Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Hitler killed six million Poles

The article says only two million Poles were killed. Three million ethnic Poles and three million Polish Jews were killed. Pistolpierre (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking at this and the next thread you also just started, there are problems with your arithmetic. Six million dead Poles would mean nobody killed anywhere else. HiLo48 (talk) 20:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Alas, you might need to check your own math. Depending on who is included in the count, 11 million people were killed in the Holocaust. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Rubbish. Nothing wrong with my maths. I used the OP's posts as sources for my data. Maybe that's where you need to direct your concerns. HiLo48 (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Do some research. Hitler killed just as many ethnic Poles as Polish Jews. Pistolpierre (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The information in the article is sourced to the USHMM, which says that 1.8 to 1.9 million non-Jewish Poles were killed. What is your source for the higher figure of 3 million? -- Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The information seems to be on the World War II casualties of Poland article which mentions 3 million ethnic Poles and 3 million Polish-Jews killed. The sources seem to conflict each other, the Nazi crimes against the Polish nation article however says 3.1 million Polish-Jews, 2 million ethnic Poles and the rest minorities. The two article contradict each other and this needs addressed.--Windows66 (talk) 19:49, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article World War II crimes in occupied Poland also seems to mention the six million figure of Polish citizens (equally divided between Poles and Jews).--Windows66 (talk) 19:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article Poland also makes the claim that more than six million Polish citizens died during the war, I am going to add a citation on this and see what happens.--Windows66 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a lot of this kind of internal inconsistency on Wikipedia, as many articles are still in need of improvement. That's why Wikipedia articles cannot be considered as WP:reliable sources. Reliable sources for this article include scholarly books, journal articles, or websites. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The figure refers to murders of Poles in the Holocaust, not to all deaths in the war. The relevant paragraph makes no mention, for example, of British people who died, because such deaths were war-related and not murder/genocide. There will, nevertheless inevitably be differing numbers, because there can be no clear and unambiguous distinction between murderous and military deaths, especially in the messy and brutal conditions of wartime Poland. On the whole, I think it's best to adopt conservative figures to avoid giving support to the holocaust-minimisers out there who love to ridicule such figures as inflated. Paul B (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The source given has no references to follow it up, its a page from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, is this considered reliable?

Paul you are right, there will never be a universal agreement on the figures but this is irrelevant in this case, the Poles text in the article is linked to crimes against ethnic Poles which is given as nearly 2 million as the figure.--Windows66 (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence is specifically about murders. The six million figure is of total deaths, which includes all deaths of Poles, by bombing, disease, people killed in crossfire, soldiers etc, not only those which were "crimes". Of course, there will inevitably be dispute about whether deaths in, say, the Warsaw Uprising were "crimes" or "legitimate" (when is shooting alleged partisans "acceptable"?), but I think it's best to err on the side of caution, which will mean "lowballing". The Museum should be RS, but others sources, of course, may be brought in. Paul B (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

So for the "nearly 2 million" the current source is the Museum, why should it be a reliable source - there is no footnotes or references.--Windows66 (talk) 21:47, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. Per WP:RS reliable sources are judged by a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy". They do not have to make their own sources immediately transparent to us. Paul B (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article passed its GA review with the USHMM as a source. Here are two other sources:

• Piotrowski estimates 2 million non-Jewish ethnic Poles. The author is a Polish-American sociologist, Professor of Sociology in the Social Science Division of the University of New Hampshire at Manchester.
• Snyder, Bloodlands, page 406 says about a million non-Jewish civilians directly killed, 100,000 more killed by the Soviets, and "perhaps another million" died through mistreatment and as casualties of war. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't saying it was not acceptable as a source Paul but rather that in the given numbers used there is no references given.

But there seems to be a debate whether it was nearer two million or three million. Just a brief search shows that it is debated the total figure of ethnic Poles that were killed. See some of these links [1] [2] (although this source states that some people just maintain that only a million Poles) [3] [4] (this source says nearly three million). So this is quite largely questioned and some are debating the numbers between only one million Poles and up to three million Poles.

I'm not saying sources given that show nearly 2 million Poles is wrong but rather quite a lot of people who publish work about this have put the numbers lower and even higher than that figure.--Windows66 (talk) 10:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources from before the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 are not as good, as the Soviets had many seized Nazi papers in their archives that historians have only recently gained access to.

• Your first source, the Jewish Virtual Library, I would not consider a reliable source that I would use in this article, which has already reached Good Article status. That source says 3 million non-Jewish Poles.
• Your second source, Lukas (1989), says one million to three million.
• The third source, Cherry and Orla-Bukowska eds. (2007), says three million.
• The fourth source, Zubrzycki (2009) says three million. Her info comes from Hilberg, Volume 3, page 1128.

So I would say we've got two-three high-quality sources that give the higher number, so in my opinion we should change it to say "two to three million deaths" and source to Snyder for the lower number and Zubrzycki for the higher number. I will put in this edit in the text day or two if there's no further comments. Here's the cites: Snyder, Timothy (2010). Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin. New York: Basic Books. p. 406. ISBN 978-0-465-00239-9.; Zubrzycki, Geneviève (2009). The Crosses of Auschwitz: Nationalism and Religion in Post-Communist Poland. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press. p. 114. ISBN 0-226-99303-5. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

As you can see I'm not the one who even made this topic anyways and the OP of it has not even made any effort to post some sources stating their belief that it was more than what is in the article (at present). I just went onto Google books and the web and typed in "3 million non-jewish poles holocaust" and this fetches up a lot more than the same phrase except with 2 million and not 3 million.

There seems an overlap in the actual figure (how are people getting info as a possible only 1 million?) and btw is Hilberg considered a reliable source? His article shows many people have criticized his work.

Even according to works such as [5] there is a view that it was even more than 3 million non-Jewish ethnically Poles.

