Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 49

Archive 45

←

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

→

Archive 55

POV - any volunteers to edit?

proposal outline

there appears to be a somewhat laudatory tone to some of the vocabulary chosen for parts of this article; as a native briton this is clear to me; i understand many USA natives are less capable with our common? tongue... I suggest asking for volunteers from Britain to clean up this article in this respect. i don't have the time although i think it is important. i'm sure that this country, even in one city, say london, manchester, oxford or cambridge has the capacity to alter the slant of the articles vocabulary to more accurately reflect a truthful historical perspective, in a neutral way. it is not neccesary for an article of this nature to entertain by the richness of its vocabulary if by using more prosaic terms a more NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW can be presented.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 14:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

initial responses to proposal

In my opinion, the article is already neutral and contains no excessive laudatory vocabulary. It has been painstakingly vetted by a number of skilled editors, none of whom saw fit to describe the prose as not representing a truthful perspective.

By the way: welcome to the internet, where a phrase in all caps is seen as shouting. I note that your use of the shift key doesn't extend to employing a capital letter at the beginnings of sentences or in the word 'I'... As a non-British native speaker of English, I'm affronted by your suggestion that only certain Brits are capable of proper editing. Poppycock! If expert opinion were needed here, one who can use proper punctuation would be indicated. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

By Jove! Have Colonials been let loose on the article? Dash the bounders. They can't even capitalize the names of towns, I'll be bound. Paul B (talk) 15:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

example of how the edit process proposed could remove any bias in vocabulary choice

for example now it says "Hitler was a veteran of World War I who achieved leadership of the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany"

i would feel less offended and it would be more neutral to say:- "Hitler, although a citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire volunteered for and fought in the army of the Prussian Empire in World War I, and in the period of political instability that followed that war infiltrated the German Workers Party, became its leader and turned it into the Nazi Party with the support of his controllers in the German Secret Police."

A. "veteran" i have removed as it is a positive word, which has connotations of maturity, normality, sound judgement, friendliness with others through shared experiences and competence. although hitler was in the Prussian army for most of that war of four years i believe the use of the term veteran is inaccurate and biased for the following reasons

1/ he had none of the characteristics that veteran connotates; examples of which i have listed above

2/ whilst technically having served as a soldier and fought for several years he may be considered to be a veteran however it is debatable whether in the modern context (and many historical one too) if someone would be defined as a veteran before a much longer period of enlistment had passed. as a compromise between varying possible positions on that i would say that the word veteran, in a biographical global historical context could mostly be used for a soldier of more than 10 years service. not to denigrate in any way the considerable valour and ability of soldiers who have fought for shorter periods, very often dare i say making greater sacrifices than professionals who serve out their time, and not to deny the technical or legislative definitions of "veteran" in various countries in which context it may mean anyone who has been in the military or any one who has fought for any length of time in any conflict, but to acknowledge the global and historical aggregate of the use of the term.

3/ the general positive tone of the word is not NPOV in the context of Hitler, in view of the historical assessment of his various and, dare i say it as this is not in the article, nefarious deeds.

B. the inclusion of the facts that he enlisted abroad is significant for the introduction as it is the mechanism for his shift from austria to germany and later involvement in german politics

C. since others have chosen to refer to empires in this case it is worth referring to the Prussian Empire as there can be a link to it, and it is worth noting that it was an empire and that the previous German states eg hanover, bavaria etc were essentially conquered militarily or pressured by various things especially military force into "joining" the Prussian Empire. but those facts which are therefore referred to by using the term "Prussian Empire" should be dealt with in the article with that title or similar and have a link here.

D. weimar republic. i recommend dealing with that in more detail below, whilst all students of the period know roughly what it means the casual reader who may be from outwith a european culture in this day and age or never have studied history will find no meaning whatsoever in the phrase, that’s ok as you can link, but for the introduction i feel a more accessible and informative phrase such as, perhaps "the period of political instability following the first world war" is better, talking about weimar lower down.

E. achieved leadership. again some excessively positive words. he was the leader of that party, i suppose, I believe even that is too positive, i would prefer something like "boss" but "leaderSHIP" itself is in fact a positive personal characteristic rather than a position which is "the leader". i believe there is no evidence that Hitler possessed leadership qualities. just for example his war record showed that he was thought to be weird and unpopular by his comrades on the front, although his bravery and military skills were sufficient for a higher rank than he achieved it was his ability to handle men ie leadership which was not. further his rise in the nazi party was due to his great ability as a public speaker on a stage, which was highly theatrical and remote and his access to funds from the German Secret Police, not any great leadership abilities. later he stayed in position due to the effect his oratory had on the german population, recruiting their support for the party, further revenues from the sales of his book (Kampf) and the support of Rohms SA. He also picked as his lieutenants mostly mediocrities with defective personalities who proceeded to form themselves into a few conflicting cliques which thus kept him in position both because they were not particularly competent themselves and because they were wary of the other cliques, so all parts of the German Nazi party supported Hitler. After that he got his "worshipper" to head the SS and ruled by fear. NOT what anyone would describe as "leadership, i believe, more like intrigue, low cunning and happenstance. I have here proposed "leader" as a compromise.

F. achieved. i believe it was not an achievement at all for him to become leader of that party as he changed it from a fairly undefined expression of populist discontent into a monster that destroyed germany in a conflagration of unprecedented proportions... a true achievement for him would be to be in that party or another and learn how to be a real peaceful democratic politician for example... having listened to him speak, where he sounds totally insane, almost incoherent i feel that that was very unlikely to happen... but that is the meaning of achievement in politics surely? further he received so much help from his secret police controllers to become boss of the Nazis that it can hardly be said to be his doing at all.

G. points of detail regarding rise in nazi party , factually more accurate in that it was not called nazi when he joined it he was part of the renaming... some of it due to funding and to make clear that from early on this was not an independent political movement but strings were being pulled and finances coming from outside. (dealt with in more detail below in the article and in articles on the nazi party in general but i believe worth a few words in the introduction as the rise to leadership in the Nazi party was arguably the key turning point in his life which projected him to wikipedia notability!!! after all even if they had never governed he would still following that rise in that party have been of some note and infamy indeed in the history of germany, and probably involved in far right politics for longer than he actually was(!!), although it took till 1933 perhaps before the turning point to being one of the key figures in history occurred.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

i think you can see now why i am calling for a mass of volunteers to edit this article. PLEASE if you are against Hitler and his legacy then help to make this article less Hitler-praising! it is a long task and if it has to be justified like i have doen with this example its going to take vast numbers of people.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

further debate on the detailed example and proposal

Speaking as a native Briton, I think the article's fine as it is, and am not convinced by your arguments. I won't go though them in much detail, because I think overall they are fundamentally flawed. Principally,

• "veteran" has several meanings, depending whether it's applied to a car or a soldier; in the latter case it applies to "a person who has grown old in or had long experience of (esp. military) service or occupation"- I don't see that this is in any way POV. Whether it's so is a fact. Somewhat moot in Hitler's case since he can't be said to have had long military service. In any event, I see it as neutral.
• "leadership" is also a factual term. Many become leaders without exhibiting what others might consider qualities of leadership, but neverthless it is a fact in his case, and again, not POV.
• "achieved" is also a neutral term. Just as climbing Mt Everest is seen as an achievement in one sense, so is conquernig most of Europe, in the sense of "attaining a goal". Again, here, not POV.

We can pick the flesh off the bones of these words as long as we like, but the test is whether our readers will get the essence of Hitler's life and career. And my opinion is that as it's currently worded, they will. --Rodhullandemu 16:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no pressing need for major changes on this page. --John (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

answer to binksternet (above) 23/6/08

you have not read my posting correctly.

1/ i did not accuse the article of having excessive laudatory vocabulary

2/ re that i would say ANY laudatory vocabulary (where avoidable) in an article about someone who has caused so much destruction of life and has been historically condemned would not be neutral, as it would be implicitly supporting murder. i suppose if i said “hitler was a talented painter” that might be seen as laudatory by some... personally i would define it as POSITIVE language but not LAUDATORY whereas IF i said “hitler’s paintings were splendid/delightful/wonderful etc paintings..” then that would be laudatory, in my opinion. of course derivationally laudation is some form of congratulation, prize, praise, public acknowledgement etc.

3/ WHAT i accused the article of was having “a somewhat laudatory tone” to “some of the vocabulary” i also indirectly accused it of having vocabulary that is slanted more favourably to the subject than the neutral point for that subject requires. i also accused the article of containing “excessively positive words” section E.

4/ i believe that in the context of such a widely hated and justly condemned person to have a truly NPOV the article should not express anything even remotely laudatory or congratulatory if at all avoidable in reporting the established facts.

5/ as for your opinion of the skill of and amount of care taken by the previous editors it is a distraction to the debate for you to express it as anybody who wishes to make a judgement of that may do so themselves by looking at the article with reference to the points i or others have made regarding its true neutrality. and unless YOU are one of these skilled editors you praise then how do you know how painstaking they have been?

6/ perhaps you believe it to show a truthful perspective, perhaps the previous editors agree with you. i do not, and with an example from the introduction alone, point by point i have described my suggestions for the types of changes that could be made to give an article on such a distasteful but necessary subject a truly neutral point of view, in tone as well as in reported facts.

7/ i have explained each point in the edit suggested as an example of what could be done to the whole article. and i invite as many people as have a good general education, a dislike of hitler but an ability to write neutrally and a native speakers knowledge of “english english” to consider the points i made and create a project to give this article a truly neutral point of view. oh and as regards correct use of english, we english ARE the traditional speakers of the language, we are the guardians its literary culture and frankly there is far more in other variants of english that we know is wrong than the native speakers of those variants could find with our english

8/ further the other varieties of english tend to be closer to ours than to each other e.g. australian to americans sounds like british... or at least american actors tend to sound australian when they are trying to speak british english. perhaps if you don’t like this you could adopt another language, maybe german :-))) titter titter - and i remember from Schuele they are very very diligent about their capitals. Just as We were in Victorian Times.???!!!

9/ by the way are you a “good study” !?!?!?! wt*!!!

10/ concerning punctuation(!) NB this is a red herring no need to mention this re the debate. my understanding of the nuances of my native vocabulary is not related to my less than perfect punctuation. i choose not to bother capitalising as it is a waste of time. as for my use of block capitals i think it is silly and old fashioned in internet terms to think of them as shouting, it is in fact very difficult to get the same impact as shouting from the typed page and certainly capitals would not have that effect on any normal person –perhaps on a recluse?

11/ i use block capitals, as do many these days, to emphasize particular words or phrases as italics tend not to stand out as well on the screen as they did on paper. and btw i have been using the internet for longer than i really want to tell.

answer to rodhullandemu and your supporter john (above) 23/6/08

1/ the very reason you SHOULD go into my arguments in detail is because you think they are flawed! i am more logical than you! and “overall”? “fundamentally”? how many more sound bites do you want to through into the pot? are you a member of the Lie-Bore party perhaps?!

2/ veteran cars – irrelevant; clearly you have not read my list of connotations of the word veteran, how can you say it is a neutral word? it is one of the most loaded words in my language. (english english) you might as well say “saviour” is not loaded

3/ if you had read my definition of the nuances and mental associations of “veteran” then you would see that, if even one of those associations (to which i can perhaps be allowed to add trustworthiness and reliability?) was true which i believe they all are but if even one or any of them was true for the majority of readers then the word would have a positive meaning and unless strictly necessary for accuracy would be bias in favour of the subject. ie a non neutral point of view(POV)

4/ as for your definition of veteran i think if any reasonably intelligent person read my passage on that would see that they are essentially the same... and thank you for essentially agreeing with me that hitler should not be described as a veteran due to not actually fitting the dictionary definition. (i give a much longer summary of issues concerning that in section A2. Other terms exist for lesser periods of experience; phrases such as “he served in the xyz campaign of 1234 AD and ...etc” seem to be most often used in history books, other words such as ex-soldier, experienced soldier, combat-seasoned etc etc are available for particular purposes.) or rather you agree that it is not truly accurate in which case it would be laughable to say that it should stay in. i justify its removal despite various other possible interpretations of the word in section A.2. above.

5/ so essentially you have agreed that it’s inaccurate and have failed completely to address the real issues of its nuances / positive associations. i hope the vast bulk of wikipedians will agree with me, and that many will help with this editing

6/ you say achieved is neutral; i don’t know where you live, whether its even on this planet, but if you use the internet you must be aware that in the modern world achievement is a term of extremely high positive emotional impact; the fact is it is NOT necessary to use this term to convey the essential facts, which “infiltrated the German Workers Party, became its leader....” conveys just as well AND WITHOUT giving any positive feeling about hitler.

7/ furthermore, as i explained in the passage (E.) above hitler really didn’t actively as the main mover do anything special to become leader of the nazis. at the munich putsch for example he ran away while hindenberg showed his courage and leadership qualities if i remember my reading aright; no, hitler already had by that time an increasingly rigid set of views which however bizarre, dictatorial and murderous they were arose from his experiences essentially as an ordinary austro-german, and considerable experience of public speaking and putting the two together his rhetoric and theatrical style proved a “smash-hit” (no pun intended) with many germans and so the party wanted him because he pulled in the punters. more on his passivity in passage E. above; whereas the example you give of climbing everest is by its very nature the successful conclusion of a determined, painful, exhausting, brave, life and limb threatening, health-damaging and mentally taxing endeavour; to succeed at that would be an achievement of the courageous type and is a great example of the massive positive connotations of the word “achieve” which is assosciated with dynamic businessmen creating wealth and new products and students getting longed for high marks in exams or people at work meeting deadlines and targets, especially if they are the best in the company for example. Essentially hitler went through none of these things to become leader of the party, although later he was to go through some of them in the course of gaining the chancellorship or of waging the savage wars he started on most of his neighbours and the USA, canada, australia, new zealand and the british empire however THEN he struggled in vain and acheived nothing.

8/ you say that you believe it was his achievement to conquer “most of europe”. firstly that is not what we are discussing here as we are dealing with his becoming leader of the german workers party which was many years before world war II... secondly the pointless conquest piecemeal of large parts of various european countries, insecurely held and without any stable political settlement as nazism didnt really have a concept of co-operating with non german peoples, plus the mix of his allies variously consisting of countries with populations divided in half by support and opposition to him and others simply intimidated into alliance was in my view not a political achievement at all. the military achievement of defeating several nations in battle was achieved by the german army, essentially despite hitler, and his main impetus was to increase the number of soldiers drafted and military budgets. which almost anyone would do if planning a major war. in fact the german army had drawn up plans for expanding the draft long before but awaited the politicians paying for it and permitting it, and hitler has been criticised for not mobilising enough resources for war, for example women were not drafted to factories, whilst on our side even as far away as new zealand the allies were drafting essential labour for war.

9/ so i think it is fairly clear that [a] achieved is a loaded term with, and increasingly so in the modern world, immense positive connotations and that [b] achieved is not the most historically accurate way to simply describe his political promotion at that time. whereas “became leader of....” certainly isn’t negative, so what do you have against it?

10/ your metaphor is obscure.... but fundamentally what i have been doing is trying to MERELY DEMONSTRATE with this one exemplary sentence how this article has “hidden” even subliminal, bias towards the direction of favouring hitler, and away from the NPOV, mainly contained not in the facts reported, but in the associative connotations of the vocabulary and phrasing; and how that bias can be corrected and removed without introducing the countervailing POV. of course all is up for genuine debate but it does depend on others reading the logical points made and responding to them in like manner.

11/ getting the gist of hitler’s life is obviously the main aim of any encyclopedic introduction to an article on him, however it is not the only aim, which in this encyclopedia includes a neutral POV

Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 01:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

24/6/08 yesterday i forgot to deal with the positive emotional impact of the word “leadership”.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Before i deal with your point i will just give a bit of background. “Leadership” is a word which has been more and more used over the decades of the last century or so. Earlier on people were said to have for example “demonstrated great leadership” by, leading, obviously, mostly personally and in situations of danger, very often military, small to medium sized groups of men to achieve some difficult and/or dangerous objective not merely by skill in arms or bravery but by the ‘correct’ psychological encouragement and command of those men. As time has gone by the concept has been applied to business, community groups, charity work etc. Concepts such as “leadership ability”, “leadership potential”, “leadership qualities” etc have not only arisen but training courses to achieve them, philosophies of management, psychological studies of personal development and research and practice of recruitment and education in general have all arisen around the word “leadership”.... compare with, e.g. “captaincy” a slightly obscure word of very similar technical meaning which has almost none of that history of use which gives “leadership” such an extraordinary positive nuance. or “control” a very slightly different factual meaning but some completely different and often negative nuances. etc etc. there is no necessity whatsoever to use the word leaderSHIP in this paragraph as the word “leader” has far fewer excessively strong nuances and in this case i believe conveys a more accurate meaningAuthouredbyanybody??? (talk) 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

you say:- • "leadership" is also a factual term. Many become leaders without exhibiting what others might consider qualities of leadership, but neverthless it is a fact in his case, and again, not POV. In the light of what i say immediately above “leadership” is a term which has a definite strong positive emotional nuance in favour of any subject of it. i believe that that is well demonstrated there. As you yourself say they have “become leaders”! about what i want to change the wording to in fact. so thats alright then.

so as the word LeaderSHIP gives a positive bias and “leader” is what it was factually then that is a good reason to change the wording, as it can be both more accurate and more NPOV.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've said has given me a reason to change my mind, especially the gratuitously insulting "member of the Lie-Bore party" comment. However, writing a Wikipedia article is not some jejune and hermetic exercise about nuances of words as long as the reader is given a fair picture of the subject, and so far the consensus seems to be that the article achieves that. I think you are talking to yourself on this point. --Rodhullandemu 20:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

apology re: humour not detected as such??

i am very sorry that my jokey little nickname for Labour = Lie-Bore !!! offended any person whatsoever... totally totally sorry about that... what was intended was that it was a humourous way of complaining about you throwing irrelevancies into the debate, whilst not meeting my arguments head on. more on your talk page

oh and it was not gratuitous as i was using the humour to emphasise my point about you using too many rhetorical phrases / sound-bites which merely obscured the debate.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 01:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

further points and summing up against the proposal

Veteran is a totally neutral word. I've no idea what you mean when you say "this [Nazism] was not an independent political movement but strings were being pulled and finances coming from outside". All parties have external funding. It would be POV to make these statements. I think your other comments are overly concerned to read 'positive' meanings into neutrral terms. Yes he 2achived" leadership of the party and it's hardly an insignificant matter that he became a national leader. We aren't glorifying him by describing that fact, or to use the word "leadership". Paul B (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Your stated point of view is against Hitler and his legacy. Naturally, all right-thinking people will be against genocide, persecution, racial prejudice, etc.—the evil things Hitler was known for. However, this article is about a leader who inspired millions as well as being about a man whose decisions led to unprecedented destruction and murder. There's bound to be some good aspects of his life revealed here. It just can't be the case that the article become a relentless recitation of how bad a person he was.

You have established your position as being against the current tone, a tone which I think is already accurate and neutral. How can you work to make this article more neutral, considering your slant? I do not see the benefit of your suggestions. So long... Binksternet (talk) 16:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No. Consensus is against you. End of story. Try actually writing an article yourself before you begin to rewrite those that others have taken years to build up. --Rodhullandemu 21:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

further responses to points against the proposal

Isn't this kind of funny? In the span of a week or so, we've had an editor complain that the article is too critical of Hitler, and now another saying it's too lenient. Can't please everyone, I suppose. Parsecboy (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

response to paul barlow 16.48 23/6/8

24/6/08 answer to Paul Barlow

1/ clearly you have not read my list of connotations of the word veteran, how can you say it is a totally neutral word? it is one of the most loaded words in my language. (english english) you might as well say “saviour” is not loaded. in fact there are very few words that can be described as TOTALLY neutral, if you consider reportedly 800,000 words in english, in fact the very reason there are so many is so that words that mean almost the same thing or exactly the same object in the case of a noun can be used with different connotations. compare for example “canine faeces” and “dog-shit”. or “blood spouted from his wounds” with “he exsanguinated rapidly from the lesion”

2/ wrt my comment on external influences and manipulation of the german nazi party.

[a] i was not suggesting that the line in question should be inserted as part of my example and indeed that much detail would be inappropriate for an introduction, imho.

-dealt with in more detail below in the article and in articles on the nazi party in general but i believe worth a few words in the introduction as the rise to leadership in the Nazi party was arguably the key turning point in his life which projected him to wikipedia notability!!! after all even if they had never governed he would still following that rise in that party have been of some note and infamy indeed in the history of germany, and probably involved in far right politics for longer than he actually was(!!), although it took till 1933 perhaps before the turning point to being one of the key figures in history occurred

[b] what i in fact suggested was that “achieved leadership of the Nazi Party in Weimar Germany” -----> change to -------> “infiltrated the German Workers Party, became its leader and turned it into the Nazi Party with the support of his controllers in the German Secret Police.”

