Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Mustard gas or White star?

I was under the impression that Hitler was actually blinded by White star (50/50 Chlorine and Phosgene) despite falsely claiming Yellow-cross (Mustard) gas in Mein Kamph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.183.177 (talk • contribs)

The current picture of Adolf Hitler.

I think there are way better pictures of AH than the current one that is depicting AH in an awkward pose but also making him look somewhat of a mad man. Not saying that he wasn't, but one shouldn't be able to draw such a conclusion from looking at the picture.

What's wrong with just having a neutral looking picture, like this as an example: http://proveniens.ifokus.se/Sites/c80ff87d-4498-4973-b3fe-13aeef924297/Svena5.jpg but with AH looking older and thus being more recent.

Opinions?

SwedishPsycho 03:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree totally. It is often possible to find an unflattering picture of a given public figure, but it proves nothing. People's conclusions should be drawn from the facts that we present — not from the picture, as you say. How about commons:Image:Adolf Hitler.jpg? — Alan^✉ 11:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Face it, Hitler ALWAYS looks like a madman, because he WAS!!! Lotrtkdchic 18:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

People reading the introductory section can already draw their own conclusions from the millions who perished as a result of war and genocide. The picture adds nothing serious, and I'm going to change it. — Alan^✉ 10:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it, but it seemed to come up as a link rather than an inline picture. I don't know why. Some technical assistance would be appreciated. — Alan^✉ 10:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ach, ze prezent picture is so luverly. I luv zeeing ze fuhrer again, in zis, von of hiz most famuz postures. Heil Seig! A tear coursed down my cheek vhen I remembered how marvellous it voz to be listening to him at ze rally. Ach, nein, nein, enough, I cannot speak. MarkThomas 16:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hahahahaha that made me crack up MarkThomas!!! Nein danke SwedishPsycho!!!! Dis new picture is muuuch less flatterung zan ze last posture!!! Perhaps ve caan cum to an agreenment...lol Lotrtkdchic 14:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

mein gott!! ok, ok this is kind of weird and offensive(above) but oh well, very funny. seig heilEddisford 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opnion Hilter was a great leader. (or atleast could have been) He could have taken his advantage of the people following him and turned it into something good. I think it was good that he started a genocide. Not because i dislike the Jewish religion, but because if he hadn't it could happening in our society today. I also believe that another genocide will scome if we don't rember the last one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.243.156.74 (talk • contribs)

I agree...our world will fall soon. The End is near. Know where you are going to end up... User:Lotrtkdchic 19:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackrobinson9517 (talk • contribs)

In case this deabte is still going, how 'bout this one? It's got more detail in the face, and if there's a seirous debate about how it portrays him, the shadow does make him look a bit ominous... --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put up a new, better quality image, it doesnt have the swastika or the military uniform that Hitler really didnt deserve to wear. Gavin Scott 11:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no law anywhere that I'm aware of against swastikas appearing in historical images. Even German Wikipedia has Nazi swastikas on its swastika page. We can't make judgements about what uniforms he "deserved" to wear as head of state. Paul B 11:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of any such law either, and any such law, if it exists, probably only applies in real-world, public places -- not the internet. Plus, Gavin, I respect your ideological reasons, which are presumably to draw respect away from Hitler, but think of it another way: It might be important to depict Hitler, the swastika, and the uniform, to illustrate how the three elements relate to each other — so that in the real world, when people see a group touting the swastika, or a national leader who regularly wears a military uniform, the warning light in their brains might activate. If I can be allowed to stray from NPOV for a moment, rarely has anything good come of any of those elements throughout history.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

11:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

{{helpme}} Hello, I just was looking at the recent changes and noticed this page had been changed. Somehow, I suspected vandalism, so I looked into it. Surely enough, I was correct.
Could an admin please assist me in reverting the page? Thanks a lot. Curran (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it's very sad how these pukes and jokers find the motivation to vandalise and ridicule on the historical record of a subject who stood out above all men or his era for the virtues of his energetic statesmanship, political cunning, self-determination and ideological commitment. It's called getting up by tearing others down - and inevitably choosing those others who aren't in a position to respond. For sure such elements need to learn a few lessons from what the subject did to effect the transformation and revival of his culture and his nation in the 1930s. It starts with having a Vision, a Purpose and a Plan. Add to that at least a concept of personal honour, self-respect and principled initiative ... all sorely lacking in their own demonstrations. NI4D 19:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think Hitler is one of the worst people that ever lived. The only reason I brought attention to the vandalism is simply out of pride for Wikipedia, and that I don't believe in vandalism of any kind on here, whether I get a kick out of it or not. Curran (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

His vision, purpose, and plan were to kill lots of people. To that end he sure did stand out in self-determination and ideological commitment, the same as a successful terrorist organization or serial killer would. Your argument defends the ends justifying the means, so if you're saying we need to "learn a few lessons" from people who have such aspirations, use these methods, and defend their actions in a similar way, then I sincerely hope that's a lesson ignored by the vast majority of the world, as it would lead to nothing but people striving for personal honor by killing off anyone who they perceive as standing in their way. As for self-respect, I don't think people who respect themselves kill themselves. You seem to hail principled initiative as something to aspire to in and of itself, regardless of the goal of that initiative. If the initiative were to kill you, then I don't think you would promote it. Initiative alone is not a reason to respect a person.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

11:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think, NI4D, that your attempt at glorifying Hitler is far more pathetic than a bout of vandalism. Hitler was one of the worse kinds of evil's to have walked the Earth. Any kind of hate he gets is less. I personally think that he should be condemned in everyway and form. I hope he's suffering the worst kind of eternal torture in hell along with you, ya nazi bastard.. --- Da Main Event

No personal attacks, please --h2g2bob (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Strange intro

Adolf Hitler (listen (help·info); April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was the German Chancellor (Reichskanzler) from 1933 until his death, and, from 1934 until his death, he was the Führer ("Leader") of Germany. Unofficially he was known as the "German dictator" during most of the same period that he was Chancellor and Leader of Germany.

The intro says that he was The Fuehrer and was referred to as "the German dictator". Isn't it more accurate to say that he was the German dictator (compare Stalin, who gets the same description in his intro) and he was referred to as The Fuehrer (regardlesss of what his "fuehrership" meant in practice)? --91.148.159.4 22:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It is POV and unacceptable to say that he was 'the German dictator'. Think about it this way: did HE ever represent that or did the Nazi state? No. He operated within a system of responsibilities and constitutionalism (with some suspensions in effect from the incident of the burning of the Reichstag). So giving due credit to official stylings he was the German Fuhrer and Reichschancellor although 'referred to' (by some, outside Germany) as "the German dictator", but more frequently simply as Germany's 'Head of State','Fuhrer', 'President', or 'President and Chancellor'.

From another perspective and to aid better understanding of this important point if I were to say "George W Bush is the 'dictator of America' but known as 'President of the USA'", then you'd know I was being POV and deliberately an ass who puts facts in the backseat to propaganda and a personal agenda or mischaracterisation/misrepresentation. Wouldn't you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by CreditToGreatness (talk • contribs)

Any mainstream historian would agree that he was a dictator, unlike the case of Dubya. You seem to espouse a fringe pro-Nazi view. --91.148.159.4 13:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If his official title wasn't "Dictator" the article shouldn't state that it was. It should state what his title and office was. "Dictator" has come to mean "tyrannical autocrat", it is a judgement not an office or a title and any judgement is POV, no matter whether one agrees or not. Let's not be too jumpy and look for Nazis all around us eh? Lucius Domitius 01:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No. Dictator has a very objective meaning, namely, more or less, "an absolutist or autocratic ruler who assumes sole power over the state". Hitler was one, just as Stalin was one, despite and quite apart from the offices that they formally held; BTW, unlike Stalin, Hitler would have been proud to admit he was a dictator, as would all of his followers and even many of his Western sympathizers; that was part of the essence of his ideology. The only reason why "dictator" may sound like an offense today is because the generally accepted view today is that democracy is a good thing and dictatorship is a bad thing. And it should be obvious to anyone that the statement of CreditToGreatness was as absurdly pro-Nazi as to verge on trolling. --91.148.159.4 12:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The intro as it stands right now is both misleading, and grammatically incorrect. For example,

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

The last sentence makes it sound like Germany annexed Austria and "the Czech lands" and invaded Poland, all at once, starting WWII. This article is supposed to be imparting information, not speaking to an audience that already knows what happened and has the knowledge to parse this sentence into what it really meant to say. Further, one does not start sentences with "This" and then leave it to the reader to guess what it refers to. Drogo Underburrow 06:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the passage waas very confusing, and the phrase "the Czech lands" seems like a Czech nationalist formulation to avoid referring to Czechoslovakia. As for 'dictator', that's a fairly straightforard description of his political function. It's not a technical term in the sense that it is used in the history of Rome, just a descriptive one. Paul B 10:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Psychology

Hey. In the second paragraph, wouldn't it be better to say that he appealed to the economic and psychological needs...? Mentioning only the economic thing jumped out at me as looking like it was missing something. - Electric Larry

Failed GA

I've (quick) failed this article, as it has multiple {{fact}} tags and the "Health and sexuality" section has an unreferenced tag. The article itself also needs trimming - 105kb is way too long for a biography. CloudNine 11:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Führer und Reichskanzler

A small point, but is the 'und' in 'Führer und Reichskanzler' really correct here? If that was his formal title, then fine, but if he had two separate titles they should surely be separated by 'and' in an English article. Very possibly a rookie question... 81.151.33.104 17:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It is correct when we refer to his formal title after Hitler's accession as head of state (after Hindenburg's death). Note that he in fact combined the powers of three positions: Führer of the NSDAP, Chancellor and President, though formally the office of President was declared held up (supposedly to honour Hindenburg, but actually more because a) one could not hold both offices according to the constitution, b) a President would have to stand for reelection after seven years while the Chancellor could hold office indefinitely. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can truly say I learned something today! Thanks! :-) Vacant Stare 19:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's appointment as Chancellor

This is also just a small point, but General Von Blomberg was in effect a Nazi. Though this alliegance was unofficial and by implication, secret, it was still very tangible and may be worth noting.

Nonsense is not worth noting. Good day, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Eduard Bloch

Why no mention of Hitler's only Edeljude...noble Jew...Eduard Bloch? SmUX 15:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegetarianism

Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, the whole thing was invented by his press or whatever, although he was told by his doctor to have a vegetarian diet for a cure for chronic flatulence. Just thought I should clarify... Dungeonmaster 18:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Saying that "Hitler was a vegetarian beginning in the early 1930s until his death (although his actual dietary habits appear inconsistent and are sometimes hotly disputed)" is sort of meaningless. If he ate meat semiregularly than he wasn't a vegetarian. --P4k 18:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean I guess this isn't an issue that matters to anyone other than a few vegetarians, but some more clarity would be nice. --P4k 18:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

See Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. Paul B 18:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It's nice that a more accurate article exists, but that doesn't really solve the problem with this one. --P4k 18:39, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If there are any. We can't go into details of every argument. He described himself as a vegetarian. He was a vegetarian most of the time in practice. It's not clear whether any lapses - if that's what they were - were intentional on his part or a result of chefs sneaking meat products into his diet, or mistakes in statements by sources. What is clear is that the "chronic flatulence" explanation above is simply silly derogatoriness. Paul B 18:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also several categories of vegetarians, ranging from Vegans, to those who merely don't eat red meat, but will still eat poultry and fish. If you wish to further clarify the section, go ahead and be bold. Parsecboy 18:50, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I should have just changed it in the first place. Paul B, I'm sorry for being rude. --P4k 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not wishing to enter into any form of disputatious contumely with DUNGEONMASTER, but it is definitively documented that after the death of Hitlers Neice, Geli Raubel, he nevber touched meat again in this life. His personal cook, Constance Manzialy, who was with him until the end in the bunker, clarified his dietary preferences in depth after the war. In short, it is beyond doubt that Hitler was indeed a Vegetarian. (ie: Not eating meat). BAZKEIRA

IPA

Could someone possibly put Adolf's name in IPA. I would do it, but I'm not 100% sure of the German pronunciation. -- Nodoubt9203 02:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

I found the following [1] from a reputable historian, PaulB thinks it is "utterly silly" [2] and contains a misleading use of "concentration camp". This is in fact where the term concentration came came from, and this historian thinks this is relevant to Hitler's failure in school, and I think it is quite an interesting and relevant fact about him. I would think that any further understanding of what formed this man's mind would be important and it really does seem to relate to, or at least offer an interesting comparison with, his later thinking and acts. At any rate, I'll submit this for the review of usual editors of this article. I'm not going to get into a dispute over it. Just thought it was interesting.

Part of the explanation for his declining performance in school may have been that Hitler was no longer respected as a leader among the students. Hitler had liked to re-enact battles with his fellow classmates, particularly those of the Boer War. His favorite scenario was playing the role of a commando rescuing Boers from the English concentration camps.

Respectfully -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 11:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two separate sentences here. One says he wasn't respected. The other says he liked to reenact battles. There is no obvious connection between them. Is the author saying that fellow students did not respect battle reeanactments? Perhaps his fellow students were pro-British and did not "respect" imaginary Boer commandoes. As far as I can see these are simply two loosely linked comments about Hitler's school days, not a cause-and-effect. There is simply no good reason to include what games Hitler liked to play as a child. Paul B 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right that the author didn't intend to link his decline in popularity with his withdrawl from school, I just read that as part of a list of the reasons why. At any rate, isn't it interesting to know that his favorite game related to saving people (presumably women and children) from concentration camps? It's totally up to the editors of this article; I don't have any strong opinion about it, I just felt it was a curious piece of his story. -- fourdee ᛇᚹᛟ 23:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and Christianity

Hitler was vehemently opposed to Christianity. He hated it for its Jewish origins. He was instead a sort of Teutonic pagan, propagated by Rosenburg. Please change the section about Hitler's religion as it is misguiding and leads to people (cough* Dawkins*cough) claiming Hitler to be a Catholic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.240.34.98 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 21 June 2007.

He was a Catholic, but then again, so was Mussolini - and Al Capone for that matter. It doesn't mean anything much. Paul B 21:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, not again. Hitler was raised a Catholic but as an adult life he was no Catholic in any meaningful sense - neither were Mussolini or (I guess) Al Capone. But neither was Hitler an adherent to Rosenberg, whose blurps he privately ridiculed. No need to stir up this issue again. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Str, a "Catholic" is one who is a member of that religion. It has nothing to do with beliefs of that person. A person can believe anything he likes and be a Catholic, the Church considers people as Catholics when they have been confirmed Catholics, which Hitler was, regardless of what they later believe, or even do. Even being excuminicated doesn't make them not a Catholic, it simply seperates them frome the church in certain ways. Hitler was a Catholic, this is a simple factual statement. We have been through this before, and the fact that you try to make being "Catholic" mean something other than a person is a member of that religion breeds endless arguments. I wish you would stop. - Drogo Underburrow 22:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, Drogo. Of all religions in the world, it is Catholicism where most certainly not everyone can believe what they like.

For the record: we are here talking about the everyday meaning of Catholic and according to this you can very well go from being a Catholic to being something else. As for the Church's position (which requires much theological knowledge) you even got this wrong: a Christian becomes a Christian fully by baptism (or in a way already by requesting it) and if that happens in the CC the person is a Catholic. A Christian cannot go back to being a non-Christian, he can only go forth to being an apostate. Of course, he can become a non-Catholic. A Catholic is someone who is in fully communion with the Catholic Church. Would you add Martin Luther's religion as Catholic in a user box? He certainly did not die a Catholic. Would you classify a Catholic who became a Buddhist as Catholic? Would you classify all infants as Muslim because Islam thinks so?

In any case, I have discussed real arguments and your pseudo-arguments bazillion times and I have no intention of going into your discussion again. It is your pseudo-arguments that make Catholic mean something different from an adherent to Catholicism. I wish you would stop. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Being a Catholic "has nothing to do with beliefs of that person."

"A person can believe anything he likes and be a Catholic."

I'm speechless! ElinorD (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Both sides make this way too much of an issue. Hitler was a Catholic in the sense that he was a member of the church, like lots of people who are nominally members of the religion in which they were brought up. We don't have a problem saying that in most cases - even with notorious criminals. His private views are difficult to be clear about, but certainly towards the end of the war they seem to have become strongly anti-Church. As for Mussolini, his personal views are unclear, but his policies were strongly pro-Church, for political rather than theological reasons (since he wished to create a unified Italian culture). Al Capone probably just didn't think about it much. Paul B 16:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if my reply seemed too harsh but to see the same stuff rehashed again and again without any argument after a pause of a year ...