Diannaa, if you are going to change the toll number on this article as "two to three million deaths", are you going to do this on others regarding Poland/Poles and the Holocaust? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows66 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have to do the edit at all if there's no consensus to do so. I think Hilberg is a reliable source, but others may like to post an opinion as well? -- Diannaa (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Did Hilberg ever give an official number for the non-Jewish Poles that were killed altogether?

I can just seem to find articles and books showing his figures for Jewish-Poles.--Windows66 (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know; I don't have access to Hilberg volume 3 online and it's not available in my province for intra-library loan. It was Zubrzycki's source in her 2009 work -- Diannaa (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The Forgotten Holocaust by Richard C. Lukas says three million ethnic Poles. Pistolpierre (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

We need a complete citation before we can use this (title, author name, publication date, publisher, ISBN, page number). I looked a for it in Google but the book is not available for me to preview. This book originally came out in 1986 (before the fall of the Soviet Union) so it is not as good as more recent resources, as the Soviets had many seized Nazi papers in their archives that historians have only recently gained access to. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's unfortunate Diannaa, I've encountered the same and cannot find any sort of data access of Hilberg's work regarding non-Jewish Poles.

Pistolpierre, please remember that the article at current is talking in regards to these figures about ethnic Poles not Polish citizens. This is not including the figure of Jewish-Poles.

As regards to your source, Diannaa has already explained the reason this cannot really be used for figures. Also, what makes your source anymore accurate than others that have suggested different figures?--Windows66 (talk) 11:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I have always been aware the article is talking about ethnic Poles. Why else would I have created this section?Pistolpierre (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Then why the need for the title of the article at "six million Poles"?

Please provide reliable sources to back up your query, otherwise it will not go anywhere by the looks of it.--Windows66 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned six million Poles because everybody knows three million Polish Jews died. The three million ethnic Poles are overlooked. Pistolpierre (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

This is becoming extremely tedious. I and others have asked you to back up what you are saying with a correct citation source with the right date (preferably after the fall of the Soviet Union), can you provide that?

The deaths of ethnic Poles are almost certainly NOT overlooked, you can view this on numerous articles on Wikipedia, such as Nazi crimes against the Polish nation, The_Holocaust#Non-Jewish and The Holocaust in Poland.

Talk pages are not soapboxes or forums WP:SOAP, unless you are going to actually provide any sources to improve the article then please stop discussing such irrelevant stuff like "traditional figures" "universally accepted" and as such.--Windows66 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I already gave a source. It is ridiculous to think that an author's sources are not credible because he published before the fall of the Soviet Union. I would think the Polish would have ways of counting their dead irregardless of the existence of Nazi records. Pistolpierre (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It has already been explained the problem with your source. The death figures towards ethnic Poles is mentioned in several articles across all of Wikipedia.

Read about reliable sources and then you will understand why there is a problem with your source.--Windows66 (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my source. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Just to repeat the salient point - the disputed sentence is not about the number of Poles who died in the war, it's about the number who were murdered. There can be no absolutely clear distinction between the two because of inevitable dispute and uncertainly about whether many deaths were legitimate casualties or not. Nevertheless, there will inevitably be a lower figure for the latter than for the former. Paul B (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Paul. It looks like I posted in the wrong section, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC) I have moved my comments down -- Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Saying Hitler killed at least 5.5 million Jews is not accurate

I have reverted Pistolpierre's edit to the lead. The present wording was decided in a recent request for comment (September 2013) and dispute resolution (March 2013). You should not amend this text without obtaining a new consensus, preferably reached via a Request for Comment or other formal venue. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Pistolpierre commented on my talk page, saying there's no source for the 5.5 million number. That's incorrect. The information is sourced in the body of the article, footnotes number 314 and 315. Duplicating these citations in the lead is not required per Wikipedia:Lead#Citations -- Diannaa (talk) 01:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The article should reflect the range of between 4.2 and 6.2 million as stated in the Holocaust article.Pistolpierre (talk) 02:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you read through the Request for comment of September 2013, where you will see a very strong consensus for the present wording. I also suggest you find a more productive way to spend your time on this wiki; I know that's what I am going to do. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is not concerned with accuracy. No wonder everybody says Wikipedia sucks. Pistolpierre (talk) 02:22, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Pistolpierre, it is time you put down the stick and moved on. WP:Consensus is not in your favor on this. Kierzek (talk) 02:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree but who cares what the Wikipedia consensus is. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for anything. We are all wasting our time on this site.Pistolpierre (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There's the door. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Pistolpierre - Wikipedia is a great source for other sources. There are masses of sources on the Holocaust, and our various articles reference an awful lot of them. Our readers have the opportunity to check every one of them and draw their own conclusions.

"Saying Hitler killed at least 5.5 million Jews is not accurate". Of course it's not. Whatever the number they were killed as a result of the racist policies of the Nazis lead by Hitler. He probably never killed anyone directly. Britmax (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and if I shoot you, I didn't kill you, the bullet did. And if I put poison in your soup, the chemicals killed you. In any case, ordering a death or deaths that someone else carries out counts as murder pretty much everywhere. Paul B (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

By that reasoning, which I wholeheartedly support, there should be a strong emphasis on Henry Ford's responsibility for the atrocities of the Nazis, as such an important factor and contributor to the development of Nazism in Germany and worldwide. -- WillNess (talk) 22:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A friendly reminder to all to focus on content and to be civil. This discussion is devolving into a tit-for-tat. If you are getting too caught up in this emotionally, try to keep cool and, if you need a break, disengage. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