-i have already dealt at length with the nuances of “achieved” and “leadership”. and suggested alternatives

[c] the reason for the rest of the changes ie mentioning i/ infiltration, ii/ the change of party name and iii/ the support of the German Secret Police

is to correctly describe very briefly the MECHANISM of, and approximate role or position of hitler in this key development in his life.

[d] when i wrote “to make clear that from early on this was not an independent political movement but strings were being pulled and finances coming from outside.” i inadvertently exaggerated by saying “make clear”, i really meant “indicate”,[btw this is for the talk not the article;] meanwhile, btw, changes proposed to the article are as in [b] “infiltrated ..... Police”.

the sentence proposed does not really “make clear... not independant.... finances coming from the outside”, but hints at that, which is covered in more detail later in the article, however it DOES say that in the first part of its life the nazis were to a large degree directed from outside. hitler was not just influenced by that direction he was part of intelligence gathering and later a plant, more or less open, that operated in the party according to directions from outside.

[e] you say it would be POV to say "this [Nazism] was not an independent political movement but strings were being pulled and finances coming from outside". i disagree with you if you say that the facts in that statement are false BUT if you are saying it is POV because of emotive and excessively negatively nuanced vocabulary then i agree, it could be re-worded better for an encyclopedia, anyway i am not proposing it for insertion right now and certainly not in that form or for the introduction.

[f] all parties do not have external funding, many rely on their members alone. in america today you can’t donate more than £1,000 approx.

[g] i am not saying that hitler becoming leader of the german nazi party was insignificant at all, in fact i am giving it more weight in the introduction by describing its mechanism briefly, just tempering the language to remove any congratulatory tone. see sections 7, 8 and 9 of my “answer to rodhullandemu and your supporter john 23/6/8 and also section G of my breakdown of reasons to change the example phrase. eg. “worth a few words in the introduction as the rise to leadership in the Nazi party was arguably the key turning point in his life which projected him to wikipedia notability!!!” clearly states the notability of this turning point in hitler’s life.

[h] so looking at sections F an G and also sections 7,8 and 9 of answer to rodhullandemu and your supporter john (above) 23/6/08 you can see that although he “became” leader of the party it was not his achievement and best and more neutrally described as becoming rather than achieving.

[i] you said “overly concerned to read 'positive' meanings into neutral terms” but that is not exactly right. i just want to see, in the case of this sensitive topic a profound diligence in removing any flavour of pro-hitlerism whatsoever from the document.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

further debate

Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that if there is anything good to be said about Hitler, for example that he treated Eva Braun kindly, was fond of animals, or was a moderately good artist, it should not be in the article because that would be in his favour? Is that not a non-neutral point of view? --Rodhullandemu 04:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

facts are facts; it is the choice of vocabulary i am talking aboutAuthouredbyanybody??? (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's just the vocabulary of the article, would you prefer to preface any positive facts about Hitler with negative adjectives like "Hitler heinously treated Eva Braun in a kind manner" or "Hitler was dastardly fond of his dogs"? Yes, I'm being a smart-ass, but it's in an effort to demonstrate that Hitler did in fact have some positive qualities, and not mentioning them or attempting to cover them up with purposefully negative wording is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. In much the same vein, objecting to neutral words like "leadership", "achieved", or "veteran" is also problematic, because the argument that they have some supposed positive connotation is just plain false. Your comment above about the 800,000 different words in the English language doesn't demonstrate anything. Last time I checked, dog feces has the same exact meaning and connotation as dog shit, but then maybe I'm just an ignorant colonial with no understanding of our common language. To address your problems with the phrasing of Hitler's ascendancy in the NASDAP, IRRC, the only thing Hitler changed was to add "Socialist" to the title; Nazi was a slang term much the same as how the SPD was referred to as the Sozis. Parsecboy (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

if you had read carefully my example of how an edit which in my view would remove some measure of glorification of hitler which i find in this article you would know that covering up of ANY verifiable facts about the subject (hitler) is absolutely not what i recomend. in terms of his personal relationships, which in my opinion were on the whole pathological btw, or anything else, such as his painting which i frankly believe was of a higher technical standard than the majority of artsits showing in the major galleries today, again btw, if there were verifiable facts concerning such things or anything else, i would want them reported as simply and neutrally as possible. if one had both positive and negative things to say, for example concerning the paintings i would say them separately but simply rather than mixing two pieces of information. eg. i would not say "the unpopular well executed paintings were...."etc but "The paintings were unpopular with xyz. Art critics have graded the technical standard as abcdefghij." as well as not mixing the positives and negatives too much i don't believe highly emotive adjectives have much place in an encyclpaedic article... unless verifiable. also of course i realise this was a joke example you gave, but i am a firm believe in emotional consistency within sentences or phrases for clear communication. eg "the vile monster" vs. "the useless PC". of course you could swap those but that would give a quirky meaning to the phrases... not clear.

also i want an NPOV in the article, although i admit i do not have one myself... nor does anybody (i think). my aim is to encourage the removal of emotionally loaded positive words and their replacement with more neutral ones. i do not think that this is so important with condemnatory words as the mid-point neutral of world opinion concerning hitler must be considerably condemnatory of him.

please parsec read my justification of my edit example the lettered section A, B, C etc. as it in detail explains why those words: leadership, achieved and veteran have enormous positive connotations.

the phrases canine faeces and dog shit are merely examples of phrases which have a totally different emotional impact, although the material meaning is the same.

i am no expert on the name changes of the nazis but it started as German Workers Party and i believe hitler was involved in the changes. i will check on that for my interest, although it is not relevant to what i am asking for, if this project did go ahead such detail would be vital, thanks.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be the only person arguing that the language is currently POV. You are the only person who is arguing that words are "emotionally loaded". You are the only person who is not constructing orthographical sentences. You are the only editor here who has not yet contributed a single useful edit to any article, let alone start an article and take it to WP:GA status. In short, there is nothing in your arguments to convince anyone that you understand any of the issues involved in actually writing articles here. If there's ANY "glorification" of Hitler in this article, it is beneath notice, because be certain that if there had been, it would have been ruthlessly excised long before you came along, by experienced editors who understand the issues and know what they're talking about. As far as I'm concerned, you've failed to make a case and are beginning to become disruptive. --Rodhullandemu 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

your opinion concerning my proposal has been re-iterated several times now. but you have not answered any of my arguments directly, only going back over old ground again and again and saying things that confuse the issues, in fact discussing things i haven't even mentioned as if i had. all i want is for the potential editors i am calling for to read my proposal, example and justifications A, B, C, D, E, F, G etc. and decide if they can help.

OK, I've offered my informed opinion, based on my experience. I think I have directly answered the gist of your arguments. I'm sorry if doing that leaves you confused. As for the potential editors you address, they are only going to come here if they read the article and perceive any deficiencies in it, and there may be many reasons for that. It's considered conventional to allow, say five to seven days for consensus to develop, and I will now leave you on your own to see if, in fact, that happens. Best of luck with it. --Rodhullandemu 23:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

once the other immediate objectors have said what they want to say, which most seem to have and i have answered them i too will leave this material open to the view of the wikipedia community to see if anyone or how many will want to contribute.

i must say that i will read your comments again, but having tried to answer them in detail here i do not believe you ever countered my points in fact. i am not confused, i just feel you have not entered into the debate. i believe it will take much longer than a week for any consensus to develop on such an emotive topic as the neutrality of an article on perhaps the most hated dictator in history. and as what i want in the end is a long term project, even longer.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

too long

is this article not far too long, i see there are already many subsidiary articles, can more of this be summarised and put to subsidiary articles a lot of the material here is not of interest to the majority of readers e.g. the germanic meaning of his name for example, LINKS!!! surely are good enough for trivia like that.Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll say this - "Defeat and death" looks like an overblown plot summary for Downfall. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The article is crazy long, but is that so bad? You can hit the links to jump to points of interest and I think the intro summary does a pretty decent job of hitting the highlights. Susanthedefender (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

i believe that all the stuff about his name meaning wolf that devours nobility or whatever your interpretation of the old teutonic aedel-wulf from which it purportedly derives - or is it wolf that devours justice as in aedile? anyway all this belongs in a series of articles on name meanings etc. no references for my interpretation but perhaps fenrir is the model of wolves in te teutonic mythology?? although of course really wolves are lovely social animals who care for there young and have a measure of sex-equality; but i guess the name comes from the myth rather than the reality of these wild canines? so the stuff about first name should be just a link, yeah?Authouredbyanybody??? (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hitler as a Liberal

I have a question. I have noticed that over the past few years, that political conservatives in the U.S. have being calling hitler a liberal, left-wing, and so forth. Is this some elaborate smear campaign against left-wing politicians that hopes to play off of the ignorance of people? It is absolutly ridiculous!--71.72.174.255 (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's common for the American right to claim that the Nazis were in some sense left wing because they used the term Socialism and were in favour of "big government". This only makes sense in terms of modern US politics. The transformation of the word "liberal" to mean "left-wing" is almost wholly unique to the US. Only in a wild mental abberation could Hitler be called liberal! Paul B (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

But is this sort of thing anything new? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's religious status and creed.

I'd like to suggest that Hitler's religion status as 'Christian' be revised to 'Atheist' or 'Christian raised/converted Atheist', since Hitler was an avowed atheist. He once said "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity."

Additionally, I think that the section on his religious beliefs should also be updated to include the words of Traudl Junge, Hitler's personal secretary, whom wrote:

He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved onto human beings, perhaps by way of apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind, and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind.' —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackWhirlwind (talk • contribs) 14:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This might be relevant at Talk:Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs, if the statements you make can be verified from reliable sources. Can they? --John (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler was absolutely not an atheist. The literature about that is clear. You seem to confuse not being a Christian with not believing in God. Many non-Christians also believe in God you know, and the evidence that Hitler rejected atheism in favour of an ideology of "divine" destiny is good. The statement that "he was not a member of any church" is false. He was a member of the Catholic church. Did he believe in its doctrines? Officially yes. In reality, almost certainly no. Paul B (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

John, indeed I can provide a veritable reference to that above quote from Traudl Junge, it was taken from 'Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary' By Traudl Junge (author) and Melissa Muller(editor) Page 108. Is this where it becomes accepted for an update? And if so, who authorizes it? I am new to Wikipedia.

In response to Paul, Hitler wasn't a member of the Catholic church which is confirmed in the above quote from his secretary. However, he was born and raised by a Catholic family, but he relinquished any such beliefs of Christianity in adulthood. However, because Christianity was a pervasive religion in Germany, he assumed that position when in power, and thus warped it to his own cause by using its symbols where possible. One genuine Christian, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, was executed for being a fervent opponent of Nazism, in which he put in print "He may call this ideology Christian (i.e. Nazism), but in doing so he becomes Christ's enemy." Incidentally Paul, I do very much agree with your assertion that 'just because one is not a Christian, does not mean that one is an atheist.', so perhaps 'Deism' would be more apt for Hitler's religious status? Again I ask, how does one go about getting the encyclopedia updated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackWhirlwind (talk • contribs) 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with that portion of the infobox as it is. Hitler was a self-proclaimed Christian, but clearly not a "traditional" one, so the caveat that the reader should check the section in the article that discusses his religious beliefs in detail is adequate to inform said reader of the complexities of this aspect of Hitler. Parsecboy (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hitler stated ""I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." [1]. This is well attested. He was baptised and confirmed. What his secretary said is very poor evidence. You need to look at scholars. The most detailed discussion is in the Jan 2007 issue of the Journal of Contemporary History, which has five detailed articles on Hitler's religious ideology and policy. I have read all of them, along with Steigmann-Gall's "The Holy Reich". I suggest that if you want to "update" the article, then you should read the latest literature. No-one, I'm sure, is claiming that he believed in Catholic doctrine. Of course he didn't. You can add anythoing you like, including the Junge passage, but it's not a good source, and it's better placed in the Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs article. Paul B (talk) 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed we agree that he wasn't actually a Christian in practice, despite his proclamations. Therefore my contention is that to list him as under the Christian religion is a misnomer and unrepresentative of Christianity in general. He may have proclaimed himself a Catholic, but it was merely nothing more than a palatable pretense. Hitler was able to reconcile homicide of an entire race by deluding himself that the Jewish population was of an inferior species, and thus were deemed sub-human and ergo expendable. Naturally, this is wholly false and I'm sure Hitler wouldn't have publicly proclaimed himself to be a genocidal maniac, but that is precisely what he was. His actions and beliefs directly contravene the Christian doctrine and in no way reflect its philosophy on life. Paul, I beg to differ on the credibility of the source, because I think that the words of someone who actually knew and served under the man in question is of an extremely reliable source, scholar or no scholar.

Parsecboy rightly highlights the part about his rejection of "traditional Christianity", which I did notice, and I believe that is where I think the quote from Traudl Junge should be added to the encyclopedia.

Anyhow, those are my views. I may consider posting about this under the article suggested by Paul and John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackWhirlwind (talk • contribs) 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Before you get carried away revising articles you should probably first read up on the history of anti-Semitic views by Christians, be they church fathers, popes or protestant reformers (for example, On the Jews and Their Lies by Martin Luther) to get some kind of idea of the depth of the subject. I see nothing odd in a person claiming they are Christian and then systemically killing Jews: historically it has precedent. As such this article doesn't feel wrong. Obviously modern day Christians would want to revise history (for example mea culpa by Lutheran churches) but this is a modern view not contemporaneous to the lifetime of Hitler. Ttiotsw (talk) 23:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You see nothing odd in that? 1 of 10 commandments explicitly states 'Thou shalt not murder', and yet premeditated killing, or any unlawful killing which is not committed in self defense, doesn't strike you as incongruous with that credo? There is nothing in Christian philosophy that incites hatred against anyone, including the Jews. At the very core, it is the exact opposite. The philosophy, as virtually everyone will know, is founded in Jesus Christ, whom said to 'love your friends, neighbour and enemy', to 'treat others as you would like to be treated', and to 'turn the other cheek in the face of provocation'. All clubs stipulate rules, and if you break those rules then you're not welcome as a member of that club. Absolute morals in Christianity are very similar to the rules of a club, and do not change as time elapses, despite human error. Alas, it is people that often manipulate a good cause to suit an evil end, but never does it define the ideology it misrepresents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackWhirlwind (talk • contribs) 00:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's be honest. According to your criteria, Urban II wasn't a Christian, because he in effect ordered the killings of thousands of Muslims who hadn't done anything but live in the Holy Land. History is rife with examples of Christian violence, not to mention widespread anti-semitism in nearly all sects of Christianity, from Protestantism, to Catholicism, to Eastern Orthodox. Christianity and bigotry are not mutually exclusive, no matter how repulsive it may be. Regardless, this discussion is going off on a tangent. The point remains that Hitler professed to be a Christian; whether that was Catholicism or some form of "Positive Christianity" is irrelevant. It's not up to us to decide such details. It's best to list the broadest term in the infobox, with a link to the relevant discussion so readers who would like to learn more can easily locate the related section. Parsecboy (talk) 03:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. It goes by self-identification; we trust our readers to make the judgment whether he lived by the ten commandments or the sermon on the mount for themselves. As Ttiotsw says there is a long tradition of self-professed Christian believers acting in this way towards the Jewish people, so it is hardly incongruous in the context of history. Nor has it gone unremarked upon; I recall a passage in one of Kurt Vonnegut's books where he talks about the cross on the Luftwaffe planes and the Wehrmacht tanks being a Christian one. It may have been Slaughterhouse-Five. --John (talk) 04:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Impossible dates

He can't have changed his surname "in 1876". He wasn't born then. Andy (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The reference is to Adolf's father Alois changing his name, not Adolf.--DavidCane (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

wrong translation

   Für Frieden Freiheit
   Und Demokratie
   Nie wieder Faschismus
   Millionen Tote mahnen

Loosely translated, it reads: "For Peace, Freedom and Democracy - Never Again Fascism - Remember the Millions Dead."

"Millionen Tote mahnen" does not mean "Remember the Millions Dead" but rather "millions dead urge/remind" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.222.47 (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me emphasize the "loosely translated" bit; useful translations are almost never word for word, because different languages have slightly different meanings or implications for different words, and they often use a different syntax. Therefore, direct translations (like the kind you get from an online translator, for instance) aren't especially useful for something like this, because they just plain sound silly. The conveyance of the idea expressed in the original language is far more important. Parsecboy (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I read it as meaning 'Millions dead send a reminder', or shorter, 'Millions dead remind'. In any case, mahnen is a verb and it is the 'millions dead' who are doing that action. It's difficult to explain but "Remember the Millions Dead" isn't a loose translation, it's just plain wrong. --The High Commander (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To a native German speaker who reads the sign, what is the concept being expressed? Again, literal, word for word translation is almost always useless, because it generally messes up syntax, the words don't always translate directly, etc. That's why we have professional translators, instead of just a google translator with voice recognition. Parsecboy (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. There are far too many google translationns on wikipedia. --The High Commander (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, Yahoo!s Babel Fish translator provides "Million dead ones remind", almost exactly the wording that you suggest. Parsecboy (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler

Dear Sirs.

You claim that Hitler was member no. 7 of the executive comittee. Where do you got this information ? 87.58.1.190 (talk) 09:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Too much detail in A.S. Brown additions?

Since User:A.S. Brown began the current sturm of edits, the article grew from ~112 kb to >163 kb, more than 50kb of new material. We were already concerned about the article's length... by comparison, the World War II article is currently slimmed down to about 100kb. I like having detail, but this level is getting to the point of swamping the point and losing readers. When do we call it a day and let the more interested readers go get a book? Binksternet (talk) 05:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I just wish we were all focusing on sourcing the article. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the additions since they are well sourced as opposed to other parts of the article. The way forward is to split off those sections that are becoming heavyweight into subsidiary pages. TerriersFan (talk) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Entry into politics

Dear Ladies and Sirs.

I have noticed you are editing this page on a daily basis.

I am still interested in your source for the claim that Hitler was member n. 7 on the executive comittee. Ian Kershaw does not mention it, neither does Time Magazine 1938 in Man of the year. Hitler himself in Mein Kampf, german version 1925, claims he got a temporary/makeshift membershipcard with the number 7, allthough he few lines earlier writes, that he was made a member without his knowledge after the very first meeting he attended. The only known person to make this claim is Allan Bullock, and he might have been caught up in a later german improvement of the facts, or have lost something in translation,like when a emotional speach becomes a violent speach. 87.58.1.81 (talk) 10:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open-content encyclopedia. I don't think anyone 'owns' this article - anyone can edit it. That said, you can add a tag to the sentence. 12.10.248.51 (talk) 15:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Social Darwinism

The article states that Hitler was a proponent of Social Darwinism, "a mis-use of Charles Darwin's thought". While I would agree Social Darwinism is a mis-use of Darwin's thought the writer of that statement obviously doesn't understand that Social Darwinism was a Capitalist (supported most strongly in nations like the USA or Britain) philosophy stating that individuals who make the most money, or gain the most power (which in a purely capitalist society is closely related to money), are the most fit members of society, and that the poor deserve the position they're in. Hitler, on the other hand, based his society on a Nordic view of actual genetic quality, something which is much closer to Darwin's beliefs than any other political system since Sparta! Janrornaj (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That comment makes entirely no sense. What the writer of the statement thinks has no matter in what the statement says as it is supported by a source. The mis-use of Social Darwinism relates to the agenda Hitler used, not to whether or not he was scholarly enough to use a correct term for his actions. No original research or synthesis please. .:davumaya:. 04:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The genocide was a goal in itself

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.