The difference between a normal criminal like Al Capone and Hitler is that the latter had his religious, theological disagreements with the Church, whereas the former simply was a criminal, who, as Paul says, didn't think about such things much.

As for Mussolini (off topic here), his policies were not "strongly pro-Church". Sure he signed the Lateran Treaties but that's about it. All this in a deeply Catholic country like Italy. IMHO.

But the point is that we shouldn't be listening to the same old content-empty arguments put forth by Drogo. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This year anniversy just wouldnt be the same without me joinining the debate again. Ah, the nostalgic value. Some issues just never get settled, do they? I think we need to take a complex view of Hitler's being or not being a Catholic, and in so doing the solution is rather simple. In some ways he was, by some standards, and by other standards he falls short. The problem is that, right or wrong, there is no one standard, and we can't dismiss the individuals own testimony about his or her own adherence to a religion. So, that means if Hitler said he is Catholic, and forever would be, then by that (perfectly legitimate standard), one can say he is Catholic. However, others will point out beliefs that may violate some core tenents and say, he is Catholic in name only. Not a true Catholic. The problem with this is that its like the True Scottsman fallacy, and its applying a strict standard (most adherents, even Catholics, do not beleive the things the Church says they are supposed to believe in, or do the things they say they are supposed to to, i.e. not use birth control, etc)--yet they are still recognized as Catholics. I think the solution is to not make any claims ourselves but just report the facts, what sources say. Its what we are supposed to do anyway. We can quote Hitler himself, report what he says about the question, and report what relevant authorities say about the question. Let the reader decide how much of a Catholic, or lackthereof, Mr. Hitler in fact was (or was not). I think this is a reasonable approach.Giovanni33 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hitler used Religion, like many before and after him, to justify his brutal policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.107.226.20 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 June 2007.

'Neither of the denominations - Catholic or Protestant, they are both the same - has any future left... That won't stop me stamping out Christianity in Germany root and branch. One is either a German or a Christian. You can't be both.' - Hitler 1933 I found the quote in a history text book by Geoff Layton. Indeed if you looked in any decent book about Hitler then you would notice his anti religious, and specifically anti Christian, views. You want further evidence? His closure of Church schools, undermining Catholic youth groups, campaigns to discredit and harass clergy. One of the basic tenants of Nazism is anti-Semitism. Jesus was a Jew. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.145.195 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 26 June 2007.

We have no idea whether or not Hitler actually said that. It comes from Hermann Rauschning's book Hitler Speaks, which was written in 1939 as an anti-Nazi tract based on what Rauschning claims he remembered Hitler saying. Rauschning was a former Nazi turned anti-Nazi. A lot of it is widely believed to be totally made up. The problem is that a lot of "Hilter said" quotes come from unreliable and biassed commentators. That's not to say it's not true, just that we can really be sure. Even if it is true, it's difficult to know what it means about H's real opinions. Hitler lied to people all the time. He said what he thought would go down well with the person he was talking to. BTW, according to Hitler Jesus wasn't a Jew, he was an "Aryan" Celt (or at least that's what Bormann says Hitler said...) Paul B 11:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hitler is Catholic by baptism, and Christian by his beliefs (see Positive Christianity), and not pagan or atheist, like so many people prefer to think... In fact, there is not really other reason of Hitler hating Jews so much besides his fundamentalistic Christian beliefs.SSPecter ^☎|✉ ♠ _{14:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)}.

Shitler

I notice that Shitler redirects to Hitler, even though it should be a separate article, as it is the, (perhaps colloquially), used historical term for Hitler's alleged faecal fetish behaviours (involving glass tables and women). If it remains as a redirection, these details should be added to the main article by someone who won't just make it an immature anti-Nazi rant. IamYossarian 17:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually on closer inspection, 'Shitler' should redirect to the article about Hitler's sexuality, which does in fact note his Shitlerism.IamYossarian 17:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Having to source "Hitler = evil"

Would Rotten.com's biography on Hitler be enough of a source for this statement?:

"Since the defeat of Germany in World War II, Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as synonymous with evil."

Would additional sources be required to back this up? Is Rotten.com even considered a reliable source in this aspect? I thought I'd mention it as I saw they used it on Shoko Asahara. If consensus calls it unreliable, I'll try to remember to remove the statement from there or add a verification tag. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 04:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That quote in my opinion is flawed by itself with the phrase "Since the defeat...", seems like a form of Victor's justice. Granted, killing million's goes beyond most people's moral codes, I think stating that he is evil may make it drift from the NPOV. I'm not trying to completly destroy your opinions, in case my post seems that way. --GTPoompt(talk) 20:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not my statement. Nevertheless, it does seem somewhat relevant, as only after the war did all the evidence of the Holocaust reach the general public outside Germany. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Stating something as evil (or good, for that matter) is undeniably POV. Not everyone cares about morals, or is bound by them. 80.201.181.105 09:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you discuss Hitler without mentioning evil you've missed his essence.Rexroad 18:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still POV to say that he's evil without a source to back it up. I'm sure there are plenty of skinheads who think Hitler was the best thing since sliced bread. Or ask old Ahmadinejad over in Iran. Parsecboy 19:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be POV to say that Hitler (or Stalin) is one of the worst mass murderers in history? It just seems to me that one doesn't need a source to assert that mass murder is evil, and that therefore its perpetrators are evil. If Hitler wasn't evil, then the word evil has no meaning. Rexroad 17:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered that the word evil might very well have a meaning so drenched with POV (possibly the most POVd word ever) that it cannot be used in articles outside the field of morals, and maybe theology?--SidiLemine 12:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The page isn't calling him evil. It's just everyone thinks he's evil. All I wanted was information on a source... --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

SidiLemine makes a good point. The word evil is overused. But somehow, it seems to me, Hitler and the nazi racial project require condemnation. I applaud the general goal of avoiding POV. But is it a good idea vis-a-vis Hitler? The page, as Lenin and McCarthy says, is only saying that everyoen thinks Hitler is evil. I think the page should address the concept of evil vis-a-vis Hitler directly. Rexroad 15:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this mean the word, "evil", would be used? 'Cause I agree with SidiLemine — and I might even disagree with the notion that Hitler is evil. Evil is an absolute, unquestionable description of what constitutes "bad". "What is bad," though, will always be a matter of opinion, albeit a massively-agreed-upon one — that is, unless we bring god into the picture. That's the only way there can be an unquestionable definition of bad. So, mention of evil means mention of god, of which I don't have to illustrate the inherent problem. I myself don't like the guy, he killed lots of people, and furthermore I think that if you disagree that he was bad then there must be something wrong with you — but I realize that this is only my opinion, which in the grand scheme of things means nothing, and the fact that nearly everyone agrees with me means little more, at least in the context of justifying its inclusion in an encyclopedia article. I also don't believe in god, therefore I don't believe in evil. But that having been said I think we can mention the fact that most people think he was evil, as long as we have a good statistical source on that.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

15:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The German Church

If Hitler hadn't burnt down the German Church, a family (Strodes, Pesolds, Ancels, and soooo....many more) would have been living in a German Castle, and be very rich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.16.146.193 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 23 June 2007.

Err, what??? Paul B 21:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Any sources to support this fact? Xach 22:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Appearance?

Perhaps there could be a section on Hitler's appearance, i.e. his square moustache, his hairstyle and the fact that they were both popular styles in Germany at the time? Also, it is relatively known that he wore glasses when he needed to, but never in public as he feared it would affect his image. This could be mentioned. Another thing is that Hitler would abandon his brown military uniform in favour of a suit when around the Conservatives he had to work with early in his 'political' career in the Reichstag; not even a swastika could be seen on him, obviously because he wanted to downplay anything he felt the Conservatives could feel threatened by. Perhaps this could be mentioned? Crazy Eddy 23:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Potential for image abuse today...

Today's Candorville comic ([3]) shows a page similar to this one with Hitler's image replaced by a picture of one of the comic's characters. If the images aren't already protected, perhaps today is a good day for at least a temporary protection (much like is done when articles are featured on the Main page). Slambo (Speak) 13:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

This nice image should be included.

"Memoirs" reference a little TOO neutral?

A small, but I think meaningful, point on meaning.

On this page, the first reference to Mein Kampf as Hitler's "memoirs," seems both over-mild and helplessly inaccurate. Written by Hitler in 1924, as he served time in prison for his failed attempt to overthrow the elected government of Germany, Mein Kampf was a mixture of autobiography, self-justification, propaganda, racist screed, and a blueprint for Hitler's eventual SUCCESSFUL takeover of the German instruments of governing. As Hitler's declaration of his personal and poilitical philosophy, the book took on a life of its own, both to its adherents and those who rejected its nationalist and racial messages.

Lastly, the worst acts for which Hitler would eventually become infamous had yet to happen when he wrote Mein Kampf at the age of 35, which also challenges the accuracy of calling it his "memoirs." Shlimozzle 16:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the fact that somebody does stuff after writing their memoirs disqualifies said memoirs from being memoirs. Certainly Mein Kampf is more than just a memoir, but it is a memoir, among other things. john k 00:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

FA

I think that this should be an FA, mayb that's just me. Richardkselby 03:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is still a long way away. A lot of referencing needs to be done, and then we might have a good shot at GA. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Trimming is in order too.--SidiLemine 12:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

please, somebody tell me . was Hitler left-hander?

please, somebody tell me . was Hitler left-hander? there are not photos, but many people say it.82.198.35.78 06:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There are actually several photos depicting Hitler signing documents. He uses his right hand. [4] [5] [6] Paul B 12:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Observations

About 50% of the article has little to do with Hitler. This is supposed to be a biographical entry. Instead of information about Hitler's personality, we read the concise history of the Third Reich, with allusions to the Guernica painting, Operation Husky, and whatnot. The WWII section is a joke, conveniently forgetting that 80% of the Wehrmacht was destroyed by the Soviets and dismissing the Eastern front as a sideshow. Instead of that, Hitler's health is discussed, although we have a separate sections about that. Briefly put, the article needs attention of an experienced wikipedian. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Elected?

Copied from WP:RD/H for further processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A word or two of clarification in relation to to the truly absurd contention that Hitler was not 'technically' a dictator 'as he was elected into office democratically'. Dictatorship is a form of political practice. I know of nothing in theory or example that proves dictatorship and democracy to be mutually exclusive; dictatorships can, and have, emerged through the ballot box. Second, as the contention that Hitler was 'democratically' elected tends to appear from time time, I would like to add some more data in support of Lambiam's rebuttal. At its electoral peak the NSDAP obtained 37.4% of the popular vote in Germany. By November 1932, the last free election to the Reichstag, this had declined to 33.1%. So, even at their most popular the Nazis failed to impress 62.6% of the electorate, and they never achieved a majority in the Reichstag. As Lambian says, Hitler was appointed Chancellor by some shady political manoeuvring amongst the cabal surrounding President Hindenburg. More than that, he was appointed precisely because the NSDAP was showing signs of serious electoral decline. The fear shared by Franz von Papen and his reactionary clique, the real power brokers in January 1933, was that former Nazi voters would move en mass to the Communists, a fear given some support in the November elections, which saw the KPD gaining ground, just as the Nazis lost. So, please, please, no more 'Hitler was elected' rubbish. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"the weakest leader Germany has known this century"?

Copied from WP:RD/H for further processing. --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Was Hitler a weak dictator? This has been the subject of detailed scholarly debate, and is by no means easy to answer. Hitler's style of dictatorship was so different from, say, that of Stalin or Mussolini in a way that makes comparison all but impossible. For one thing he was personally lazy, a vice for which he had been criticised in the early days of the Nazi movement by Gottfried Feder. Other than the exercise of power for its own sake, the Nazi Party, moreover, had little in the way of an organised programme, more a series of vague goals. It was also Hitler's practice to appoint people to office with overlapping areas of authority, which turned the Nazi State into a jungle of competing interest groups and personalities. Hitler intervened rarely to sort out the ensuing mess. All of this contributed to Hans Mommsen's contention that Hitler was "in many ways a weak dictator." (Ian Kershaw, The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, 1999 p. 60) From the opposite political perspective David Irving even suggests that Hitler was "probably the weakest leader Germany has known this century" (Hitler's War, 1977, introduction). This view conflicts with others, from Alan Bullock to Klaus Hildebrand, who say that Hitler had both a programme and the power to carry it out.

So, what did the people who knew him best think of the Führer and his working habits? You can have this from the Memoirs of Albert Speer, the man who, perhaps, knew him best of all;

I would often ask myself did he really work? Little was left of the day; he rose late in the morning and conducted one or two official conferences; but from the subsequent dinner on he more or less wasted his time until the early hours of the evening. His rare appointments in the late afternoon were imperilled by his passion for looking at building plans. The adjutants often asked me 'please don't show any plans today'. (1970, p.131)

This lack of a systematic approach to work was made even worse in February 1938, after which cabinet meetings were no longer held. Germany, in a very real sense, ceased to have an effective government machine, with decisions being taken in a manner that allowed civil servants to act. Quite often Hitler was incommunicado in his remote mountain chalet near Berchtesgaden, so that "Ministers in charge of departments might for months on end, and even for years, have no opportunity of speaking to Hitler...Ministerial skill consisted in making the most of a favourable hour or minute when Hitler made a decision, this often taking the form of a remark thrown out casually, which then went its way as an order of the Führer." (J. Noakes and G. Pridham (eds.), Nazism, 1919-1945, vol. 2, State Economy and Society, 1933-1939, 1984, p. 200)

The only argument here against the notion of a weak dictatorship is that this lack of system and structure somehow magnified Hitler's personal power; but it still reduced the effectiveness of the whole Nazi system. Charisma is a card that should never be overplayed. Decisions could and were made, sometimes quickly; but these tended to be in areas of immediate concern to the dictator, particularly over matters of foreign policy. However, on the Jewish question, a matter seemingly central to the whole Nazi programme, the policy was marked by muddle and confusion, until very late in the day. The very best that can be said of Hitler is that, if not weak, he was, as Ian Kershaw has argued, not "master of the Reich" in the sense of being all omnipotent. Clio the Muse 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, please. Was Hitler a weak dictator ? Well now, let me see. Everything and anything and anyone and everyone he wanted, he pretty much got, wouldn't you say ? A few close loyalists at his command, no, think on the order of millions. Slept day and night, would you say ? Who was it again that started the whole world at war ? Where is that dictionary: dictator: one who commands his will on others. Sounds like Mr. H., no ? Weak or strong ? If Hitler was weak, my goodness, imagine the mess if he were strong. Nope to a weak dictorship. Weak of you to think otherwise. -- Free4It 16:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The question is how much of the effect was actually due to his will. Perhaps hate, racism and violence are so easy to get caught up in via human nature alone that Hitler needed to do little more than suggest it in order for it to spread like wildfire. The result itself isn't proof that he was the cause.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

00:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Think on this, for as long as you need. Take your comments and filter the H. factor out of them. Pretty mindless reasoning results, it seems to me. But, revisionists who for too long feed on fantasy, while exploring the permuatations of possibilites, become incapable of sustaining reasoned probabilities. Possibly Hitler's dog caused World War II, but probably it was he. Or pursue this thinking: Take a lit match to a dry forest [don't try this without sane parental guidance (an oxymoron, I know)]; to whom shall we attribute the burned bird thirty kilometers away ? The wayward branch all aflame that found its way to the hapless bird's wing ? Or, are you the irresponsible who is responsible ? No, Hilter did not pull every trigger nor release every bomb, but he was the cause of those who did. Hire a gunman to kill your mother and find out who the jury condemns. True, known results do not always reveal their causes, but known causes invariably do reveal their results. With Hitler and violence, both are all too well known. --Free4It 15:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Free4It, if you read the Kershaw book mentioned in the first para, you wouldn't need to resort to sarcasm and bizarre analogies, and you would know at least the outline of the debate in which you are participating. Mommsen's point is that Hitler's laziness and habit of giving vague verbal orders led to competition by his underlings to 'work towards the Fuhrer', this resulted in a 'polyocracy' of different, overlapping party and state bureaux, in which a process of 'cumulative radicalisation' occurred. This is very different to the pyramid model of authority which describes (eg) Stalin's USSR. It's a serious debate among historians of the subject, and a little knowledge is required to make meaningful contributions. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 16:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my mind had wandered when the title was stated, but I thought this was a discussion ascertaining the validity of whether Hitler was the weakest German dictator of the last century ? He was lazy in his managerial approach; he issued directives with contraindicated consequences; underlings were left to read hard meaning into soft ambiguities. Wait a minute, I'm sorry, I'm describing most of today's world leaders. No I don't know what most of them have accomplished; but, back to Hitler. Oh yes, he very nearly brought the entire world to his knees. As perverted a goal as that is, weak is not a description that readily comes to my mind, regardless of the mental fumbleness he and his accolyte puppets used to get there. --Free4It 17:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying that he "brought the world to its knees" doesn't say anything about how much of that effect was due to his efforts. You're skipping over that entire argument and just making an assumption.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

17:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If he were there, H. could have used your thinking at Nuremburg. -- Free4It 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh no doubt he's one of the parties to blame, along with everyone else who participated,which is why wherever possible they were all charged with war crimes.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Free4It, don't listen to him. I'm fine with your bizarre analogies, because they make your arguments that much easier to put down. If you're comfortable equating a human being to a tree with regard to free will, then your reasoning makes perfect sense. But as far as I'm concerned, if a group of people fall under the influence of one leader to such a degree, I blame them almost as much as him. I guess that's just a matter of opinion though, so we can agree to disagree.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

16:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of a metaphor is . . . ? Very good, now you know that a human being, indeed, is not a tree [isn't revelation a wonderful thing] when the intent is metaphorical. But, if you are more comfortable with trees than people, let me put the thought in those terms. A wayward lights the branch of one tree. Subsequently, an entire forest is swept to ruin. How much of the original lighting contributed to the burn experienced throughout? Hitler breached World War II. How much of each life lost is attributable directly to Hitler per se ? Or, although an avalanche clears a swath wider than the direct conection of the initiating pebble, it is to the pebble that consequences are attributable. Or, a fireman filters meaning from an entire city block chewed in flames [any more fire analogies and I am beginning to think that I might be a latent pyromaniac] to learn that a single match struck freshly, in the lower kitchen of unit B12, was the source and the cause of all the destruction. -- Free4It 18:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm challenging your metaphor as being inapplicable to this case, because trees and buildings don't have free will. They have no choice but to catch fire when a fire is started. People have a choice.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

18:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Just a heads-up: If you're looking for the most recent archive of this talk page, it's here → Archive 47.

In my edit summary I stated the new archive would be Archive 48, because I mistakenly created Archive 48 before I realized that Archive 47 didn't exist yet. It's corrected now though, as I've moved mistakenly-named Archive 48 page to the new correct name, Archive 47.

Equazcion (Talk • Contribs)

08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

opinions about aryals

i read that hitler though aryal people was: tall,blonde,had blue eyes and were beatifull. I see that ironic since he was Short,had black hair,brown eyes were incredible ugly and had the ugliest moustach in the world history. Wasn't he counting himself as a arial? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsteam (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He was definitely not an arial, but he had several blackletter tendencies, with a hint of garamond in his ancestry. But that was hidden from the German people. Paul B 14:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok,,it isnt aryal, its aryan, or aryan people, or the aryan race...and he was of average hight, 5"9, the russian autopsy said 5"5, but many think it says that so Joe Stalin wouldnt feel bad..by his clothing and pictures of him next to other people his hight can be judged to be around 5"9,,,he did have black hair,,but his eyes where actually blue..though that is hard to tell in most pictures because they are black and white..and as for being ugly...i would say he was an average looking guy in apperence...but he did have a pretty big nose which he was self consicious about...felt it looked "jewish" but yeah..so...learn the word aryan before you commment though...

WWII subsection headers

At the moment, the WWII section has 3 subheadings:

5 World War II

• 5.1 Opening moves
• 5.2 Path to defeat
• 5.3 Defeat and death

Which IMO don't reflect accurately the progression of the war - it makes it sound as if after the 'Opening moves' everything rapidly went wrong, when in fact the Nazis gained control of most of northern Europe. For the first 2 1/2 years the war looked to be going Hitler's way. Shouldn't the middle one be something like 'High tide' or 'Rapid advances'? (Can anyone think of anything better?) Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 13:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of "Progression"-- the text can say that things seemed to be going his way, the title doesn't have to.--Gloriamarie 15:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's nephew

The article says: "The copyright of Mein Kampf in Europe is claimed by the Free State of Bavaria and will expire in 2015. Reproductions in Germany are authorized only for scholarly purposes and in heavily commented form. The situation is however unclear; Werner Maser comments that intellectual property cannot be confiscated and so, it still would lie in the hands of Hitler's nephew, who, however, does not want to have anything to do with Hitler's legacy." --- Hitler's nephew died in 1987, and at this time I believe he only has two living great-nephews, who have no children. How old is this source? Is it referring to the deceased William Patrick Hitler, in which case the point would be moot and should not be included, or to William's sons?--Gloriamarie 18:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

According to Hitler's will, his intellectual property (and everything else of value) went to the Nazi Party, or, if that didn't exist, to "the State". So, even if the property were not confiscated, it could be argued that the IP rights still wouldn't belong to Hitler's relations, but to his beneficiaries. DrKiernan 07:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hitlers private movies dubbed using a makeshift voice

Pretty cool to see, a deaf man using his computer read Hitlers lips and added a voice. http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=189608705425991617&q=Hitler+Speaks&total=147&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0 Might be able to write about that.

I've watched that 100 times, it's some of the best use of technology I've seen. Not sure how to include it though, but it certainly shows there was a private gentleman behind the Führer --Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Rippentrop 21:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blondi

There's a part that reads "Hitler also had his dog Blondi poisoned before his suicide to test the poison he and Eva Braun were going to take." And on Blondi's page, it says it's a myth. One or the other has to be changed to keep consistency. Does anyone have reference(s) to verify it? Polarrrbear 20:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Photo caption

The Hitler photograph with caption Adolf Hitler, accompanied by other German officials, grimly inspects bomb damage in a German city in 1944 is incorrect as to date and event. On the morning of September 1, 1939, Hitler announced to the Reichstag that Germany was at war with Poland. At the end of his speech he stated: “I have once more put on that coat that was the most sacred and dear to me. I will not take it off again until victory is secured, or I will not survive the outcome.” Hitler had discarded his customary brown party jacket and swastika armband for a field-gray uniform blouse resembling that of an officer of the Waffen-SS [without rank insignia]. (George H. Stein. The Waffen-SS, Hitler’s Elite Guard at War 1939-1945. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. 1966, p. 26). Thus, photograph blurbs or film clip narratives claiming to identify some wartime event with a party-jacketed Führer with swastika armband, are clearly in error.--Gamahler 02:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading somewhere that Hitler never visited a bombed city. Do you know where the photo was from? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The caption is taken from the same source as the photo, the US National Archives:[7]. (The link is on the image page). Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 08:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

And just because he said he was going to wear the uniform of the Waffen-SS until victory or death doesn't mean he actually did. Parsecboy 12:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Nor does it mean he ever intended it to be taken literally. Are we to suppose he slept in it? It's just an image about never abandoning his military duties. Paul B 13:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Parsecboy 15:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

National Archives and "captured" materials? What can I say? The Feds have been wrong in the past, they are wrong now, and will be wrong again in the future.--Gamahler 19:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They're wrong because Hitler made some statement in 1939 meant to whip up public support? Are you serious? How about this picture of Adolf with Mussolini, in occupied Yugoslavia? Yup, Nazi armband there. Parsecboy 19:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I try to be serious. It’s Adolf and Benito alright; I happen to think that location and year are incorrect. Why don’t we leave it at that?--Gamahler 21:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Birth day is wrong

Its april 20 not april 30!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.67 (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please change it. Its april 20 not april 30!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.115.67 (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Hitler-Mannerheim photos?

Marshal of Finland C G Mannerheim meet Hitler once the 4th june 1942. The meeting was resultless and had no political effect what so ever. Mannerheim did not conference with Hitler at his Hq but at in his railwagon. Mannerheim was no Nazi, No allied of nazi germany, he was cobligrent aka figthing the same enemy. Mannerheim personal view of germans was not the best especially because he him self served as a officer during WWI in the Tsar russian army. 2 Mannerhime picture in the Hitler artical i clearlly one too much, or mayby two tomuch. --Posse72 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hitler

Im not quite sure because i havent read this artical.. but have you said anything about his privite life? because i know someone who was hitler's grand son and aparently he was really lovely.. do u think maybe.. that his intentions were good? he just had a diffeent point of view.. and even if he was mentally insane dont u think insted of killing him u could possibly take care of him in a mental facility? we couldve have used his inalect for other uses? death should be for no-one.

who ever said that was stupid. A country would never admit to it's furer being crazy, just like most of the country doesn't call bush stupid, they live in the world they want... put him in an institution ha! oh and you spoke to his grand son.... too bad he never bread! no kid's, and would of died before any of them would of remembered... open a history book before you open your mouth

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by SebZy6193 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC) 

He just had a different point a view? Are you serious?--CyberGhostface 15:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides the Jewish genocide, what is misplaced in the military/political ambitions of Hitler? Free4It 20:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow...just wow. Hitler killed himself, no one else killed him. How is anyone to blame for his own suicide? No one told him to do it. Evidently he saw no other recourse so he took his own life. I highly doubt he would've gone to a mental hospital willingly anyhow. Besides, he knew fully well what he was doing was wrong which is why he attempted to hide the things that transpired. Someone who is mentally disturbed (or at least tries to use that as a defense) can't control their impulses or have no moral compass to let them know the difference between right or wrong. I've heard of rationalizing, but that first comment really takes the cake. Pinkadelica 08:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Newest picture

Was there any real need to select a picture that looked so... heroic? I understand Wikipedia have become very serious about avoiding fair use, but surely there is a picture that doesn't paint him in such a noble light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.246.116 (talk) 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry no pictures of him urinating at the nearest outdoor neighbourhood outlet. Hey, let's do away with portraits of Napoleon that bear a likeness contrary to how we believe evil should be seen. Alright, now go out there and get a grip [of your Nikon].70.49.133.11 21:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the level of darkness can seem a bit sinsiter while still showing detail IMPO. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not like it's a fake picture. that is what hitler looked like, deal with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.7.143 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Put back the old picture: Adolf_Hitler_cph_3a48970.jpg I liked it more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.227.15 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And I've just restored it on the merits of it being free and the other being FU. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 00:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the image replacement. The fact that it could be replaced means the other was a violation of Fair Use in and of itelf. Parsecboy 01:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Black and white thinking: Absolute Power

History has shown him to be evil, however there is very little on the many things he did to aquire 'power' in Germany, things that by many people's accounts would be considered 'good'.

There was a TV documentary, that highlighted the great immoral debachery that was going on in Germany prior to his return to power; this allowed him to gain popularity by the masses who saw special interst groups corrupting the country.

Does this article highlight this, or is it politically incorrect to mention this ? Same with Musolino ?

I will like to see how history ties President Bush to the invasion of Iraq, and 9-11 and Bin Ladin...? The logic escapes me....I note a similar series of events, ie the religious right, and traditional family values being used to empower an individual. Once empowered the rest is up to him or her, under a system that is not democratic. (although it says it is...)

--Caesar J. B. Squitti  : Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what "good" things did Hitler do to acquire power? From what I've read & watched over the past decade, not many things. All opinions aside, "good" is relative, so it probably doesn't belong in a WP article. I find the things Hitler did to be questionable at best, so if I read the article and it stated "good" things, I'd have to question to source and wonder if the writer is somehow rationalizing certain acts which defeats the purpose of WP to begin with. As far as likening Bush to Hitler, I'd say it's a little too early for such a comparison. Most world/country leaders use the same tactics to "rally the troops", so to speak. I'm not saying it's right, but if one is to compare Bush to Hitler, then it seems fitting that most leaders would be likened to Hitler as well. By nature, politicians are not honest or even slightly original. Pinkadelica 05:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalized yet again! [8] The picture has also been changed to that of an adorable cat. And even though I love cats I have to say that these should be changed. Addie777 22:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Its already been removed, but feel free to remove the vandalism yourself next time. Aowpr 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture

[9]I believe this image is better to use in the article, because you can see his face and it's okay to use it under fair use license. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:35 17 Sept, 2007 (UTC)

Read the second bullet at the image description:

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

The image can clearly be replaced with a free image, therefore, Fair Use does not apply here. Note that an image uploaded with a Fair Use tag is not free to be linked to any article, only when it's necessary, and properly falls under fair use criteria. This is not one of those cases. I'll be reverting the image shortly. Parsecboy 01:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Dictator" in Wikipedia

Please see here for debate, thanks. Tazmaniacs 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hitler and religion

Hitler viewed Christianity as a jewish creation. Anyne with money for a cup of coffee and a few hours to spare can read up on the third reich at any decent bookshop. Particularly bizarre was the observation of Himmler quoting Hitler that the earliest Christians were the scum of the earth "worse than homosexuals". David Shiflett in his National Review piece went futher in exposing the myth of Hitler's Christian soul http://www.nationalreview.com/shiflett/shiflett012102.shtml. Hitler had the cardinal of Munich's three asssistants beheaded for criticising the nazi campaign against the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped. Over 2000 priests at Auschwitz martyred. Hitlers interest in the occult was well documented by his nephew who came to the USA and toured the country during the 1930s. Adolph did not have kind words for his nephew, son of Alois Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Be prepared to back your statements word-for-word, or else quit spouting the bullshit. You Judeo-Christians are all alike, condemning those with non-Christian views as being in league with Hitler. Give me a break! MakeChooChooGoNow 04:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is very honest about Hitlers involvement with Christianity. Its vile how the church has squirmed away from its own anti-semitism and has pretended to be on the side of good - as it always does. Nazi anti-semitism rose and was born out of two millennia of Christian anti-semitism. One of the areas that has not yet been properly uncovered is role played by conservative Christian groups in America who at the time were often rather pro- nazi though they would certainly deny it now. (With special irony from those who now claim to be ‘pro-’Israeli.)
Lucien86 15:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly get the impression that Hitler couldn't make up his mind about religion. I've read quotes where he supports Christianity and claimed to be a christian, and i have also read quotes where he is talking about exterminating christianity. I think that Hitler simply used christianity to get what he wanted, like maybe supporters. You can't honestly say that you've read the New Testament and think that Hitler's actions align with what is in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.61.63 (talk) 23:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am always prepared to back up everything Mr choo chhoo go now, whether in dealing with the government or on this board. I think perhaps you are on the wrong track. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paleocon (talk • contribs)

Early life as an art student

There is no mention of Hitler being an art student or a painter (other than the Painter professions link in the infobox). A mention could also be made of his surviving works, many of which were bought by a single collector several years ago. — Loadmaster 20:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He never was an art student. Str1977 ^(talk) 14:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The current Hitler article 10-03-2007 and problems with it

I have to say that I object to this article on Hitler, for its opening suggestion that Hitler achieved power through a mixture of charismatic oratory etc. This opening is at odds with the Nuremberg Tribunals findings that Hitler achieved power through a 'common-plan' or Conspiracy. I believe that this article is thus an un-acceptable product as it stands, and wish to see an improvement in it.

