and better academic research available and people are giving here websites as sources for those figures, I´m not even mentioning that this website [2] doesn´t deal with death toll but rather disscuses the background. Those figures need to be sourced much better and I think that ranges should be included and sourced as well. Also wording is important, and I think extermination clearly implies genocide; see also Genocide#Stages of genocide and efforts to prevent it. You´re right that to some readers it may be charged with some other conotations so feel free to change it back to genocide but please rewrite the whole sentence so it doesn´t contain genocide twice. "Near total destruction" should not be in the article and even if rewritten should be properly sourced.--Pethr 00:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the link as I was trying to act quickly. The link is for starters. We can always add more and better references. At least it stops the (as it turns out unfounded) complaints about a lack of sources. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

What is "Europe", that it could be almost totally destroyed? That would take the burning of every book, the wiping of every database, in the world. Europe is not just a collection of buildings - it's civilisation itself.--Shtove 02:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think in Second World War literature the phrase "destruction of Europe" is often used and is always taken to mean the devastation associated with area bombing, warfare, mass civilian casualties, starvation, economic dislocation, etc. I think it's worth having a sentence like this to emphasise the enormity of the results of Hitlerism as factually he did have a pretty staggering impact and in 1945 it is not an exaggeration to say that Europe was effectively in ruins. Otherwise, why did it need the Marshall Plan? There was real concern amongst the allies for example that Europe would in effect starve to death in the winter of 1945. MarkThomas 09:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

How about replacing "destruction" with "devastation"? Destruction implies there almost wasn't a place called Europe anymore but devastation pretty much sums up what happened. Lfh 17:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Rather than quibble over what word best summarizes the % of damage to each European country, why not just give the numbers? Given the choice though, I would pick "devastation" for the reasons Lfh provides. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-01-29 15:21Z

Image

This article would benefit from a good colour close-up photo of Hitler's face, preferably as the first in the article, as it is about the whole person. At the moment there's just a propaganda-type image of him as the leader. Tyrenius 03:51, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and find a free-licence picture that fits that description. Agathoclea 12:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

hitlers prison

just quering the spelling og the prison the hitler was sent to - ytour site says landsberg but im pretty sure its landsburg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.43.80 (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC).

The place he was arrested was Landsberg on the river Lech. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Schicklgruber

What does the name Schicklgruber mean in translation from austrian- german dialect? i understand its a cesspoolman ( Gong farmer)or a shit-digger... other say that means "flyswatter" or "flyswatter who lives in the valley" in the Russian version of the wikipedia there is a debate about that topic.. Any austrians here care to enlighten the russian folk? 68.214.4.42 22:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not Austrian (at leat not very muhc ;-)) and don't know what Schickl means, but "gruber" most probably derives from "Grube" which means "pit" ... a "Gruber" would be a digger. The name is pretty obscure for contemporary German speakers as well. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks!68.214.4.42 17:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Schickl and Schickel are surnames in their own right - e.g. Richard Schickel and Bill Schickel. Paul B 16:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure, but I think this was about what the word means (or meant)? Just like plain Müller, Meier or Schmidt. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well those are easy ones! I was just pointing out that the gruberless version of the name, in variant forms, is not so rare. Interestingly, like "Rosenberg", it seems to have become popular amongst Jews when they were forced to adopt Germanic names. Several sites assert that this is because it could be interpreted as a secret Hebraic acrostic. "[adopted] following the Austrian Government's decree making it obligatory for all Jews to adopt a surname. The name Schick forms the initial letters of Shem Yisrael Kadosh (the name of Israel is Holy)."[3]; [4] Paul B 18:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit far-fetched.

Other possibilities would be:

• schicken = German to send (someone or something)
• probably not schick = chiqu as this is a French loan word
• the "l" is a diminutive

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the point is that a pre-existing German name was chosen because it could be given this "hidden" meaning within Jewish families, not that that's how the name originated. Of course this story may be a later rationalisation of the choice. Paul B 18:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What was Hitler's full name?

Did Hitler have a middle name? I've tried to Google it with no luck. --Calan 05:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was Yehudi, but he was a bit embarrassed about it. No, not really, he was just plain Adolf. Paul B 16:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You had me going for a second! So, no middle name. thanks! --Calan 16:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want the joke answer (as per Mel Brooks' The Producers), his middle name was Elizabeth. Patent nonsense, though. Well, it belongs in another article. David 22:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Silence! It voz Schnitzel. You vill pay for your discourtesies.