The genocide of Jews was a goal in and of itself, and not a consequence of other goals. --Ezra Wax (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anything's wrong with the text you quoted. "Systematic genocide" is clear enough. It's much easier to speak of a person's actions than his goals, which can be very private, and subject to misinterpretation. Binksternet (talk) 04:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my criticism. For one thing his intentions are known, for another the sentence applies a cause and effect that is simply not true. --Ezra Wax (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a bit of a gray area; the extermination of the Jews didn't really begin in earnest until 1942; for a while, Hitler considered possibilities like deporting European Jews to Madagascar, for example. I'd say the current version is best. Parsecboy (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I also think "racial subjugation" covers it. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to protest. The wording as it stands implies that Hitler was less evil than he was. I think territorial conquest and racial subjugation are considerably less evil than intentional genocide. The wording now implies that the genocide was inadvertent. I consider it tantamount to whitewashing him. --Ezra Wax (talk) 01:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ezra, allow me to introduce you to User:The High Commander, an editor who thinks the current intro is too harsh on Hitler (see his proposed version here). This article will never please those who only want to see an article dedicated to demonstrating Hitler's evil, nor will it please Nazi apologists, because both are POVs, and while the former is obviously more justified than the latter, a POV it remains. As Lenin and MaCarthy stated above, "racial subjugation" covers the issue pretty well. Also, as I said above, that Hitler alway intended on mass murder of the Jews is questionable, and would require some reliable sources backing it up. Parsecboy (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Proof That Hitler always intended to kill Jews

For us, this is not a problem you can turn a blind eye to-one to be solved by small concessions. For us, it is a problem of whether our nation can ever recover its health, whether the Jewish spirit can ever really be eradicated. Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus. Don't think you can fight racial tuberculosis without taking care to rid the nation of the carrier of that racial tuberculosis. This Jewish contamination will not subside, this poisoning of the nation will not end, until the carrier himself, the Jew, has been banished from our midst. (Applause) from Statements by Hitler --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The above was said in 1920 long before Hitler came to power. And that was just the first result from my google search. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "banished from our midst" does not mean "killed by systematic genocide". Binksternet (talk) 03:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

However, the words "Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus." do. --Ezra Wax (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edits from the lead, since they really don't belong in a lead section. If you wish to add your edits to other sections that describe Hitler's life-long anti-semitism, please do. At any rate, I don't think this one speech convinces me that Hitler had a life-long desire to eradicate Jews. From a historical perspective, I guess I just assume he did, but I think there's better sources for that behavior. Still it's not proper to be added to the lead. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It's also only his interpretation of the speech, which is original research. Gatoclass (talk) 04:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Does Germany Must Perish! not mean genocide? Why isnt that mentioned here? I was surprised to find that. This article seems to focus only on one side of the story. --217.83.2.76 (talk) 14:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's because the book isn't really relevant to this article. Parsecboy (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

If anything, this quote goes towards proving Hitler only ever had an intention to relocate the Jews out of Germany and her annexed countries. --The High Commander (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, "Don't be misled into thinking you can fight a disease without killing the carrier, without destroying the bacillus." seems pretty strong to me. Either way, it's just an interpretation of one of Hitler's speeches, something all of us are explicitly prohibited from making. We reflect the general consensus of historians, not what any one or group of us think. Parsecboy (talk) 00:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some spelling and grammar mistakes

an war Should be "a war" <just search for an war.. you'll get it>

Through Chamberlain was well-satisfied - Should be "Though Chamberlain was well-satisfied - "

As a pretext for aggrssion against Should be "As a pretext for aggression against"

I got the 2nd and 3rd, but couldn't find the first one you mentioned. I found "Franco-Prussian war", "Bavarian War Ministry", "Franco-German war", and "urban war", but no "an war". Can you provide the section and paragraph that has the mistake? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for correcting those.. I can't find that myself now. Will point out more when I come across. Thanks

I just noticed this now. I was bored yesterday, and just started browsing randomly when I came upon Adolf Hitler. I painstakingly went through most of the article and fixed as many grammatical and spelling mistakes as I could find (including some odd stuff that sounded like it had been dictated or miscopied, such as "disallow" for "disavow" and "through" for "though"). I think I stopped about 3/4 of the way down. It's just so damn long. Also, I noticed that there were some UK/US discrepancies in spelling of certain words (defence, etc). I didn't correct those because it didn't seem important. -- plushpuffin (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

biological relationship of hitler's parents

If Alois Hitler's biological father is contested, this statement may be inaccurate: "She was also his half-niece, so a papal dispensation was obtained for the marriage." Alois_Hitler article states that Alois had his birth certificate legally changed from "illegitimate" to Johann_Georg_Hiedler. But it doesn't authoritatively answer who is Alois' father. So legally, Alois wife was his half-niece but this sentence drops the biological ambiguity. But I'm not quite sure how to say that concisely. And it's somewhat immaterial to the paragraph. 208.58.197.133 (talk) 03:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any suggestions on improving the accuracy of this statement without adding too much verbage? Or is it even relevant? Alois_Hitler's article suggests that his paternity is in question. Under the two Hiedler candidates, that would make Adolf's conception incestuous. But this article claims more than can be verified (that it was incest). 208.58.197.133 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's rumored ethnicity

Can anyone find a good reference regarding Hitler's supposed Jewish background? The section which states this is missing citations. This is troubling considering when I hear people say Hitler was Jewish - Instead of slapping the piss out of them it would be nice if I could just reference something concrete. Google provides many but none scholarly.--Papajohnin (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There isn't anything concrete. The story comes from Hans Frank, but is not supported by evidence. There's a section on the Frank page discussing it and more detail on the Alois Hitler page. It's discussed in Ian Kershaw's book. Paul B (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Conflcting details

Under the Television section it reads:

Hitler's attendance at various public functions, including the 1936 Olympic Games and Nuremberg Rallies, appeared on television broadcasts made between 1935 and 1939. These events, along with other programming highlighting activity by public officials, were often repeated in public viewing rooms. Samples from a number of surviving television films from Nazi Germany were included in the 1999 documentary Das Fernsehen unter dem Hakenkreuz (Television Under the Swastika).

Last bullet of Documentaries post Third Reich section:

Das Fernsehen unter dem Hakenkreuz (Television Under the Swastika) (1999) — documentary by Michael Kloft about the domestic use of television in Nazi Germany for propaganda purposes from 1935 to 1944.

So, the first reads 1930 to 1939, the second to 1944. Also, it seems pointless to have this mentioned twice. I'm going to rework it, but some clarification with this would be appreciated. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 19:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with what you've got there. The first quote doesn't say that Das Fernsehen unter dem Hakenkreuz only took material from 1935-1939, just that it incorporates footage from those years. The second quote describes Kloft's work as covering the propagandistic usage of television in Nazi Germany from 1935 to 1944. Parsecboy (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the quick clarification. I'll just smush it all together into on paragraph at some point. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 21:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Good image for the article here.--189.32.107.60 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

I put Positive Christianity in infobox and I believe that it isn't complete same with Christianity. In all infoboxes we put denomination if we know it (example is article about Churchill and american presidents). --Vojvodaeist 18:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to cause dissent, but wasn't Adolf Hitler technically a Neo-Pagan? I seem to remember reading this in Karl Maria Wiligut's "The Secret King." Any alignment to Catholicism was politically motivated. The ultimate design was to return to the religions of "Blood and Soil." Or was this just Himmler?WikiTracker (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

References section

Hi, nobody knows what books were used to write this article anymore, the references section with book names should be removed. We already have an article called List of Adolf Hitler books that should be sufficient. Green Squares (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Death Toll of WW II

The latest edit gives a figure of 42 million. I've seen others as high as 72 million. 60 million is the most common I've seen. It may be best to give a range (e.g., 42 million to 72 million, unless someone has a convincing source to back a particular figure? Bytwerk (talk) 17:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I see a lot of strong opinions and emotion in this article. Why doesn't it at least have an NPOV tag? Over on Talk:Babywise, I read "The ideal Wikipedia article is balanced, neutral and ... So, the question is, if this preacher with absolutely no medical knowledge can write a book that more or less instructs unexperienced parents to semi-starve and neglect their children, and be treated with the utmost of respect, well, should the Neo-Nazis be allowed to tone down this article and maybe stick some of their counterpoint material in? After all, there are at least as many people who actually support Hitlers ideas as there are people who think the sort of abuse and neglect of infants advocated by Gary Ezzo is a good idea. 70.190.71.146 (talk) 06:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, WP:NPOV states that relatively fringe views should be included in articles, hence why we have this paragraph:

"However, some people have referred to Hitler's legacy in neutral or favourable terms. Former Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat spoke of his 'admiration' of Hitler in 1953, when he was a young man, though it is possible he was speaking in the context of a rebellion against the British Empire.[240] Louis Farrakhan has referred to him as a "very great man".[241] Bal Thackeray, leader of the right-wing Hindu Shiv Sena party in the Indian state of the Maharashtra, declared in 1995 that he was an admirer of Hitler.[242] Friedrich Meinecke, the German historian quotes of Hitler, "It is one of the great examples of the singular and incalculable power of personality in historical life".[243]"

If you're looking to add Holocaust denial or attempt to make Hitler look like a decent guy, I suggest you not waste all of our time. If you think the Babywise article is too pro-Ezzo, then go ahead and fix it. It does have a neutrality tag on it, after all. Parsecboy (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Adolf (manga)

I added Adolf (manga) to Adolf Hitler#Dramatizations but it was removed soon. I don't think the information about the manga is trivial because it is by Osamu Tezuka, the world's most famous manga artist, the creator of Astro Boy and Kimba the White Lion. It is also translated into many languages, such as English, French, Italian, Spanish and German. I think it is as popular as or more popular than other films on the list. I think it makes sense to put the manga on the list.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I see, world famous, Kimba the White Lion and Astro Boy, and very popular [sic]. Surely a great addition to any serious encyclopaedic article on Adolf Hitler. Welcome to the fanboy Wikipedia. Novidmarana (talk) 23:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you answered first. My answer would have been 75.38% less civil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Do not come here if you guys have no intention to talk seriously. Please do not come to any talk page only to fool somebody. Novidmarana, stop stalking me.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there may be a danger that a kind of 'genre snobbery' leads people to exclude some representations, but I still don't think it's appropriate to include all fictionalised representations of Hitler, only the mainstream ones. Also why are you and other editors suddenly appearing here with an obvious need to insult each-other? Paul B (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Novidmarana is stalking me only to insult me. I never met Orangemarlin before. I don't why s/he came here to insult me. Maybe they are thinking that they are superior to other editors. They may think that manga is inferior and trashy (although I don't think they have ever read Adolf). I wonder if there is any way to take action against their rudeness.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wonder The Empty Mirror, which is on the list now, is a mainstream one. The film has an article only in English. Hitler: A Film from Germany also has an article only in English. The Bunker has articles only in English and German. But Adolf (manga) has articles in English, Spanish, German, French, Italian, Japanese, Latin and Swedish. I think Adolf (manga) is at least as well-known as those three films. If Adolf cannot me called "mainstream," I doubt that those films are "mainstream".--Michael Friedrich (talk) 11:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well "mainstream" was probably not the best word. I think the most important point is that they should directly dramatise his life in a significant way, rather than be imaginary stories. The partial exceptions to that are Max and The Empty Mirror. Paul B (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought so first. Max and The Empty Mirror are fictional as you have said, aren't they? That's why I thought it is OK to add Adolf (manga) on the list. It is a fictinal story which features the rumour that Hitler was a Jew. The rumour is so famous that it is described in the article. If it is OK for the films but not for the manga to be included in the list, although they are all fictional and the manga is more famous than the others, I don't understand it.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 12:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop your accusations of stalking, I always edited in the area of European history and Judaism, so do not accuse me of stalking you. Apart from that, the fact that some films are included in this list that are probably not appropiate and relevant does not mean that we have to add a Manga. Apart from that, if you are so clueless about art and culture that your only measure of relevance is the number of articles in other languages, then please do not edit here. There probably even more articles in other languages on Pokemon or whatever, but that does not mean that Pokemon has any real relevancy. If you would have a closer look at the film, specifically Hitler: A Film from Germany or Der Untergang or Hitler: The Rise of Evil you would see that these are serious films that have something to say about Hitler, either from an interpretative or historical perspective. The fact your manga deals with the question whether Hitler was a Jew just confirms that it is not appropriate - we should leave the question whether Hitler was a Jew, or gay or had only one ball and whatever rumours or conspiracy theories we can find to the tabloid press. Novidmarana (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

>>>Apart from that, the fact that some films are included in this list that are probably not appropiate and relevant does not mean that we have to add a Manga.

If you think so, why didn't you say so at first? You left a message only to mock me. Even if you are not stalking me, your deed cannot be excused.

What does Pokemon have anything to do with this discussion. Don't change the subject please. Your interpretation is always strange. Did I say that the manga has real relevancy because there were articles in many languages? No. I said that the manga was as famous as other films on the list and that you could see that from the number of languages which the article is in. Because Paul Barlow used the word "mainstream," I tried to prove that the manga is popular enough to be called "mainstream" if the other films are "mainstream."

>>>If you would have a closer look at the film, specifically Hitler: A Film from Germany or Der Untergang or Hitler: The Rise of Evil you would see that these are serious films that have something to say about Hitler, either from an interpretative or historical perspective.

Are you by any chance thinking that the manga is a funny comic strip just like Disney's Der Fuehrer's Face? It isn't at all. The manga is a very very serious one. I hope you read it. It's available in English.

>>>we should leave the question whether Hitler was a Jew, or gay or had only one ball and whatever rumours or conspiracy theories we can find to the tabloid press.

I told you that the rumour is so famous that the article refers to it. "There were rumors that Hitler was one-quarter Jewish and that his grandmother, Maria Schicklgruber, became pregnant while working as a servant in a Jewish household." It is not something you can find only in tabloids although the rumour is now proved not to be true.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 15:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's my thinking on the issue: Adolf (manga) only deals with Hitler tangentially, in that he's mainly part of the story as a plot device (this is not having seen the manga, just what the wiki article tells me). The manga is primarily about the other character investigating the murder of his brother, etc. Therefore, because it's not about Hitler, it's not really suitable for inclusion in this article. The other films are solely about Hitler, and are perfectly fine to be here. Parsecboy (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler Dolls

14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hitler waxwork attacked

14:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Cocaine use?

Is there anything to the reports of Hitler's cocaine and steroid use during period 1936-1945 ?

Proof Reader (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

relationship with Wittgenstein

According to en.wikipedia.org:

"His father's parents, Hermann Christian and Fanny Wittgenstein, were born into Jewish families but later converted to Protestantism, and after they moved from Saxony to Vienna in the 1850s, assimilated into the Viennese Protestant professional classes. Ludwig's father, Karl Wittgenstein, became an industrialist and went on to make a fortune in iron and steel. Ludwig's mother Leopoldine, born Kalmus, was an aunt of the Nobel Prize laureate Friedrich von Hayek. Despite Karl's Protestantism, and the fact that Leopoldine's father was Jewish, the Wittgenstein children were baptized as Roman Catholics—the faith of their maternal grandmother—and Ludwig was given a Roman Catholic burial upon his death."

Despite it was suggested by Kimberley to include Wittgenstein has not sense:

"A book by Kimberley Cornish suggests that conflict between Hitler and some Jewish students, including Wittgenstein, was a critical moment in Hitler's formation as an anti-Semite"

Even there was no evidence to say Ludwig and Adolf shared studies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.62.117 (talk) 11:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a picture of Hitler's schoolclass with Wittgenstein standing a few feet away from him? Iosifvissarianovich (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please go to The Jew of Linz article. BTW, WP can never be a reference for WP. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The disturbingly named Iosif Vissarianovich has a point. Wittgenstein may be viewed as Jewish --

• three Jewish grandparents
• his father's parents were born as Jews but converted to Protestantism, only his mother's father was born and stayed Jewish
• arguably raised in a "culturally Jewish" environment
• musings by W. on his Jewish background

or not Jewish --

• mother not Jewish
• parents were converts to Protestantism
• parents baptized and raised as Christians
• raised not in the Jewish faith but as Roman Catholic, the faith of his maternal grandmother
• never practiced Judaism as an adult

depending on who is doing the viewing and when. Accordingly I removed the misleadingly unambiguous characterization of Wittgenstein as Jewish. Also, per WP:UNDUE I moved the sentence down into a footnote.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE Made a few mistakes above, sorry about that. See Ludwig Wittgenstein#Life. As it turns out now, the case for considering Wittgenstein Jewish is even weaker than I thought before.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's "personnel" not "personal"

Here's a sentence in the Brüning Administration section:

In September–October 1930, Hitler appeared as a major defence witness at the trial in Leipzig of two junior Reichswehr officers charged with membership of the Nazi Party, which at that time was forbidden to Reichswehr personal.

I think the last word, "personal," should be "personnel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.211.178 (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree, and  Done. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Messy source references

The references throughout to "Mein Kampf" are either incomplete or improperly truncated. For example, the edit screen for "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich", note # 13, shows "ref name = "Kampf-vol1ch2" and the Reference below displays as "^ a b c d e f Hitler 1998, §2" in the Notes. It looks like lazy editing. Can we agree to fix them up so they communicate properly? Sure, the original link can be tracked down, but it's an unnecessary interruption for the reader to have to do so. Bushcutter (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

split

This article should be split into specific articles, such as The early life of Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler's rise to power etc. The main article should contain condensed sections with links to the main articles. This would make it much more accessible. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 21:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes i totally agree, and the links should be made obvious. i.e not at the bottom but at the top.

I second the above.

We've already got Hitler's rise to power, and a number of other sub-articles. The problem is, people keep adding material here, and not to the sub-articles, where it belongs. The article is over 200kb, which is far too long; it takes several seconds to load on my cable internet connection; it must be abysmal on dial-up. Parsecboy (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't split up a biographical article. That does not mean that sections can't be reduced, and longer main articles created elsewhere. That's fine if anyone wants to do it. Some sections are indeed absurdly long. The WWII "Early triumphs" section is interminable. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Most of these sections can be really cut down. I was thinking along the lines of a general overview of each of the main sections with enough detail to keep this a good article, and a link at the top of each section to a much more detailed article. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I mean for this article to become something like Ancient Rome. Most of its sections have a link at the top to a more detailed main article. I think this could be accomplished with this article, on a smaller scale. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe the article should be sorter, just split up into multiple different articles, as stated before. This article needs attention like that, not just generalisation and confusion. Vock (talk) 05:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's just not realistic to keep the article this long. The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide usable information for the readers; a browser-breaking 200kb is not usable to anyone. This article needs to be in summary style; there's just too much in it right now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Each section needs to be summarised and the longer text moved to its own article in some sections. I will start doing this myself at the weekend if there are no objections. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 22:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The name Adolf

The explanaition (Adel=nobility + wolf) would be better as: (Adel wolf) 145.7.182.13 (talk) 11:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Religion: nominally Catholic

So, I was just working at the Religion in Nazi Germany article, to include the information about the number of Germans who 'left the church' 1933-1945, when I realized that Hitler was not one of them, at least according to Steigmann-Gall. And then I realized that with Steigmann-Gall we can actually describe Hitler's religious beliefs with two words. Of course, "nominally Catholic" doesn't actually say much about what he 'believed', this is why I kept the internal link; But if we have an information field 'religion' in the template, it doesn't make that much sense to say there: see the article; on the other hand, to say that Hitler was Catholic would certainly be false; (I checked the index and read the archives to a certain extend on the previous discussions.) I think my suggestion takes both sides into account. If Steigmann-Gall got this point wrong and there is actually a tax computation of Hitler somewhere in the archives where no church tax is paid (from the time when he lived in Germany, Austria only got a Church tax after 1938) PLEASE give me a historian that has found such a document. Zara1709 (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Paul B (talk) 07:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There are an awful lot of grammatical errors in this article. I can understand why editing of an article on somebody that arouses so many emotions is prevented, but could we not improve its technical accuracy? Otherwise we run the risk of allowing critics (such as neo-Nazis) to state - correctly - that we can't even write decent English? 122.57.180.241 (talk) 07:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe the reason for so much speculation over Hitler's religion is that his actions go against all decency and we are left to ponder what made Hitler choose the actions he did. Religion was clearly not present in any form in regards to his life or the lives of others, but to gain political support from a predominately Christian polulation it would be beneficial to claim Christianity. It was clear to me that he was an egomaniac who simultaneously had neurotic fears which prohibited him from concrete belief even in himself, and victory. For example, he had contimplated suicide earlier in life, and ultimately chose it as a final resort. Suicide has been called a 'selfish act' but also called a 'cowardly act'. He felt his life would be short and throughout his rule, compulsively relied on the information of others to calm his fears but still remained paranoid. All the while he was still determined to see his dreams realised, no matter the cost. In short, I believe Hitler had faith in absolutely nothing; religion, others or himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.253.127.5 (talk) 02:32, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Gone with the Führer

I am a student at University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts and Bryan Singer just spoke to my class about his new film Valkyrie. In his interview Singer said he had talked to Hitler's 91 year old bodyguard about Hitler during the final days of the war. Hitler, according to the bodyguard was depressed and stopped watching movies. Apparently Hitler loved watching movies at his private retreat/house. Singer asked the bodyguard what Hitler's favorite movie was and he said "Gone With the Wind." Can someone please add that to his wikipedia page. December 5th, 2008

Very interesting, but we'll have to wait until Singer publishes that bit. So, was the Führer reading subtitles or was it a dubbed version? Binksternet (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid that Mr. Singer, whatever may be his talents as a film-maker is mistaken as a historian. Gone With The Wind was the favorite film of Goebbels, whose personal pet project, 1945's extravagance Kolberg was intended as Germany's answer to Mr. David O. Selznick's production. Hitler's favorite film was The Lives of a Bengal Lancer, or at least that is what is both the BBC documentary and tie-in book The Nazis A Warning from History (New Press, 1997, ISBN 156584551X) by Laurence Rees claims. To be perfectly frank with you, I am not certain that regardless of what's Hitler's favorite was that it belongs on this page. Information about Hitler's favorite movies is an excellent example of trivial information that already clutters this page (how is it important to know that that Hitler wanted to build rail-roads on a grange bigger than the Great Western?). The only way I could justify mentioning that The Lives of a Bengal Lancer was Hitler's favorite film would be as an example of Hitler's Anglophilia (true, the film is American, but it is about British soldiers fighting on the North-West Frontier of India). Hitler was an Anglophile, through the things that he admired the British for were probably not the things that many people in Britain would be proud of. For Hitler, the essence of the British was their "ruthlessness" in achieving their goals, and as such, things like the Irish Potato Famine, the use of concentration camps in the Boar War, slavery in the West Indies, famines in India in the 19th century, the attacks on neutral Denmark in the Napoleonic Wars, etc were all things to admire in the British. It should be noted that Hitler, through intelligent was not widely read, so his knowledge of both history and the world outside of Germany was usually a bit distorted, so the exact accuracy of Hitler's view about British history was often rather off. What is important is that Hitler believed that the British operated in an utterly "ruthless" fashion, and thought that admirable. Hence, his often repeated remarks in private that he intended to rule Russia in the same "ruthless" way the British ruled India. What may be the sins and misdeeds of the Raja, there is nothing in British rule in India that remotely compares to German rule in the occupied Soviet Union in 1941-44; the point is that Hitler believed his rule of Russia was just like British rule in India. If one is interested in the theme of Hitler's ideas about Britain as a "ruthless" Aryan nation doing whatever it takes to get ahead, one might look at The Germanic Isle (Cambridge University Press, 2000, ISBN 0521782651) by Gerwin Strob, which is an interesting book about Nazi thinking about Britain. But back to the main point, if one wants to talk about Hitler's Anglophilia, then perhaps mentioning that The Lives of a Bengal Lancer was his favorite film might be relevant, but otherwise it is useless bit of trivial information that tells us nothing important. --A.S. Brown (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

One testicle, redux

In the section of "Adolf_Hitler#Sexuality", I suggested add the following pescriptions:

Hitler was suggested to have only one testicle according to resources with disputed authority. Main article: Hitler Has Only Got One Ball

A link to "Hitler_Has_Only_Got_One_Ball" should be added to the last line.