Secondly I place here a question in 3 parts that I have submitted via my talk page to an erstwhile editor of Hitler's article, User:Str1977, and I invite anyone either informed or wishing to be so, to enter into this particular. I have to regret the necessity to mention in it a terrific ban made upon me by Arbcom, which I reject firmly on the basis of a 3rd party witness, who is visible at my User:EffK page. Whatever about that, the question remains of direct bearing upon Adolf Hitler's life, Wikipedia, and this article: here is question no.1 in 3 parts, relevant to my (ludicrous) 'life-long' ban from 'catholicism' articles: I might ask in the first instance why Ludwig Kaas - who's action (or party's action) is termed 'decisive' for the empowerment of Adolf Hitler, at Hitler's article, whether Kaas here should better be recognised as Monsignor Ludwig Kaas[1a], thus as corollary, whether the 'monsignor' Kaas article itself is or is not a 'catholic article'?[1b] Within the issue the following should bear relation- If it is not, then it is not closed to me. If it is closed to me then, logically, Ludwig Kaas is a 'catholic figure' and his status as Monsignor warrants immediate recognition as such at the Hitler article, and, that recognition also absolutely proves the point of contention verified by me through User:Bengalski from the eminent ecumenical historian, the late Klaus Scholder, that at the least Kaas is accused by this 'eminence' as acting secretly upon the instructions of his religious mentor, (ie. boss) the future Pope Pius XII. As effect, from a decision upon this and, according to the aim of the WP project, anyone would also be keen to see the allowance of full and true verification concerning the exact known elements of the final act of the 'Common-plan', at all relevant pages, which is to say, how it was that Kaas actually amassed the unitary vote of the Party he led, and gave this to Hitler in the rigged parliament against his own agreement with Bruning. The Wheeler-Bennett tome on Hindenburg raised a double question, that Kaas was terrorised or was credulous , but Scholder amounts to at least a 3rd question. Although it is hypothetical that the retention of Bruning's 'fraction' may have changed the entire course of mid and consquent 20C history, certainly the events were not as is generally revealed in Wikipedia and I ask you if they should be reported as relevant within an NPOV.[1c].

EffK 14:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Not Too Long=

I think the too long tag should be removed. Hitler had a huge impact on the modern world. it is a fine length. 71.233.213.59 02:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's relgious beliefs

It is written in this section that Hitler supports "Positive Christianity". However, I remember clearly, from the Rise and Fall of the third Reich or from one of Fest's books that when Rosenberg suggests that Jesus should be considered as Aryan, for propaganda purpose, reason it with the claim that " only an Aryan mind could made up such a noble ideas" Hitler reject it and said that this kind of clamis is ridiculous and it is obvious that Jesus was Jewish. More, he hated the Judeo-Christian moral and blamed the Jews of it. So, I don’t think that Hitler been, some how, a religious person or had a religious belives- he was more like agonistic.--Gilisa 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hilter believed that Jesus was of Celtic ancestry and never expressed any recorded criticism of Jesus himself in either public or private. Hitler also repreatedly asserted a belief in god, though his god was more like a spiritual force than the personal god of Christianity. Paul B 22:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you source your claim? I can source mine, with no less than this [10]. And I accept that he didn't belief in a personal God.--Gilisa 08:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You just linked to the wiki page on Shirer's book, which says nothing at all about the subject - that's hardly sourcing! Hitler says it in his Table Talk. Here's weblink to a book on the subject: [11]. Type 'gallic' in the 'Search this Book' box and click on p.99. Also, you are, I think, conflating several distinct issues. One concerns Hitler's personal religious opinions as opposed to the content of actual Nazi policy. The policy was to promote Positive Christianity. A second point: rejecting Christianity is not the same as rejecting belief in God. There are many non-Christian forms of theism. Paul B 10:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Paul, it wasn't a source I just meant that I can cite from there if needed. Any ways Shirer's book is a highly authoritive source and as far as I can recall-Hitler final goal, as it regards to Christianity, was to establish the "National Church" in which he would replace Jesus as a god and "mien kampf" would replace the new testament- which could tell something about his religious beliefs or disbeliefs, and any way- I don’t think that he was driven by any religious or theistic feelings, even though he said many times that he belief that he been sent to save Germany by a supernatural force, saying nothing about it's nature.--Gilisa 11:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Shirer's book is nothing like the most up-to-date source. See Steigmann-Gall, or the recent debate about S-G's book in the Journal of Contemporary History. There is no good evidence that Hitler planned to create a religion in which "he would replace Jesus". I don't think we can say that Nazi plans for the future in this - as in so many areas - were clear or fully developed. Paul B 12:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the article name so I can take it from the university library (or else if there is an on-line version)?--Gilisa 13:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

To Ban

If you take a look at the history, a person by the name of Moviekid007 has been defacing the article with Chuck Norris jokes and etc. (Check history) I'm not wikipedia savvy, but if possible, someone should ban his account/ip address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RHLinuxGUY (talk • contribs) 04:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Red Orchestra

The current article says that the Red Orchestra continued to operate after the attempted assassination of Hitler in 1944. But the Red Orchestra article seems to suggest that both groups identified by German counter-intellligence as the Red Orchestra had been destroyed by that time. Pirate Dan 19:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know know anything about the "Red Orchestra", but there does seem to be an inconsistency, so I've deleted it. Paul B 21:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AdolfHitler1944Bomb.jpg

This picture is dated wrong. It was most certainly NOT taken in 1944. --24.107.183.94 13:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Er, why? According to the source, the National Archives, that is the date [12]. Paul B 13:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 24.107.183.94. (1) Because AH did not wear Nazi party duds after 1 September 1939. (2) Take a look at the people around Adolf, all peace-time party hacks and no Wehrmacht uniform in sight; this is supposed to be 1944. (3) National Archives – so what? U. S. Government statements have never been a guaranty for The Truth and nothing but The Truth.--Gamahler 21:25, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, Hitler only said he wasn't going to wear them anymore, that doesn't mean he actually stopped wearing them. Parsecboy 21:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

So what actual evidence is there that "AH did not wear Nazi party dudes after 1 September 1939"? Yes, the US government can be wrong, but the question is who is more likely to be right, the US government or some anonymous internet person? Paul B 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the National Archives is wrong about the date. First, in his speech on 1 September 1939, Hitler said: "My whole life henceforth belongs more than ever to my people. I am from now on just first soldier of the German Reich. I have once more put on that coat that was the most sacred and dear to me. I will not take it off again until victory is secured, or I will not survive the outcome." I went through the first months of the war of my collection of the "Illustrierter Beobachter," the Nazi weekly illustrated magazine. Every photo has him in a field-gray uniform, including his appearance at the commemoration on 9 November 1939, the most sacred day on the party's calendar. I've never seen a datable war-era photo with him in party uniform. He did not visit bombed cities (Goebbels complains about that in his diaries). And the picture shows a healthier looking Hitler, to my eye, than was likely in 1944. It's also unlikely that, in 1944, there would be no one in a military uniform around him. Not conclusive — hard to prove a negative — but the 1944 date is dubious. Bytwerk 00:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, the evidence, permit me to state this in a convoluted way, is the absence of genuine, dated photos after 1 September 1939 of AH wearing anything but a field gray jacket or overcoat with the Wehrmacht eagle on his upper left sleeve (in Waffen-SS manner). The Hitler Nazi party uniform pictures in Wiki are of essentially unknown origin; (a) the photo of AH examining damage among local party cronies in what seems a rural or small town setting was “captured,” and (b) AH with Benito Mussolini, alleged to be dated 1941-1944 and donated apparently by the Yugoslavs, was therefore also “captured.” Neither instance is a recommendation for authenticity as to place, event or date and the institutional owners of these photos provide merely superficial guesswork. From what I have read and seen, it is my opinion that both images with Hitler in Nazi party getup, are pre-September 1939.--Gamahler 00:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Mussolini visited Munich on 18 June 1940, and that's not Hitler's party uniform, so the Hitler-Mussolini photo is OK. Bytwerk 01:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Consider to check out Archive 48 Photo Caption and its miscellaneous contributions.--Gamahler 02:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, thought you were referring to the picture now in the article. I agree that the picture purporting to show Hitler and Mussolini in Yugoslavia is questionable. The books I need are at my office, but I can't find a record of Hitler meeting Mussolini in Yugoslavia in 1941, and afterwards he was too busy to have been likely to go there. Bytwerk 03:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The SS man to Hitler's right is ALSO wearing a uniform that was long-since discontinued by 1944. I don't see how there is any explanation why both Hitler and the SS man would BOTH be wearing the wrong uniforms in 1944 unless the picture is wrongly dated. --24.171.12.175 18:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler never visited the concentration camps?

A "Holocaust survivor" once visited my school and claimed that she saw Adolf Hitler in Auschwitz. What is the truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.162.164.144 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler never visited Auschwitz. There is no record of him having done so. Bytwerk 03:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor question about grammar

Adolf Hitler, considered Sparta to be the first National Socialist state, and praised its early eugenics treatment of deformed children.

I'm wondering if that comma after Adolf Hitler is supposed to be there? I would happily edit it myself but firstly I use British English, and secondly I'm not totally clued up on grammar. The quote can be found here. --130.159.248.36 16:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be there at all. I'll fix it now. Parsecboy 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too late! Paul B 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is this page protected

Why is this page protected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.136.156 (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it gets vandalized all the time. If you create an account, and wait a couple of days, you'll be able to edit it. Are there any changes you see that need to be made? If so, you can always point them out here, and I'd be glad to fix it. If freaking Paul B. doesn't beat me to it ;) Parsecboy 00:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Second World War references

Why is it that everytime an article appears about Adolf Hitler, we always have to hear some references to the fact that he was the Fuhrer of Germany during the second world war. So what? What's so special about that?

When I look up about Adolf Hitler, I would like to read more about the man and his family. I'd like to know more about his tastes in clothing fashions and about his relationships.

Hitler's role in the second world war is of no interest to the average reader. (Nurse Hilditch 11:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC))

Hitler is only worthy of an encyclopedia article because he was the leader of Germany during that period, while being especially notable because of his role in the second world war -- namely, that he started it. I would venture to assume that you don't speak for "the average reader" when you say you are not interested in that role. His personal life is also notable, but his impeccable fashion sense is not the reason articles exist about him.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 11:59, 10/4/2007

And it appears you don't even believe what you're saying -- Talk:Herbert Dingle#Still More Reasons to Restore the September 16 Version. Trying to make a point, perhaps?

Equazcion • argue/improves • 12:02, 10/4/2007

-While Hitler's role in the second world war is probably what he will be remembered for, there are still some things missing from the Wiki page.. In 1939 he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize - The nomination was withdrawn shortly after but nonetheless it could still be included in the article:--RandomAsTheyGet 16:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

"Hitler's role in the second world war is of no interest to the average reader."- "Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize." Well, certainly, yes. Any more unconventional suggestions? Maybe about Hitler, the wonderful dancer? Or his secret love for freedom, peace and democracy?

I have to assume there are a lot of strange people in this world. Sam Golden 06:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Health section

The section on vegetarianism is full of apocryphal information and POV's. The reports "of him (sic) disgusting his guests by giving them graphic accounts of the slaughter of animals in an effort to make them shun meat" come from a single magazine articles whose main purpose was to argue against animal rights and vegetarianism rather than Hitler. The claim that "many authors also assert Hitler had a profound and deep love of animals" is completely unreferenced and the insinuation highly inappropriate if we remember that most of the prominent supporters of animal rights were and are Jewish! Please consider editing out these two sentences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herveshal (talk • contribs) 15:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"most of the prominent supporters of animal rights were and are Jewish!" Oh really? Says who? We don't exclude information about Hitler's views on non-politial matters simply because it might be upsetting to some people that they share them. Paul B 08:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See Reductio ad Hitlerum. It's a logical fallacy, and is no way justification to remove facts about Hitler. Parsecboy 13:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

A thought

Part of this article reads as follows:

"Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as evil."

While this can be regarded as truth, this statement seems to be callous and maybe even immature.

I am not a Nazi, but I think something like this would work better:

"Hitler, the Nazi Party and the results of Nazism are typically and culturely regarded as immoral."

I don't know, I guess "evil" seems a bit harsh, and maybe allegorical. But it's probably just me. Nonetheless, something to consider. --Chomeara 01:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

P.s. Not cool, whoever edited this --Chomeara 22:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Saying that the depiction of Hitler and Nazism as evil is "callous or maybe even immature" is really preposterous. What do you then think defines evil. Wow!! I can hardly believe anyone could write this. The use of the terms British and French Empires also is irrelevant. This is a historical context that may be of importance in the history of causes, but the essence of who Hitler was is little related to that. The war also included the U.S. so the comment is very inaccurate. The fact of the matter is that Hitler defined evil not only in the 20th century, but really across generations, and nothing can mitigate Hitler's evil. In terms of understanding the causes of WW II, one can certainly reflect on a wide range of historical factors, but in considerations of Hitler, none of these are mitigating circumstances. One might reflect on how Hitler came to his thinking, but at core he personifies evil in the 20th century.. Stalin also does so. 66.241.132.98 17:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Sam

Be that as it may, Wikipedia's policy isn't NPOV "unless there's a REALLY good reason not to be" 129.7.131.198 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

As I clarified previously, I'm not a Nazi. But I think "evil" sounds wrong. Sure, many in the world regard him as "evil", but doesn't that seem allergorial? Believe or not, there are pro-Nazis. Also many others think his aims and goals were wrong but he had conducted a superb fashion of which to take over the world. Evil is a kindergarten word compared to what I offered. No offense whom ever wrote this article, but evil is overused. I wasn't denying Hitler was evil, but surely a word change would make it fill better.--Chomeara 13:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chomeara. It does seem harsh and immature. It seems POV anyways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Addie777 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

"Harsh" - you really think that the word evil describing Hitler is "harsh". Wow.. I can hardly believe you could even write such a thing. Evil is hardly a kindergarten word. Please define "kindergarten word". Words are words, and when there is a single word to describe character - there is hardly a need to look for some other fancy expression to describe that. If there is a word that is overused, it is "cool" as a descriptor for just about anything. I never heard of a word such as "allegorial".. Did you mean allegorical? In any case, that word hardly fits in this context. Please look it up in the dictionary. There is an extensive historical record (Read Ian Kershaw's most recent 2 volume biography of Hitler). This egomaniaical villain caused the deaths of millions of people. He embodies the very epitome of evil. Let's not be silly about this. We do not need apologists for Hitler, nor rationalizations to justify, or soften who he was. The edits on this article are closed, but I certainly suggest it go through careful review by some qualified historians so that it does not become sanitized as if poor Hitler did not get a fair review here. History speaks clearly as to who he was and what he did. It speaks to his talents and political skills and sheer nerve in his policies, but at end, he was indeed evil. This is very well documented. Too long to put into Wikipedia. There are some neo-nazi websites that try to give a "fair" description of Hitler, but in fact, all they do is try to create a belief system that goes against reality. He certainly was a fascinating historical figure, but one that also draws feelings of horror that he could do what he did with his henchmen. Millions of people died because of him. That is hard to fathom, but it is historical fact. 216.254.166.201 04:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)Sam

If someone uses the word "evil" to describe someone, I feel downright pity for them. "Evil" does describe Hitler, but it isn't the best adjective. BTW I already chaged the sentence, and no one has changed it. Also the definition of allegory: Work of written, oral, or visual expression that uses symbolic figures, objects, and actions to convey truths or generalizations about human conduct or experience. as quoted on "Answers.com". The word "evil" is very symbolic. I am not denying Hitler was evil, but I think that "evil" is way too general and brief to fully describe him. Plus, it is POV

--Chomeara 12:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree it should be reworded. --Ye Olde Luke 05:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not POV. There are facts in the world, not everything is POV/opinion. 2+2=4 no matter what, a man who does evil is evil it is simple straight forward logic. In any case, I spit on Adolph Hitler's grave and upon all Nazis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.220.63 (talk) 08:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not about opinion if Hitler is evil or not, in fact check out this link from Wikipedia itself, [[13]].

Read it? Good. You might say, "That defines Hitler." or "You're contradicting yourself." True enough, I suppose, but that sort of thing is a label, [[14]], which differs person to person. Just go on Google Blog Search, and type "I love Hitler", (here, I did it for you) [[15]]. Ask any of them, and they won't define Hitler as evil, heck, they love him!

Also, evil, (if you read it) is a definiton for someone, of which SOMEONE else gives, not the general public. It is not NPOV. It is POV. It should be reworded. Also, there is zero proof that the love or hate of Hitler and Nazis isn't opinion. Yes, here in America or Germany, he's regarded as evil, but labeling (if you read that article) is not FACT. It is an opinion made based off facts. Hitler killed 6 million Jews, which is why Americans regard him as evil. That is fact. But him being evil, not fact, strictly opinion. Does that make any sense to anyone? If so, please tell me. Also, check this out [[16]] --Chomeara 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting? I believe so.
• Iconic? Totally.
• Genius in many ways? I believe this as well.
• Misunderstood? Perhaps.