This user has now made yet another contradiction; if you read further up the user was asking for 6 million to be used as according to he/she it is the "universally traditionally accepted figure" and is now asking for a different range to be given. What is more, the 6.3 million figure on the German Wikipedia has no actual sources and the source this user wants to use has already been explained why it cannot be used but he/she refuses to accept this. This is borderline WP:DE, which I think we all know by now. Pistolpierre please do as asked and WP:STICK.--Windows66 (talk) 10:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Maybe you should stop posting because you are once again not accurate. Your emotions must be interfering with your reason. The figure of 6.2 million is in the Holocaust article and has a source. So you can forget about the German figure. Why do you keep telling lies? Nobody ever explained why the figure of 6.2 million cannot be used. If somebody can say what is wrong with this source I am all ears. How is it that a source is good enough for the Holocaust article, but not good enough for the Hitler article? Disruptive editing? Give me a break, I have made one edit.Pistolpierre (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

(S)He has a point. Why aren't these related articles not in agreement? EvergreenFir (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Where am I not accurate? The fact you say Wikipedia "sucks" and that we are all "wasting our time" on here yet you seem thriving to put an edit into this article, why would you if its such a waste of a time and an article that sucks (according to you)? Nowhere on the German Wikipedia version of the Holocaust is there a source for 6.2 million, in fact a quick search with "6.2" only brings up one search which is the "6.2 Allied" (which is nothing to do with the amount of Jewish victims), you really need to stop lying. You also further up stated that there is a "universal agreement" to the six million figure - have you changed your mind about that now since you are now asking for a 'range' to be given (every time I mention this you do not seem to reply). Disruptive editing does not always refer to making edits on pages but rather things like what you are doing on talk pages, see WP:DE and read the entire article, it covers it all.

@EvergreenFir - where are the articles not in mutual agreement?--Windows66 (talk) 08:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Forget about the German article, I am not talking about it. You are making no sense. The Holocaust article says 6.2 million. I am not lying. The traditional figure is correct. It makes no difference to me if there are people who lowball the Holocaust. The article needs to reflect the article on the Holocaust. Suggesting changes to articles is a violation of Wikipedia? You are so emotional about Adolf Hitler that you have lost all reason. A google search of "Holocaust, 6.2 million" brings up loads of references to the source for the Holocaust article. Instead of posting your emotional and inaccurate accusations, why don't you read the Holocaust article? Your reason will conquer your emotions and you will stop being inaccurate. Pistolpierre (talk) 15:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the Holocaust article does indeed mention a 5.9 to 6.2 figure but this is one of many that is suggested, there is no officially accepted figure. It clearly does bother you in your allegedly of so-called "lowballing the Holocaust". The article does not need to reflect the article on the Holocaust as this is about Adolf Hitler and not the Holocaust. Suggesting changes to articles of course is not a violation but your previous personal attacks and disruptive editing via talk pages is a violation WP:DE - take that on board. I am not emotional about Adolf Hitler at all (please do not get personal neither - this is not about me or my feelings but rather the article itself). A search result does indeed bring up pages, and? The source given on 5.9 to 6.2 is also mentioned now as exceeding that level as "More recently, the German historian Wolfgang Benz contends that the number of Jewish deaths exceeded 6.2 million."[6]. I've read the Holocaust article thank you very much but how about you read through this talk page and check your contradictions, flaws and violations - just to help you I will list a few:

1. You first there was a "universal accepted traditional figure" of 6 million but now are pushing for a 6.2 million.

2. You said that you have not made any personal attacks yet if you read through the whole talk page you will find you often referring to as "you" in personal ways.

3. You seem to think because one person who studied Hitler called him a "neurotic psychopath" it makes him universally one.

4. You seem to think that its acceptable to say that Wikipedia "sucks", that main articles of 20th century leaders "suck" and that we are all "wasting our time on here".

5. You seem to think that your past edits do not reflect on how you will be seen as on here, the truth is they will because you have been previously blocked and are known on here.

A user explained why your edit for the ethnic Poles figure could not be used and now you have drifted onto the number toll of Jewish victims but are not willing to give sources but think that mentions in the Holocaust article belong here when they do not as this is about Adolf Hitler and a figure is already given.

This is NOT a forum or a chit for chat box but a place to discuss editing articles with improvements so start providing sources and stop whining on about me and my emotions as it violates Wikipedia's rules and regulations as you are not to make personal remarks about other editors in a negative manner, see WP:CIVIL.--Windows66 (talk) 22:05, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed a personal attack comment. Again, please be civil. Personally, I will template further incivility. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

You are still inaccurate. I am not pushing for anything other than accuracy. You admit that the figure of 6.2 million is valid, yet you are against including it in the Hitler article. You make no sense. How is the Hitler article accurate if it is not accurate on the Holocaust? Pistolpierre (talk) 12:24, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