Apparently Hitler's full name was Adolf Hitler.--Magi Media 03:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

The Sexuality section makes no mention of a wife, only a fiance, mistress, and questionable relationship with a neice. The genealogy section claims that the mistress was, in fact, his wife. Which is true? (I don't know if this has or has not been discussed, as there is no ToC on this talk page). David 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

He married her the day before he shot himself. Paul B 00:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Lead: "Hitler's ambitions and racial policies"

Various editors have tried in the past to improve the lead section, particularly the bits on how the second world war started, and how many people died as a result of Hitler's policies. I would argue that the current lead is too simplistic on causes and could do with a slightly fuller explanation. Poland was the final act of Hitler that the Allies could not tolerate without declaring war as per previous warnings, not the main trigger of WW2, which lay in the expansionism of Germany and it's annexation of the Rheinland, Austria, Czech lands and then Poland. So that part could read:

Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy with the intention of expanding German Lebensraum ("living space"), which triggered World War II when Germany annexed Austria, the Czech lands, and invaded Poland, much of which was also annexed to form the "Greater German Reich" (Großdeutsches Reich).

Then the last bit - the numbers of deaths. Shouldn't we count here all those who died in the European part of the war, which could be laid at the door of Hitler's policies? Certainly it is a lot more than 11 million - that figure refers to the general number of deaths attributed to mass murder and murder in camps and of civilians. But at least 30-40 million people died in the European Theatre as a whole during World War 2. Note that the sentence reads "Hitlers ambitions and racial policies" so it isn't just about race.

I propose we change these two parts. They did stand for some time in this form until repeatedly overturned by an editor who is now perma-blocked. The aim is not some empty-headed Hitler denunciation trip, but to give a more accurate summary of his personal impact. MarkThomas 10:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In re the death count: No, that's a bit unfair to Hitler. He caused the war, but he didn't tell Churchhill to destroy Dresden, or the Soviets to invade Finland. It's extremely shortsighted to blame every death in the war on him. However, Hitler's policies and soldiers directly caused the Holocaust. --Golbez 19:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for (at last) agreeing to take part in a discussion about this instead of simply reverting everything you don't personally agree with. The sentence says that "Hitlers ambitions" resulted in the deaths. Since obviously Hitler did not personally murder all these people, what we're really talking about here is "did Hitler (and Hitlerism) cause the second world war"? Do you agree with the latter proposition Golbez and if not why not? If not, who was it, the allies perhaps? Or someone else? MarkThomas 19:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't be catty, I participate even if it's not on the talk page. I will point out that I'm not the only one who disagrees with you, as well. Hitler did trigger the second world war - but the effects of the war in general should be confined to the article on the war, we should speak only directly of what Hitler did - he caused the war, his armies marched over Europe, he caused the Holocaust. We shouldn't say all effects of the whole war were because of this one man. --Golbez 20:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The article relates that 5 million people died, excluding the 6 million of the Jewish genocide, for a total of 11 million deaths - meaning more died during the Holocaust than by any other means. This is a specious understanding that, since Hitler never forced anyone to go to war against him [citing Dresden, as an example], any resulting deaths trying to stop him, should not be attributed to him. There is not one credible source of authority ever to know print that would be hoodwinked by such false numbers; no, not one. They would all show World War II deaths varying from a low of 30 million to a high of 60 millon, each not including the Holocaust's 6 million. Truth be told, should this article ever be burned to CD, showing 11 million deaths, the credibility of Wikipedia will be seriously compromised. It's the kind of feversih sophism that Herr H. Schicklgruber would be fondly proud. It's a thinking akin to believing that should police officers shoot an innocent bystander in the throws of a bank robbery untwisting, a jury is obliged to condemn the police, not the robber, for the death; afterall, the bank thiefs, themselves, didn't kill anybody - they just wanted the money. So then, if people died in stopping the advances of Hitler, what responsibility is that of his, afterall, it was their choice to suitup for war at Dresden, not his - he just wanted the land. Apparently, such mad fantasy of logic is not exclusive to those in our sanitariums, but, it should not be inclusive in an encyclopedia, and so much less so, among certain editors.Curiouscdngeorge 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Stating in the introduction that Hitler only had racial motives is insufficient. His motives were political, as well, as racist. The editorial decision to delete that he was politically ambitious must want to make Herr H. salute in his cremation.Curiouscdngeorge 01:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come to expect nothing better. --Golbez 03:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then, may I humbly suggest you seek higher expectations of yourself, maybe the quality of Wikipedia would appreciate it. Good luck, acknowledgment of one's failings is always the first step.Curiouscdngeorge 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Aren't all political leaders politically ambitious? Just as all trial lawyers (and editors of this talk page) are argumentative. Hardly needs stating in an already long intro.--Shtove 18:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Shtove, that may be true, but I think there are a few minor differences between Hitler's ambitions and say, Tony Blair's or even George Bush's. I don't think either of them seek global domination (at least not directly ;) ) and the extermination of several races of people (not to mention the eradication of political opposition). Parsecboy 19:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, all political leaders are politically ambitious and ego-driven [see contributions of certain editors to understand ego-driven], but stating it forthrightly clarifies that not all of Hitler's motives were racial {as is now stated and related in the article). Apart from his racist-driven destructive policies, he had political and fanciful hopes and plans for a thousand year reign of his aberrant Third Reich.Curiouscdngeorge 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Second World War resulted in devastation of Europe