However, there's no getting around the fact that the guy was just 100% evil. He is the personification of evil. There's nothing else that you can call the masscre of 6 million jews other than evil. Dictionary.com describes evil as "morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked" This is Hitler, if you disagree, you almost qualify as evil as well. The Captain Returns (talk) 04:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still an opinion. That it's the vast majority opinion in the English speaking world is totally and completely irrelevant. It's POV. I'm sure you could ask any neo-nazi, any skinhead, or our good buddy Ahmadinejad, and they'll probably tell you that Hitler is their idol. This is not an editorial page. It's an encyclopedia. Let's stick to the facts, and let people come to their own conclusions from those facts. Parsecboy (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU! I couldn't of said it better myself. --Chomeara (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Execpt that the point yet again being missed. The article never said he was evil and NPOV means presenting the notable range of POVs, not expessing no opinions at all. The sentence was "Hitler, the Nazi Party, and the results of Nazism have been regarded in most of the world as evil.". That's perfectly accurate. Paul B (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's perfectly accurate. --Chomeara (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture redux

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AdolfHitler1944Bomb.jpg

This is a request to remove the above referenced image with its current caption from the Adolf Hitler page. Sufficient doubt was raised by contributors (as to the correctness of event and date) to effect either its removal, or modification of the caption, or further research to identify the location, event and date in Germany – likely an extremely difficult endeavor. Consider to comment.--Gamahler 20:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep, I say. Current caption has no date or place mentioned, reducing the image to simply Hitler inspecting bomb damage with officials. I think this is sufficient for it to remain in the article. In no other image is Hitler seen as being made aware of even a fraction of the horrible effects of his war. Binksternet 21:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Binksternet. Research on our part is not allowed. If another source can be found that contradicts the official caption from the National Archives, by all means fix it, but until then, we have to use what we've got. That being said, I think leaving it ambiguous in regards to date and location is probably the best bet, given the doubts to its correctness. Parsecboy 01:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that Hitler, as best I can determine, studiously avoided visiting bombed cities during the war, so the picture is probably inaccurate, and gives a false impression. I think it should go. Bytwerk 01:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I’m with editor Bytwerk. I did not mean to suggest OR but “search for...” in the literature. I just wonder if this picture also exists over there, i.e., the “captured” picture is in the U.S. Federal Archives, the negative is in a German archive with definitive date and location?--Gamahler 02:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One would think that a negative or at least a copy of this image exists in Germany as well. Do you think we could pose this question at WP:Germany? I'm sure there are German editors who may be able to check the German Archives at that Wikiproject. Regardless, I think the image should still remain in the article with a more generic caption, rather than removed completely. Parsecboy 02:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You make a good proposal; I would not know how to go about this. I am convinced – though lacking a definitive reference – that the pictures we’ve been discussing, (1) AH examining damage as shown on the Hitler page, as well as (2) AH and Mussolini in Yugo, are misidentified as to date, location and event. Contributor Bytwerk rates the captions “dubious” based on his sources. I’ll go one step further: the captions are wrong.--Gamahler 20:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is WP:OR. Your personal theory that Hitler never wore certain clothing after he gave some speech is not legitimate evidence here on Wikipedia. You need to find reliable sources who say that this is the case. If these sources do not say that then your argument counts as 'original research' and we must, according to the rules, go with what the sources say, even if they are - in fact - wrong. We can't judge that. However, of course, we don't have to include information from sources if it may be wrong. We can just omit it. As for Bytwek's claim that Hitler 'avoided bomb damaged cities', he could hardly 'avoid' Berlin could he? Paul B 13:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

First, by the time bomb damage was heavy, he was spending most of his time at his military HQ. And by avoiding bomb-damaged cities, I meant that he avoided inspecting the damaged areas. Goebbels, who did do that, mentions in his diaries attempts to persuade Hitler to visit damaged areas, but he was unwilling to do so. Bytwerk 17:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The image indisputably depicts Hitler inspecting bomb damage, so clearly he did not avoid it altogether. The only question is when and where it was. If it is not war damage, the only other possibility I can think of is that it follows one of the several assassination attempts on him, but this is guesswork. It could be either. Paul B 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Paul, I do dispute the fact that it shows Hitler inspecting bomb damage. It clearly shows him inspecting damage of some sort, but for reasons previously raised, it's not likely to be bomb damage during WWII. Bytwerk 19:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I rather doubt that all those grim-faced party functionaries were there to study the results of a gas leak. Paul B 20:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the friendly assistance of the folk at axishistory.com, I now have the evidence that the photograph is pre-war. Look at the picture on this page: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=129961. The angle is different, but the building in the background is identical to the one in the photograph. The rubble is similar as well. I'll remove the photograph from the article. Bytwerk 01:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Paul B 11:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the image is definitely from the same location/time as the one from the forum. I'm fine with deleting the image as well. I'd like to find a place to use it elsewhere, though. It is a good picture, afterall. Parsecboy 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Cooolway: I don't know where to post this but I have pictures which you can, I took them from a documentary. http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa104/cooolway2/WinstonChurchill3.jpg http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa104/cooolway2/WinstonChurchill.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooolway (talk • contribs) 04:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look through the article, the uncropped versions of those images are already there. Thanks for the suggestion though. Parsecboy 12:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was evil

The article never mentions that he was evil. Fix this. 163.41.138.2 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree that Hitler was evil, but stating as such in the article would probably violate Wikipedia's NPOV policy. SomeDarnGuy 11:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Not probably, definitely. Saying Hitler was evil is one of the few statements explicitly excluded in the NPOV policy page. See "Wp:npov#Let_the_facts_speak_for_themselves". Paul B 11:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think he was evil. Just as I think Muhammad was evil. However, we have NPOV policy to maintain. — Ryu vs Ken (talk · contribs) 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your own opinions off the talk page. (Butters x 20:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

The reason why the article never says he was evil: I changed it, pure and simple. I posted my above post when the sentence still existed. No one responded for a week, so I changed the sentence. Make sense? --Chomeara 12:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Lots of people responded, and no, what you say doesn't make sense. The sentence said he is regarded as evil, which is true. Paul B (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The first two weeks, no. But, all of a sudden, BANG! So, no--Chomeara (talk) 20:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Muhammad was not evilFeeblezak 12:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone has the right to think Muhammad or Jesus or Geroge Bush or anyone is/was evil if they wish, but that's rather beside the point. They are not presented as models of evil in modern western culture, though it's fair to say that Muhammad was for a period. See the article Mahound. It is fair to include the statement that Hitler is percieved as an icon of evil in modern western cultuire - which is what the article said. It is not appropriate to say that he was evil. Paul B 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not include a line that says that in popular culture Hitler is often regarded as the embodiment of evil? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.115.123 (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that popular culture sums the situation up. He is (for whatever reason) portrayed in both main and fringe culture as evil personified (justfiied or not). The article should make it clear that in the eyes of western culture in general he is considerd to be and represtative of) evil. As to what the rest of the world thinks, I am not sure that there is quite as much concensus [[Slatersteven (talk) 23:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]

Hitler and Stalin in Cartoons

Here is a collection of cartoons about Hitler and Stalin 1932-1948 seen from Switzerland (Nebelspalter). The cartoons let us feel the situation which was dominating central Europe during that time: http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/ch/nebelspalter-Hitler-Stalin1932-1939-ENGL.html

This link could be integrated into the link collection of external links. 84.74.56.127 13:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

The section on religious beliefs is pretty confusing, especially the last paragraph. I think it needs to be modified as at the moment it seems to suggest that Hitler had a special preference for Islam. The source quoted suggests that Hitler wasn't a fan of any religion and I think it would be better to mention his anti-religious sentiments overall rather than single out Christianity and Judaism as targets of his vilification. Shinigami27 17:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hitler did not have "anti-religious sentiments overall". Far from it. It's true that he said positive things about Islam, but also about Japanese religious culture. He said many negative things about Christianity - in private - but I knpow of no evidence that he expressed opposition to religion as such. So, yes, he did single out Christianity and Judaism. --Paul B 23:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is true. He considered Islam to be more of a religion of war and because of that more suited for the Germans. He considered Christianity to be a Jewish religion and wanted to abolish it in the long run. But of course, he couldn't say so in public, because that would not go well with most of Germany's Christians. — Superman (talk · contribs) 00:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Flawed Translation from German

The translation to English of the German message on the stone marker outside Hitler`s birth house has a mistake in the last sentence. It translates "Millionen Tote mahnen" to "Remember the Millions Dead", but the german "mahnen" means something like "to remind someone, warning him". It should be changed to "Millions of Dead Warn Us" accordingly to capture the message more closely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.115.123 (talk) 15:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

hitler in office

On the date of August 2nd 1934 – 30 April 1945 as far as i know adolf hitler gained power in 1933 jan 30 not 1934 2 of august. |-|17|\/|ÅÑ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitman688 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Hitler became Chancellor in 1933, but it wasn't until August 2, 1934, when Hindenburg died, that he gained actual control of the German state. That's the more crucial date. Parsecboy 13:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Enabling Act, which was introduced on March 23, 1933, was the main document that gave Hitler any legal control of the German state, therefore giving him actual control of the entire German republic. In response to the Reichstag Fire, Hitler pushed through this law because of the reaction of the fire (used as an Anti-Communist attack). The Enabling Act basically allowed him to sign anything into law without the Reichstag's approval or the Presidents signature, it was a step above the emergency decree's used earlier with Schleicher and von Papen. (citation: Ian Kershaw, Profiles in Power: Hitler) (NicciLyric (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

the very first sentence

should reflect what most educated people think when they hear "Hitler", to an English-speaking audience. Not doing this is like not including the word "domestic" in the first sentence of the article on Dog. The fact is, when you say Newton, people think of Physics (even though he did as much alchemy and even religious studies), and when you say Hitler, people think of "evil" (with which his name is synonymous) and mass murder. I propose the first sentence read:

"Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945), whose name today is synonymous with the genocide and mass murder of World War II (see Holocaust), was the leader of the Nazi party in Germany from 1934–1945."

The fact exists that the word Hitler is a part of pop culture, and that needs to be reflected in the first sentence of this article. You're writing for the general reader, for example, if there were eight more or less Hitlers, you should identify clearly why this one is the one they're reading about. It's not so much his political post that matters here, but what we attribute to his work. (For example, I would expect Roentgen's first sentence to state that he discovered x-rays, and Einstein's to mention his synonimity with Genius, which in fact the genius article does). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.130.56 (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting perspective; an encyclopaedia should, first and foremost, tell people what they already [think they] know? In any case, I think your premise is flawed; the Final Solution is not the only, or even the most, notable thing about Adolf Hitler from a NPOV. His leadership of Germany before and during the Second World War are. FiggyBee 11:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course an encyclopedia should start with what people already know (unless for some reason they don't), just like a dictionary lists meanings that people already know. If you look up the word "dog" in a dictionary, it ought to mention the fact that it's domestic. (as if you didn't already know that!!!) Look, let's say you don't know who Houdini is for some reason. It doesn't matter what else he did or what he's most notable for from a NPOV, you NEED to have him identified as a magician, and this should be in the first sentence. I'm not saying it's because Hitler's accomplishment has particularly enormity, but the fact that wrt "mindshare" Stalin doesn't have the evil as much as Hitler does. He's a household word in America, and I think conjures more evil in people's minds than if you say "Devil". That's what he's notable for -- accomplishing evil. Now, the NPOV would be to share the fact that there is such a preponderence of his synonimty with evil. You don't need to say he's evil, but you should say, in the first sentence, his SPECIAL and UNIQUE role in western culture. To do less would be like not mentioning, for NPOV reasons, that jesus of nazareth has a SPECIAL role in mindshare in that many people consider this historical man to be SYNONYMOUS WITH GOD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.186.38 (talk) 11:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Houdini is best known as a magician and escapologist, so that's what his lead says. Christ is best known as the founder of the Christian religion, so that's what his lead says. I'm not disputing that the lead should stress what a person is best known for. But I disagree that Hitler is best known, from an educated historical this-is-an-article-about-the-man POV, for being "evil", and I'm not entirely comfortable with you characterising uneducated Americans as "western culture". FiggyBee (talk) 09:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I belive that Hitler is best known as the instigater of WW2, at least within the wider world view. Within certain culters he may be assosiated more with the holocaust, or the blitz, or even not being resposible for the holocaust. So the first line should read sometig like 'who was resposible for setting into actio the evetns that lead to the second world war and a program of mass genocide un-preceidented in history' [[Slatersteven (talk) 23:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]]

I think that FiggyBee is right here. If you look at a lot of biographical articles on Wikipidia, the first sentence generally lists the person's primary occupation and nationality. So-and-so is an American actor...so-and-so is a British entrepreneur, etc. Sometimes it will also include a "best known for" clause that mentions what movie, company, etc. the person is best known for. Wikipedia does not make value judgments about whether a person is good or evil. Furthermore, Wikipedia standards emphasize verifiable information, such as mathematical statistics or someone's legal status (convict, immigrant, etc.) There's no way to verify that someone is evil, and saying that most people think Hitler is evil, or that his name is synonymous with evil is pointless anyway, because you probably already know that if you're reading the English Wikipedia. Even if you were convinced that such speculative information was necessary to the article, it should go somewhere else, such as the Legacy section.UrsaLinguaBWD (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In the Times

In the Times today. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

No topic on Wiki should be blocked from edit

This one is no exception. Either the source is the New York Times or local journal somewhere in Uganda or some witness who witnessed the facts, none should be discarded, but rather included with the sources clearly stated; this might even be done by creating many sections-pages for the different sources and letting the reader choose the source he trusts the most. ... of course only the wiki home page linking to the list of categories can be blocked from edit ... in the same spirit: the whole idea of putting on the home page featured articles is fundamentaly wrong.. just a tiny link is enough. [[[Special:Contributions/198.96.34.130|198.96.34.130]] (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)]

It says in the article...

that Hitler "never visited the concentration camps." However a Jewish woman that survived the holocaust claimed that he visited a camp she was in briefly to check on the situation. She claimed that "she would have ran up and killed him immediately, but there was nothing around that she could damage him with." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.19.159.106 (talk) 07:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Marvelous sentiment that fails in practice. Far too many edits are vandalism; hence the blocking of this page. If you are concerned and knowledgeable then register a user name and contribute. Binksternet (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Table of contents?

Why is it near the bottom of the article instead of at the top? 69.14.85.112 (talk) 02:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Religious beliefs

Seeing that there is a direct quote where he calls himself a catholic, why doesn't the infobox (which presumably, is to give a concise description) label him as such, and then link to the article? 59.92.21.78 (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Please look through the archives. This matter has come up in the past. Kindest regards, AlphaEta 16:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not able to access the specific archive. Is there a search feature, or do you have a link where it's come up?59.92.21.78 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Check the /Archive index. Use your browser's "Find on page" function to search for the word "religion". —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Using DragonHawk's suggestion, archives 42 through 48 alone provide the following examples: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]. You'll need to dig through the older archives to make sure your specific questions haven't already been addressed. As I said before, Hitler's religious beliefs, and whether or not they should be highlighted in the article, have come up multiple times. Hope this helps, AlphaEta 00:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks AlphaEta. Reading the archives, I get the impression from the discussions that while Hitler was born a catholic (especially archive links 6,7,8,11) and called himself as one, he expressed disbelief in certain aspects of the religion. My point is that, since there are direct quotes which label Hitler as a catholic, why isn't he labeled as such in the infobox, and then the link to the section to show the details on his belief and disbelief about certain parts of the religion. I don't think this specific question is answered in the archives. Thanks for your time. 59.92.40.132 (talk) 05:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

He self-identied as a Roman Catholic. Using the standard of this article, Mother Teresa would be an agnostic because of some doubts about her beliefs.[27]--71.105.28.194 (talk) 22:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Hitler's religion can be best asessed by what he said in private and his actions. As far as I can tell, in his later years, he didn't partake in any Christian/Catholic type service. Also, his private communication was for nothing but disdain towards Jews and Christians.

Hitler's private statements are more clear. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler's intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann.[17] Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The Führer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: “You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?"[18] In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.[19] In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-Christian tract from 362CE, Julian's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."[20] He was reported to say that religion should die on its own accord.[21] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.53.57 (talk) 06:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC) 76.91.53.57 (talk) 06:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Leader of Germany?!??