Here's the link, guys: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/3481932/Nazi-leader-Hitler-really-did-have-only-one-ball.html Jake Sinnott (talk) 15:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I have done it to the article "Adolf Hitler's sexuality". Do you have suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yi Ho (talk • contribs) 23:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this really needed? Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 19:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I too have heard that he had only one nut. Apparently it was confirmed by a German Medic who served with him in WW1. 216.165.154.184 (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all utter rubbish. This has been discussed several times, and relevant discussions can be found in the archives. Suffice it to say, it's a totally unsubstantiated and completely false. Parsecboy (talk) 05:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a strange one.

• That there is such a legend is fact but whether it deserves mentioning here I am unsure.
• It is also a fact that there is now a doctor who says that the legend happens to be true. This is certainly notable to any mentioning of the legend and increases the chance for inclusion.
• However, we don't know in how far the doctor was influenced by the legend and interpreted the undisputed wounding in the light of the legend. Furthermore, some news reports (especially in Germany) do not mention the legend, giving the claim credibility that it may not deserve.
• A possible solution might be to mention the wounding and add a note that that doctor has made this claim about it, in turning linking this to the "Hitler only had one ball" article.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the story should mentioned since readers are likely to have heard of it. The origin of the story is the song "Hitler Has Only Got One Ball" (1939). This song is pure whimsical comedy, but it has nonetheless inspired a series of hoaxes that supposedly "prove" that Hitler really did have only one ball. The latest of these is the Telegraph article linked to above. This article is based on hearsay and contains no new evidence worth mentioning. Kauffner (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Ron Rosenbaum has some good points (as he often does about Hitler) about the alleged one testicle theory, and its more silly (and dangerously apologetic) implications, which can seen here: [2]. Personally, I don't see the need for including this theory for besides for being untrue, what would be the significance of it even it were true? Are we to believe that one because one baby born in Austria in 1889 had one testicle that was the cause of the murder of six million Jews in the Holocaust some 50 odd years later? To be to fair, that is not be claimed here, but that is the implication isn't it? Hitler was who was because he had only testicle, and somehow that is the cause of the murder of six million people. I can not think of more trival and absurd explanation for the Shoah than this rather bizarre theory. Anyhow, phenomena like the Shoah and World War II can not reduced down to one individual (which is not to say that people like Hitler did not play important roles); this is the Great man theory of history done ab absurdo. Usually, I don't agree with the left-wing historian Hans-Ulrich Wehler, but this in this matter, he is absolutely right when he wrote in 1980:

"Does our understanding of National Socialist policies really depend on whether Hitler had only one testicle?...Perhaps the Führer had three, which made things difficult for him-who knows?...Even if Hitler could be regarded irrefutably as a sado-masochist, which scientific interest does that further?...Does the "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" thus become more easily understandable or the "twisted road to Auschwitz" become the one-way street of a psychopath in power?"

The Shoah was the work of a state, not one man, and as such, to try to understand why the Holocaust happened, we would be better off looking at that state rather than trying to explain the Holocaust as the result of one flaw in Hitler. Moreover, are we to believe that genocide and war were all the work of one man, who happened to have some issues because of a missing testicle with everybody else in Germany more or less bystanders? Isn't rather better to consider the Holocaust as the work of many, not one? Perhaps this is just me, but this rather morbid preoccupation with Hitler’s testicular condition strikes me as a terrible waste of everybody’s time. This is a particular shame because rather than devoting space to about non-issues such as Hitler’s testicular status, this article has very little to say about the really important issues. There is not much here about the incredibly disorganized system Hitler ran, and his rather peculiar way of exercising leadership. To be quite frank, I’ll scrap all this nonsense that seeks to find the one “key” capable of explaining Hitler (really Hitler is the only personality as far as I see who has an entire article devoted to his testicular condition, not that I'll looked), and start talking about the real issues like what was the nature of Hitler's power. There are some historians like Eberhard Jäckel, Klaus Hildebrand and Karl Dietrich Bracher who take a "Master of the Third Reich" position, seeing Hitler as totally dominating Nazi Germany, some like Martin Broszat, Götz Aly and Hans Mommsen who claim the opposite with a "weak dictator" position, and some like Ian Kershaw whose “Working Towards the Führer” model is probably the best way of understanding Hitler’s power. Morever, and through this a difficult case to write about there is not much here about Hitler's role in the Holocaust. I say difficult because Hitler's precise in the Holocaust is rather shadowly (and least anyone accuse me of having any sympathy for David Irving, I do believe that Hitler played a huge role in causing the Holocaust). The problem is that there is a lack of documentary evidence highlighting what is Hitler's precise role, but given the status of the Holocaust as one of the worse acts of inhumanity ever, more could be said about this issue. These are the real issues, and this article would be much better if to concern with the really important things like how Hitler exercised his power as opposed to concerning itself with his testicles. --A.S. Brown (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with, and endorse, the comments made by A.S. Brown. Just two quick comments: Describing Hans-Ulrich Wehler as "left-wing" is potentially misleading. Left of center is more like it. He is a dyed-in-the-wool Social Democrat and should not be lumped into the same category with Jürgen Habermas, who can indeed be described as "left-wing", to the extent that such labels are actually useful. Also, A.S. Brown, looking at the edit history of the Article, you seem to be the most prolific content contributor in recent times. This is praiseworthy and if I were in the habit of handing out Barnstars, I would have awarded you one already. However, a number of editors have expressed concern over the Article being too long and when new information gets added, it gets added into Adolf Hitler instead of the several sub-articles (or main articles depending on point of view) where it might be more sensibly added. Could you perhaps see your way to moving some of the information added by you into these other articles?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The movie where hitlers hand is shaking is "The Downfall" or "Der Untergang".

i believe this should be added on here, the movie was released in 2004 and shows his hand trembling, this is under the health section in the article at the end of the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meine548 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The movie isn't evidence, but it's already mentioned in the article under Hitler in media. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight to fringe and minority views re religion

I have made edits to move away from the fringe or minority view re Hitler and religion. Specifically the citations to Steigmann-Gall should not be given too much weight - his book self describes as being contrary to the scholarly consensus. The description on the author's own book states "Richard Steigmann-Gall argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it." It is explicitly stated that Wikipedia articles are not the place for novel scholarly concepts. And if the views of Steigmann-Gall and the like are not quite fringe but still contrary to the consensus (I believe they demonstrably are), then they should not be given too much weight and described as an alternate minority view. Mamalujo (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What, specifically, is it about the section Adolf Hitler#Religious beliefs that you do not like? For every item of information and every footnote that you want removed, please explain why. Steigmann-Gall is not gospel but neither is he some obscure crackpot to be dismissed out of hand. What is wrong with calling Hitler a "nominal Catholic"? It is obvious that Hitler could not be called a believing Christian in a true sense of the word and that he cynically used the Christian religion while it served his purposes. Yet he never renounced Christianity but professed it. You should not remove references to these undisputed facts.

Have you noticed that I am leaving some of your insertions intact? If I wanted to be strict, I could question the Adherents.com website under WP:RS policy but I would prefer to work things out with you.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Reversions and protection

Too many reverts in to short a time, and I've protected the article for 72 hours while you all sort this content dispute out. --Rodhullandemu 17:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The infobox is supposed to give the relihious affiliation of a person, according to the normal understanding of "religion". There are lots of nominal Catholics, and even practicing Catholics, who are murderers and criminals - such as most members of the Mafia. Of course that's true for any other religion you might name. The infobox is not for reinventing the definition of religion, otherwise we'd list Bill Shankly's religion as football, and Oscar Wilde's' religion as art. That's just the road to all out silliness. Paul B (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you help us to understand the "religious affiliation of a person"? The term implies a close, deliberate association or membership according to most dictionary definitions. As an adult, Hitler wasn't an active member of the Catholic church, so how could his "religious affiliation" be Catholic? He'd have to be taking weekly Holy Communion with the congregation. Bushcutter (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One does not necessarily have to be a practicing member of a religion to be affiliated with it. There are plenty of, for example, "Christian and Easter"-Christians who refer to themselves as Christians, even though they don't fit your criteria. Hitler claimed to be a Catholic; whether or not this was true is not for us to decide. The situation as it stands now is fine (nominally Catholic, linked to the section that discusses his religious beliefs.) Parsecboy (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If one is not a member of something, one is not affiliated with it. It's not "my criterion" - it's the definition of the word. We can't be making up the meaning of words on Wikipedia. BTW: Hitler never claimed to be Catholic. It doesn't fit with the known facts. He sometimes said he was Christian when speaking in public, but he always qualified it as Aryan Christian. Hitler openly despised normal Christians and didn't hesitate to send them to the ovens. He said (as noted herein) that he preferred the Muslim religion for its militaristic attitude, and therein lay his fantasy of "Aryan Christianity", one that was at war with the Jews. As far as anyone has ever been able to determine, he was never in his adult life affiliated with any religion. His info box should say "None" if it's referring to religious affiliation. Bushcutter (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing problematic about the word affiliation. It's just a word, not a fetish. BTW, Hitler did claim to be Catholic. He remained a member of the church throughout his life, and even paid church taxes. He also and said "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so" in 1941. Muslims were not at war with Jews in the 1930s, though there were of course tensions. Please do not confuse contemporary politics with the 1930s by trying to imply that Hitler made one vague pro-Muslim comment because Muslims were perceived in some sense as part of anti-Jewish crusade. They were not, and Hilter never even implied that they were, only that their faith supported sacrificial warlike values. The Muslim SS recruits were mostly from the Caucasus and the Balkans and were recruited because of anti-Soviet religous and natonalist traditions that has very little to do with attitudes to Judaism. The fact is that Hitler was a member of the Catholic church throughout his life. Like many other people in history, his religious affiliation was largely nominal and his real ideas were more fluid. Paul B (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I really thought that this was clear. I didn't add the info that he made attacks on the Catholic church in private (and yes, this is NOT based on Rauschning) to that section to get another serious of rants on the talk page that Hitler was not a Christian. Yes, HITLER WAS NOT A CHRISTIAN. What Hitler understood as Christian has nothing to do with what you and I would consider Christian. Christianity is nothing more than a label here, to which different (actually opposing) ethical views can be attached.

Steigmann-Gall actually misses the last point, but that is acceptable because he is not a theologian and as a historian he doesn't need to focus on that question whether the beliefs of some Nazis who considered themselves Christians aren't actually anti-Christian. But we don't need to discuss Steigmann-Gall and his conclusions here at all. (His conclusions are, of course, controversial but are important enough to be discussed in other articles.) As a historian, Steigmann-Gall is up to scientific standards. So if he points to the fact that Hitler never formally left the church, and we don't have another academic that disagrees, then we can take his account to be accurate. So, until someone finds that tax record of Hitler which I mentioned above, on which no church tax is paid, that Hitler was nominally Catholic is fact. If you want to change that, the only way that can be done is to get the Pope to excommunicate him posthumously. Of course, there would be no need for that: Hitler is in hell anyway. Zara1709 (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

His tax record does exist until 1935, during which time he was paying the church tax. Paul B (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The church tax is important because it shows his religious affiliation. To this day, and ever since 1933, every church member in Germany pays the church tax. You can get an exemption, but it severs the relationship with the church. No church weddings or funerals will happen if you haven't paid your church tax. That is, if you're not paying the church tax, you're not a church member. Hitler may not have quit the church directly, but he didn't pay his taxes. This appears to confirm your statement that he was not a (tax paying) Catholic, at least after 1935. Bushcutter (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

So the word affiliation is all right now? Church tax was not paid "since 1933". It existed long before that. An opt out was possible earlier. Hitler was paying his tax up to that date because records exist confirming it. He was probably paying it beyond that date if his statement in 1941 implies anything, but by that date he was Fuhrer, so other tax rules may have applied. I can't see him being prosecuted by the revenue people can you? But as far as I am aware, we just don't know what the situation was. Please stop trying to rewrite history to suit your preferences. Paul B (talk) 08:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, he was not "affiliated" with either national church, either by his deeds or his words. It's a history-rewrite to claim he was affiliated with a church. One thing his tax records show is that Hitler was a tax-dodger, which means he wasn't a church member. He avoided paying his huge tax bill due to his "special relationship" with Ludwig Mirre, the head of the tax dept. But that also means he didn't pay his church tax, and was therefore off the membership list. Unless you can show us that he actually was paying his church tax somehow? I doubt that you can. 154.20.129.40 (talk) 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This is no longer a debate, it's just infantile game-playing in which you keep inventing the rules. You know and I know what the truth is. He was a nominal Catholic, but he didn't actually believe in it. Stop being silly. Do you really believe that people in tax arrears stop being Cathloics? Paul B (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

If you don't mind, "Stop being silly" is not an appropriate request in Wikipedia. You're clearly not familiar with either German law or Catholicism. Nor common English usage. It appears that you're way over your head in this discussion and you're resorting to cheap shots to enhance your credibility. "nominal Catholic" is a term that covers a broad spectrum of lapsed Catholics on their way out the door. A typical dictionary definition of nominal is "Insignificantly small; trifling". In other words, almost not Catholic. However, in Germany, a taxpayer ceases being Catholic when he stops paying his church tax and is stricken from the list. From that day, he is less than a nominal Catholic. He is actually not Catholic. What is it about not that you don't understand? If you find that you can't counter the logic, please find other Wikipedians to support you rather than resorting to solo cheap shots. Bushcutter (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Way over my head? That's a joke from someone who is trying to add Hitler to lists of homosexuals based an the fringe rantings of the ultra-right. Your own posts indicate how minimal your knowledge of the subject was when you put your oar in, since you made several wholly false claims, including that Hitler never said he was Catholic. Unlike you I have actual read Steigmann-Gall and the Journal of Contemporary History's 2007 issue devoted to Nazism and religion. As for German law, you also make false statements while trying to pose as an expert, such as "ever since 1933, every church member in Germany pays the church tax." No, the Nazis did not introduce church tax in 1933!!! There is no point in discussing a subject with someone who displays such patent intellectual dishonesty as you do. There is no real discussion, just attempts to distort facts. 'Nominal' is a term very commonly used to refer to the religious affiliation of people who remain part of a church or tradition without displaying any commitment to it. You know that is normal usage. Everyone does. Paul B (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I've got a pair of simple questions that will hopefully end this pointless debate: did Hitler profess publicly to be a Catholic? Unquestionably yes. Did he actually believe in Catholicism? Most probably not. Sounds like nominal Catholicism (i.e., a Catholic in name only) to me. Whether he paid his church tax or not is irrelevant. Parsecboy (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, the "nominal" Catholic you're describing is someone who is no longer a Catholic. "Nominal" refers to a lack of affiliation. However, under German church & tax law, a "nominal" Catholic who doesn't pay the church tax is actually NOT a Catholic. Even Steigmann-Gall concludes,"In October 1937, Hitler commented privately: 'I have been freed, after an intense inner struggle, from the still living and childish imaginings of religion… I now feel as liberated as a foal in the pasture'. Although he did not say so explicitly, the personalistic tone of the comment reveals that this was primarily a reference to his original Catholic faith." It seems pretty obvious (after wading through all Hitler's public statements) that, while Hitler may have been playing the dilettante with his Aryan view of Christianity, he was definitely not a Catholic. Thus, there is more than enough evidence to cast doubt on any suggestion that Hitler was a Catholic. The info box cannot say beyond all doubt that Hitler's religion was "Catholic". Bushcutter (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it doesn't say that. The infobox lists him as "nominally Catholic". I suppose you could argue that this should be changed to "ostensibly Catholic". Is that your argument?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The word nominally, of course, means "in name only". That is the best and most commonly used ordinary language phrase to use. BTW, there is a confusion here about the tax issue. Hitler could have opted out of the tax if he wanted to state that he was non-Christian. Some Nazis (and also non Nazis) did that. Hitler didn't. He was regularly in arrears, but that's a different matter. He was essentially a risk taker and con-man, so this behaviour is what you'd expect. He chose not to opt out, probably for political reasons, since he was trying to position the Nazis as defenders of traditional values against the godless Commies. Nevertheless he came up with any excuse he could think of to put off paying his arrears in all areas of tax, but did pay up when he needed to. In the end he stuck to Catholic identity in name only - hence the appropriate use of the term nominal. BTW Bushcutter's confusion about 1933 is explained here. Paul B (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My argument is that "nominal Catholic" means non-Catholic. Only the people here recognize "nominal Catholic" as having substance. His religion should be displayed as "none". "Nominal Catholic" is stretching the facts and is actually OR. It only works if you accept that a "nominal Catholic" (or "ostensibly Catholic") means something when, in fact, it means nothing. I don't see any confusion with the tax issue, either. As soon as a citizen stopped paying his church tax, his name was removed from the church membership list. Can anyone here show that Hitler's name remained on the church membership list? If so, then it could be proved that he was Catholic; otherwise the evidence shows that he was a "none". Bushcutter (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I tried :-( --Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nominally Catholic" is OR?? Please, be serious. If you read the section, you will see that that this is taken almost verbatim from an important academic work on the topic. The only reason were not writing "in a nominal sense Catholic" is simply that "Nominally Catholic" is shorter. Zara1709 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Nominal Catholic" is not a religion or any useful information in the infobox, unless someone is bent on linking Hitler to the Church. We once had a good solution pointing the reader to the section below and I have restored it (and again I am amazed that editors that had a hand in that solution again have done nothing to defend it.)

The tax passage is also no good:

"However, as Richard Steigmann-Gall points out when explaining the institutional particularities of religion in Nazi Germany, in a country in which the Catholic and the Protestant church are largely financed through a church tax collected by the state, Hitler (like Goebbels) never "actually left his church or refused to pay church taxes. In a nominal sense therefore [he] can be classified as Catholic.""

It gives undue weight to a single voice which is introduced as talking about something else: "Religion in Nazi Germany". Hitler didn't pay any (direct) taxes in Nazi Germany - before 1933 I don't know (as the situation is much more complicated than afterwards) but it is too shaky a basis to build such a large edifice unto it.