Did the Second World War end in the devastation of much of Europe? And was this largely the result of Hitler's ambitions? Golbez disagrees - do other editors? I would argue that it's worth saying this, as the current paragraph lead, along with the above, seems to be almost dissasociated from the second world war and is factually innacurate too. MarkThomas 09:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It did, but this isn't about World War 2, it's about Hitler. --Golbez 19:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The unfolding of the Second World War was not event-for-event attributable, in each nuance, to that of Führer Schicklgruber - granted. However, a discussion of the war and Hitler, at times (read mostly), is the same discussion. For example, stating Paris fell under his command is a truth of the war and a truth of his biography; therefore, the fall of Paris rightly belongs in both articles. Likewise, stating much of Europe fell under his command, and the final destructive results of that command, belong to both articles. To discuss Hitler is to discuss, in part, his destructive legacy (meaning, as a minimum, the destruction of much of Europe). An editorial choice to keep that out of the article's biography is a sanitation of which only the Gestapo would approve. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

So, what about Josef Stalin? Does his "destructive legacy" in WWII belong in Hitler's biog?--Shtove 01:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Stalin (arguably a Hitler on steroids) committed purges of such obscene length and breadth - particularly against his own citizenry - that only his father, Satan [notice similar spelling], could attribute any merit. However, it was Hitler that initiated aggression against the Soviet Union [further evidence of Hitler's ambitions beyond racial motives]; it was the obligation of Stalin to install troops in its defense. To the degree that they were engaged in that defense is the degree to which loss is attributable to Hitler, not Stalin. Stalin's claim to "destructive legacy" fame is grounded in his actions before and after the war, largely, against his own. --Curiouscdngeorge 23:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that Adolf Hitler is confounded with the German State - "l'état c'est moi". This is a biog, but he wasn't an absolute monarch - there are no end of studies detailing the chaos of the German administraion in this period. So the intro should only refer to events for which AH was directly responsible.--Shtove 00:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Shtove for your contribution (it's humorous to see the Third Reich's Führer voicing French). His sole initial direct action for which he was directly responsible was the invasion of Poland. Are you suggesting all subsequent events, including the declarations of war from England, France, Canada, Australia, et al, do not merit mention in the bio intro because their decisions were not his direct responsibility ? The significance of Hitler is due to his inseparable identity with the state. With the death of President Hindenburg, August 2, 1939, the offices of the presidency and the chancellory were collapsed or folded into Hitler, as Führer, where loyalty was sworn directly to the Schicklgrubber, personally. He wasn't a crowned monarch, à la Napoléon, which came with it a certain decorum and obligations - he was more powerful and unrestrained than that [power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely]. --Curiouscdngeorge 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's despise of Christian values

It's clear to see Hitler claimed to be a Christian, but his brutal rule and oppression of millions of people indicates his narrow-minded belief on what's a Christian. In the years of world war II, Adolf Hitler started to speak out against Christianity in his private memoirs, and other close associates to heavily influence the hostility towards Christian morals and values. Today, most Nazi and WWII historians knew well on Alfred Rosenberg and SS head general Heinrich Himmler are adherents of occultism, "Aryan" theosophy and neopagan religions, plus Rosenberg and Himmler convinced most Nazis the Christian religion was of "Jewish origin" introduced from the holy land, where Jesus walked and the "son of god" due to his mother, the Virgin Mary was herself Jewish. The anti-Christian minority in the Nazi party warned Hitler on the "dangerous threat" of traditional mainstream Christianity has on the Nazi German empire. Here's an actual statement Hitler quoted about the far-reaching effect of Christian morality in his memoirs in the early 1940's.

The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths will crumble. All that’s left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity. Originally, religion was merely a prop for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It’s only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively...Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that’s why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline. - Adolph Hitler, June 1940 63.3.14.129 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized

I don't believe the bolded line below belongs in the article.

After the second refusal from the Academy of Arts, Hitler gradually ran out of money. By 1909, he sought refuge in a homeless shelter, and by the beginning of 1910 had settled permanently into a house for poor working men.

Hitler was actually taking some jew to his house and started raping them cause he was gay.

an active anti-Semite in Vienna, which had a large Jewish community, including many Orthodox Jews from Eastern Europe and where traditional religious —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thewoodshed (talk • contribs) 02:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

religion?

What religion was Adolf Hitler? 83.71.87.55 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the bleedin' article. Paul B 17:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still a good question. Hitler was born and baptized Roman Catholic. It might be argued that his practice of Catholicism in what would be considered a Christ-like manner was corrupted by a horrible childhood. Nonetheless, he considered his work in decrying the Jews his calling as the "…work of the Lord." In many ways his work in the name of the Lord is much like that of the KKK in America. He never left the [Catholic] Church and it never left him, in his own words to Gen. Engel: "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." Even Pope Pius XII remained neutral in attitude towards Hitler during the war, where he otherwise could well have been excommunicated. Interesting! Another author refered to his religion as "Hitler's Catholicism."--Magi Media 04:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have heard from Dr. Ervin a historian who studies the Holocaust that Hitler’s father was Jewish? - BigFrank100

Never heard of this...