vegetarian myth

I was recently reading a magazine exploring popular myths ( http://gb.zinio.com/www/browse/product.jsp?productId=500795756&categoryId=cat1960203 ) and noticed that Hitler being a vegetarian was apparently disproved but is still often put forward as a fact. Therefore I think the part claiming Hitler followed a vegetarian diet should be removed. Josephski (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You might like to look at some of the archived discussions on this topic, such as the most recent discussion, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#Was he vegetarian?. The sources used to prepare this article all agree that he was indeed a vegetarian. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hitler obviously did not start off as a vegetarian. He became one. The evidence is overwhelming that he was a vegetarian in his later years. This evidence comes from people who actually cooked for him and ate with him. The "evidence" against it either comes from unreliable gossip articles or refers to an earlier period in his life. Paul B (talk) 20:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Most of the denials of Hitler's vegetarianism appear to come from vegetarians. Rumiton (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Paul and Diannaa, that was helpful. I am curious as to why the article 'disproving' the myth was printed so recently though if there is actual evidence to support Hitler following a vegetarian diet. I should contact the magazine. Rumiton, I think maybe vegetarians just get annoyed by people who use the fact that Hitler was a vegetarian (if it is true, as it does now seem) as an attempt to somehow attack them personally for being vegetarian, as if being a total b****** and being a vegetarian are somehow linked. This might be why vegetarians are interested in knowing the truth regarding Hitler and vegetarianism. Josephski (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an interesting editorial on the subject. Vegetarians who associate the diet with pacifism and a certain world view don't want to be lumped in with Hitler (and who could blame them?). Regarding the article you found, I am unable to view it, but I would suggest checking out what sources they used to prepare their article and confirming their quality. Remember they're in the business of selling magazines, not doing historical research. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Some argue that pacifism is an evil ideology that enables evil aggressive forces to gather strength and cause much more damage than early prevention would. It enabled Hitler's Germany to gather such a great strength and indirectly caused the deaths of untold millions upon millions more than the early war (pre-Munich, or even pre-Ruhr militarization) could ever have caused, the argument goes. So nothing wrong in associating pacifism-vegetarianism with Hitler, then. Pacifism rejects the moral imperative of defending others, as well as self, against aggression. It thus demands suicide of others, and is thus immoral (even suicide by refusal to defend self is morally questionable). It is an extremist Utopian ideology, some argue, just like Nazism or Marxism-Leninism are extremist Utopian ideologies. The adherents of course don't want to acknowledge this, so are sensitive when Hitler's vegetarianism is mentioned. -- WillNess (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole "Hitler was a vegetarian" is not so much an argument that "Hitler was a vegetarian, and a bad person, therefore vegetarians are bad people" so much as an argument against the assertion that all vegetarians are good people. People mistake this for "reductio ad hitlerum" when that's not really the nature of the argument being made. Anyway it's well sourced that Hitler adhered to a vegetarian diet at some point in his life, so it's not a "myth." 2001:558:6040:82:7CD6:B941:F0A2:C349 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Mostly agree with above. One of the tenets of modern vegetarianism is that eating meat makes people aggressive and callous, and that the world would be a better and more peaceful place if nobody did so. Hitler's diet is a major embarrassment to their philosophy. Rumiton (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem

I have removed a recent addition about Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. This relationship was a lot more important to Haj Amin al-Husseini than it was to Hitler, and its inclusion here gives the relationship undue weight in my opinion. Its inclusion in the middle of the Holocaust section is certainly inappropriate, as locating the material there may be construed by our readers as pointing at the Grand Mufti or the Arab world as somehow being complicit with or responsible for the genocide. Please comment as to whether or not you think we need to include a sentence or two about this relationship in the Hitler article, and if so, where in the article it should be located and what sources would most effectively back up the addition. I personally am not in favour of inclusion in this article. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe it could be a "see also" here, if need be and it is already written about in detail, in context, with cites in the Haj Amin al-Husseini bio article. To be clear, it should not be included as far as a main article text entry herein. Kierzek (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Since this is an article about Hitler, and the appropriate information is already in the al-Husseini article, this bit is not needed here. Hitler met with many people—enumerating them all here goes beyond the scope of this entry, and I agree with Dianaa that there's an undue weight issue if this were to be included. Malljaja (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Malljaja. Such info can go in articles about the Holocaust or Nazi Germany more broadly. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:12, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I also agree with Diannaa and Malljaja: this was not a significant relationship for Hitler, who is obviously the subject of this article. Nick-D (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There's absolutely no justified reason to hide this information. I didn't create a whole new section, but just added two well sourced sentences briefly describing their relationship. Husseini's is very notable and he played an undiputed role in Hitler's life during WW2. Shalom11111 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The article ignores The Holocaust in Italian Libya (also Jews outside Europe under Axis occupation) and the planned conquering of the middle east and the extermination of the Jews there. The Mufti would have been an important factor there. I suggest to mention it, although it could be concised.

more: "published research by two Stuttgart-based historians, Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, claims that Hitler had worked out plans to extend the Holocaust to the Middle East, and that the Nazis had forged an alliance with Arab nationalists who wanted to drive the Jewish refugees out of Palestine -- a murderous version of German-Arab friendship founded on common hatred of Jews. Jews living in the Middle East were petrified by Rommel's victories. After seizing the British fortress of Tobruk in Libya in June 1942 he set his sights on the Suez Canal, on Palestine and the oil fields of the Middle East." Ykantor (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW Although the article is rather long, it is not even within the list of the 2000 longest articles. Ykantor (talk) 04:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers have written a book on this topic, Nazi Palestine, published in 2010. Unfortunately it is not available at my local library or for inter-library loan in my province. Regardless, without further sources that provide confirmation of their research, I don't think we should include this information in the Hitler article. Historians Kershaw (2008) and Longerich (2010) do not mention this material and do not mention Hitler's meeting with the Grand Mufti. So I don't think we should include it here either. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I have the book (but note it is accessible from googlebook).

There is nothing in that study that directly concerns Hitler. In synthesis, they confirm the collaboration of 2 Arab leaders and some Arab officers with the Nazis and they found that a Nazi general dispatched to North Africa a unit of 10 men led by a former Einstazgrup caporal (or equivalent). From this and some speeches that they place in the context of the Holocaust, their thesis is that the Nazis and al-Husseini expected to implement a Final Solution in Palestine. I haven't read any controversy around their work, it is rather ignored by scholars (I think given the lack of consistency in comparison with other works published by Herf or Lewis). But anyway, their thesis doesn't concern Hitler and doesn't concern this article. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Pluto. I also agree with Diannaa's point about not including this given that the leading biographers of Hitler didn't judge it significant to his life. As the Nazis didn't actually conquer Palestine, and were never very likely to have done so (the British force in Egypt was always much more powerful than the Axis force in the region, it was just badly led most of the time) this meeting wasn't of much significance to Hitler or the war. I note that the article, rightly, doesn't cover Hitler's relationships with most of the people who actually did oversee mass murders in various parts of Europe, nor other one-off diplomatic meetings such as his visit to Finland to celebrate the birthday of Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim (which was arguably of greater importance given that Finland was one of Germany's most useful Allies). Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

"On November 28, 1941, Hitler met with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Hitler stated: "Germany was resolved, step by step, to ask one European nation after the other to solve its Jewish problem, and at the proper time, direct a similar appeal to non-European nations as well." When Germany had defeated the Soviet Union and broken through the Caucasus into the middle east, Germany would have no imperial goals of its own and would support Arab liberation, Hitler assured the Grand Mufti. But he did have one goal: "Germany's objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power." Irving v. Lipstadt Trial,Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution: Electronic Edition, by Browning, Christopher R.