Im sitting here in Germany and am wondering why this article says in the box left even on top "Leader of Germany - Führer". This suggest that he is in office right now. And it suggest that he was the leader of Germany once. Wouldn't "Leader of the german reich" be the prober form? 141.70.88.87 (talk) 11:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The dates he held the office are directly below the line you mentioned. It in no way suggests he's still in office. He was the leader of Germany. The names are synonomous. There's no need to fix something that's not broken. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The point is that he held the title "Leader" (Fuhrer) from 1934 to 1945. He is the only person ever to have held that specific official title. Other titles and the dates during which he held them are given below. The same format is used for Prime-ministers, Presidents, Generalisiomos etc. The most senior position is given at the top and less senoir ones follow in order of status. I agree that the term "Leader" can easily be misinterpreted because it is not normally used as an official title. Someone above queried it because it seemed to imply that he came to power in 1934, not 1933. Paul B (talk) 14:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adolf's Baby Photo

Looking at the baby photo of Hitler, it says "Adolf Hitler as a weird alien frog beast!!!".

I would have changed it to something a bit more serious, seeing as that kind of description just makes the whole page look like a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B.atyeo (talk • contribs) 18:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody had vandalized the page. It has been reverted now. Acalamari 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The image itself has been vandalized. A "Hitler mustache" has been crudely drawn on the baby in the image. Can someone either revert this to the original, if an un-vandalized original exists, or upload a new image? Yidele (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for catching it. Bytwerk (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Swearing

Someone has vandalised this page and has included alot of swearing on the first line of text. Can someone who knows how to edit pags remove this swearing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelanjo19 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned...

...that page protected from editing has vandalized text. That means someone who has access to the page (which I don't, so I can't even correct it) has been vandalizing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.139.71.69 (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's protected to prevent anonymous users from vandalizing the page. You might note that the 3 instances of vandalism that have occurred thus far today have been reverted literally the same minute it was posted. I appreciate your concern for the article; if you would like to help remove vandalism, you can always create an account. Also, new comments should go to the bottom of the talk page, not the top. Regards, Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I've created an account. I guess it waits a while before it lets me edit. Nevertheless, I am very disturbed that on such a high-profile page, the opening sentence reads "Adolf da gay Hitler fucked his ma and da up da arse and is also the current grandfather of ryan swalesy (April 20, 1889 – April 30, 1945) was a German politician, who became the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party and was appointed as the Chancellor of Germany in 1933." It's been that way for hours, not minutes, (since 13:30 GMT, edit made by "Snowolf") and nobody has changed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiethewitch (talk • contribs) 18:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it takes 4 days for new accounts to be able to edit semi-protected articles. The text was reverted the same minute it was vandalized. It was vandalized at 13:30, and then reverted literally the same minute. You might want to refresh your browser. Hit "Alt+F5" to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It must be a bug. If you look on the page logged in as a user, then it shows the latest version, BUT if you log out then it shows the vandalized version... --ChristianKarlsson.se (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

That's really strange. I wonder where we could report this problem. Parsecboy (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up at WP:AN here. I hope we get this issue resolved. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed. Yay admin's noticeboard :) Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Psychology

Seems to me the first section has to be the one on Hitlrs psychological profile. Much of what he became, and what he did stemmed from the psychosis created during his childhood and formative years, and influenced him to the day of his death--mrg3105mrg3105 01:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know that I've ever heard definitively that Hitler was psychotic. I've read that he was likely meth-addled (but even that isn't certain), especially after the war progressed and turned for the worse, but never clinically crazy. Also, we'd have to have some pretty strong sources to back up any assertions about Hitler's mental state, and since I've never heard about any official examinations while he was alive, I doubt we could go much further than "psychologist so and so suggests Hitler might've been paranoid delusional/multiple personality disorder/whatever.", and that's it. Parsecboy (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how does one psycho-analyse a dictator at the dawn of psychology as a discipline, during a war? However, his history with his parents, and his behaviour as reported by Wehrmacht officers and others would suggest suppressed psychosis in the modern understanding of the word. Still, a good section of his psychology would be a start.--mrg3105mrg3105 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is that because an official psycho-analysis was never done, there is nothing we could say with certainty; only that specific doctors/historians/whatever believe he was psychotic. Again, exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Stating that someone was psychotic (whether it's Hitler or not) in the absence of an official psycho-analysis is an exceptional claim. Really, the only thing I see coming from this discussion (unless you or others can provide a plethora of sources, of course) is a single line being added to Adolf_Hitler#Health_and_sexuality, along the lines of "respected people A, B, and C believe that Hitler displayed symptoms similar to mental disorder D. Sourced, of course. Parsecboy (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Won't be me--mrg3105mrg3105 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Then until someone else volunteers, the point is moot. Parsecboy (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hitler as Hero

some people in this world consider Hitler as a her we should add that topic in this article.--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

No, because that would be totally POV and unencyclopedic. Zazaban (talk) 08:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have heard about people considering "Hitler a her." A little known fringe theory holds that Hitler was a women. Just kidding, actually this is pretty funny coming from Farazilu who has accused myself and others of following an agenda of hate. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but he probably doesn't see nazism as an agenda of hate. I don't know how he would reason that, but he managed to reason that having pictures of somebody on a website was. Zazaban (talk) 08:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think i don't has to remind you the Wikipedia is not censored and you need to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Wikipedia being not censored does not mean that anything goes. Zazaban (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But in other topic you are practicing absolute other theory? --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am. Removing the images would be favoritism towards muslims. Zazaban (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not request to remove them i requested to move them on a separate article and just give a link in see also section as Wikipedia did with holocaust article --Faraz Ahmad (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to work this to death but "Some people in this world consider Hitler as a her" just really cracked me up. Someone who was clearly trying to stir things up by saying something controversial and elevating about one of the worst people in history, and yet it totally came out going the other way. I realize it's just a language barrier or typo, but still. Ha. Equazcion•✗/C • 16:56, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh! I thought you actually meant a her not a hero...woops! that is really funny though! I was like "Wow, who would consider Hitler as a her?" Oh my gosh, that was funny. Now I understand though.--8thwonderoftheworld (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• A quick Google search shows many articles about Hitler as a hero. Here are a few: [28]

[29] [30]

• I do think a section could be created about this phenomenon, though not in the way that the original poster may have intended. The section should clearly show that some with anti-Semitic agendas, or seriously misinformed, have this view, and the danger it poses to society if we forget what he actually accomplished. I won't be creating this content myself, as I find the subject distasteful, but I don't think the section idea should be rejected out ofhand. Jeffpw (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Jeffpw. Zazaban, NPOV is the wrong policy to use to justify not including this information. Remember that NPOV requires the presenting of both sides without casting a value judgement towards either side (no matter how clear cut a case is, such as this one), in this case the vast majority of people who despise Hitler, but also the minority of those who think Hitler was a nice guy with great ideas. Parsecboy (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree as well, if there's information for Hitler being a hero from reliable sources (WP:RS), it can be included but as other people said, its a minority view and would get a much small coverage as compared to the rest of the article.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitler was no hero and no additions stating he was one should be added. Ofcourse in his own time and by his own people he was looked upon as a hero and a saviour of Germany and the German people. His popularity in 1930's Germany can hardly be overestimated. 145.7.182.14 (talk) 12:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

He was my hero dammit! Seriously though, if Billy Bruce deserves to be featured then so does ol' Adolf. Also, why are there no citations in the opening paragraphs, or are these claims of murdering political opponents just taken for granted? This is serious mother (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Featured status is not awarded based on the topic of the article, but the quality of the article. As for 145's post above, you're missing the point. The thing is, some people do think Hitler was a hero. Therefore, this needs to be documented in the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I seem to be getting the feeling that this could be the best article on wikipedia and still wouldn't get featured. This is serious mother (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the last FA candidate, the issue was primarily not enough sources for a subject (33) of this notoriety. The article now has 102 sources, which is a great deal better. If you like, you can always nominate it again, although I might suggest nominating it for Good Article status first; it never hurts to have GA status when trying for FA. Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no valid reason to include a Hitler as hero section. As it states at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." The view of Hitler as a hero is not a significant view; as such, it does not rise to being mentioned in this article (and is, in fact, a laughable idea). In addition, the references given on this talk page to support this view are not reliable sources, giving another strike against the idea. Finally, I agree that this whole discussion was started as an attempt to stir up trouble, so let's stop feeding the trolls and forget about this idiotic idea.--Alabamaboy (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you on the minority view. The person who started this section has been blocked now for trolling and other disruptive edits. It was an unsuccessful attempt to challenge the censorship policy. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 21:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The entire debate of whether or not Hitler was, or was not a hero should not matter. The fact is MANY people believed him to be one, not withstanding his racially charged policies. I don't think anyone here is saying he IS a hero. Then again, perhaps your definition of hero is not neutral, or unbiased? His actions in restoring the German economy are certainly heroic, and we in America claim that similar actions by FDR helped restore the American economy. I've heard many speeches at liberal arts colleges - Wheaton College, MA, B.U., MA, Georgetown, D.C., where students have given speeches on why Hitler has herioc qualities. That said - labeling Hitler as a Hero, or even giving a section on those who believe he is a hero would cause unnecessary conflict. Eh, I gave up on Wikipedia as a realistic source of information despite the editors here. As having my bachelor's in History, I realize that Wikipedia is a useful source for basic information, but most of the data is wrong, or incomplete. This page contains many assumptions about hitler, just because I eat beef and veggies and pork- and someone approved that article, doesn't mean its there and not dead. Many academics are quack jobs too you know. I should realize this, I'm one of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.223.18.76 (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this section can be added here as an early German version. Isn't that why his best soldiers used the SS insignia? Super-something? ;O)

Seriously though, obviously no-one who considers Hitelr a "hero" had lived through German armed forces trampling through Europe, and conversely lived through the Allied determination to remove him and the Nazis from power. Nazis did put a lot of people back to work, but so did Roosevelt. Roosevelt however did not encourage the conquest of South America for more "living space", or the extermination of Mormons, or the looting of Montreal (after annexation of Canada). And yet, Roosevelt is seen as a hero by many people in and outside the United States given he had the determination to pursue his goals to the day he died while Hitler took th easy way out, and took many people with him (and a dog). I'd say that was a coward's way out, and that is no "hero". [[Hero|Heroes] save lives, and defend something good.

On the other hand I may have this completely wrong, and the discussion is that Hitrel is actually the real manifestation of the fictional character, and the whole thing is a spelling mistake :o) --mrg3105mrg3105 If you're not taking any flack, you're not over the target. 21:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The SS comes from Schutzstaffel, meaning "protective squadron", just like the SA comes from Sturmabteilung, meaning "storm troopers". I think the point is that some people actually do admire Hitler, and think what he did/tried to do was a great thing. However distasteful or anathemic to our concepts of morality/whatever it may be, these views should be at least mentioned. It doesn't require a separate section; what's stated in the "Legacy" section is really all that's required for this topic. Parsecboy (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with Parsecboy here...the facts are, both in 1930s Germany and now, people believed that Hitler was acting for the good of all, and removing a plague from the world, and I'm pretty sure he did too. Whilst its pretty apparent he was nothing more than an antisemitic bastard, its worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.7.100 (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Adolf or Adolph?

How do you spell his first name? I've seen both, but want to know the right way. Thanks.--8thwonderoftheworld (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You've seen it spelt both ways? That's interesting... all my history text books spells it "Adolf" I've never seen otherwise. ~Hyung Qing Hong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.13.247 (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen it both ways to and was wondering the same thing.JDog Powers (talk) 21:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC) It's JDog again and I've seen it spelled "Adolph" at Abelard.org “The psychology and development of Adolph Hitler Schicklgruber” Abelard.org date site was made: 24 January 2004 date accessed 30 January 2008 and The "spell check" for Microsoft Works Word Processor (R) and just wonder witch way is right. Thanks! JDog Powers (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

'Adolph' is a more typical early 20th century British & American spelling of the name Adolf. You can find either/or in Allied writings of the WWII era. However, Hitler's given name is usually not spelled with a 'ph' in modern texts. --67.149.150.252 (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Influence of Luther?

Where's the evidence that Hitler, during his "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich," was even aware of Luther's Von den Juden und Ihren Lügen (on the Jews and their lies)? No doubt he was aware later, when Luther's polemical treatise came to the attention of prominent Nazis who put an original printing of it on display at party rallies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard David Ramsey (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

hitler's religeon

There is something here implies to me that Hitler was Muslim by saying that he admired the religon greatly and Liked it'd nonexsistant views. As there is no evidence aside from a book refrence that can't be verified, I think it should be removed as it is offensive and it sends out a bad image of the religeon of Islam. In fact Hitler killed many muslims in the holocaust. If you have ever seen modern pictures of aushwitz You can see a momorial for the Muslims that died there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.37.146 (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Still Mufti Husseini of Jerusalem was a frequent guest of Hitlers during the war and in fact helped him form an almost all muslim SS division, the SS Handzhar. Both Hitler and Himmler also stated that it was a pity that it was not islam that was the dominant religion in germany since, in Himmlers and Hitler opinion, islam made much better soldiers. Also, most people consider Adolf Hitler either to be an atheist or a catholic, still you don't see them complaining about that being offensive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.162.114.213 (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It "can't be verified"? Try going to your library and finding the book, and read the relevant pages. Also, Wikipedia is not censored, at all. Just because you think something is offensive is no reason to remove valid information. Parsecboy (talk) 05:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"Chillingly"

Under 'Oratory and Rallies' their is a reference to Leni Reifenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" which asserts that this film "chillingly" presents the 1934 Nuremberg Rally. This is POV. Some people might find that it "magically" or "charmingly" or "frighteningly" presents the rally. I'm sure that the film's creator had no desire for it to be perceived as "chilling" to her target audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.236.98 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. Fixed. intooblv (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Good catch. Parsecboy (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I agreeRexroad2 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hitlers Successor

In the Box at the begining stands: Succeeded by Karl Dönitz but this is bullshit. Hitler was succeeded by Joseph Göbbels (but he was only 1 day) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.27.21 (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're incorrect, I'm afraid. Hitler's Last Will specified Dönitz as his successor as President. Goebbels, on the other hand, succeeded Hitler in the office of Chancellor, which, you are correct to point out, he only held for one day, before committing suicide, being succeeded by Lutz von Krosigk. Parsecboy (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Parsecboy is factually correct. Rexroad2 (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Or to put it another way, AH was succeeded by both Dönitz and Goebbels. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's death

It's wierd, I have heard of him committing suicide in three ways; Cyanide, bullet to the head and sometimes even both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harvarddream (talk • contribs) 02:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, at the end of the World War II section, you'll see that Hitler did in fact commit suicide by biting down on a cyanide pill while simultaneously shooting himself in the head with a handgun. Parsecboy (talk) 03:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The 1945 Sov autopsy confirmed this but was not publicized for many decades. Meanwhile witness accounts were often muddled by some reporters and authors, hence the confusion. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Hitler draw Disney characters?

Unconfirmed but some drawings have been found, putting the link here only for editors to see it, I don't suggest citing this in the article yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC) In one part of the text of the page it is said that hitler was called wolf And at the end of the paragraph I would like it added that he was often heard to whistle the song whose afraid of the big bad wolf from the disney film the 3 little pigs whilst patroling the fuherbunker and as to the hitler disney connection it is said that hitler loved disney films such as snow white and the 7 dwarfs & cinderella —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesmitchell1986 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Most Likely

In this paragraph in the article: Hitler claimed his educational slump was a rebellion against his father, who wanted the boy to follow him in a career as a customs official; Hitler wanted to become a painter instead. This explanation is further supported by Hitler's later description of himself as a misunderstood artist. However, after Alois died on 3 January 1903, Hitler's schoolwork did not improve. At age 16, Hitler dropped out of high school without a degree.