This:

If you ask any taxi driver what they think of Adolf Hitler, they will always say the same thing: "He had the right idea, but he went too far."

...Sounds like vandalism to me. Source it before you put it back. David 01:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One testicle

This true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.151.136.197 (talk) 16:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Yawn. Almost certainly not. See Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. Paul B 16:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

On this front Paul, do we think it would be worth having a "Common myths about Hitler" section? Eg, that he was Jewish, had one ball, chewed carpets, watched porn films, was homosexual, survived the war, etc? For completeness, not because I believe any of them! MarkThomas 11:01, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The carpet chewing is merely a metaphor(as he went so mad when his so called generals backed out of military practices) he wenton all fours andhit and spat on the floor. Lol..that was useless information. The homosexual idea is as silly as the one testicle idea (seeing as neither Morrell or Stumpfegger mentioned it). Anyway, the article is god, Id rate it as close to featured article class.Not much could be added. Fethroesforia 22:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree it's all utter rubbish Fethroesforia (fun trying to spell that one!) but isn't at least some of it quite notable? The conspiracy theories regarding his ending for example...? MarkThomas 01:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, i agree to that. There aresomeweird things about it (like those specialpills he took, only two people took them, him..and a mystery gardener for Franco of spain after 1945!) anyway, yes, maybe a list of urban legends. Lol..my names the name ofa song..probably greek/latin mix..lol..i have to type it all the time. I always get it wrong:) Fethroesforia 17:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: regarding religion

Now I was going to make a change but decided to consult other editors on this page... based on the pages of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idi_Amin Idi Amin and Saddam Hussein I've noticed that it is a standard to put the 'dictators religion in their userbox so you can imagine I am surprised that Hitlers' religion isn't mentioned until roughly 10 paraghraphs lower (and of course in it's own box) so unless anyone has any objections I will list his religion in his 'box' to keep with the 'standard' M87 03:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What religion?--Shtove 00:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

He was born into a Catholic family so we should at least put Catholic or perhaps "Born into a Catholic family" Dappled Sage 03:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I think what religion he actually practiced is far more important, as far as an infobox is concerned, than what he was born and raised, which should be mentioned in the article. Parsecboy 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alternative lead sentences on numbers who died in Europe and why from Hitler's policies

We seem to have two contested portions of the introduction, one mainly favoured by Golbez and the other by me, with slight alterations and some support for each from other editors. Can we have other views on these please? Thanks.

The alternative sentence portions are:

either - (a) (my version - mentions overall ambitions and therefore global European figures of dead)

At its greatest extent, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe. It was eventually defeated, along with the other Axis Powers by the Allies. By the end of the war, Hitler's ambitions and racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 45 million people in Europe, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

or - (b) (Golbez version - removes overall ambition and therefore racial killing related figures of dead)

At its greatest extent, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe. It was eventually defeated, along with the other Axis Powers by the Allies. By the end of the war, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 11 million people, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

I think this is worth everyone deciding on, it's important to give the right introductory view on the range and extent of Hitler's impact. I personally feel that it's diminishing the description of that impact to limit it as in Golbez' version but want to get other views too and will listen. Thanks for your help. MarkThomas 19:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, neither way affects me. Though we should remember the english and french military have got away wirthout punishment the disgusting behaviour they showed in world war 2. (think of..the mass bombing of civilians in dresden) The commanders in charge were every bit as guilty as german war commanders. Many of whom merely fought battles, no genocide involved. Von Paulus, Zhukov, Rommel and Montgomery. All asguilty as each other. None are heroes,all are villains, tainted with the blood and deaths of millions. So..basically (after all that) the nazis killed millions, but so did the allies, often against civilians themselves. So Hitler policies killed 11million (im sure it tops thatmuch more because of operation barbossaand such else) I personally think the 45million version (yours) is more correct but could ideallydo with being padded out (though its a leadsentence so yours is best and is best unchanged) Fethroesforia 19:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I favour either By the end of the war, Hitler's ambitions and racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 45 million people in Europe, including some 11 million in what is now known as the Holocaust. or, if I were to pick between a and b only, I favour b. I dislike a for the reason that it omits all of the non-Jewish Holocaust deaths except insomuch as they are lumped in with military KIAs. Beobach972 04:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

For one, I think it's very poor form to pin all of the deaths in the European theater on Hitler. But far more important: the Holocaust happened independent of major war actions. Those people did not die because of war, but because of Hitler's final solution. That makes them exceptional and worthy of mention. We don't mention that 30 million people died on Hirohito's or Tojo's watch, or, for that matter, that 60 million died on Roosevelt's or Truman's watch. Not in their intros.