Str1977 ^(talk) 10:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly this matter deserves some attention if even "important academics" are not up to speed on the simple dictionary definition of words like "nominal". How can we take seriously an academic who doesn't pay attention to everyday English? The Oxford Dictionary defines "nominal" as something " stated without reference to fact; an entire contrast to something real". There is no such thing as being a Catholic "in a nominal sense". It's like saying someone is a Catholic in the sense of not being a Catholic, or he's "sort of" Catholic. Hitler was excommunicated by the Church in 1930, and he was at war with the Church, even signing off on sending tens of thousands of Polish Catholics to the ovens. If we're serious about anything on Wikipedia, let's start with English language usage. If we're not serious, then we're just "pretend intellectuals" in danger of becoming a laughing stock. The most we can say about Hitler's religion is that he was "Former Catholic" or a "excommunicated Catholic". But a nominal Catholic? There's no such thing. This a huge part of Hitler's personal history, not something to be sloughed off, so we should understand what we're saying and get it right. Bushcutter (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for not checking, I posted the above before checking the status of the bio-box; the reversion to the previous "see religious beliefs" link is MUCH better than saying he was a "nominal catholic". A "thumbs up" to this method. Now we can deal with the topic nicely. Bushcutter (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Nominal also means "being such in name only"; i.e., Hitler proclaimed himself a Catholic, but was so in name only. Nominal is probably the perfect word to describe Hitler's professed Christian beliefs. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• <outdent. (ec)I agree it needs some attention. However, "nominal" has more than one meaning, and you pays your money and you takes your choice. For example, I was born into a Church of England family, baptised as such, and confirmed as such; however, I wouldn't regard myself as being a member of that church now, although it's somewhat a "default status" for those in my position in the UK; I'm sure my death certificate will record me as "C of E" (as do my current hospital records) in the absence of anything else. It isn't that important to me, so I care little. However, I think there is such a thing as being Catholic "in a nominal sense" is that he was brought up in that faith. Had he renounced it, we would have a strong argument for saying "former Catholic". The fact that he was excommunicated makes an arguable case for "ex-", but that depends on whether being allowed to participate publicly in the sacraments of that Church is definitive; I'd argue that historiographically, that is incorrect. There are numerous examples of clandestine worships that subscribe to a mainstream religious philosophy, without being accepted by it. As ever, we must rely upon reliable sources, and if they are lacking, we must follow Ludwig Wittgenstein and remain silent on the point. --Rodhullandemu 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

When are you going to stop spouting ignorant drivel? Hitler was not excommunicated in 1930 or at any other time. Try reading some reliable sources - books even - instead of worthless websites. And the word nominal means "in name only" as Pasceboy says. There is such a thing as nominal Catholicism, just as much as nominal Lutheranism, or even nominal Marxism. It's a common phrase even within Catholicism [3] [4] Please stop with transparent OR and attempts to force reality to fit your world view. Paul B (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I think you're outnumbered on this one. Rodhullandemu (please sign your post!) above made an excellent point (I think): If we can't boil it down to the correct 3-word phrase, then we have to remain silent on it. Redirecting via a "see religious beliefs" allows contributors to deal with all the problematic permutations nicely. Bushcutter (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu's "excellent" points are dependent on accepting your utterly spurious assertion that he was excommunicated, which he wasn't. You will not find any reliable source that says he was, because he wasn't. When are you going to admit that you have made a string of false statements while pretending to be knowledgable about this subject? As usual, when your falsities are pointed out you simply try to ignore the fact and hope people will not notice. That's not how honest editors proceed. Are you honest enough to admit that you are wrong about Hitler being excommunicated? Paul B (talk) 07:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

All Nazi leaders were repeatedly isolated from the Catholic community (this is known as ex-communication), and this includes Hitler. In 1933, on the "Day of Potsdam", prior to the Special Mass, Hitler realized that he couldn't be present because of his ex-communication status and he issued the following statement:

“ The German Catholic bishops have quite recently, in a series of public declarations on which the clergy have not hesitated to act, stigmatised the leaders of the National Socialist Party as traitors who should be refused the sacraments. These instructions have not been withdrawn and are still being carried out. In these circumstances the Chancellor is reluctantly compelled to remain away from the Catholic service at Potsdam. ”

Dennis Barton refers to Hitler as a "renegade Catholic". This, too, is preferable to describing Hitler as a "nominal Catholic". The best solution to this disagreement is still the one of linking the reader to the section on Religious Beliefs because, as Rodhullandemu pointed out, without clear evidence one way or the other we should perhaps remain silent on the matter, offering either no opinion or a summary of the available facts. The term "nominal Catholic" is a truly bogus POV term, and doesn't belong in the bio-box. The section on Religious Beliefs explains why. Bushcutter (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I have only just seen this "reply". No, that's not what "excommunication" means. You are playing with words. Books published in 1939 do not count as remotely reliable evidence at a time when propaganda was flying around like crazy and all sorts wholly spurious statements were attributed to Hitler. You'll have to find a reliable source. Incidentally I am perfectly well aware of what the basis for the claims about excommunication are. I just doubt that you are. Paul B (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

scrolling boxes

I was browsing around and noticed that the Muhammad page had a scrolling box for Notes, of which there were many. I thought the scrolling box made the page a lot nicer, and I thought I would seed the idea on different pages, hoping it would catch on. It can easily get reverted if popular opinion disagrees, so I thought I would find out what others think of using this format on extra-long pages such as Hitler's. JW (talk) 08:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the change--I am already scrolling downward to get to the references, so continued scrolling in the same old window makes more sense. With your new change, I must reposition the mouse to keep scrolling. It seems a minor complaint, but usability is a big deal to me. I cast my lot on the side of no internal scrolling. Binksternet (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Missing reference

Hamann 1999 is referenced twice in the article, but I do not see a citation for the book anywhere. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I found it. It was hidden in a non-MoS compliant scroll box. Please see WP:MOS. Scroll boxes are forbidden in the article namespace for a variety of reasons. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Hitler's vegetarianism

This article says that Hitler was a vegetarian because of fear of cancer or love for animals. However, I read in a book that he became a vegetarian because meat reminded him of the corpse of his dead niece, Geli Raubal. I forget the book, but I'll try to come up with the title soon. Savvy10 (talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Religion: nominally Catholic, due weight and POV's

So I was away for a few days and I failed to notice the discussion that had been going on in the meantime.

1) That Steigmann-Gall's research was given undue weight: Steigmann-Gall himself states that his research is controversial. However, if you would take controversial to mean 'unreliable' as per wp:rs you would display a remarkable lack of understanding of academic history. There are a lot of legitimate controversies surrounding topics like Nazism. Just because historians disagree an a topic, this does not mean that one view is false and the other one is correct.

Furthermore, in the particular question of Steigmann-Gall, even those who have a different view have acknowledged his research. There is a review of Steigmann-Gall's book by John Conway (the link would be [5] but it's currently not working.) Conway wrote a book The Nazi Persecution of the Churches back in 1967 and disagrees with Steigmann-Gall - however, Conway acknowledges that Steigmann-Gall has "broken new ground".

2) Confusion surrounding the words 'nominally', 'formally' etc. It's no surprise that with the current revision you get people writing in the edit summary things like: "No one ever "formally" leaves the Church." What the current revision does not take into account is the huge difference in religious life between Germany and, say, the United States. This is why I had added the following paragraph:

However, as Richard Steigmann-Gall points out when explaining the institutional particularities of religion in Nazi Germany, in a country in which the Catholic and the Protestant church are largely financed through a church tax collected by the state, Hitler (like Goebbels) never "actually left his church or refused to pay church taxes. In a nominal sense therefore [he] can be classified as Catholic."(Steigmann-Gall 2003: XV)

Of course, in the United States, where, as far as I understand it, churches are financed only through donations, to speak of someone as nominally the member of a Church would not make much sense. Either he attends the services and and donates to the Church or he doesn't. However, in Germany a Church tax has to be paid by everyone who is 'formally' a member of the church, regardless of whether he attends the services once a year (on Christmas), every Sunday, or never. From all what historians know, Hitler did pay his Church taxes to the Catholic Church, but did not attend mass or receive the sacraments. Under these conditions, it is justified to describe Hitler as Catholic "in name only".

I will add that paragraph back in, and please, at least TRY to understand the argument it makes before you think about removing it or starting another series of rants on this talk pages. Obviously, Str1977, since the institutional character of religion in Germany is different from the institutional character of religion in the U.S., where many readers will come from, the paragrpah has to start with a remark on Religion in Nazi Germany.

And please, Str1977, don't accuse me of being "bent on linking Hitler to the Church." I spent a lot of time with discussions cleaning up the mess that a certain paganist editor had made with articles like Persecution of Germanic Pagans and I am currently trying to get that slightly anti-Christian bias out of Persecution of religion in ancient Rome. The more time we are taking with this discussion here, the less time I will have to work on the later topic. Zara1709 (talk) 08:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the review by John S. Conway is currently not available, I tried to find some more. This is the result of a database search for scientific articles by Steigmann-Gall or about his research:

1. Book Reviews - Hitler Youth / Kater, Michael. - In: Histoire sociale, ISSN 0018-2257 (2007), 79, S.234-235 Aufsätze

2. The Nazis' 'Positive Christianity': a Variety of 'Clerical Fascism'? / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Totalitarian movements and political religions, ISSN 1469-0764, Bd. 8 (2007), 2, S.315-328 Aufsätze

3. Christianity and the Nazi Movement: A Response / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Journal of contemporary history, ISSN 0022-0094, Bd. 42 (2007), 2, S.185-212 Aufsätze

4. Reviews of Books - EUROPE: EARLY MODERN AND MODERN - Protestantismus und Nationalsozialismus: Studien zur nationalsozialistischen Durchdringung des protestantischen Sozialmilieus in Berlin. / Gailus, Manfred. - In: The American historical review, ISSN 0002-8762, Bd. 111 (2006), 1, S.269-270 Aufsätze

5. Reviews of Books - EUROPE: EARLY MODERN AND MODERN - Resisting the Third Reich: The Catholic Clerg in Hitler's Berlin / Spicer, Kevin. - In: The American historical review, ISSN 0002-8762, Bd. 111 (2006), 1, S.269 Aufsätze

6. REVIEWS OF BOOKS - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Studies in religion, ISSN 0008-4298, Bd. 34 (2005), 3-4, S.597-598 Aufsätze 7. Reviews of Books and Films - EUROPE: EARLY MODERN AND MODERN - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945. / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: The American historical review, ISSN 0002-8762, Bd. 110 (2005), 5, S.1620 Aufsätze 8. Kirchengeschichte: 20. Jahrhundert, Zeitgeschichte - The Holy Reich / Steigmann-Gall, R.. - In: Theologische Literaturzeitung, ISSN 0040-5671, Bd. 130 (2005), 9, S.980-981 Aufsätze 9. Reviews - GOTTGLÄUBIGERS - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 / Brown-Fleming, Suzanne. - In: The review of politics, ISSN 0034-6705, Bd. 67 (2005), 3, S.570-571 Aufsätze 10. Boekbesprekingen - The Holy Reich: Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 / Steigmann-Gall, R.. - In: Tijdschrift voor geschiedenis, ISSN 0040-7518, Bd. 117 (2004), 4, S.636

11. BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Church history, ISSN 0009-6407, Bd. 73 (2004), 2, S.438-439 Aufsätze 12. Book Reviews - The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptionsof Christianity, 1919-1945 / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: German studies review, ISSN 0149-7952, Bd. 27 (2004), 1, S.174-175 Aufsätze 13. HISTORY - The Holy Reich - German conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 / Johnson, Daniel. - In: The times, ISSN 0040-7895 (2003), 5252, S.9 Aufsätze 14. Rethinking Nazism and Religion: How Anti-Christian were the "Pagans"? / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Central European history, ISSN 0008-9389, Bd. 36 (2003), 1, S.75-106 Aufsätze 15. N. Goodrick-Clarke, Hitler's Priestess: Savitri Devi, the Hindu-Aryan Myth and Neo-Nazism / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Canadian journal of history, ISSN 0008-4107, Bd. 36 (2001), 3, S.643-645 Aufsätze 16. Apostasy or religiosity? The cultural meanings of the Protestant vote for Hitler / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Social history, ISSN 0307-1022, Bd. 25 (2000), 3, S.267-284 Aufsätze 17. "Furor Protestanticus": Nazi Conceptions of Luther, 1919-1933 / Steigmann-Gall, Richard. - In: Kirchliche Zeitgeschichte, ISSN 0932-9951, Bd. 12 (1999), 1, S.274-286 Aufsätze 18. Conference Reports - Memory, Democracy and the Mediated Nation: Political Cultures and Regional Identities in Germany, 1848-1998 / Fink, Erwin. - In: German history, ISSN 0266-3554, Bd. 17 (1999), 2, S.258-264

Unfortunately the review by Conway is not included here. Still, if we need to have a discussion about the controversy surrounding Steigmann-Gall's research I'd suggest you start reading. Zara1709 (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The most detailed discussions of Steigmann-Gall's research are in the Journal of Contemporary History, Jan 2007 issue, which is online here [6]. S-G's own response to criticisms is in the following April 2007 issue. Paul B (talk) 14:14, 2008

Zara,

I am sorry to have mistaken your motives and do apologize for that.

However, I do disagree with some things you wrote:

1. I do believe that all too often Steigmann-Gall gets and undue weight on WP. However, I never called him "unreliable" (in the WP sense) or argued for his removal.
2. The "Church in Germany" passage simply strays to far from this article's topic which is "Adolf Hitler" in general.
3. "different from the US" also smacks of US-centrism. This is not the American WP and hence not every phenomenon must be translated into American terms, especially half-correctly. BTW, your statement about "nominal" in the US is simply untrue. There is something like nominal membership there as well - it is even easier since you may simply stay away and ignore such a membership without any consequences. In Germany however, you would have to pay church tax nonetheless (if you paid income tax, of course). Finally, the situation before 1933 is much more complicated than you would have it. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted; This is not about my or your motives, but only about the article - but you simply don't have a case!

1) The journal of contemporary history devoted half an issue to the critique of The Holy Reich alone, and, as far as I can tell, there are even more positive reviews than negative ones. There aren't many history books that receive that much attention, and certainly the book is one of the more noted works on the topic; that said, Steigmann-Gall has brought in a new perspective, which apparently has not been considered before. Other historians will not have remarked the fact that Hitler was "nominally Catholic", under the specific cicrumstances which I have explained above. Other historians have rather spent their efforts on proving that "Hitler had a general plan, even before the rise of the Nazis to power, to destroy Christianity within the Reich." It's ok to mention that there (although the sources could be better), but then it certainly can't be undue weight to mention Steigmann-Gall's view, too, and when it's about Hitler's private attack against Catholicism, there apparently isn't a problem with using Steigmann-Gall's results either.

2), 3) Certainly it is justified to explain to a general audience what the institutional conditions of the churches in Nazi Germany and the Weimar Republic were. Not only US-American readers might find that they are different from the ones on their country, this will also apply to readers from Australia, New Zealand and most of Asia (don't know about Canada and Russia).

Furthermore. the claim that one sentence would stray to far from the topic in THIS article is somehow ridiculous. We currently have a whole subsection on the Brüning Administration, and although that section also gives information about Hitler's live during that time, it include several remarks about the general situation in Germany that have nothing to do with Hitler in person. I really think that one sentence to link the article Religion in Nazi Germany is justified.

The sentence you removed from the 'religious beliefs' section has to stay. The only thing we can talk about is whether we want to say that Hitler was nominally Catholic in the infobox or whether we don't want to say anything there at all. "Nominally Catholic" is the correct, 2-word-short description of Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs. If you think that this is misleading or that Hitler's religious beliefs are to complex to be described in two or three words, then don't say anything on his religion in the infobox. That's the only compromise that I could offer. We keep the sentence from Steigmann-Gall, but completely remove the religion field from the infobox. We can describe Hitler as "nominally Catholic", but we don't have to. Zara1709 (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Your item #1 doesn't make a case either as no one disputes that Steigmann-Gall's is not an important book but a) it is not the book that needs to be quoted at great lenght all the time, b) the "religion in Nazi Germany" is not the subject of this article of section (and note, that Hitler didn't just live in Nazi Germany - he lived even longer in the Weimar Republic, and before that in the Kaiserreich and before that in Austria-Hungary)

"Certainly it is justified ..." - no, it is not certainly justified. It is a large topic - one that could never be done justice within the confines of this article. And it certainly not proper by simply quoting Steigmann-Gall. That's exactly the problem noted above: St-G is not the truth. He is merely one important book.

Somehow I find arguments like "your claim is ridiculous" to be slightly polemic and not at all addressing the actual issues. That the article may have other flaws not under discussion now is not a reasoning to proclaim this flaw here untouchable.

re the other edits you reverted (and there is not justification for your - "you can restore them" - you could have abstained from reverting them):

• we should be precise - chancellors are not "named" (and why ultimately?) they are/were appointed and dismissed.
• it is simply wrong to say that Hitler was "Führer" (head of state) - his title as head of state was "Führer and Reichskanzler", combining the two offices that he held - Führer of the Nazi Party and Reichskanzler of the German Reich. The actual office of head of state - Reichspräsident - was declared dormant "out of respect for Hindenburg" with Hitler performing the functions of head of state- The main thing is Hitler was head of state as "Führer and Reichskanzler" and not as something less or something else. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The "Nominally" does sound like a bit of weasel working as if it was trying to devalue this aspect of Hitler's life. Do we tag feminists as "Nominally Female" ?. Why don't we try a generic tag if Hitler doesn't fit the definition for a specific sect or religion ? For instance Constantine I is listed as Polytheistsic and Christian. When we can't work out a precise church that the person follows then we should use the generic and "Christian" is this generic for all these churches. Ttiotsw (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with Steigmann-Gall is not so much that he is controversial but that his work regarding Nazis and Christianity is admittedly out of the concensus. I minority view should not be used in the info-box. The fact that Hitler may have paid taxes is of very little meaning. And anyone who thinks the state of Germany made the determination of who is or is not Catholic has very little understanding of the Church. Calling Hitler nominally Catholic is like calling Bill Maher nominally Catholic. He had nothing to do with the Church since before his teen years and actively planned to destroy that Church and the other Christian Churches. To call him nominally Catholic is just POV pushing blather.Aliajacta (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, you can't expect me to repeat myself, but I'll do it anyway: Steigmann-Gall himself states that his research is controversial and agaisnt consensus. However, there are a lot of legitimate controversies surrounding topics like Nazism. And especially: At least one author who wrote a book The Nazi Persecution of the Churches in 1968 has given an altogether positive review of The Holy Reich. [7] Unless someone gives us a comprehensive survey of the academic literature on Religion in Nazi Germany SINCE 2003, we don't know what the current 'consensus' among historians is. Zara1709 (talk) 20:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

No one expects you to repeat yourself. But neither way your arguments improve. You cannot simply quote one book and claim that now the reader is informed about the situation. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Steigmann-Gall's own book describes him as being against the consensus on this subject. And if we don't know what the consensus is (a position which I will do not grant), we should not be putting such a questionable fact in the infobox.Mamalujo (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

In the (possibly vain) hope of brokering a compromise, I've changed the info box to what Str1977 and Mamalujo want but kept the elaboration in the relevant paragraph as preferred by Zara. (Also, gave a more precise translation/explanation of "Führer" in the lead.)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was vain. I have made my case why the "elaboration" is misplaced here.

And as for the "Führer" explanation - you expand upon an already wrong text, which can lead to no good. You make it worse by trying to insert the term "dictator". If we want to say that Hitler was the dictator of Germany 1933-45 I don't have a problem with it (as it is a fact) but we do not use this as a pseudo-explanation of "Führer".

Str1977 ^(talk) 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Real friendly-like, Str. And a happy new year to you, too. The "Religious beliefs" section, by the way, today still includes information inserted on A.H.'s anti-Christian activities, inserted by Mamalujo, BECAUSE I FOUGHT FOR ITS PRESERVATION. You're welcome.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Goodmorningworld, I am sorry if you take that personal. I wouldn't have said it was "vain" if you hadn't used that term before. And sure I stand by my point above regardless what day it is. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Zara, in addition to the arguments given above: your cherished St-G soundbyte actually does nothing to explain anything at all. The reasons for Hitler's never formally leaving the church are complex, but I would rank simple disinterest and concerns about ill effects on voters as the main reasons. Why should the fact that the state collected church taxes be an incentive to remain in the church?