Someone had better edit this out. It just degrades the quality of this article! --165.21.154.13 (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to fix tghe apparent vandalism in the above. Rexroad2 (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

if you did the proper reasearch, you would find that this is actually true, not vandalism. jeez.. Porcupinefish (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

i agree. if you have been listening to the news, several of his oil paintings have sold for 1 million +. Did someone fix this? 67.76.12.197 (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

"Hitler was an Austrian" - not a good phrase

I'm not pleased with that first sentence. Hitler was Austrian-Born but rejected the Austrian citizenship later and then became a German citizen. In my opinion you should say "Hitler was an Austrian-born German" or at least just "Austrian-born". -- Der Kritiker, 3/5/2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Kritiker (talk • contribs) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

First, a friendly reminder that new threads go on the bottom of the talk page. As to the point of your comment, Hitler was an Austrian; that he identified with Germany and later became a German citizen isn't directly relevant to defining him ethnically. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Austrian born German would be better? See also other foreign born people... (Haendel comes to mind)..--Camaeron (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

At the moment it absurdly says he was an "Austrian politician". "Austrian-born German politician" is certainly better. Paul B (talk) 16:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Removing link to Hitler's artwork

Hitler's art is somewhat controversial. There are some forgeries. The recently added link simply has images of a batch of paintings, with no background, and no assurance of reliablity. I don't think it meets the criteria for reliable sources. I've removed it. Bytwerk (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems entirely reasonable. Unless the link were to have proof that the paintings were indeed Hitler's, we shouldn't use it. Parsecboy (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that shows his art? I think it would be of interest to readers. Borock (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Vegetarians category

Hitler wasn't actually a vegetarian, he was advised by his doctors to take up a vegetarian diet but there is no evidence he was ideologically sympathetic to vegetarianism, Several biographers who knew the dictator recorded his passion for Bavarian sausages, game pie and stuffed pigeon-Ted Fox 17:58 16 March 2008 (UTC)

His motives for his largely vegetarian diet are totally irrelevant. Are you saying that vegetarians can only be considered vegetarians if they have a moral or ethical reason to do so? That's a tad bit absurd. Also, there are varying shades of vegetarianism, from those who'll eat fish or chicken, to vegans who won't use any kind of animal-related product whatsoever. Hitler just fell on the less-strict end of the spectrum, but he still ate a largely vegetarian diet. Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well not if he ate Bavarian sausage he wasn't as that is meat by any standards. We should get some sources for his not being vegetarian or for his eating meat, clealry being vegetarian and being ideologically supportive of vegetarianism are different things and unfortunately the former still far outweigh the latter in numbers. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I know of no source that says he ate "avarian sausages, game pie and stuffed pigeon". In fact there are numerous sources stating that Hitler's vegetarianism was ideological. He repeatedly discoursed on the subject in Table Talk. There are references to occassional lapses from absolute vegetarianism, and to medical prescriptions that contained animal products, but that's all. See previous talk archives. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See also Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler. Paul B (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and in any case, the only instances where I've seen claims that Hitler ate any meat regularly have been anecdotal at best, which cannot be used as a reliable source. Parsecboy (talk) 19:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Having just read the H and veg article I don't think we should categorise him as vegetarian , categories are tricky and shouldn't be used when in doubt. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue is not for us to decide, though. The majority of sources agree that he was a vegetarian; as I pointed out above, there are is a wide spectrum of vegetarianism. Hitler fell on the more lenient side, as he did indulge in some meats from time to time. The vast majority of the time, he did follow a vegetarian diet, and he should be described here as such. I understand that many vegetarians don't want their beliefs to be associated with Hitler, but reductio ad hitlerum is a logical fallacy, so for those who have that concern should, to be blunt, "get over it". Parsecboy (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

government spy

In July 1919, Hitler was appointed a Verbindungsmann (police spy) of an Aufklärungskommando (Intelligence Commando) of the Reichswehr, both to influence "other soldiers and to infiltrate a small party,"

If I understand this correctly, this states Hitler was a gov't agent. I wouldn't be shocked, but I doubt the veracity of anything like this without citations. Can someone find a reference to this? I wouldn't know where to look. Thanks.

THEDOGGEDTRUTH 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

86.83.135.96 (talk) 12:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC) 'Both the DAP's political views and the party's decision to convey these views to a larger public were links in the chain of events that led Hitler to join the new party. The DAP's larger rallies attracted the attention of the Bavarian Reichswehr authorities, and since Hitler worked for the Reichswehr as a political indoctrination official, he was asked to report on the activities of the new party. By his own account, Hitler was not impressed by the organizational acumen of the group, but he did appreciate the "good will" he found. He undoubtedly referred to the anti-semitism which permeated the party's political message even then.'

quoted from 'Origins Of The Nazi Party' by Professor Gerhard Rempel, who was Professor of History at Western New England College, Springfield, Massachusetts. The full article can be found here: [31]

hitler was a "sinister" man

Can we please remove this line from the introduction? It is not objective and it shouldn't be in the introdcution. (Shultisl rcs2 (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC))

I see it has been removed. Good thing. Left-handed people might be offended. Borock (talk) 04:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Article about attempted cure for flatulence

I have no idea whether this is true but it looks to be. Whether it really had any affect on Hitler's health and judgement is much more problematic. I'm sure it's been discussed in a long since archived thread, but oh, well. http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article10240701.aspx Student7 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I think I've heard that from elsewhere. Looks legit enough anyway. If you can fit it into this article, sure, but you might have better luck finding a place for it in the Hitler's health article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, it would probably be better to place it in the article about Hitler's health. This article is long enough, and details like this are probably better off in the sub-articles dedicated to specific topics. Parsecboy (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was a demagogue, it should be listed as his main occupation

I just included demagogue in Hitler's occupations and it was removed. What polite justification is proffered for this particular piece of ignoramus activism? Justin Moore (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It needs referencing, and his main occupation was politician. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed this term from the Infobox; "demagogue" is not an occupation. -/- Warren 00:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Justin, let's remain civil, shall we? I removed the term initially, because as Warren states, it's not an actual occupation. I don't think that's what he had on his resume :) Parsecboy (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion?

• So he wasn't a Christian, but used it to influence people into seeing his twisted version of Christianity? There are sources that do state that he was a student of the occult, and some that contradict it, but what we can agree to is that Hitler took Darwinian theory of survival of the fittest to it's extreme application. I think we could make it clear that Hitler was not a Christian due to his comments on it in his provate journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.131.27 (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Source? --217.83.54.56 (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” (Hitler, Adolf. Mein Kampf)

There is no doubt Hitler used Christianity for his own gain. Dale-DCX (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hitler repeatedly said that he was a Christian in public. He also repeatedly criticised Christianity in private. It is not for us to judge whether he was sincere or insincere, or whether his real beliefs, even if we could be sure what they were, counted as "real" Christianity. There is no evidence that he was "a student of the occult". See Steigmann-Gall et al. Paul B (talk) 22:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It was Himmler who was the occult guy. Hitler thought it was as batty as everything else. From my reading, the only thing he really believed in was himself being better than anyone else and destined to take over the world. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

And perhaps there should be a link on this talk page to direct discussions like this to Talk:Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

jewish blood?

did he have jewish blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.217.74.240 (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

See Hans Frank. Paul B (talk) 17:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This has never been proven to the satisfaction of serious historians of the subject Stanley011 (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

The suggestion is that due to his father's illegitimacy, that his biolgical grandfather was not known for sure and that as a result Hitler feared that he might be Jewish- or might not. Many histrorians have suggested that his original anti semitism may have been due to a Jewish doctor attending his dying mother, although in Mein Kampf he himself ascibes it to his dislike of a Jewish boy in his class at school who was a right know it all. This child has been identified as Ludwig Wittengenstein, a philosopher whose writings are so clever that even he did not understand them most of the time, but was endowed with the practical nous to leg it to England before his erstwhile schoolmate caught up with him - [[Streona]

Sexuality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler#Sexuality

Might need slight adjustment.

I have noticed that underneath Sexuality on this page it says 'Gaydolf was a homsexual foggot' i think it would be appropriate to remove this if somebody can. Carf9 (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)carf9

Appears to have been already reverted, so it's all taken care of. Thanks for pointing it out. Parsecboy (talk) 19:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It' either still there, or it's back again.

Well, here's the diff of it being reverted, about 4 hours ago, which is the most recent edit. You might want to do a hard reload on your browser to see if it's just not showing the most current version of the page. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah so, my computer shows it shows the line: "Gaydolf was a homosexual faggot." I think someone should change this. Cellardoorxx (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I showed above that it has been fixed, some 7 hours ago, and the article hasn't been edited since. It must be a problem with your browsers. Parsecboy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just purged the server cache, let me know if that fixed the problem. Parsecboy (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey! The lines I have added are removed. No issues. But how can the 'expunger' do it without giving any reasons? If there were any factual errors, I request them to point them out.

-J.V.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalinwp (talk • contribs) 08:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler and a German Boxer

There's a line in the article saying "Hitler seduced a german boxer once!!!" Whether or not that's true, it's got far too many exclaimation marks, and I'm not exactly sure it's relevant, either... could someone possibly remove it? Jankles (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It was reverted almost directly after it happened, but was still showing up as the vandalized version for IPs and new users, so I performed a manual server cache purge. Should be back to normal now. Parsecboy (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, added a few lines on Hitler's 'sexuality'. Please comment if I have erred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalinwp (talk • contribs) 07:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

Hindenburg referred to Hitler as the 'Bohemian Coporal' and not the 'Bohemian Private' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.240.229.68 (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Correcting a wrong statement

Shortly before 'The 1st world war', a calender datum must be corrected. It would be correct to write: 'Kristallnacht took place at 9 November, one night before Luther`s birthday'. (What is written now, 10 November instead of 9 November, and 'at Luther's birthday', is afterall a shame for Wikipedia). - Sorry! Please correct this painful mistake immediately. - 87.160.115.232 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why it is a 'shame to Wikipedia', since it is in fact accurate. However, the date was determined by the death of Ernst vom Rath. It had nothing to do with Luther. Paul B (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Though I have to admit the idea is quite funny, I'm afraid Hitler was not born in "anus", as it says in the article. The German article states that he was born in Braunau am Inn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.185.146 (talk • contribs)

according 2 his autobiography he says in the opening lines "it ha turned out fortunate for me today that destiny appointed Braunanu on the inn to be my birthplace"which is a tow near German-Austria border --UD (talk) 06:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)UD

Why the signature under the picture ?

The picture is to nice, Hitler appears like an artist, not like the mass murderer he actually was.

What is the reason for the signature ? Still missing an adress for autographes ?

It is not Schiller or Goethe, it is the one who lured Germany, the german culture and whole Europe on to destruction within 12 years. 87.187.119.14 (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Which photo? There are many. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The first one 87.187.82.121 (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Most political figures have their signatures on their articles . See George Bush and Tony Blair for instance. You're looking a bit too much into it mayhaps? --67.171.131.214 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

i hate to break it to you but hitler was an artist before he went into germany...Klimintine (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

his drawings were more of architectural types so he was deined admission into vienna academy--UD (talk) 06:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC) UD

"Exploited"

"After World War I, the Nazi Party gained power during Germany's period of crisis by exploiting nationalism, antisemitism, anti-communism, propaganda and by Hitler's charismatic oratory." I don't think that this is a very neutral way of putting it (exploiting means using things in a bad way). Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral I think. Maybe it should be changed to "using" or something like that, something more neutral at least. --85.144.133.46 (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

First, remember to place new sections at the bottom of the talk page. I myself don't think there's anything wrong with the word "exploited". There's no negative connotation, it means that a situation that was favorable to one actor was taken advantage of by said actor. One might say that the Germans exploited the weak defenses of the Ardennes in 1940, and that would be perfectly fine. Parsecboy (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

See Also

In the 'see also' section, the first item is 'list of coupled cousins'. That is ridiculous. Of all the many articles relating to Hitler and his deeds, that list is surely not one of the most important; the reader gains nothing by it. Moreover, the nature of his relationship with his cousin is ultimately speculative, as the article on Hitler as well as the article on his cousin state clearly. I cannot edit the article, but surely to God that link should be removed?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.243.255.61 (talk) 08:42, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I would like a see also page with information on what hitlers guidelines for being an arian were please.

It's aryan and it should say at Aryan race SGGH ^speak! 11:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hitler: Universally Condemned?

The article says that "Historical and cultural portrayals of Hitler in the west are universally condemnatory", but is this technically true? Sick as they may be, some Westerners think that Hitler is a hero. Jankles (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hitler has never been universally condemned. No one ever is. They always have followers. 203.211.78.19 (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the party, although it's over. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Well... I'm pretty sure it's safe to assume that most people would condemn Hitler. Similarly, even though some might disagree, the sky is "universally" considered to be blue. 66.68.154.201 (talk) 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's more about the portrayals than the man himself. Charlie Chaplin, for example, portrayed him as a buffoon in "The Great Dictator". Critical, but maybe not condemnatory, although ridicule can be a powerful tool. I think that "universally", however, is a little strong because it's not susceptible to proof; one counter-example would be enough to destroy that argument. In the same way, the sky is not blue for all people all the time. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's already been changed to the bland "mostly". I think this is far to weak. I changed it to "overwhelmingly" to emphasise that Hitler functions as an icon of evil. Paul B (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone being able to contradict "overwhelmingly". --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Playing the devil's advocate, Hitler seems to be widely admired by the Arabs (for the Holocaust) and Chinese (for being a strong leader). --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.232 (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Although, neither the Chinese nor the Arabs are in the west. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.58.67 (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong

I hope whoever referenced Hitler as the "Ultimate PWNDER" will stop changing difference pages that mention Hitler. It's just silly, and makes light of a very serious discussiong. Thank you. 606-2-610

Also to be mentioned, the marriage date of adolf and eva is incorrect, they married on april 30 not the 29th, at about 12:26 am. The reason that it may say the 29th is due to the fact thats when the info was filled out, but they didn't officially become married until the early morning -The future president, Sean Fehr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.135.26.54 (talk) 16:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also an incorrect date under the rearmament section. Hitler announced his plans to expand the Reichswehr to 36 divisions, as well as the expansion of the Luftwaffe to 2000 planes in March 1935.. NOT 1934 as it states here. These dates are known as the 'Saturday Surprises'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjbricky (talk • contribs) 14:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't this be changed?

set him against a coalition that included the world's largest empire (the British Empire), the world's greatest industrial and financial power (the United States), and the world's largest army (the Soviet Union).

Shouldn't that also mention the British Empire was also the largest naval Empire? thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.196.212 (talk) 17:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No. It's referring to industrial/ manpower strengths. The fact the Britain was a naval super power is not important. Dapi89 (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

england indeed had the mightiest navy! it was one main factor which helped her 2 xpand and preserve her empire!thanxs--UD (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)UD

Maybe also note that england has the greatest superpowers, as well as super duper powers? If anyone can find a source for this thanks, its currently orig. res. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.83.121.172 (talk) 11:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cookie Monster

New Hitler book by Swedish historian Bengt Liljegren.[32] He is convinced that Hitlers died a virgin, and that he was a cookie devourer. By the end he didnt even care that cookie crumbs were stuck in his moustash. His secretary Christa Schroeder noted "face to face with this cookie-devouring human ruin I always became nauscious". (probably lost something in translation from German (to english?) to swedish to English...)--Stor stark7 ^Speak 20:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Are trying to make a meaningful point, or just to portray yourself unflatteringly? One of these objectives has been achieved. Paul B (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Very intresting reaction... All I did was to notify that there was a new book dealing with the more human aspekts of the man. Is it perhaps time to read Wikipedia:Civility?--Stor stark7 ^Speak 22:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest the first aim was achieved. If wikipedians were not interested in trivia where would we be? - Streona —Preceding unsigned comment added by Streona (talk • contribs) 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Well this unexpected human quirk puts the whole mass murder thing in a whole new light. --Dawud —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.167.169.232 (talk) 10:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

• Oppose It was suggested that Theory of Hitler´s escape be merged into this one. Until it is found that he really did escape the "theory" has no place in this article. It can stand alone as an article on one Conspiracy theory however. Borock (talk) 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Adolf Hitler's article is long enough. If this turns out to be somewhat relevant, it should be more than enough to open a section in the "adolf hitler" artcile with a concise paragraph, and a link at the top to the "main article".Maziotis (talk) 18:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Per reasons stated above. I would even vote for a deletion of said topic. ~Ambrosia- ^talk 04:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is a notable conspiracy theory but it is not of sufficient relevance to merge with this article. Paul B (talk) 10:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Adolf Hitler's article is too long. The Theory of Hitler´s escape is a valid topic as it is a conspiracy theory. To maintain wikipedia's standard article size, i.e. 32 KB, these two information cannot be merged. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

hitler

did hitler commit suicide by swallowing a poison pill?Jabba the butt (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Current legend states he shot himself and took a pill, so that if the shot didnt kil him or the pill didnt kill him, theo ther would--Jakezing (talk) 15:21, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Reason being (as far as I remember) that a number of other officers had made mistakes while shooting themselves in the head and survived/suffered glancing blows, and Hitler was looking to avoid such a mistake. SGGH ^speak! 11:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

i dont see why you decided to add so many extra :::'s to that.--Jakezing (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Might I be able to help?