War deaths go along with the, well, war. He caused the war, but lots of other people and policies went into causing the destruction. What he did, was create the policies and give the orders that executed over 11 million "undesirables", and that exceptional aspect is what warrants mention on this particular introduction. World War II casualties in general go either in a section specifically on that war, or in an article specifically on that war. This introduction is specifically about Hitler, what he did, why he is notable - he is notable because he was president of Germany, because he caused WW2 in Europe, and because of the Holocaust. A lot of other people, however, are notable for causing the war dead. It's just piling on ... I don't want to say "blame" because he did cause the war, but keep it in perspective and realize, again, he was singularly responsible for the Holocaust, but he was not singularly responsible for, among other things, the Allied burning of Dresden, the Soviet invasion of Finland, or, for that matter, the Soviet invasion of Poland.

If you want to mention the 45 million, you'll have to do it independent of the holocaust. "By the end of the war, 45 million people were dead across Europe, and Hitler's racial policies ..." etc. I'm not saying I'll endorse this; I'm not saying I won't. I am saying, that's the next logical step. --Golbez 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I guess most of that 45 million comes out of Russia/Ukraine. Is Stalin worth mentioning in the intro to a Hitler biog?--Shtove 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point, no, he isn't. Nor would we mention the Holocaust in Stalin's introduction. --Golbez 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Golbez. Hitler is not personally responsible for all the death in the European theatre and trying to pin it all on him doesn't reflect well on Wikipedia.

-- nyenyec ☎ 03:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nowhere does it say or try to say that "Hitler was personally responsible" for the deaths and I think that is a straw man. The Golbez version also lists huge numbers of deaths - I assume Golbez and I are in agreement that Hitler did not run amok with a machine gun. :-) The point is about the overall consequences of Hitlerism and Hitler's ambitions and policies, which is very much to the point. How can an article about Adolf Hitler ignore these things? And in response to the Stalin point, of course, the Stalin article should and indeed does mention the "millions of deaths" (quote from the introduction section of that article) attributed to his policies. This discussion is about what types of deaths should be included as a result of Hitler's ambitions and policies. Golbez is arguing that this number is 11 (racial and political murder). I argue that it should be more like 45 (all types of war dead in Europe including European Russia). This is not to imply that Hitler is personally responsible for all that killing, but that it was his ambitions and policies that led to it. MarkThomas 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the intro confine itself to things for which he was personally responsible? It is a biog, after all.--Shtove 18:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying Hitler had no responsibility for World War 2? MarkThomas 19:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between "triggered", and "personally ordered"? He did not order America to invade Italy, nor did he order Stalin to invade Germany, nor America and Britain to invade Normandy. He caused World War II - he was not responsible for every death that happened in it. He did, however, personally order the Holocaust, and is directly responsible for that. The Holocaust was an extremely exceptional event and warrants mentioning; that is why we are mentioning death tolls, not to give a toll of what Hitler's war did, but to give a toll of what made him unique. --Golbez 19:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes Golbez, and I understand what you are seeking to achieve by distinguishing Hitler's racial crimes from the overall war, and I 100% agree that they are different and specially worthy of mention. I am also proposing that we indicate something in the introduction about the role Hitler's ambitions for German supremacy and Lebensraum had in provoking the second world war (which we currently have in the intro) and the impact that had - 50 million dead across Europe. I wonder Golbez if you suspect me of revisionism? Check out my views for example at World War 2 talk for evidence that I don't. That is not my motive. My POV is that Hitler caused World War 2 in Europe and we should say so. We should also discuss the racial mass-murder. MarkThomas 19:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see no problem with including a death toll for the war that Hitler initiated. His actions and policies make him at very least indirectly responsible for the 45 million killed during the war. Parsecboy 19:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Hitler should be held accountable for all of the deaths and to what degree is irrelevant. The fact is, Hitler initiated WWII, which caused the death of some 45 million people — the death toll should definitely be mentioned. — Dorvaq (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Would you accept a similar statement in the George W. Bush article's lead section about GWB and the Iraq War?

By the end of 2006 George W. Bush's policies had culminated in the killing of more than 100000 million people in Iraq and the imprisonment and torture of thousands of Iraq civilians.

Hitler was a an awful person. But there is no need to try to demonize him even further, since the facts speak for themselves. He is not personally responsible for the fire bombings of Germany, or the way Stalin conducted the war with complete disregard to the lives of his own people.

I don't see the Vietnam War death tolls in the lead sections of the Lyndon Johnson or the Richard Nixon articles either.