Finally, the statement "he never refused to pay church tax" is only technically true after 1933. Hitler did not pay any direct taxes after coming to power. No income tax and hence no church tax. St-G is technical correct as Hitler did not actively refuse to pay - his underlings simply arranged matters in that way. Before 1933 is a different matter of course, though it would be interesting how much taxes he paid then based on how large an income. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing elements to improve article.

First of all I changed the reference to the Hollocaust referring to all people, as of today the Hollocaust is in reference to Jews only.

There are also areas of concern that hopefully someone can address if they find fitting.

Missing?

1. There is no reference to the 'burning of books'...and what books, and why.

2. There is no reference to the increase of immorality in Germany prior to his takeover that allowed him easy entry into his political office. Why is this missing ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 04:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

For reference I saw a PBS show that reflected how 'decadent' Europe became, ( guess part of the roaring twenties...including actresses like Marlena Deitrick....) Germany was the most corrupted morally prior to the war....these truths are missing, and set up the background for how such a facist leader could gain power...it should be so recorded.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's middle name

Did he have one? It seems a lot of people on the net ask that question, so it is something good to include in the article (what it is, or that he didn't have one). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.78.106.209 (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No. It was just "Adolf Hitler"; he had no middle name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.207.169.150 (talk) 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Red Army

Several writers have said that Hitler was arrested as a Leftist with a red arm band in Munich in 1918 or 1919 by a Right-wing Freikorps unit. See J.Fest and D.C.Watt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Hitler was in a military alliance with the Red Army in the 1939 to 1941 period, also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.207.21 (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

truly too long, the time has come

I don't watch this article, but watch a very few which link to it. In dropping by today, I was startled at its length, which is that of a short book. Even with a very fast broadband connection and a zippy computer, it can take seconds to load and is unwieldy. The worry isn't all the sourced content, but as to its handling, both technical and encyclopedic: This article should now be broken up into sections somehow, I would suggest by the sections it already has, perhaps with links at the bottom for each next chronological chapter where fitting, making Adolf Hitler an introductory and disambiguation page to the topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I read the article, I too have a fast PC and (HP TX2510US running 64 bit Linux, 10mb/7mb internet) it loads just fine. By any chance are you using Windows vista?

As for the reading length and such. It is just the right length IMO for someone of Hitler's historical magnitude. To make is biography the same length as much less noteable people would be to give those less notable people undue weight. --Hfarmer (talk) 16:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

6 million jews!!!

The statement in the article about the death of 6 million jews is known to be absolutely false. While it is true that 6 million people were killed during the Holocaust, about 2 million of these were jews. It is often ignored, or concealed, that the rest of the victims were gypsies, communists, homossexuals, the mentally ill,german intelectuals, doctors, artists and basically anyone who seemed to be a threat for the Nazi regime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.168.49 (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

If you feel this information can be sourced to improve the article source the information and put it in there. Otherwise this is a page for discussing improvments to the article, not a forum. Britmax (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hitler, nominally Catholic?

Controversy surrounding the question whether it should be included that Hitler was "nominally Catholic". The source for this is Richard Steigmann-Gall, 2003, The Holy Reich - Nazi conceptions of Christianity, 1919 - 1945, Cambridge Univ. Press

This is wrong, given that the term itself is controversial and that it takes one view and presents it as fact. St-G is not fact, presenting him as such is not NPOV. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

That Hitler never left the Catholic Church is fact. That someone, who makes attacks against the Catholic Church in private, but is hypocritical enough never to renounce his membership (and even if it would be only to save the money for the church tax), can be described as "nominally Catholic" should be common sense, and in most biography articles there wouldn't be a discussion about that. (Only that in most cases no one has taken a look at the private religious views of a person; in the case of Hitler historians have done that.)

Writing articles about Nazism on Wikipedia is difficult enough as it is. Every few weeks someone comes along who apparently has never read a history book but is of the opinion that his views concerning the topic are better justified than anyone else's, the last one seems to have based his views on Bill O'Reilly.

Steigmann-Gall's The Holy Reich is a ground breaking history book. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of John S. Conway. His review is easily accesible (it is on the internet, you don't need to go into a university library to read it), and I have pointed to it previously. But since this was not noticed by everyone, here is an extract from the review:

Richard Steigmann-Gall's lively and sometimes provocative study of the relationship between Nazism and Christianity breaks new ground. He takes issue with those, like this reviewer, who argue that Nazism and Christianity were incompatible, both in theory and practice. (...)

Certainly, these "paganists," [like Rosenberg] as Steigmann-Gall calls them, exercised little control over Nazi policy. Hitler stoutly and consistently rejected any talk of an ersatz religion based on German myths or culminating in Valhalla. The "positive Christianity" of such leaders as Goering continued to stress the advantages of a national non-denominational Christianity in such areas as education or social welfare. And even strident anti-clericals such as Goebbels or Streicher supported the idea of an Aryan Christianity as an admirable moral system. The fact that the churches were the only major institutions which did not suffer Gleichschaltung shows, in Steigmann-Gall's view, "the fundamentally positive attitude of the Nazi state toward at least the Protestant Church as a whole." For this reason, in 1934 Hitler refused to back the radicals and in 1935 appointed an old crony and primitive Protestant, Hanns Kerrl, to be Minister of Church Affairs. The kind of Christianity Kerrl affirmed was proclaimed in his speeches: "Adolf Hitler has hammered the faith and fact of Jesus into the hearts of the German Volk.... True Christianity and National Socialism are identical." But Kerrl, who was appointed to co-ordinate the rival Protestant factions, failed. Thereupon, Steigmann-Gall notes, Hitler turned against the churches and abandoned institutional Protestantism once and for all. But even so, according to one source, he still adhered to his original ideas and was of the opinion that "Church and Christianity are not identical" (p. 188). (...)

Steigmann-Gall agrees that from 1937 onwards, Nazi policy toward the churches became much more hostile. The influence of such notable anti-clericals as Bormann and Heydrich grew exponentially and was restrained only by the need for wartime compromises. On the other hand, Steigmann-Gall argues persuasively that the Nazi Party's 1924 program and Hitler's policy-making speeches of the early years were not just politically motivated or deceptive in intent. Agreeing with the view taken by Hitler's fellow-countryman, the Austrian theologian Friedrich Heer, Steigmann-Gall considers these speeches to be a sincere appreciation of Christianity as a value system to be upheld. Yet he is not ready to admit that this Nazi Christianity was eviscerated of all the most essential orthodox dogmas. What remained was the vaguest impression combined with anti-Jewish prejudice. Only a few radicals on the extreme wing of liberal Protestantism would recognize such a mish-mash as true Christianity. (...)

Steigmann-Gall's achievement is to have fully explored the extensive records of the Nazi era in order to illustrate these often conflicting conceptions of Christianity and to assemble the evidence in a carefully weighed evaluation. In so doing, he almost makes a convincing case. But his final view that, in light of the post-1945 ideological imperatives, Nazism had to be depicted as an evil and unchristian empire seems overdrawn. Yet he is undeniably right to point out how much Nazism owed to German Christian, especially Protestant, concepts and how much support it gained from a majority of Christians in Germany. That is certainly a sobering lesson to be drawn from this interesting and well-reasoned account.

You will notice that there is some criticism in these lines (Conway rejects Steigmann-Galls conclusion), but if Steigmann-Gall's work wasn't good, John S. Conway certainly wouldn't write that Steigmann-Gall argues persuasively. I think it is justified to say that Steigmann-Gall's book is the best work on Nazism and Religion currently available (which doesn't mean that you'd have to agree to Steigmann-Gall's conclusion). Conway's book is good, too, but it is 40 years old. This is why I used Steigmann-Galls book when working on the topic, and I seriously did not expect this kind of opposition (at least not from an experienced editor). We have to talk about whether we want to say that Hitler was "nominally Catholic" in the Infobox, this is what I want to use this rfc for. But that Hitler can be described as such (in the view of Steigmann-Gall) has to be included in the article. Not many historians might have said that before Steigmann-Gall's book was published, but after it has been published any historian working on Nazism and Religion will have to take Steigmann-Gall's result into account, either positively or negatively. Not giving Steigmann-Gall's view in this article would not only exclude a highly significant viewpoint, it would also make a bad article. Zara1709 (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I have shown that it is not undue weight to include the quote from Steigmann-Gall. It would rather be a violation of wp:NPOV NOT to include it. What we need to discuss, though, is whether we want to say that Hitler was "nominally Catholic" in the infobox or whether we don't want to say anything there on his religion at all. What is 'religion' supposed to mean here? If it is supposed to indicate his religious affiliation, well, then we have to say that Hitler was Catholic. He was a member of the Catholic church all his life. And 'religion' can't be mean 'religious views' here. I think we would need at least 200 words to give an (cursory) overview about Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs, and certainly can't fit this into the infobox. But I think it is pointless to say, religion: see religious beliefs in the infobox, anyone can find the link to that section in the table of contents on the left side. And since a religion field is not mandatory, we can just leave it out. I personally would prefer to say something like "Religion: nominally Catholic" or "religious affiliation: Catholic" in the infobox, though, but we need more input on that. Zara1709 (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Zara, could you please at least not throw around false statements. I wrote more than a one-liner on this page (see the section above). Here, on the RfC I wrote only as much as it pertains to the RfC. Furthermore, it is not the size of one's comments that matter but the content. You do make long statements but I can only see little merit in them.

Now, regarding the infobox - what you are trying here is force St-G (who is a RS in his own right - hence arguing that his book was "good" is totally irrelevant here) as fact down everybody's throat and that is a violation of NPOV. I am that brief because there is nothing much to reply to. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not coming from RFC, but I happened to read a Dutch encyclopedia published in 1939 in which he was classifieddescribed as a Catholic, so I think nominally catholic is okay. I am a bit bothered by the attention given to the question of his official faith, because this is unrelated to his notability. Why is there an article on Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs but not on Adolf Hitler's military leadership though the latter is much more important? Please start working on that article. Andries (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I had not read the dispute very well, religion in the infobox is not a good idea because it is unrelated to Hitler's notability. Andries (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Str1977, now the issue is approaching a dangerous level. I asked you to read the review by John S. Conway, which isn't long at all. I think it is justified to assume that Conway is an authority on the field, and his review of Steigmann-Gall's book is rather positive. Since you apparently didn't read the review, I gave you an extract from it. Some other editors on this talk page made the argument that Steigmann-Gall's research was against the consensus among historians. Well, it is with historians as with Wikipedia: Consensus can change. I think I have shown that Steigmann-Gall's book has broken new ground in the "study of the relationship between Nazism and Christianity", and that his results (although probably not the view he has expressed in his conclusion) will have their part in any future consensus among historians on the topic (if such a thing exists).

That should really take into account the concerns voiced by other editors. Of course, it is theoretically possible that I evaluated the discussion surrounding Steigmann-Gall's research incorrectly. In this case all you'd have to do is point out to some more reviews - some literature is mentioned above, you'd only have to read it.

You, Str1977, are making the argument that it would be undue weight to quote Steigmann-Gall in this context, but I can't make out your rationale. This is why I asked you to write longer comments here. I think that, in light of the evidence, many (>60%) of historians would agree that Hitler can be described as "nominally Catholic." At least, though, this is a significant minority view, which is precisely the reason why I am naming Steigmann-Gall in the section. However, the application of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view can sometimes be difficult. This is why the policy suggest that: "Disagreements over whether something is approached neutrally can usually be avoided through the practice of good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available." Steigmann-Gall is (probably second to Rissmann) the most reputable sources currently available. I have argued this above. If you disagree, you at least have to write more than just a few lines. Zara1709 (talk) 02:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"... Conway is an authority on the field, and his review of Steigmann-Gall's book is rather positive...."

That still doesn't make St-G a fact. He is a RS and has his views. However, his views are not fact. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I spent another hour reading. Steigmann-Gall returns to the issue in his response in the April 2007 Issue of the Journal of contemporary history. Since editors here apparently can't be asked to go the library and read for themselves, here is another extract. Doris Bergen, whose critique is discussed, is the author of Twisted Cross: The German Christian Movement in the Third Reich (Chapel Hill, NC 1996):

"If Gailus faults me for wanting too much, Bergen claims I have not done enough. For all her charges of tendentiousness and ‘collecting of quotes’, she claims that had I only played the ‘ace’ of church membership statistics, I would have ‘nailed’ my case. I must remind her that I address precisely this question when explaining why I translate the German Konfession as ‘confession’ instead of ‘denomination’: ‘In Germany, where to this day religion nominally remains an obligatory state affair and not voluntaristic, there are no denominations in the strict sense of the word. Its use in the German context incorrectly suggests an American-style religious “marketplace” and attendant separation of church and state’ (HR, xv). Nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context, especially given the very circuitous route one had to take before one could officially leave one’s church — unless there were sudden, propitious drops or increases, as was the case in 1933. Church attendance, by contrast, would have been a much more revealing gauge, if much more difficult to ascertain. It is most peculiar that Bergen would make such an argument, given that my goal is to explore nazi attitudes to Christianity, not the other way around. Would I have nailed my case by simply pointing out that Hitler, Goebbels, and Goering always remained members of their churches? That Goebbels had his children baptized? That in 1935 Goering wedded his second wife Emmy in a Lutheran service? I make all these points in my book, but could not contend that by themselves they prove much about a larger ideological relationship.Indeed, Hitler’s ongoing membership in the Catholic Church stands very much at odds with his private comments about Catholicism and its traditions. (Steigmann-Gall 2007, Christianity and the Nazi Movement: A Response, p. 205, in: Journal of Contemporary History Volume 42, No. 2)

We have to include that Hitler was a member of the Catholic Church all his life. We ALSO have to include what this means under the specific circumstances in Germany. In case you're still missing the argument, Str1977: Steigmann-Gall DOES NOT argue that Hitler was Catholic. He argues that Church membership is not a reliable indicator of religion under the specific circumstances in Germany. This is why we need to include a sentence like: "In a country in which the Catholic and the Protestant church are largely financed through a church tax collected by the state, Hitler (like Goebbels) never 'actually left his church or refused to pay church taxes'." Zara1709 (talk) 04:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Zara, you type a lot of words but that doesn't make your postings well-reasoned. Restricting myself to your conclusions:

"We have to include that Hitler was a member of the Catholic Church all his life."

Well, we do or rather we state the fact that Hitler never formally left the Church. That is a fact and we note it. But that alone does not make him a Catholic in any meaningful sense.

"We ALSO have to include what this means under the specific circumstances in Germany.

Whether we have to is debatable. But I am not opposed to this in principle. But you're not getting the job done.

"In case you're still missing the argument, Str1977: Steigmann-Gall DOES NOT argue that Hitler was Catholic."

But you are, using St-G to that purpose. "can be called" anyway is weasel language. It is quoted from St-G and is his view but you try to insert it as fact.

"He argues that Church membership is not a reliable indicator of religion under the specific circumstances in Germany."

Correct. But you do not included that into the article. On the contrary, you say:

"This is why we need to include a sentence like: "In a country in which the Catholic and the Protestant church are largely financed through a church tax collected by the state, Hitler (like Goebbels) never 'actually left his church or refused to pay church taxes'.""

That is absolutely not saying anything about "Church membership is not a reliable indicator ..." As I stated above, your reasoning doesn't make sense. A church tax is rather an additional motive for leaving a church. I also repeatedly reminded you that the actual "specific (sic!) circumstances in Germany" are really more complicated, given changes in church-state law (various concordats) and Hitler living under various governments.

So if you want to express the "Church membership is not a reliable indicator of religion under the specific circumstances in Germany" in a different way, I am quite open to your suggestions. But please drop that church tax issue.

I am sorry to fill up the space here at the RfC but it seems you only recognise postings in this section. Str1977 ^(talk) 08:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about including a statement from Steigmann-Gall's 2007 article, but then I realized that this would give Steigmann-Gall's view even more weight. The version you propose is factually wrong: "Hitler readily adopted a strategy "that suited his immediate political purposes"[276] and therefore never formally left the church.[277]" Neither Steigmann-Gall nor Conway is saying that. Adolf Hitler was a member of Catholic church because Germany does not have a such a strong concept of the separation of church and state, and "religion nominally remains a state affair". Therefore Hitler can be described as nominally Catholic. If you remove the quote, you are misquoting Steigmann-Gall. I never tried to insert Steigmann-Gall's view that Hitler can be classifed as "nominally Catholic" as fact; actually, in the version I propose, the phrase "Steigmann-Gall states" is included. Zara1709 (talk) 12:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Article as it appears today is not so bad. No harm done, really, by removing the "Religion:" line from the infobox. The table of contents still appears in the first screenful and one click takes readers to the section on AH's religious beliefs. This section as it is right now appears balanced enough. Zara and Paul B have stopped trying to remove information on H's scheming against Christians (Catholics and Protestants) and their organizations. Str1977 should now likewise refrain from continually trying to remove the Steigman-Gall quote. And Str, please think about modifying the way you express yourself in edit summaries and on Talk pages. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, as they say.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where I used vinegar, though I must say that I dislike Zara's honey, i.e. his avoiding the actual issues raised by going on about St-G's reliability.

"Zara and Paul B have stopped trying to remove information ..." - and what has that got to do with me? Informations should be judged on its own merit, not

Zara,

"Adolf Hitler was a member of Catholic church because Germany does not have a such a strong concept of the separation of church and state, and "religion nominally remains a state affair"."

Well, that's not what you are constantly inserting. You are inserting irrelevant half-facts (half because there is no "one situtiation of the church in Germany" before 1933 ) about church taxes

"Therefore Hitler can be described as nominally Catholic."

Says who? St-G yes, but we cannot simply take his opinion as a fact. And never mind that the sentence is weasel language.

"If you remove the quote, you are misquoting Steigmann-Gall."

I have no intention to misquote him but then again, there is no obligation to quote him at all.

"I never tried to insert Steigmann-Gall's view that Hitler can be classifed as "nominally Catholic" as fact; actually, in the version I propose, the phrase "Steigmann-Gall states" is included."

Well, above you do. But simply adding a "St-G states" in front of a protracted sentence, especially if the self-confessed non-consensus St-G is presented as the only one.

Str1977 ^(talk) 11:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This is starting to get personal. I am not avoiding the issue. I have repeatedly and patiently explained why it is not justified to base the view that it would be undue weight to include this statement from Steigmann-Gall on the abstract of his book which reads: "Steigmann-Gall argues against the consensus that Nazism as a whole was either unrelated to Christianity or actively opposed to it." I spent hours reading up on the discussion about Steigmann-Gall's research and I can say that, as an historian, he is important enough to be quoted. If you disagree, you at least have to do some reading yourself. Seriously, the section here and the article Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs are bad. They aren't based on the most reputable history books, but on some randomly picked webpages. I am only trying to improve them, any you, Str1977, are standing in the way. If you don't trust me to evaluate the debate among historians correctly, you should at least respect Goodmorningworld's judgement that the section "right now appears balanced enough". Zara1709 (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why I am still trying to substantiate my arguments with academic references (so far this was futile), but anyway, this is what Steigmann-Gall says:

'"I have translated Konfession as 'confession' rather than the more standard 'denomination.' In Germany, where to this day religion nominally remains an obligatory state affair and not voluntaristic, there are no denominations in the strict sense of the word. Its use in the German context incorrectly suggest an American-style religious 'marketplace' and attendant separation of church and state. This is especially relevant when describing certain Nazis like Hitler or Goebbels as 'Catholic', even though they expressed antagonism towards their church. Whereas both men ceased to attend Catholic services or take confessions long before 1933, up until their death neither man actually left his church or refused to pay church taxes. In a nominal sense therefore both men can be described as Catholic." (The Holy Reich, p. XV)

I actually have learned by now who has described Adolf Hitler as Catholic - Friedrich Heer. What Steigmann-Gall does, on the first page of his book (!), is to state to what extend Hitler can be classified as Catholic. Because Germany doesn't have such a strong concept of Separation of Church and State, which is best explained by pointing out that there is a church tax in Germany, Hitler can be classified as "in a nominal sense" Catholic. Steigmann-Gall's explanation is good; and unless you have another historian that can explain this better, you have not justification to remove it. Zara1709 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a solution may be found by using a word other than "nominally"? Is there another adjective you can all agree on? Anarchangel (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

St-G only defies consensus with respect to the contention that Nazism supported (or at least did not always oppose) Christianity; that Hitler was nominally a Catholic is uncontroversial. Given that St-G isn't consensus for the relevance of religion to Hitler's notability, it should stay out of the infobox, but the St-G quote is entirely appropriate in the article body. Rvcx (talk) 09:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Summed up very nicely by Rvcx. My personal opinion is that the "religious beliefs" (if they can be called that) of A.H. and many Nazis were a satanic form of "replacement theology", in which they believed with all their mind in the election of the Jews and "therefore" (in their twisted logic) decided to murder them all so that they could then take their place. I know of some sources that support this contention but they may not be sufficiently cast-iron to survive attempts to keep them out. Brigitte Hamann's acclaimed book Hitler's Vienna: Apprenticeship of a Dictator shows clearly that A.H. was not a victim of evil Jews but on the contrary was befriended and helped by various Jews and Jewish families. It wasn't because the Jews had done him harm that he hated them so but because his invitations to Jewish families pointed up to him the contrast to his own dysfunctional upbringing. However, my personal opinion is only that and as such has no place in the Article.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• RfC response: The word "nominally" weakens the significance of the following word significantly. So those who feel that calling Hitler a nominal Catholic is reflection on the Catholic Church or is a commentary on his devotion are mistaken. Hitler's personal affiliation with Catholicism is well-established, but the weakness of those ties are also established. So "nominal " is the perfect word to reflect that reality.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

additional new relatives to be listed

William Patrick Hitlers' four sons should be listed in the family section; Howard Ronald Stuart-Houston, Alexander Adolf Stuart-Houston , Louis Stuart-Houston and Brian William Stuart-Houston. Howard has passed, but the 3 remaining are the last in the line of Hitler's paternal genetics. They are allegedly writing a book about the Hitler family soon to be released. Greeenriver (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

An image on this page may be deleted

This is an automated message regarding an image used on this page. The image File:Adolf Hitler at Berchtesgaden.ogg, found on Adolf Hitler, has been nominated for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia image policy. Please see the image description page for more details. If this message was sent in error (that is, the image is not up for deletion, or was left on the wrong talk page), please contact this bot's operator. STBotI (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

While on the topic... I feel that the new main image of Hitler is rather scary. Does anyone else agree? 70.69.194.169 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Stupid

The end of the first section of this article contains the line:

Hello everyone. My name is Tyler Miller. I like to eat french fries and macaroni and cheese. Do you have a girlfriend? I would like to have a girlfriend. Would you date me? heck, no. dude, this is about adolf hitler, not your love life.

ok, that's stupid and has NOTHING to do w/ any of this.