Had Hitler succeeded, the meeting with the Mufti meeting could have been very significant event. Hence it is should not be compared to "his visit to Finland to celebrate the birthday of Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim".

BTW Rommel successes were stopped because he lost his excellent intelligence sources, The British usage of the Enigma code breaking, and the British successfully reduced his supply line over the Mediterranean. Usually he had no problem to win against a bigger army, because he always enjoyed local quantitative advantage at the main breaking point. Ykantor (talk) 16:28, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Browning notes that meeting as the record of the discussion forms part of the fragmentary evidence for Hitler's lead role in the Holocaust, which was the subject of his expert evidence (as no explicit written orders from Hitler regarding the Holocaust were ever issued or survived the war, historians have had to reconstruct his role from the records of various conversations). I don't think that this provides support for regarding the meeting itself as an important event in Hitler's life given the specialised nature of Browning's report. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if you think this information isn't importnat enough, nor does it mean much if some leading historians didn't include Hitler's connection to Mufti in their works. There's plenty of other information in this article which these historians did not talk about, therefore this argument cannot be used, and a few editors also can't decide what should be considered relevant to the article and what shoudn't. Haj Amin al-Husseini's relationship with Hitler is explicitly mentioned dozens of times in Husseini's article (take a look), so how come he, or even the word "Paestine", do not exist in this article at all? This is unacceptable and very biased. Shalom11111 (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As no word is said about Operation ATLAS, something is wrong here. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Why on earth should a fairly obscure and miserably-failed operation involving five people, with no direct connection to Hitler, be mentioned in the Hitler article? If all similar operations were included, this article would be massive. Your other arguments are difficult to make sense out of. The fact that Hitler is mentioned in the Husseini article, is not a reason why the opposite should be the case. Nor is it clear why this implies "bias". Against who? Paul B (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler was much more important to Husseini than Husseini was to Hitler. Simple. Britmax (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with Britmax here. It is not worth including here; too minor. It should be and is included in Haj Amin al-Husseini's article. Kierzek (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Britmax and Kierzek. The meeting with al-Husseini was unsignificant for Hitler. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No need to mention it here, for reasons given. Paul B (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

To sum it up, you're all basically claiming that Hitler's connection/relationship with Husseini was "too minor", "insignificant", and "isn't important enough" to write even a single word about it in this article. Okay, this is your own opinion, though I sincerely believe that most objective and neutral people would disagree with you. Anyway, in this case you simply outnumber me with your opposing argument, so according to Wikipedia you won this one fairly, nice. -Shalom11111 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think absolutely the Mufti must be mentioned in the article; he was important overall with regard Nazi Germany and WWII (his pro-Nazi propaganda in context of pro-Nazi Arab coups and North-African war theater; recruiting Balkan Muslims SS divisions; intervening against attempted rescue of Jewish children; etc.), and Nazi Germany in WWII wasn't insignificant to A. Hitler. It is preposterous if not one mention of the Mufti can be found in this article. -- WillNess (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the article of Adolf Hitler. Which bibliographies of Hitler mention the Mufti and which don't ?

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Hope this will answer your question, Pluto2012:

Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U. S. Intelligence, and the Cold War, By Richard Breitman - [7]

A Genealogy of Evil, By Patterson - [8]

Nazis After Hitler: How Perpetrators of the Holocaust Cheated Justice and Truth, By Donald M. McKale - [9]

The Nazi Connection to Islamic Terrorism: Adolf Hitler and Haj Amin Al-Husseini, By Chuck Morse - [10]

Shalom11111 (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

None of those books is a biography of Hitler. Nick-D (talk) 22:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Any 10 year old can type "Hitler" and "Amin Al-Husseini" into google books and list the hits. Wikipedia editors are supposed to have the ability to distinguish relevance from passing mentions and reliable sources from self-published dross from iuniverse. See WP:COMPETENCE. Paul B (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Amen to that. I'm showing my age here, but I think an editor should have read and absorbed the source he or she is wishing to include. All too often sources are just plucked on the basis of containing a phrase or contention that an editor wants to use to advance a point. Malljaja (talk) 15:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: i think it should just be "s...

108.236.245.186 posted this comment on 18 November 2013 (view all feedback).

i think it should just be "straight to the bone" article because some of it is just confusing or unnecessary

Any thoughts?

Dear 108.236.245.186, Wikipedia is a detailed online encyclopedia. if you wish for a '"straight to the bone"' try simple Wikipedia. titusfox Jibber Jabber About Me! 17:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hitler and the holocaust

Will it be possible to replace the "resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews" with " He led the systematic extermination of at least 5.5 million Jews"  ?

The lead: "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered to be the primary cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe. His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior.".

There is no mentioning of the "industrial" scale of the Holocaust . millions of Slavic people died as well, because Hitler assessed them as too inferior, so Hitler did not care to let them die. But Jews were considered to be too dangerous, so he took care to actively murder them, including individuals who were important for the war efforts.

The connection between Hitler and the Holocaust is currently too weak. Although there is no definite proof that Hitler ordered it, there is such a proof that he knew about it.(His discussion with Horthy on 1943 end)

Will it be possible to replace the "resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews" with " He led the systematic extermination of at least 5.5 million Jews"  ? Ykantor (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Yknator, there's much more than just the proof that Hitler knew about the Holocaust. Not only was he responsible for it but evidence shows of course that he executed it. Regarding your proposal here, I agree with you, please change it. -Shalom11111 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. The current wording should stand. He knew but was not the main and only "executioner". See the recent request for comment (September 2013) and dispute resolution (March 2013). Kierzek (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning the Sept 2013, do you mean "approximately five million" ?