-- nyenyec ☎ 21:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually George W Bush comes close to saying just that - I quote from the article "Bush's policies regarding global terrorism and the war in Iraq met increasing criticism, with increasing demands within the United States in 2006 to set a timetable to withdraw troops from Iraq. Sectarian violence and political deadlock in Iraq at the end of 2006, after the deaths of more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers and an estimated 654,965 Iraqi deaths (according to a Lancet survey putting the number of deaths in a range of 392,979 to 942,636),[153][154] increased negative impressions of Bush's leadership and of the situation in Iraq." MarkThomas 23:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, the part that you quote is not in the lead section. I think that's a big difference. -- nyenyec ☎ 02:19, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I personally would be perfectly fine with such an addition to the George W. Bush article, as he is as responsible for those deaths as Hitler was for the deaths that resulted in the European theatre of WWII. No, he is not personally responsible for the firebombing of Dresden, but his policies created the state of war in which it occurred. Were it not for Hitler, Dresden would not have been firebombed. Parsecboy 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Playing the Dresden card is standard-issue for revisionists. Would like to remind editors (speaking as a British person) that the Germans first dropped more than 100,000 incendiaries on London alone, and devastated about 8 of our other cities. Yes, the bombing of Germany was awful, but it needs to be seen also in the context of a Nazi Germany that had proved extremely reluctant to surrender to the Allies and was fighting a bitter war and slaughtering people across Europe. In that picture, the aim of Britain and the Allies was to end the war as soon as possible and that often meant great brutality and great loss of civilian life. I don't defend Dresden but it is not a valid apology for Nazi terror. MarkThomas 23:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And you're playing the 'Playing the Dresden card' card. I remember Angus Deaton on TV describing the horror of Dresden as, 'The return match' - ho ho ho! Take a look at the centre of Southampton, and you can understand English bitterness. But citation of death tolls is a continuation of war - keep it to the particular battles/campaigns/policies that caused the deaths. It's not appropriate to a biog intro.--Shtove 00:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

MarkThomas, although I do agree with you on many points, you seem to see revisionism the minute someone disagrees with you on topics pertaining to WWII. Can we please steer away from accusing each other of such regardless of whether or not it's true? The accusations are getting old and add no value to the debate.

Anyhow, here is my proposed compromise:

At its greatest extent, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe. It was eventually defeated, along with the other Axis Powers by the Allies. By the end of the war, approximately 45 million people had lost thier lives in Europe while Hitler's ambitions and racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 11 million people, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

Again, the question of whether or not Hitler should be held accountable for those 45M people is a philosophical one and it will never be straight-out answered with unanimity. One could argue that the allies of WWI are responsible for the conditions they imposed on Germany after the first war seeing as WWII is sometimes seen as a continuation of WWI. That being said, another could further argue that the Black Hand are responsible since they are responsible for triggering the chain of events that led to the outbreak of WWI. I know this is far-fetched, but this is where the discussion is heading on the question of accountability. There are too many "what-if's" involved coupled with different perspectives.

Consider the following question; who's really responsible for the bombings on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Japan for being the agressor? The U.S. for using overkill measures? Perhaps even Einstein himself for his role in the development of the atom bomb? No, no, wait, it has to be Germany's fault again, seeing as Einstein urged the U.S. to study nuclear fission for military purposes amid fears the Nazis would do it first... no, no... that would make it Einstein's fault again... see where this is heading?

It's too difficult to establish Hitler's level of accountability for those 45 million deaths, but they should be mentioned while not being explicitly attributed to him. — Dorvaq (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't agree with all your points Dorvaq, but I like your sentence proposal. MarkThomas 15:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Dorvaq, your sentence proposal seems fine to me. You do make some good points about who/what caused WWII, etc. Parsecboy 15:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, here is the Dorvaq proposal typo-adjusted (:-)) and with correct links. If there are no further disagreements that can't be overcome with small adjustments I propose we post it soon.

At its greatest extent, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe. It was eventually defeated, along with the other Axis Powers by the Allies. By the end of the war, approximately 45 million people had lost their lives in Europe while Hitler's ambitions and racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 11 million people, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

Thanks. MarkThomas 09:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. Parsecboy 14:45, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Seems fine, except I'd put a full stop after "... lives in Europe ..." + I'd cut the "... ambitions and ..." phrase - reads awkwardly and maybe a bit weasely.--Shtove 20:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about like this?

At its greatest extent, Nazi Germany occupied most of Europe. It was eventually defeated, along with the other Axis Powers by the Allies. By the end of the war, approximately 45 million people had lost their lives in Europe and a combination of Hitler's ambitions, racial policies and Nazi programmes had culminated in the killing of approximately 11 million people, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust.

Final comments? MarkThomas 16:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

For readability, you should put the Axis Powers earlier. And the way you put it, it sounds like the 11 million is in addition to the 45 million. I would do:

At their greatest extent, Nazi Germany and its Axis Powers occupied most of Europe, but were eventually defeated by the Allies. By the end of the war, Hitler's racial policies had culminated in the killing of approximately 11 million people, including the genocide of some 6 million Jews, in what is now known as the Holocaust. In total, the war in Europe cost approximately 45 million people their lives.