I have the highly coveted (or so the guy who sold it to me says...) book "Hitler and his Generals". It contains recorded conferences with his generals (such as Rommel and Guderian) by stenographers. It is filled with citations and I am certain it could help. It has quite a few interesting statements such as Hitler talking about how Erwin Rommel will get worn out if he stays in Africa any longer. Among other interesting things is Jodl telling Hitler current military situations and positions. Well, if you think it could help, please post here or PM me. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rape of Europa

New documentary playing in theatres now:

http://www.rapeofeuropa.com/

Green Squares (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Liking the POV title. :D SGGH ^speak! 09:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

this should be changed

the british and french empires did not declare war on germany, the british empire and france did france was a republic with no emperor therefore it was not an empire in 1939 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.33.111 (talk) 13:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Empires aren't classified as such because they have an emperor leading them, they are classified as empires because they take other peoples' land and subjugate them. Read through French_colonial_empires#Second_French_colonial_empire, which lasted until 1960, when the African colonies were granted independence. Parsecboy (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.178.184 (talk) 21:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically, France and Britain both had empires, and the nations of their empires also declared war. Don't forget to sign your posts using ~~~~ SGGH ^speak! 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Is that pic really hitler ?

It definately doesnt look like the fuehrer to me, his eyes are different and why would he be wearing only 1 glove ?

It's definately not hitler.Even the mustache is wrong.

82.23.16.70 (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the image came from, or its authenticity, but it was uploaded over the original file by a new user. I have since re-uploaded the correct photograph, it should be back to normal. Parsecboy (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Propaganda Picture

Sorry, but why do we use a propaganda picture of Adolf Hitler? Don't we have a normal picture of him? A picture of him giving a speech, or a picture of him visiting a city in Germany? Just a normal picture made by a journalist or photograph at site. The current picture does portrait him in a positive light, if you know what I mean. It is staged, propaganda.

The photo is not a propaganda picture; it's a normal portrait. There's nothing wrong with it. If anything, your suggestion for a picture from a speech would be more propagandistic than anything else. Parsecboy (talk) 16:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, this picture is just an official portrait of him. I don't see how it can amount in itself, to "propaganda". If he were shown either kissing or eating a baby, you might be able to say it's propagandist, but as it stands, I think it's as neutral as, say, a picture of Winston Churchill, Josef Stalin or Harry S. Truman.--Rodhullandemu 16:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

No, in this picture he seems like a lovely human being. A normal human being. But he was a not. We need a picture of him in uniform and with the swastika wristband. Because that was the real Hitler. The current picture seems like a family portrait of a normal guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.94.186.41 (talk) 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

So, in fact, you're suggesting that we should ourselves propagandise as this image fails to do that? I think not. --Rodhullandemu 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraphs (above the contents box)

These paragraphs speak more about the actions of the NSDAP and the German armed forces than Adolf Hitler himself. Adolf did alot more with his life than invade countries. He was a talented painter, a decorated World War I hero, an Architectural enthusiast amongst many other things. Do we really need to focus on the holocaust and all those other things in the opening? This is an article about Hitler, the man, not the Wehrmacht and NSDAP. --The High Commander (talk) 08:13, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

You are exactly right, this is an article about Hitler, not the Wehrmacht and Nazi party. However, considering that Hitler controlled both the NSDAP and Wehrmacht, their actions under his direction are highly relevant, and in fact, the only reason you or I know his name. Were he just a failed painter or a WWI veteran, he wouldn't even have a Wiki article, so those things shouldn't go in the intro. Instead, he was a genocidal war-monger with absolute control of one of the world powers; this is exactly what needs to be said in the intro. It's perfectly fine as it stands. Parsecboy (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added the POV tag

I believe the opening paragraphs deliberately attempt to portray Adolf Hitler negatively. I'll come up with some changes and post them here and hopefully we can all work together to resolve this and rewrite the intro in a neutral manner. --The High Commander (talk) 13:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it is beyond belief that

After World War I, the Nazi Party gained power during Germany's period of crisis by exploiting nationalism, antisemitism, anti-communism, propaganda and by Hitler's charismatic oratory. The Nazis executed or assassinated many of their opponents, restructured the state economy, rearmed the armed forces (Wehrmacht) and established a totalitarian and fascist dictatorship. Hitler pursued a foreign policy with the goal of seizing Lebensraum ("living space"). The German Invasion of Poland in 1939 caused the British and French Empires to declare war on Germany, effectively beginning World War II.[3]

The Axis Powers occupied most of Mainland Europe and parts of Asia and Africa. Eventually the Allies defeated the Wehrmacht. By 1945, Germany was in ruins. Hitler's bid for territorial conquest and racial subjugation caused the deaths of tens of millions of people, including the systematic genocide of an estimated six million Jews, not including various additional "undesirable" populations, in what is known as the Holocaust.

has managed to remain in the intro to an article about Adolf Hitler. It's ridiculous, these paragraphs tell me nothing about the man himself. This is an encyclopaedia not a soapbox. --The High Commander (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler is not known for his artistic achievements, or for his military record before WW2. He is known for his political ideology and acts. That should be what the introduction discusses. Paul B (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is bullshit reasoning. Michael Jackson is famous for his music not his alleged bedroom exploits yet that features prominantly in that article. And even so, those paragraphs do not speak about what he did, but what his party did and what the armed forces did. --The High Commander (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Jackson is famous for both. He is more famous for the former, but he has also become famous for the latter. Hitler was an amateur painter whose works would be totally unknown were it not for his later activities, and his war record was shared by millions of others. There are many people who served in WW1. We don't put it in the intro unless that is part of what makes them famous. Wilfred Owen is famous as a poet, but only because his poetry was linked to his war service. J. R. R. Tolkein also served in the war, but he is not famous for having done so. Paul B (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

All of those things that are mentioned in the introduction are 100% direct products of Hitler controlling Germany; what you're suggesting would be akin to removing mention of Saddam Hussein's Iraq attacking Iran and later Kuwait to focus instead on his personal hobbies. It simply doesn't make sense. Parsecboy (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the existing lede is very clunky and poorly written. I would not object to including mention of his first world war service or even his failed artistic career in the lede, on the other hand. It is unarguable though that Hitler is known now almost entirely for his final 12 years in power, and the lede should very properly focus on that. --John (talk) 16:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

He's not famous as a WWI soldier, or as a failed painter; he's famous solely for his reign as the leader of Germany from 1933-1945. He might rate an article had he never attained power, because he was a fairly significant political activist, led a failed putsch, and wrote a book (that only became popular once he got into power and made everyone read it :p ), but no one outside of Germany would know his name. That he was also a painter has no business being in the lead. From WP:LEAD/Lede, the introduction is supposed to sum-up the article, and provide the most important points. Hitler's time as an artist is not one of the most important points. This supposed POV issue is utterly absurd. Parsecboy (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Propose new wording if you want, by all means, but I think the POV tag is totally unjustified. The paragraphs you give look to me like a neutral, accurate description of the things that Mr. Hitler is famous for. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:42, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the POV tag is unjustified. The matter of his WW1 service and his failed artistic career are germane to the lede because they have often been used as pointers to where his political views came from. --John (talk) 19:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, World War II made Hitler internationally famous to many. We all know what happened during World War II, that is why a chap may think 'hmm, that Hitler fellow did an awful lot during the war, I want to find out more about him. Let me look him up on wiki' and then that chap would come here, and simply be told why Hitler is famous and learn no more about the man himself. I don't think the lead should prattle on about him being an artist, but even before the war he was internationally famous for how he took a nation in ruins after the Great War, with millions starving, and restored it to a world power. --The High Commander (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

well the US presidents articles are quite well written, many of them... the art which was quite presentable would be in the "early life" section, but probably not in the intro as it was never notable until he became leader of the nazis. as for millions starving after WWI, well hyperinflation caused significant propblems for germany at that time but essentially the country was intact; after WWII it was devastated perhaps almost as much as by Gustavus Adolphus, and certainly more than the Magyars, but perhaps less than the black death?; it was from the great depression that the nazi party and certainly not really hitler solely or even mainly created a keynesian recovery from, by increasing public spending including armaments and road building. incidentally he chose speier (sp?) as an aide on the basis of his shared interest in architecture!Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 02:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what happens if one reads just the lead portion of any article. The introduction isn't supposed to have every single thing, it's supposed to be a brief summary of the most important points of the article. Hitler's revival of Germany is secondary to the war he started, and the genocide he perpetrated. And in fact, that is mentioned in the introduction: "...restructured the state economy, rearmed the armed forces..." His artistry is only important in that it was an aspiration since childhood, but that doesn't belong in the lead section. The body of the article exists for a reason, all of this information is already present there. There is in fact a whole section devoted to Hitler's programs for the economy and culture. Parsecboy (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Attempt at a Neutral version

Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who led the National Socialist German Workers Party. He was Chancellor of Germany (1933–1945) and Führer of Germany (1934–1945).

Born in Linz, Austria to Alois and Klara Hitler, Hitler had a normal upbringing. His father died in 1903 and after the death of his mother in 1907, Hitler moved to Vienna to pursue a career as an artist. He was rejected twice from the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna, being told his talent lay in Architecture rather than art.

At the outbreak of World War I, Hitler promptly enlisted in the Bavarian army, serving in France and Belgium and was twice decorated for bravery. He received the Iron Cross, Second Class, in 1914 and Iron Cross, First Class, in 1918.

After leaving the army in 1920, Hitler joined what would become the NSDAP and quickly rose through its ranks, becoming the Führer of the party in mid 1921. The party continued to gain popularity under Hitler until it was democratically elected to lead Germany in the 1933 elections. Hitler's attention now turned to rebuilding Germany, which was crippled by the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler set about rearming Germany's armed forces and revolutionised the economy with unprecedented upgrades to Germany's infrastructure.

This continued until in 1939, England declared war on Germany, sparking the beginning of World War II.

After a long romance with Eva Braun, she and Hitler wed on April 29th 1945. Along with Eva, Hitler committed suicide on April 30th, 1945, to avoid capture by Red Army troops.

I think this is neutral and gives a good overview of Hitler's life, rather than becoming bogged down with the unfortunate events of World War II. --The High Commander (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should agree it in talk first before implementing it though. There are quite a few problems with what you propose. Please attain consensus here first. --John (talk) 04:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this lead is unacceptable. Not only are you over-focusing on Adolph Hitler's personal life, which might merely be a misunderstanding of what a biography is for, but you are also retelling global events in an incredibly selective way. You mention infrastructure upgrades, but no Czechoslovakia or Poland, and then jump straight to England starting the Second World War—then you skip the "unfortunate events" of the war, which Hitler as absolute ruler of Nazi Germany played a key role in, and go straight to his death.

I recommend you go back and read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view more carefully. A neutral biography of Hitler will not make him look like a good guy, or even an ok guy, because he was neither. That doesn't mean it will say "Hitler was a bad man," because that is not neutral, but what it will do is describe his life and impact on the world in a neutral manner; from there, readers can make their own judgments. But we don't leave details out to try to make those judgments "neutral" in some way; one of the things Hitler is most famous for is a massive genocide, and so that goes in the lead. Anyone who thinks genocide is bad will have a poor opinion of Mr. Hitler after reading the lead; so be it. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:36, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Then perhaps it should mention world Jewry declaring war on Germany in 1933, and how Hitler attempted to have the Jewish people peacefully relocated out of Europe. It was SS leader Heinrich Himmler who had the concentration camps built, not Hitler. If I am not mistaken, Hitler never authorised the mass murder of anyone. Infact, the genocidal maniac against whom evidence points is Joseph Stalin. --The High Commander (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And yes it was England who started the war. Tens of thousands of Germans were being persecuted in East Prussia, and all Hitler ever asked of Poland was for Germany to have a land corridor to connect East Prussia with mainland Germany. Poland refused, and Hitler being left with no other option to defend his countrymen, was forced to invade Poland. Upon doing this, England and her allies declared war on Germany. Not the other way around as many mistakenly believe. --The High Commander (talk) 06:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah. You are certainly mistaken. Your opinions above are not consistent with the reliable sources on these subjects. -- SCZenz (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This is, to say the least, hilarious. International Jewry declared war on Germany in 1933? When did that happen? I'm aware of no such declaration. Wait, so you're saying Joseph Stalin orchestrated German mass murder? How on earth is that possible?

As for England starting the war, I believe you have your history wrong. Both England and France had previously signed treaties with Poland, guaranteeing her sovereignty against a German attack (but said nothing about a Soviet one, hence the reason neither declared war on the USSR after 17 Sept.). These treaties were very well known, Hitler spat on them and attacked anyway. He is directly responsible for the war, not Britain or France, who upheld their treaty obligations (to a degree, anyway). I'm also curious as to how Germans were being oppressed in East Prussia, which was...part of Germany at the time. Are you saying Hitler was oppressing his own people?

To sum up, your version is totally unacceptable, for the reasons I and others have stated. Parsecboy (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Read for yourself. From what you are saying, it sounds as if your knowledge on the subject extends about as far as what they taught you in highschool. Any state run school in an Allied country is only going to teach you a very one-sided, biassed version of events. --The High Commander (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And to further dignify your historical ignorance with another response, when Hitler order the invasion of Poland, so to did Joseph Stalin. As Hitler invaded from the West, the Red Army invaded from the East. Stalin murdered countless numbers of civilians, Jews included. --The High Commander (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tabloids are not reliable sources of information; they're sensational and often incorrect. Even still, Hitler was railing against the Jews long before their supposed declaration of war.

Did I not already mention the Soviet invasion of Poland on 17 Sept.? Did I also not state the reason the UK and France declared war on Germany and not the Soviets? Don't patronize me, and don't do so in such an obviously incorrect manner, or you'll just look foolish. As for the Soviet massacres in Poland, they were mostly targeted against those who would fight Soviet dominance, i.e., Polish military officers at Katyn. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Please, both of you, let's not make this a debate about history; that's not what talk pages are for. THC, you will need to present reliable sources, which means scholarly biographies and journal articles, if you're going to justify changing the content of this article. Until you do that, further discussion is pointless. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

This history is at the heart of this issue, however. THC apparently reads nothing but revisionist Nazi apologism, which is not acceptable by the vast majority of mainstream historians. Parsecboy (talk) 13:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

And you're only giving him a platform for his views as long as you argue with him. It's his responsibility to provide reliable sources to support his claims, and if he can't, then his views won't go into the article. Until then, there's no purpose to the debate, so please don't use Wikipedia as a debate forum. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't be fucked with this historical debate it has nought to do with the intro. There is nothing in the intro I wrote that isn't backed up by what the article already says, it simply gives an overview of Hitler's life rather than having 3 paragraphs of 'the Wehrmacht this..' and 'the NSDAP that..'. --The High Commander (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with your version is that it misrepresents Hitler's role in international affairs, and glosses over what the vast majority of historians have to say about Hitler. Parsecboy (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By missing out the Holocaust and Germany's defeat in WW2, I don't think it is a neutral version. A much smaller point is that England did not declare war on anyone; indeed it has not done so for hundreds of years. So, yes to the principle of tweaking the intro, but no to the idea of whitewashing Hitler's life by missing out all the bad bits. --John (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the intro is fine as it. The only change I would make would where it says "effectively beginning World War II". I would change that to "effectively beginning World War II in Europe" since arguably the war was already raging in Asia with Japan fighting China.12.10.248.51 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree in particular with the above comment, I'll be bold and add that bit myself, as I can't see how that can be disputed. SGGH ^speak! 17:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You do know that this has been disputed for weeks on the WW2 talk page. Paul B (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and also, perhaps "decorated veteran" of WWI? Reductio um Hitlerum or whatever it is can't possibly outrule the fact that he was decorated by someone other than himself at some point for services in WWI, wasn't he? Correct me if I am wrong and feel free to revert. SGGH ^speak! 17:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a source for this? I say that because it's traditional for anyone who serves in the military to get a campaign medal for the service they put in, but then they all get it, however non-valorous their involvement. If Hitler got some other medal, fine, but if all he got was the same as every other rank & file soldier, it's hardly worth mentioning. --Rodhullandemu 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, just spotted the above. I will lok at the Iron Cross & see if it's "over and above". --Rodhullandemu 17:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per here, it would seem to be rare enough to be notable.--Rodhullandemu 17:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)