Can anybody fix this ludicrous addition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.240.119 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That edit was made and reverted over 3 hours ago. Sometimes, the server fails to update the page for anonymous readers/editors, but this can be fixed by an editor performing a forced purge (by adding &action=purge to the address bar). I've updated the page, which should take care of the problem. Let us know if there is still a problem. Parsecboy (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Socialism

In the opening paragraph it makes NO MENTION of the fact that he rallied the German masses by espousing socialist beliefs. Just listen to this quote from this speech he made December 10, 1940 in Berlin:

"All my life I have been a 'have-not.' At home I was a 'have-not.' I regard myself as belonging to them and have always fought exclusively for them. I defended them and, therefore, I stand before the world as their representative. I shall never recognize the claim of the others to that which they have taken by force. Under no circumstances can I acknowledge this claim with regard to that which has been taken from us. It is interesting to examine the life of these rich people. In this Anglo-French world there exists, as it were, democracy, which means the rule of the people by the people. Now the people must possess some means of giving expression to their thoughts or their wishes. Examining this problem more closely, we see that the people themselves have originally no convictions of their own. Their convictions are formed, of course, just as everywhere else. The decisive question is who enlightens the people, who educates them? In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: 'Here we have liberty.' By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the 'freedom of the press.'

In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Public opinion thus mobilized by them is, in its turn, split up into political parties. The difference between these parties is as small as it formerly was in Germany. You know them, of course - the old parties. They were always one and the same. In Britain matters are usually so arranged that families are divided up, one member being a conservative, another a liberal, and a third belonging to the labor party. Actually, all three sit together as members of the family, decide upon their common attitude and determine it. A further point is that the 'elected people' actually form a community which operates and controls all these organizations. For this reason, the opposition in England is really always the same, for on all essential matters in which the opposition has to make itself felt, the parties are always in agreement. They have one and the same conviction and through the medium of the press mold public opinion along corresponding lines. One might well believe that in these countries of liberty and riches, the people must possess an unlimited degree of prosperity. But no! On the contrary, it is precisely in these countries that the distress of the masses is greater than anywhere else. Such is the case in 'rich Britain.'

She controls sixteen million square miles. In India, for example, a hundred million colonial workers with a wretched standard of living must labor for her. One might think, perhaps, that at least in England itself every person must have his share of these riches. By no means! In that country class distinction is the crassest imaginable. There is poverty - incredible poverty - on the one side, and equally incredible wealth on the other. They have not solved a single problem. The workmen of that country which possesses more than one-sixth of the globe and of the world's natural resources dwell in misery, and the masses of the people are poorly clad.. In a country which ought to have more than enough bread and every sort of fruit, we find millions of the lower classes who have not even enough to fill their stomachs, and go about hungry. A nation which could provide work for the whole world must acknowledge the fact that it cannot even abolish unemployment at home. For decades this rich Britain has had two and a half million unemployed; rich America, ten to thirteen millions, year after year; France, six, seven, and eight hundred thousand. Well, my fellow-countrymen - what then are we to say about ourselves?

It is self-evident that where this democracy rules, the people as such are not taken into consideration at all. The only thing that matters is the existence of a few hundred gigantic capitalists who own all the factories and their stock and, through them, control the people. The masses of the people do not interest them in the least. They are interested in them just as were our bourgeois parties in former times - only when elections are being held, when they need votes. Otherwise, the life of the masses is a matter of complete indifference to them."

I know his appeals to the German working class and the stroking of their collective ego worked in tandem in his rhetoric (nationalism + socialism). It's inaccurate and disingenuous to supplant socialism with antisemitism as one of the main impetuses in his rise to power. In my opinion, it should be added. 24.174.82.195 (talk) 07:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The word "socialist" appears in the second line of the article. Str1977 ^(talk) 11:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

National Socialism was a form of Marxism, in fact Gerbelles, claimed Lenin was second only to Hitler. The holocaust originated with Marx who argued that certain races such as the Scottish Highlanders and the Slavic were still medieval and would be two stages behind in the workers revolution. Marx said that these workers and classes were to perish in a "revolutionary holocaust" he also said Poland was useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.201.136.122 (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Steigmann-Gall and balancing POVs - again

So, some editors had expressed their concern about the due weight that should be given to Steigmann-Gall's book. I took those concerns serious, and looked up some reviews of The Holy Reich; Already on December 2, 2008, I have pointed out the review by John S. Conway, which says that Steigmann-Gall is basically right, or at least that even his controversial views on Nazism and Christianity are a legitimate interpretation of the sources. (Steigmann-Gall should only have emphasized the difference between that, what the Nazis understood as Christianity and that what Christianity actually is.) Of course, Steigmann-Gall findings on Nazism and Christianity would need to presented together with the results of other historians in the article Religion in Nazi Germany. That is already partly being done. In this article, we don't need to include a balanced account of the historian's views concerning Nazism and Christianity - the article is already long enough. If you insist we can included with one word that Steigmann-Gall's book is "controversial".

Well, at least Mamalujo brought in some more history books - I already had the impression that the only thing he ever read on the topic were web pages and the abstract of Steigmann-Gall's book. I will replace the reference to Rosenbaum with a reference to Rißmann (apparently his name is written with the German letter ß, not double-s), since Rißmann gives a comprehensive overview about the controversy surrounding the contact between Lanz von Liebenfels and Hitler.

The other reference, to New Religions and the Nazis by Karla O. Poewe, is more difficult to asses. I couldn't get it from my library, since they don't have it, so a full quote from the book on this talk page would be helpful. Parts of the book are available online, and the author herself makes at least one statement that is against the consensus of historians as far as I am aware of it. She accuses Steigmann-Gall of having minimized Rosenberg's influence on Nazism, whereas many historians think that Rosenberg's influence on Nazism was indeed minimal. (p.8) On the same page, she writes: "Likewise, these studies, and those about Deutsche Christen who, as Hauer knew, where not Christians but pagans, show just how powerful a force anti-Christianity and paganism was." There must be at least a small error in these lines. It might just be that a contemporary author, or even some paganist from the 1930s, would describe the German Christians as pagans; still, they didn't venerate pagan Gods, and they considered (and called) themselves Christians. There might be conflicting definitions of Christianity here, but then that has to be explained, which Poewe apparently doesn't. I'll leave the ref in there, anyway, but then, please don't continue the edit war about Steigmann-Gall. Zara1709 (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Usually, when you hit "Save page" and get a message "edit conflict", that is annoying. If you have placed an inuse-section tag there precisely for the reason of avoiding this problem, and than you get the message "edit conflict", that is infuriating. And anyway: ALMOST EVERY HISTORIAN knows that Hitler speaks is an invention. For the record, Steigmann-Gall also mentions the few historians who don't think so, but all you have to do to find a source for this is to take any halfway decent, recent history book on Hitler and look up "Rausching" in the index. Takes about 45 seconds.

What we actually would need to discuss here is how much of the "Religious beliefs" section we want to keep here, and what we would want to move to specialised article Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs. I tried to arrange the material in a way that the information if considered the least important is placed at the bottom. If someone wants to merge the last two sentences (Hitler's views on Islam) to Adolf Hitler's religious beliefs please go ahead; if there aren't any other issues about balancing, I will see how to shorten the "religious beliefs" section of this article when I find the time. Zara1709 (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Document Highlight First Instance of Red Army or refer to them as Soviets

There are only two instances in which the Red Army is referenced in the article, other times they are simply called soviet forces. This should be addressed. Should "Red Army" be maintained, then the first instance should be highlighted 132.170.24.242 (talk) 07:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Collaborators with Hitler

The article needs a prominent link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration_during_World_War_II 65.32.128.178 (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Details?

What made hitler decide that he wanted to kill and rule? power is uncontrolled, but what started him to want this power. Why did the nazi leaders help him? What made him DECIDE he wanted them to help? Where there anymore Nazi Leaders that werent metioned? Is there a speciffic book with all this information? where can i get resources?\

75.6.184.44 (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

– — … ‘ “ ’ ” ° ″ ′ ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · §

If you want the answer to this question then look no further than the "Childhood" section. When children are badly abused by their parents and, as in this case, exposed first-hand to violence then they have a strong tendency to grow up insecure and aggressive. Alice Miller has written several books on this topic and there is pretty much indisputable evidence that Adolf experienced very long-lasting negative psychological effects from domestic violence during his childhood. Same goes for Stalin as well, whose father was a drunkard and beat the crap out of him when he was a child. It should also be noted that Alois Hitler's shame about possibly being part-Jewish are most likely where Adolf developed his hatred for the Judaism. Fatrb38 (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

List of books by or about Adolf Hitler might assist as well. 4Russeteer (talk) 13:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoa -- Alois was shamed over the possibility of his being part Jewish??? Where in the world does that idea come from?

The "Hitler-part-Jewish" idea, to the best of my knowledge, started solely as a result of the rumors that were circulating after Hitler was a grown man, and that led eventually to motivate Hitler to start the notorious Hans Frank investigation.

Alois died when Adolf was about 14 years old.

There is no reason to believe that Alois held any belief about his biological father's identity, other than what eventually appeared in the official records after his name-change from "Shicklgruber" to "Hitler" at the age of 39: that his step-father Johann Gregor Heidler, who married Maria when Alois was five, was in fact his biological father. Alois' uncle Johann Nepomuk Heidler supported this story in the proceedings before the notary in the legitimization procedure, and there's no reason to believe that he would not have recited the same story to Alois.

If there is any legitimate source at all that claims that Alois had any suspicion whatsoever that his biological father was Jewish, I would love to see it. That would cast a whole new light on this fascinating "part Jewish" issue :-))). SixBlueFish (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alois and Klara

The article states that Klara was Alois's "half-niece" but instead wasn't she his second cousin (if you believe, at least, the claim that J. Georg Hiedler (JGH) was Alois' biological father)? If that's the case, then the children of the brothers JGH and J. Nepomuk Huetler (JNH) were first cousins; and Klara (as a grandchild of JNH) would be Alois' second cousin, would she not? (or is that what "first cousin once removed" means?)

Of course if JNH were in fact Alois' biological father, then Alois and Klara's mother were half-brother/half-sister and Klara would be Alois' half-niece (and she did call Alois "uncle" through their marriage).

We could unpack all this in a footnote, since it's really not known who Alois' biological Dad is. Opinions? SixBlueFish (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Suicide: shot in temple or mouth?

This article claims that Hitler shot himself through the mouth. Death of Adolf Hitler claims that he shot himself in the temple. Which is it? Quaternion (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that he simultaneously bit down on a cyanide capsule and shot himself in the temple. However, the second citation in this article claims that Hitler did shoot himself in the mouth. However, the claim in the other article is unsourced. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

♠The footnoted source referred to above supporting the "mouth" theory is Trudl Junge, Hitler's youngest secretary, who was indeed in the bunker and who eventually published her memoirs about 60 years after the fact. However, if you look at her book (which is cited in the BBC story, article footnote 265), you'll see that in fact she is just there claiming to recite what she was told by another: she didn't actually see the body and she doesn't claim she did.

A better source may be In Hitler's Bunker: A Boy Soldier's Eyewitness Account of the Fuhrer's Last Days, by Armin D. Lehmann, Tim Carroll (see p. 183, supporting the temple theory, on the basis of reports by the Russians that the jaw was intact and would have blown apart from air pressure if the shot were in the mouth. Maybe that's true, but doesn't the Russian theory presuppose that he closed his mouth over the barrel, creating a sealed chamber? Why is that necessary or even the most common way? They don't always do that in the movies..:-)) ).

Trevor-Roper's fairly contemporaneous press conference in November 1945 (see Lehmann, above) reported that Hitler had shot himself in the mouth.

Toland's book states that Hitler shot himself in the temple.

Most convincing evidence reported by some commentators: both temples were bloody. Hard to see that happening with a shot in the mouth. ♠ SixBlueFish (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since Hitler simultaneously bit down on the cyanide capsole and shot himself in the head, does it even make sense for him to have shot himself in the mouth? From a logical standpoint, the temple makes more sense. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Hugh Trever-Roper, a british intell officer, Hitler shot himself in the mouth. This view is supported by his skull remains found in KGB headquaters: a bullet had passed through his brain and emerged at the top of his skull, this much is certain. Whether he bit down on a cyanode pill is uncertain, although unlikely.Well, would you have space to bite down on a pill with aWalther 7.65 pistol in your mouth?SS71121345 (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's name - the truth...

Adolf Hitler was born before his mother and father married, therefore he was supposed to take the surname of his mother, Schicklgruber. Adolf Schicklgruber was indeed his true name. However, there is huge doubt as to the mother and father's whereabouts after he was born. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.38.27 (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's parents were married several years before he was born. It was his father who was born out of wedlock, not Adolf. As far as I am aware there is no mystery about his parents whereabouts after his birth, but I don't know why their movements would be relevant. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

+++++ The "truth" comment above -- that Hitler was illegitimate --is a common misunderstanding, one that was fomented in part by war propaganda.

Adolf Hitler was legitimate. He was the fourth (4th) child of the union of Alois and Klara. Those two were married several years before Adolf's birth; their marriage was on 7 January 1885. Adolf Hitler's father -- Alois Hitler -- was illegitimate.

The first child of Alois and Klara (Gustav, who died at age two) was born in May of 1885; and he was thus legitimate (although he was indeed obviously conceived at a time when his parents were unmarried). Adolf -- the fourth child of the Alois-Klara union-- was clearly legitimate and was born in April 1889.

Adolf's mother's maiden name was Polzl, not Schicklgruber. Klara Polzl (eventually to become Klara Polzl Hitler) was born in 1860 as the child of Johann Baptist Potzl and Johanna Hiedler, who married in 1848.

Maria Anna Schicklgruber was the mother of Alois Hitler (not of Adolf Hitler). Alois was illegitimate, and was born in Strones, Maria's home town, in June 1937. There remains considerable speculation on who the biological father actually was.

Five years after Alois' birth, Maria married JGH; thus, JGH was the stepfather of Alois. Was JGH also the natural father of Alois? No one is sure. Alois (having gone the first 39 years of his life by the name of Shicklgruber) was "legitimated" in the official records as a result of the testimony of three witnesses, who claimed that JGH -- who by this time had been dead for almost twenty years--had recognized Alois as his biological son during his (i.e. JGH's) life and that Maria had done the same, and that JGH wanted to make things right and have Alois take the Hitler name.

As a result of these very peculiar machinations -- which Toland asserts was not according to correct legal procedure, because both Maria and JGH were dead at the time and a court case (rather than a simple proceeding before a notary) would have been required to legitimate Alois, an adult of 39 years of age -- Alois' name in the registry was changed from Alois Shicklgruber to Alois Hitler. This was about nine (9) years before Alois and Klara married.

The devious procedure followed by the notary, the parish priest, JNH (who was apparently the instigator of this) and the three witnesses was certainly not according to Hoyle, but there's really no question that it effected the change of name of Alois to be "Alois Hitler."

Of course there is no doubt of the whereabouts of Alois and Klara at any time, either before or after Adolf was born. The person whose whereabouts are in question is JGH, who was the stepfather of Alois. He was an itinerant miller and wandered around in search of work. He apparently just popped in to marry Maria, and then was back on the road. This really has no bearing on anything, except it may be a piece of the puzzle in the Big Question: Who was Alois' biological father? Was it JGH as the "witnesses" in the name-change affair had said? Or was it JNH, with whom Alois lived as a child (from about age 6 onward), and who apparently left Alois money in his will? Or was it just some Unknown Father?

Note: There was speculation after Hitler achieved some prominence that Alois's natural father was a young (19 year old) Jew in Graz, but since the Jews had been expelled from Graz around 1500 and did not return until about 20 years after Alois' birth, this seems quite unlikely to most historians. The fascinating story of Hitler's obsession with this story, however, and the investigations of Hans Frank (Hitler's lawyer) on the same, should not be missed!

So: Does anyone have a suggestion about the question raised initially, i.e. how to explain the blood relationship (if any) between Klara and Alois? SixBlueFish (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Isnt his true birth name Adolfus Hitler? I know theres no middle name but I could have sworn and read and seen a copy of his birth certificate where it says Adolfus and not just Adolf. If true it should be listed under the "given name" area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.230.135 (talk) 01:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. Some biographies mention it; some don't. SixBlueFish (talk) 14:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hitler's WWI Army Rank

A German Corporal was equal to a US Army Private First Class (One Chevron) (Ustye (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC))

Hitler was a Gefreiter the equivalent a Lance corporal in the British army during WW1. The rank is now equivalent to OR-2, a private or E-2, the American private. But we should use the rank it was equivalent to at the time which is a Lance corporal (British and USMC) or a Private First Class (US Army). He did not hold the rank of FULL Corporal. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 15:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

The Holocaust template

I'm curious why this article is not tagged by the holocaust template? I see in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust his biography too.--138.88.15.10 (talk) 02:11, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Because for the same reason we wouldn't put the history of Germany or a million other templates on this page. He's not directly related to that subject matter. The article is on his life and the Holocaust, while an important part of his legacy, is not the central focus on the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hitler's biography is not equivalent to the Germany's history nor one million people. This is really shameful to see that this biography is not marked by the Holocaust tag!--138.88.15.10 (talk) 20:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, did someone actually say that Hitler is not directly related to the subject matter of the Holocaust? ? ? The Holocaust was the goal of his entire life, the means by which he would free Germany forever of the "disease" which he considered the Jews to be! I can only say "Help Us, God" to such comments.

If his rabid and militant anti-Semitism is not sufficiently explored in the article, that is a fault of the article.

Can someone please cite the source for the "central focus" test mentioned above? I was not aware that was the criterion for a tag. If that is true, then there by definition can only be one tag, since "focus" is singular not plural. SixBlueFish (talk) 23:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, you are correct. I was wrong. The template belong. I'm not sure if it belongs at the top or in the WWII section or so. Let me see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

An error in the article about Hitler's "incarceration" et alia

There is an error in the article. Adolph Hitler was not incarcerated in Landsberg Prison, he was however, made to live in Landsberg Castle during the term of his "incarceration."

Here is a picture of Hitler taken upon release from his quite comfy "prison" I apologize, I don't have the time or tolerance to make the picture work, I usually stay away from wiki markup syntax...but that is a link to the picture.

http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/33dWImages/HitlerReleasedLandsbergCar1924Dec550pxw.png

There has been some recent evidence come to light concerning the Bush family ties to the Nazi regime, namely that George W. Bush's grandfather was a financier of the Third Reich through Fritz Thyssen. This is an issue I'd like exposed...like father, like son, right on down the line.