I still hate this idea, by the way, but if you're going to butcher the intro you might as well do it right. --Golbez 17:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Say what you mean exactly Golbez - what do you hate, and which bit do you regard as butchering? MarkThomas 18:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been absolutely clear that I don't think we should mention the death toll of the entire war, just the Holocaust. --Golbez 19:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I think other editors are against you on that one. I just wondered if "butchering the article" meant something other than the death toll of the war issue. Thanks for the clarification. MarkThomas 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I can respect consensus but I don't have to be happy about it. ;) --Golbez 20:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

True, and I agree that this is the hardest part of editing on Wikipedia. Is there anything that might persuade you to a different viewpoint? MarkThomas 20:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: I still agree with Golbez on this one. -- nyenyec ☎ 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I like Golbez's version. And tend to agree that the war's death toll oughtn't to be included in the intro.--Shtove 10:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The article relates that 5 million people died, excluding the 6 million of the Jewish genocide, for a total of 11 million deaths - meaning more died during the Holocaust than by any other means. This is a specious understanding that, since Hitler never forced anyone to go to war against him [citing Dresden, as an example], any resulting deaths trying to stop him, should not be attributed to him. There is not one credible source of authority ever to know print that would be hoodwinked by such false numbers; no, not one. They would all show World War II deaths varying from a low of 30 million to a high of 60 millon, each not including the Holocaust's 6 million. Truth be told, should this article ever be burned to CD, showing 11 million deaths, the credibility of Wikipedia will be seriously compromised. It's the kind of feversih sophism that Herr H. Schicklgruber would be fondly proud. It's a thinking akin to believing that should police officers shoot an innocent bystander in the throws of a bank robbery untwisting, a jury is obliged to condemn the police, not the robber, for the death; afterall, the bank thiefs, themselves, didn't kill anybody - they just wanted the money. So then, if people died in stopping the advances of Hitler, what responsibility is that of his, afterall, it was their choice to suitup for war at Dresden, not his - he just wanted the land. Apparently, such mad fantasy of logic is not exclusive to those in our sanitariums, but, it should not be inclusive in an encyclopedia, and so much less so, among certain editors. -- Curiouscdngeorge 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The article has been amended and now reads that there were some 45 million deaths in the World War II theater, including 11 million from Herr H.'s racial policies (6 million Holocaust; 5 million other means). I'm curious as to what authoritative source supports a figure of 5 million, specifically attributable to racial policies. Hitler was a bastard of an off-the-scale range, and his racial purges were not confined to the Jews, but how was the five million number obtained? Thanks. --Curiouscdngeorge 02:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we do need an informed discussion on this point. The table on World War II casualties is perhaps something we can draw on. I have often heard the "11 million" figure but am not sure how accurate it is. Does anyone know a good independent and authoritative internet source for this? I guess the figure we are looking for is civilian non-Jewish victims of Nazi policies in Europe 1933-45 who were not killed by Allied bombing and general warfare. That might be a very difficult figure to arrive at. MarkThomas 22:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Chronological issue

This paragraph...

"Hitler began to claim the Jews were natural enemies of what he called the Aryan race. He held them responsible for Austria's crisis. He also identified certain forms of Socialism and especially Bolshevism, which had many Jews among its leaders, as Jewish movements, merging his anti-Semitism with anti-Marxism. Blaming Germany's military defeat on the 1917 Revolutions[citation needed], he considered Jews the culprit of Imperial Germany's military defeat and subsequent economic problems as well."

... appears before the section on WWI. This doesn't seem right to me. Pjbflynn 19:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Trivia - Paper Hanger?

"General George S. Patton referred to Hitler as "that paper-hanging son of a bitch!", after Hitler's habit of going over wall maps with his staff."

Is that actually accurate? To my knowledge the "Paper-hanging" reference is related to Hitler having been a painter and decorator in England. Of course I may be wrong, but that has always been my understanding of the phrase. Anyone have an original reference (either from Pattons lips, or otherwise) because this rings a little like trying to look into something a little too much.--Koncorde 00:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of variations of Patton's famous sayings around and it's difficult without doing proper research to determine which is right - I think one might have to go back to newspaper archives to find out. I am sure you are right that the "paper-hanging" refers to the widespread misbelief during the war that Hitler had been a house painter and decorator. I'm not sure what the origin of this misbelief was, perhaps some kind of British Intelligence inspired propaganda? It was believed in Europe, so much so that in a famous incident in France, a resistance hero in Normandy whose day job was a painter and decorator was nearly deported to the Gestapo for standing outside a Nazi HQ in his town and making painting gestures to the local Commandant - he had been trying to offer his services, and was taken to be insulting the Fuhrer. Hitler of course was a wannabee artistic painter, not a decorator. MarkThomas 09:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The claim that Hitler had been a "house painter" was common in the war and lasted long afterwards (there's a joke about Hitler being a better painter than Churchill in The Producers. "Churchill was a Rotten Painter!! Hitler: there was a painter! He could do an entire flat in one afternoon, Two Coats!"). Of course he only painted pictures of houses. He was never in England, unless one accepts Bridget Hitler's implausible claim that he visted her in Liverpool as a child. Paul B 09:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I hate Hitler but he was a very good leader

Just a little trivia to add to this section... also in "The Producers", during the play, one of Roger's (who played Hitler) lines says "I was just a paper-hanger..." WikiScott 9:12, 18 Febuary 2007 (UTC)

Hitler_ueber_Deutschland_1932.jpg

• Blurb on the image dismissing copyright- Copyright has expired; image is over 67 years old and published before 1964 (subject died in 1945)

To deal with the label and description of the image first; this image appears on the front cover of Ian Kershaw's Hitler Vol.II Penguin (2000). Kershaw indicates that copyright of the image is Walter Frentz/Ullstein Bilderdienst.