Yours:'He knew but was not the main and only "executioner". I have proposed "He led" as it is proven that he initiated and personally intervened and advanced decisions like:

• On 18 Dec 1941: A note handwritten by Himmler referring to a meeting just held with Hitler says: 'Jewish question - exterminate as partisans.'
• On Dec 1941 Hitler addressed a meeting of Gauleiters. Goebbels wrote in his diary afterward: With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it.
• On 1943 telling Horthy to send the the Hungarian Jews to camps in Poland,
• On September 23, 1943 Ribbentrop submitted to the Fuehrer a memo concerning the danish Jews with question:"Does the Fuehrer want the action against the Jews to be carried out now? ". Ribbentrop handwritten remark: "Must be implemented as ordered"

hence it seems that the term "He led" is appropriate, while the current wording is distancing Hitler from the Holocaust.

I will have a look at the two previous discussions you highlighted. Ykantor (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC) Ykantor (talk) 08:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The quotes you give indicate that he had some say and quite a powerful one, but cannot establish his sole position, particularly in a project with such a wide scale. The existing wording is fine. There is no need to indent all your remarks individually, by the way. Britmax (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Do not you think that the current sentence distance Hitler from the Holocaust? these words "His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted..." disconnect him from the slaughtering and does not take into account his direct involvement as shown.

BTW Could you please elaborate yours: "There is no need to indent all your remarks individually"? Ykantor (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

In fact you do need to indent separate paragraphs individually to keep the "box" consistent - unless you use <br> to separate paragraphs.
Like this. Paul B (talk) 13:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Paul, it helps. Ykantor (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No, leading means "actively directing some activity and operation" (Merrian-Webster). In this sense, Hitler led the war against Soviet Union, but not the Holocaust (at least, there is no proof in this sense). Alex2006 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Paul. But no, still a pointless change, IMO. Britmax (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

to Alessandro57: Would you suggest another verb which may describe it better?

BTW Concerning leading the war, Hitler became much more involved until eventually he decided not so important decisions too. Should we say that Hitler led the war at the end but not at the begining? Ykantor (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

There is presently no WP:consensus for any chance in wording. Kierzek (talk) 02:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I second Kierzek's comment. Moreover, any proposed changes have to be based on reliable sources, which have not been presented in the above discussion. Malljaja (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

to Kierzek: I appreciate your hard work, taking care of the article, and protecting it. I try to convince , because in my opinion , within the same amount of words, the lead should mention:

-Hitler personal involvement , before and during the Holocaust

-The systematic murdering, as opposed to murdering as a by product (even if a deliberate by product).

And , of course, there might be a better wording than mine.

=> to Malljaja: Concerning wp:rs, if it is a formal requirements only, I will supply it later. But if you chalenge any of raised points, please tell me and I will provide a wp:rs as soon as possible. Ykantor (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ykantor. Note the first paragraph of the lead already ties Hitler to the Holocaust and the events of WWII when it says "Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust." which covers some of the points you're trying to make. Any unsourced additions or changes to this article will be reverted. Please provide your sources here on the talk page for any proposed amendments. The article has reached Good Article status; absolutely everything in it is sourced, and there's no room here for unsourced additions on this contentious and important article. Thanks, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

-On 18 Dec 1941: A note handwritten by Himmler referring to a meeting just held with Hitler says: 'Jewish question - exterminate as partisans.(the Guardian)

-On Dec 1941 Hitler addressed a meeting of Gauleiters. Goebbels wrote in his diary afterward: With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it.Kershaw, Hitler, II, p 490. I have not verified yet this source of Joseph Goebbels article yet. One more ref:

-On 1943 telling Horthy to send the the Hungarian Jews to camps in Poland,

-On September 23, 1943 Ribbentrop submitted to the Fuehrer a memo concerning the danish Jews with question:"Does the Fuehrer want the action against the Jews to be carried out now? ". Ribbentrop handwritten remark: "Must be implemented as ordered"

-on 1943 "Hitler's decision that the Danish and Italian Jews be deported"

* A couple of months ago, my proposal to modify the article was accepted, and hopefully it might be accepted now as well.

* if the word "led" is excessive, than will you please suggest a more suitable word? I apologize for my English and I am not in a position to offer alternative wording. Ykantor (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I am confused here, since you have made multiple proposals for additions and amendments. The above citations pertain to the wording of the sentence "His antisemitic policies and racially motivated ideology resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." Are you aware that this sentence was the subject of recent extensive discussion, Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 54#Citation for "systematic murder of eleven million..." in the intro?, and dispute resolution, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler, one of the results of which was the removal of the phrase "systematically murdered" from the sentence? My feeling is that it will be difficult if not impossible for you to gain consensus for any changes to that sentence.

Your second point, where you said Concerning leading the war, Hitler became much more involved until eventually he decided not so important decisions too. Should we say that Hitler led the war at the end but not at the begining? I don't think there's any sources to back up those claims. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

- I proposed once only: "Will it be possible to replace the "resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews" with " He led the systematic extermination of at least 5.5 million Jews"  ?"

- I suspend the proposal to use the word "systematic" on a second thought. I will have a look why it was opposed. strange.

- I will appreciate it if you tell me why using the term "led" ( or a softer alternative) is wrong?