Furthermore, there is no conclusive evidence that Adolph Hitler died as history claims he did. I just looked at the photos of his "corpse" and compared them to photos of him alive. One big dyscongruity strikes me: the ears. The ears of the corpse look more like the car-door ears of comedian Martin Lawrence than they do of Adolph Hitler. One facet of forensic science today is using the ears as a means to further identify someone. The ears in the photos don't match Hitler, but not only that, the corpse looks ridiculous! To my discerning eye, it doesn't look at all like Hitler, but more like an attempt to fake his death. That outcome would indeed coincide with his grooming during the "incarceration" at Landsberg Castle.

And a final question that is bugging me, suppose that Adolph Hitler's death was in fact, faked, and taking into account that Prescott Bush financed Hitler's regime somewhat, I wonder if George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush have met Adolph personally? He would be 120 years old if he were alive this year, but there is plenty of room post-WWII for the Bush family and the Hitler family to become acquainted.

The only reason I am even writing this is because of a series of videos I watched on Youtube by Amenstop Productions. The link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAcxGD6-c-E for the first of 29...a lot of it makes perfect sense, but some does get kind of outlandish. But just because some is ridiculous doesn't mean it all is BS.

ElanTedronai (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

There actually is conclusive evidence Hitler died in his Berlin bunker, his skull fragments in KGB headquarters, Moscow. His body was cremated with his wife's and buried. It is true though that Russian Red Army soldiers found remains like Hitlers, but belonged to a bdy double, perhaps explaining the odd ears. In case there is any doubt that the skull on dispaly is Hitlers, dental records confirm that they belong to Adlof Hitler.SS71121345 (talk) 10:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Elan, please note that the article's talkpage is for discussing improvements to the article, not for espousing fringe theories or asking hypothetical questions; for those activites you need a blog or forum, not wikipedia. Your personal opinions are not relevant here and "Youtube" is not a reliable source for anything, much less historical information. In other words, this crap doesn't belong here, period. Doc Tropics 17:12, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Judicial review?

This passage (of mine) got me thinking. Weimar_Republic#Aftermath

The constitution was never formally repealed, but the Enabling Act meant that all its other provisions were a dead letter. The Enabling Act itself was breached by Hitler on three occasions in 1934: Article 2 of the act stated that

'Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.'

The powers of the Länder (states) were transferred to the Reich, obsolescing the Reichsrat. A month later, the Reichsrat itself was dissolved. In August, President von Hindenburg died, and Hitler appropriated the president's powers for himself. The Enabling Act did not specify any recourse that could be taken if the chancellor violated Article 2, and no judicial challenge ensued.

1) Under the Weimar constitution, was it possible to challenge government actions in the courts, a la United States, on the grounds that they were unconstitutional?

2) If so, did it ever happen?

3) I'm assuming no-one was foolhardy enough to bring such a suit against Hitler's third reich, but could it have legally happened?

4) If you couldn't bring a constitutional suit, did they just trust that the gov would uphold the constitution? Or was there some other safeguard?

5) Hitler was not someone who respected legal proceedure for its own sake. But in the Enabling Act it says that "Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date".

Did Hitler actually bother to announce his laws in the Gazette once everyone was out of the way? And if he wanted to do something, he probably wouldn't bother to pass a law authorising it first (Night of the Long Knives, for instance). Does this mean that he was constantly breaking the law while he was in office, notwithstanding that it was extremely generous to him in the definition of his power? BillMasen (talk) 01:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Military Career

I added an infobox capturing brief information about his decorated military career, please do not remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dude018219293 (talk • contribs) 01:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me, this seems unnecessarily defensive; but whether it stays or goes will depend on input from other editors achieving consensus. --Rodhullandemu 01:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Was Hitler Autistic?

On People speculated to have been autistic, one of the names is Adolf Hitler. I agree that he may have been Autistic because of several of his actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TanjaFleischer1 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a pretty common theory that Hitler was Austic, I'll find some references and edit this comment later on TigerTails (talk) 14:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Really? I rather doubt it. This dates to Michael Fitzgerald's book Autism and creativity, in which he claims that the fuhrer had "autistic psychopathy". I think it's pretty much unique to him. He also loves to diagnose other historical figures, including Adolf's school chum Wittgenstein. Paul B (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Unlikely. As someone once said, successful used-car salesmen and sociopaths have in common that both have empathy but no sympathy. H. was nothing if not a sociopath, and he knew how to whip crowds into a frenzy, something no one can do who does not connect emphatically with people. (Just so there is no misunderstanding, the quote about used car salesmen and sociopaths is half facetious; the writer who said it first did not seriously think that used car salesmen are sociopaths. Also, I meant to spell "empathy" and "emphatically" that way.) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hitler Christian?

I suppose some may wish to pretend that Hitler was some sort of non-Christian, I already see people parroting the line that his public statements are "mere politics". It is dishonest to pretend that he was other than what he claimed to be, a Christian. In his own words:

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

-Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)

"We will wash off the Christian veneer and bring out a religion peculiar to our race."

"The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity."

"The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble."

All of these are quotes of Hitler taken from Wikiquote, and they suggest that he is not Christian. The basis for the claim that he is Christian appears to come from his public speeches, which are probably misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.86.129 (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw this too. I have no particular interest in Christianity, but having read some transcripts from his various meetings, I cannot possibly conclude that he was anything close to a Christian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.19.49 (talk) 08:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Hitler being a Christian should be taken down since he only used Christianity to manipulate others. It is well documented that Hitler did despise the religion and before the war was over, he was sending evangelicals to the death camps. Trust me, if Hitler had won the war, Christianity would have been wiped off the face of the planet, at least publicly. The Jews were just some of Hitler's first planned victims of the holocaust, he would have wiped out many others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.227.41.154 (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Hitler was a Völkisch neoPagan, and that he wished the people to return to the "Religion of Blood & Soil." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTracker (talk • contribs) 20:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, actually, Hitler was the one main guy in his administration who wasn't into the occult. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We have a whole article on Hitler's religious beliefs. The basic facts are, he was not a Christian in any traditional sense, he was not an occultist either. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree that Hitler wasn't Christian in any usual sense of the word, as I've said rather often before. However, identifying him as "Positive Christian won't do, either. If one had to say anything specific in the box, it would have to be "Catholic," since he did in fact not officially withdraw membership. However, Str1977's revert to the former "see below" is the better solution. I'd forgotten that one. Bytwerk (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Positive Christianity" is no good a designation, certainly not for the infobox. For good reasons we once just related to the section below.

However, "Catholic" is completely unacceptable and I rightfully criticized your changing the box to say that. You were around when we discussed this a while ago and you know the facts and details so please don't play such a game. Hitler was no way a catholic and nonsense about "he was on the rolls" or "he did not officially withdraw membership" will not do either. Bytwerk, you know the facts, you know the requirements and I expected better from you.

But since you happen to agree with my solution (actually not my but the consensus from way back, that should have never been strayed from) I am content. I hope you will remember that solution in the future. 21:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Did this thread help to alter the information on the encyclopedia falsely claiming that Hitler was a Christian? If so, then well done. Because Hitler was certainly anything but a Christian. I posted a thread on here some months back myself, and in it, I included the words of his personal secretary, Traudl Junge, whom wrote:

"He was not a member of any church, and thought the Christian religions were outdated, hypocritical institutions that lured people into them. The laws of nature were his religion. He could reconcile his violence better with nature than with the Christian doctrine of loving your neighbour and your enemy. 'Science isn't yet clear about the origins of humanity' he once said. 'We are probably the highest stage of development of some mammal which developed from reptiles and moved onto human beings, perhaps by way of apes. We are a part of creation and children of nature, and the same laws apply to us as to all living creatures. And in nature the law of the struggle for survival has reigned from the first. Everything incapable of life, everything weak is eliminated. Only mankind, and above all the church have made it their aim to keep alive the weak, those unfit to live, and people of an inferior kind." - Until The Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary, by Traudl Junge.TheBlackWhirlwind (talk) 20:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Neither a Christian or a pagan, he probably used both religions for political purposes. I agree that he was really more closer to an atheist: "nature was his religion", and his religion was really a distorted and perverted form of Darwinism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.89.114.134 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Closer to an atheist despite believing in God, an active divinty? I guess "monotheist" would be the least controversial. He can't really be described as a Christian in light of his [private] comments. I suppose agnostic is close to what he was but he never admitted he didn't know, he seemed to change his beliefs always wanting to appear sure in one thing, I think his ego prevented him from admitting it, perhaps even to himself.--EchetusXe (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

"Nominally" Catholic? So was Oscar Romero "nominally Catholic" too? Was Mahatma Gandhi "nominally Hindu"? Surely the religion you belong to is decided by the beliefs you express. I trust that Osama Bin Laden is on wikipedia as being "nominally Muslim". If being a nasty person is enough to discredit the individual's self-asserted religious beliefs, Muslims should not have to accept Bin Laden as one of their own either.... December 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.195.65 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

As was hitler's father. Hitler, as a youth at least, never attended Mass or received the Sacraments - he did later say "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." you would call that Catholic without qualification?--Alf ^melmac 18:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

TIME FACTOR

It appears he was born a Catholic, however, in time it seems he lost faith in his religion based on probably what was happening....

No different than how some people attack the Catholic Church today due to the molestation by homosexual and a few heterosexual pedofiles, and other forms of corruption in the Catholic Church today.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As an atheist I believe that whether Hitler was religious or not is kinda a red herring that both sides like to use to discredit the other side. Religious people point to Hitler as an atheist to support their claim that atheism can cause millions of deaths. Atheists point to Hitler as a Christian or Catholic to support their claim that these religions can cause millions of deaths. Based on what I've read it doesn't seem like he was a strong atheist nor religious man. This is almost beside the point though. Hitler didn't kill all those millions of people simply by himself, he had an entire country of people willing to carry out his orders. Whether the large majority of Germany at the time was religious or non-religious is something I'll leave to you guys to look up. Fatrb38 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad that this topic has resulted in some change, but I don't believe that the matter of Hitler's religion should be dropped completely from his short Bio. (beneath his picture on the top-right), I don't see that happening for any other important individual I've looked up on Wiki. If we could agree on some term for his beliefs (I've read "Pagan Theism" suggested) I think it would be for the better. Secondly, since I cannot move the 'post' itself, I would like to make it clear that of the first post, only the section "We will wash off...probably misleading." are my post. Someone added without permission the other two paragraphs, at a later date. Sorry, I just hate having words put in my mouth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.197.126 (talk)

I am changing it to see the article to make it similar to the the Albert Einstein one, since no clear definition of Roman Catholic is given, since he may fit in a few interpretations, but not others. Under Roman Catholic rules he would be considered a Catholic because he was baptized, but so would people like George Carlin under that rule. Furthermore, he would be considered nominative as he did not receive sacraments for (well) over a year, and an apostate out of communion for his part in starting an apostate church see page 225 of The Pius war by J. Bottum, David G. Dalin and for violence against clergy. Furthermore, the beliefs of someone willing to do so much harm to the Church's mission by closing seminaries and Catholic schools and arresting priests are questionable. Especially considering the Nazi plan to end Christianity... Madridrealy (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you are going in circles here. This was discussed intensively a few months ago, including a RFC. As part of the compromise we would not write "nominally Catholic" in the infobox, but would keep the reference to Steigmann-Gall about "nominally Catholic" in the article itself. This article itself has a section on religious beliefs, which is linked in the table of contents on the left side. Therefore we don't need to link that section again on the right side. I personally would be inclined to say "nominally Catholic" in the infobox, but I don't see a consensus for that. Could we now close the discussion about this point, please? The other sections on this talk page that were created in the discussion are archived now, only this one was kept active by people who had to add their personal opinions to it. Honestly, unless you are an expert historian on Nazism, I don't care about your personal opinion. If you want to do something useful, read a few history book on the religious aspects of Nazism and give us a summary of them here. Zara1709 (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Probable error with WW1 section

In the first paragraph of the World War I section, it says:

"The Battle of Ypres (October 1914), which became known in Germany as the Kindermord bei Ypern (Massacre of the Innocents) saw approximately 40,000 men (between a third and a half) of the nine infantry present killed in twenty days".

40,000 men of the nine infantry present? Should it say something like 40,000 men of the 90,000 present? JEdgarFreeman (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm guess it's probably referring to 40,000 men out of nine infantry divisions, not out of nine people. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Positive? JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not. I was going to check the source, but I can't because it's a book. I did, however, look up thedefinition of "division" in the military sense, and it is apparently a group of 10,000-20,000 soldiers, so it seems very likely that that is what the sentence is supposed to say. Tad Lincoln (talk) 21:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split "Heritage and Early Life" to a new article?

I see there's a proposal tag for this, but unless it's fallen off into an archive, no justification for, or discussion of, the proposal. Certainly it appears to me to be worthy of an article of its own, and comments would be welcome. --Rodhullandemu 01:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Any splitting to get this article down to a reasonable size would be great. I gave up about a third of the way through, i doubt many readers read the whole thing, ever. But i would split the whole "Early life" out (leaving behind a summary), as that chunk could have enough to write a FA about, whereas childhood only does not, imoYobMod 09:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done – Redirect section to History of Adolf Hitler--Michael (Talk) 05:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, you gon't just slice off a huge chunk of an article leaving an empty space and great gaps in the biography - especially with zero consensus. I am reverting the move. What you need to do is shorten the section here in order to justify the longer section as a separate article. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would encourage Michael to set up a sub-page where he can present his proposed changes for discussion.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I would support the moving of that section into a new article; maybe named Early life of Hitler or something similar. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 18:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that some of it should be moved to a new article. But that does not mean that the whole section should be removed. Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Descendants?

Some years ago I read an article in, I think, an old -- perhaps from about 1970 -- issue of "Life" magazine (an American general-interest weekly) about Adolf Hitler's son. If I remember correctly, the article claimed that, while serving on the Western front during the First World War, Adolf had had a liaison with a very young Frenchwoman, and that a son was born to her about the time that the war ended. The article was illustrated by Adolf's painted portrait of the Frenchwoman and photographs of the then middle-aged son (who did closely resemble Adolf).

That this middle-aged Frenchman was Adolf Hitler's natural son was presented as accepted (if little-known) fact. But I see no mention of any child in this Wiki' article. Was the magazine article in error? Firstorm (talk) 01:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this was a notable story in the 70s, but there was never any good evidence for it. See Jean Loret (the alleged son). BTW, new comments go at the bottom. Paul B (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Barlow. Firstorm (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

His ancestry would be a lot more interesting.114.78.201.117 (talk) 15:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Was Hitler all that bad?

Collapsing, this page is to discuss improvements to the article, not for general discussion on the subject of the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

We often put Hitler down for his crimes, the Holocaust and all the murders. But, he was a great leader in the sense of a leader. He did what he thought was right for his people. He tried to defend his nation, his people, his home. Yes, his crimes were bad but he did what he believed. I do not wish people to think i worship Hitler, but I do not completely disgrace him either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.122.157.97 (talk) 01:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry... is this a joke? The only things Hitler cared about were himself, his image, and the public perception of Germany. If you actually bothered to do a little research, you woul realized that he didn't give a crap about his people. Tad Lincoln (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 200.122.157.97: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adolf Hitler article. It's not a discussion forum about Adolf Hitler. If you're looking for a discussion forum, you should be able to find some on other Web sites. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Edit to Sexuality section

Using only wikipedia link I easily found more than just the three women in this article. Here is the information I found on them. All have been suspected of having intimate relationships with hitler.

Name Birth and Death Age at death Method of Death First contact with hitler

Eva Anna Paula Braun (Febr 6, 1912- Apri 30, 1945) 33 yrs old Double suicide with Hitler Met in 1929

Angelika Maria "Geli" Raubal (June 4, 1908- Sept 19, 1931) 23 yrs old Suicide Speculated Homicide Lived with hitler in 1925

Erna Hanfstaengl ( 1885- 1981) 96 yrs old Met in 1920's

Renate Muller (Apr 26, 1906- Octob 1, 1937) 31 yrs old Suicide Speculated Homicide Met in 1930s

Maria "Mimi" Reiter (Dec 23, 1911- 1992) 81 yrs old Attempted Suicide Met in 1927

Unity Valkyrie Mitford (Augu 8, 1914- May 28, 1948) 34 yrs old Attempted Suicide Died soon after Met in 1934 Slight Possibility of a son...

Raubal's death was officially designated as suicide, but there are theories that Hitler or one of his men killed her. Muller died from a fall shortly after the Gestapo police arrived at her apartment. Ruled Suicide, but suspected foul play.

Sorry, i dont usually post on wikipedia, it was supposed to be in columns. cant figure out how to fix it.(Drew R. Smith (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

There were many more women alleged to have had possible romantic links to Adolf (Leni Riefenstahl, Winifred Wagner etc). There's no good reason to believe that either they or Erna Hanfstaengl, Renate Muller and Unity Mitford had any genuine intimate relationship with Hitler, but there is good evidence for the three listed here. Paul B (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I have added this table to the page on his sexuality. All it needs now are references that confirm their relationships with Hitler. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk | _Sign 15:31, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of my post, everything I got was through wikipedia. If any of the information is untrue, it is not my fault, as I merely gathered the information together using the resource closest at hand. @Paul B. Thank you for the other names of possible romantic encounters. I will check those and possibly add them to my list. Interestingly enough the information gathering started when I noticed four of the women he was with attempted suicide and many suceeded. I wanted to see just how many there where and it appears very few women survived dating Hitler... (Drew R. Smith (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia should not generally be used as a source. See WP:SELFPUB. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Time magazine in Introduction

I think the reference to the Time magazine in the introduction is inappropritate. Why specifically mention a magazine of local (U.S.) interest and questionable scholarly merit in the article head for a European historical figure? I believe this jeopardises the scholarly integrity and the worldwide point of view of the article and should be removed from the main text. May pass as a footnote. 81.182.216.42 (talk) 20:54, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I definitely understand your point. However, Time Magazine is a major worldwide publication, and not just of "local (U.S.) interest". Plus, Time Magazine is considered to be a reliable source. Based upon the fact that it is a major worldwide publication, as well as being reliable, its opinion that Hitler was one of the most influential figures of the 20th century is worth noting in the intro, in my opinion. However, I agree there is a debate as to whether it should be noted in the intro. What does everyone else think? JEdgarFreeman (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with 81... - this is Adolf Hitler we're talking about, and I'm sure we can do better than Time magazine. While Time is a reliable source, it is definitely a US-focused magazine, and not a scholarly publication. I do agree that there should be some statement of his significance in the intro, but perhaps we can find a respected historian's opinion, for example? --hippo43 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(e/c, sorry!) I agree with the original poster. Any scholarly integrity that the article might aspire to is dashed by that fact, inserted as though it were of some importance. However, to expand on the OP's point, regardless of Time Magazine's standing as an international publication or not, it is a publication that meets deadlines, that aims to sell a majority of copies, that will put on its front cover whatever will sell, and if that includes calling Adolf Hitler one of the most 100 influential people of the 20th century, then so be it. It is a reliable source perhaps, on account of one expects the journalist to have done some research; but it does not stand on its own in an article, in its lead. In addition, the mere idea that 100 people could be "most influential" is a fallacy. In terms of what? To whom? For how long? Do we know who else is on the list? Who have they compared him to? What was their criteria? Scholars have dedicated their lives to producing volumes on the subject of Adolf Hitler, studying his life, his influences, his place in history, in minutiae. And we choose to mention Time Magazine, specifically? A group of journalists deciding what sort of "100 most" list would be read on the most airplanes? Entries chosen for their salaciousness, or the "fact" that they were the best dressed, or that they killed the most people? Adolf Hitler's far-reaching grasp on humanity doesn't need those sales tactics. We should stick to history and scholarly study; they are the sources which do this article justice. Maedin\^talk 16:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I agree now that the Time point should be removed from the intro. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 17:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about this, but we don't really need Time magazine to tell us that Hitler was among the 100 most influential figures of the 20th century! It's not the status of Time as a source but the triteness of the assertion that is the problem. Of course Time magazine also made him their man of the year for 1938 [8]. Paul B (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

On a very quick note, apart from the purpose of this discussion, Time Magazine chooses its Man of the Year based on how influential they believe that person was for that year, for good or bad. They didn't choose Hitler because they thought he was a great dude, but because they believe he had proved to be the person most responsible for making 1938 the year it was. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. The linked article makes that clear. Paul B (talk) 20:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Whoops, so it does. Sorry. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There seemed to be a consensus here, so I went ahead and made the change. No great loss to the lead, in my opinion as well. Best, Eliezg (talk) 10:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)