• Kershaw places the photo circa 1942-43 making the blurb "Hitler over Germany. Political campaign by aircraft" also puzzling.

While its possible Kershaw is horribly wrong on attributing this image to Frentz, some confirmation of it being taken by Heinrich Hoffmann (Munich), 1932 is needed.

Dealing with the copyright dismissal above; some confirmation from wikipedos familiar with Fair Use doctrine would be helpful. Is it generally permitted that an article should allow multiple images of the same object- Hitler when each image in question uses the tag Fair Use? There are multiple copyrighted images of Hitler in the article, with dog, exiting brown house, in mountains, with Raeder, with Ion Antonescu, and on plane but all alongside uncopyrighted images of the same object- Hitler. Fair use:

"[T]he image or content can only be used if it is not replaceable with a free content image of equal or better quality"

"No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information"

"The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible"

"As a quick test, ask yourself: 'Can this image be replaced by a different one, while still having the same effect?' If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above and should not be used." Wikipedia:Fair_use

While the Fair use tag on the images in question are marked as not meeting Fair use criteria the blurb which outlines when such images can be used states:

"To illustrate the object in question"

"Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information"

When there are already free images illustrating the object- Hitler, how can all the copyrighted ones claim a Fair use defense? Theyre all of the same person doing pretty much the same thing- how many times does the object need to be illustrated? Another problem is the use of the dubious "copyright expired" tag. In the image with that tag no rationale explaining why the uploader thinks copyright is expired is made. The similar claim of "copyright was never claimed and will not be claimed according to german law" which appears on at least one image is also dubious and unexplained. Following the link, it is explained by the person who originally came up with the theory that he got it all wrong the correct policy is outlined at WP:PD#World_War_II_images. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.29.229.254 (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

The image was added by an editor who was preoccupied by colour photos of Nazis, uploading a great many. I quite like the informal quality of the image, but I guess rules is rules. Paul B 16:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The user in question (Smith2006) has edited the image rationale (but not the attributed photographer)[5] to now read:

"Rationale for Fair Use: Non-replacable. No-uncopyrighted version to be found online. Probably no copyright at all, but still for necessary protection. Necessary for illustration of subject."

Non-replacable - free images of the object- Hitler exist in article already

No-uncopyrighted version to be found online - so? it is copyrighted as both Kershaw & WP:PD#World_War_II_images point out. When uncopyrighted images of the object exist then using copyrighted images of the object under Fair use isnt applicable.

Probably no copyright at all, but still for necessary protection - i've given you cited copyright information you've ignored this and failed to cite a source for the information you gave

Necessary for illustration of subject- free images of Hitler exist in the article already

I will begin labelling these as copyvios as this issue has come up before, a German company has previously threatened legal action against Wikipedia for hosting Copyrighted images taken by Frentz which it owns [6]

82.29.229.254 19:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone might add the necessary tags to the images in the article per Blondi. Making the detail below a 'sticky' along with WP:PD#World_War_II_images on this article might avoid all this in the future. It says that all Nazi WW2 photo are copyrighted material, therefore doubling and tripling up on images of the same in an article will not be possible as FairUse (is thought to) allow for 1 image to illustrate the object where no other uncopyrighted image exists. I dont think that wiki will want to test parameter of FairUse in court.

"As I was asked for a comment here some backgrounds: As far as I can remember this image is a black and white version of a color picture and the original images has been taken by a photographer called Walter Frentz (see de:Walter Frentz, he died in 2004) and the image is still copyrighted (there were lawsuit in Germany that back Frentz' and his sucessors' claims against claims that the images are public domain per se or in property of Germany). The copyright (or better to speak with the terms of continental european authorship right: all exclusive usage rights) of virtually all existing color images of Hitler has been waved by Frentz to Ullstein Bild, a stock image agency agressively pursuing its rights. More than a year ago, we had a brief contact with them (found an archive entry at [7], see my comment a little bit down in the thread, ok it's all written in German... There is also an entry in the Wikimedia-OTRS I could search for). They demanded from us (German language Wikipedia in particular) removing all their images from all Wikipedias within a short timeframe as they otherwise would take legal action. We thatfor removed/urged people to remove the pictures in every local community, which was achieved after a day or so. So we luckily were able to avert the legal action by Ullstein. So in any case this image needs to be deleted in order to avoid any trouble and if you happen to find a Hitler image in color somewhere in Wikipedia please take a deep look if it is really legal and if not place it asap on deletion candidates. Arnomane 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: German WW-2 images never were in the public domain in general. If you can identify the photographer traditional copyright applies in any case. Arnomane 09:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[8]