- Concerning leading the war, what is incorrect:

--- Hitler became much more involved until eventually he decided not so important decisions too

---He was not involved so much at the war beginning? Ykantor (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Your own cited quote below notes an important point: "a systematic attempt undertaken by the Nazi regime"; therefore, it backs up my former point above, the entire regime was involved. Kierzek (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

certainly "the entire regime was involved" , but that does not negates Hitler deep involvement during the holocaust. Ykantor (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek. Moreover, saying that Hitler "led" the effort to exterminate 5.5 million Jews is misleading—if any person deserved this dubious distinction, it would be Heinrich Himmler. By most accounts, Hitler kept the issue of how to deal with the "Jewish question" at arm's length. Malljaja (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

We are slowly converging. As said, ther might be a softer alternative to "led". Ykantor (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

My understanding is that while there's consensus among historians that Hitler had a high level of involvement in the pre-war attacks against Jews and ordered and oversaw the Holocaust from 1941, he didn't personally direct the mass killings in the same way that he directed military operations during this period. Peter Longerich's expert report on Hitler's role in the Holocaust for the David Irving libel trial is a very useful online resource ([11]), and the section on Hitler's role in the post-1942 murders here notes several occasions in which Hitler approved or requested mass killings. However, Himmler had responsibility for conducting the actual murders. As such, I don't think that "led" is appropriate, though some stronger wording for the lead which makes it clear that Hitler ordered the killings would make things clearer. Nick-D (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Hitler set the dates (at least in those cited below), and decided whether Jews should continue working for the war effort or being transferred to the camps. Ykantor (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"In the period 1942-1945 we have numerous further statements by Hitler that show that he continuously intervened in "anti-Jewish policy" and tried to push it forward in the sense of a radical "solution"" ( Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial. Thank you Nick-D for this excellent reference) Ykantor (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Nick-D, what wording tweak might you be considering? Kierzek (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead must remain neutral in front of the debate: Functionalism versus intentionalism. 15:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry all, I was in the real world. Why not "Hitler inspired..."? Alex2006 (talk) 07:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Although "inspired" usage is correct here, it is still not referring to his practical involvement (e.g. dates, locations), as the sources claims. We might say that he both inspired and set dates, target groups,locations. Ykantor (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

We might use the verbs: driven, controlled, steered, directed, dominated ? Ykantor (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

No one is interested. I plan to write : "Hitler controlled the systematic extermination of at least 5.5 million Jews"  ?" (alternatively - driven,steered, directed, dominated ? ) Ykantor (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "originated, oversaw and directed" might be the best way of putting it, as there is firm historical evidence that Hitler did all three of those, but, as was said above, did not in general run the day-to-day operations of the Holocaust, leaving that to his underlings. -- The Anome (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler did not directly oversee or direct the genocide. Himmler did that, on Hitler's orders. But it was Hitler's idea. How about something like this: "Hitler originated the racial policy of Nazi Germany. Under his leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." -- Diannaa (talk) 00:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the latter part only:"Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior."

I think Dianaa's suggestion is excellent. That wording makes it clear that Hitler was the fons et origo of the Holocaust, and that the whole Nazi endeavour, of which the Holocaust was an integral part, proceeded under his overall leadership. It's indisputable, in the light of modern historical understanding, that Hitler instigated the idea of the destruction of the Jews, and both knew about the Holocaust, and approved of it; it's also clear, and exceedingly well documented, that he delegated the main task of running it to others. The fine detail of exactly how much knowledge and control Hitler had over the day-to-day running of the Holocaust can be covered later in the article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Dianaa suggestion is fine but still missing Hitler direct involvement. As discussed, Hitler was personally involved and took decisions. Hence the need for a sentence like:"Hitler xxx the systematic extermination of at least 5.5 million Jews" , and the xxx= driven, controlled, steered, directed, dominated OR similar. Ykantor (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Hitler made the overall policy, but other people directed and executed the genocide, under Himmler's direction. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

And what about Hitler personal involvement? Ykantor (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

He delegated the task to Himmler, who delegated it to Heydrich/Kaltenbrunner, who delegated it to their subordinates in the Einsatzgruppen and the extermination camps. That's the way Hitler operated; most tasks, outside of military decisions, were delegated. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC) Just to be clear, I don't think we should add anything about him being directly involved in the genocide, because he was not. The word "directly" means "with nothing or no one in between", and that's not what happened. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Should we ignore his important decisions (as cited here) , and present it as Hitler responsibility was limited to his duty as a head of state only? Ykantor (talk) 07:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Dianaa's sentence says all we need to say. Please remember this is a biographical article in a general purpose encyclopedia, not an in depth look at the individual aspects. Do a rule of thumb estimate of the effect of covering all the aspects of this article to the depth that you are suggesting. And anyway Hitler still didn't do it all on his own or direct the operations that closely. Britmax (talk) 10:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yours:"covering all the aspects of this article to the depth that you are suggesting". What depth? The issue is fixing an inaccuracy which is not increasing the lead size.

Yours:" Hitler still didn't do it all on his own or direct the operations that closely". There is no such a claim. Hitler was personally involved, but of course have not run the "routine" operation.

What is the benefit of having inaccurate information in the lead, especially so since the the fix would not increase (or even decrease) the lead size? Ykantor (talk) 13:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps something along the lines of this wording: "Under Hitler's instructions, the regime was responsible for the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." -- Diannaa (talk) 15:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The more this discussion evolves and the more it takes distance with the debate between Functionalism versus intentionalism, which should be taken into account to comply with NPoV. As explained in the article, "functionalism" is not a revisionnist theory. It is suggested eg by Raul Hilberg. It can hardly be stated that Hitler "instructed" and even less "led" the Holocaust when it is debated if it was performed under his sole initiative or if it was the result of the whole Nazi bureaucracy. The current lead doesn't need to be changed and if so, it has to comply with the reality of the debate. Pluto2012 (talk) 16:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would again suggest:"Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." Kierzek (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

From my point of view, this suggestion is very good. It gives due:weight to all hypothesis. Ie: the reality of "Hitler's leadership" (without stating that he directly led the Holocaust which is false); the fact that there was a "racially motivated ideology" (which is of course at the heart of the Holocaust) and finaly the fact that "the regime" organised it. Pluto2012 (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I am going ahead with this revision, as the consensus is that it's the best solution put forward so far. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The consensus is indeed against my proposal. Anyway, the lead should have the same criteria for all the sentences. Hence this sentence "He directed the rearmament of Germany" is wrong. I will borrow the reasons as specified here.

-"He knew but was not the main and only "executioner"- Kierzek

"The quotes you give indicate that he had some say and quite a powerful one, but cannot establish his sole position, particularly in a project with such a wide scale" -Britmax

"Hitler did not directly oversee or direct the genocide...Hitler made the overall policy, but other people directed and executed the genocide," - Dianaa

Applying the same criteria, we should not say that Hitler directed the rearmament? I am not really looking to fix this usage of the word "directed", because every one knows that Hitler could not possibly run the re-armament routine decision making. However, according to the same criteria, the article should state that Hitler directed the Holocaust. Ykantor (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, I am concerned that these comments are becoming WP:POINTY. We don't have to use exactly the same wording for every single sentence. In some cases very careful wording is highly important, and the Holocaust, a hugely debated issue, is one of those. Rearmament is not a contested issue in the same way. However, it's worth pointing out that there is abundant evidence that Hitler was very involved in specific decision-making about armaments. We have no evidence that he was involved in the same way in detailed decisions regarding planning the Holocaust. So "directed" seems much more appropriate to the sentence on Rearmament. Paul B (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You explain why the word "directed" suits the re-armament and not the Holocaust. Please note that I consistently looked for a "softer" word and proposed some alternatives ( e.g. steered, driven) which might suit his somehow reduced involvement in the Holocaust.

* It is debatable whether Hitler directed the rearmament since some of his bizarre decisions were ignored (albeit quietly) e.g At the war beginning he ordered to stop development of weapons unless they will be ready to use within the next 18 months: on 1944 he shouted at Speer and Galand and ordered Speer to stop production of interceptors (e.g. FW 190) ; He delayed the jet fighter ME-262 since he demanded to use it as a bomber although it designed as an interceptor only; etc.

*What do you mean by " the Holocaust, a hugely debated issue" ? The facts are agreed upon (if we ignore David Irving etc.) while discussion of "Functionalism versus intentionalism" are not related to this subject. Ykantor (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of of "Functionalism versus intentionalism" is "related to this subject" for reasons already given by Pluto2012 and other editors. Have you actually read the contributions in this thread? The holocaust is a subject about which there has been detailed debate among historians: about causes, methods, implementation, and even definition. There has also, of course, been debate and argument in the wider world, and that certainly includes the holocaust deniers and minimisers, who, usually in "sheep's clothing", have been known to turn up here and argue the toss about numbers and wording. That's also part of the reason why careful wording is desirable. Paul B (talk) 13:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion issue is Hitler personal involvement in the holocaust. Are those supported points debatable? I do not think so (except of fringe ideas)

*The consensus is not in my side, but it is a pity that Hitler is distanced somehow from the holocaust, while sources say: he was deeply involved in the anti-Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage (Irving v. Lipstadt, Hitler's Role in the Persuection of the Jews by the Nazi Regime, by Heinz Peter Longerich) Ykantor (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

break

User:WillNess has twice revised the last sentence of the lead as he does not agree with the consensus wording. I have amended his revision to read "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior" as I think this gets across the point he is trying to make without changing the consensus wording very much. I have done this in an attempt to stop the edit warring and keep the article stable. Hopefully this is not too far from the consensus version that was decided over several weeks of discussion. Comments welcome. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Diannaa: although I believe the other wording was better, as the policies and programs led to death directly and indirectly, as a result; I support your well meaning tweak; I must say I don't understand this continued edit warring and commenting on this matter which has been settled; it is long past time for several editors herein to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kierzek (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that most of the editors accepted the previous (inaccurate) wording, while blaming me of WP:POINT. But Dianaa recent improvement shows that those accusations were not justified. And there is still lot of room for improvement.

It is easy to refer to WP:DROPTHESTICK, but apparently it is not easy to explain why it is fine to write "He directed the rearmament of Germany" and it is not fine to write:"He {driven, controlled, steered, directed, dominated,etc} the Holocaust "?

	Hitler & re-armament	Hitler & Holocaust
Has tried to hide his involvement?	no	yes
personal involvement	deeply	deeply (e.g. see his typist Shreder notes). Longerich says: "he was deeply involved in the anti-Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage". Since he tried to hide his involvement, we might not know to what extent his involvement was.
Who planned and executed?	Speer and his organization (during the latter half of the war)	Himmler and his organization
Was obeyed?	partially. some important orders were ignored/resisted: stop all development at 1939, convert aircraft industry to anti aircraft cannons production etc.	yes
Was he pragmatist??	yes	no. He was a fanatic.
was very involved in specific decision-making ?	yes	We do not know
description	"He directed the rearmament of Germany"	proposed description: "He {driven, controlled, steered, directed, dominated,etc} the Holocaust "'

Ykantor (talk) 22:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, I'm not sure what your objective is here, and I note that your recent additions have not improved the quality of the article. I also note that it's unhelpful to accuse other editors of using "faulty logic" when they revert your edits. As for the Longerich citation you provide, there are two problems: (i) you have cited the source verbatim, which constitutes plagiarism (+ the wording is off—readers of Longerich's work may know what he means by "deeply involved" and "murderous stage," but here it merely injects some loaded language) and (ii) whether Longerich's view reflects consensus among historians remains an open question—Kershaw, a well-respected authority on Hitler, for example, refrains from tying Hitler directly to the Holocaust. So, I don't think the sentence and source in question should stay in the entry. Malljaja (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for the accusation and I should have writen it in a different manner. However, the claim logic is faulty, since yours "Hitler left the planning and execution of the Holocaust to others" is not negating the sentence "Hitler was deeply involved" , and those 2 sentences may coexist concerning the holocaust or the re-armament.

Concerning my supposed WP:DROPTHESTICK , WP:POINT, I am not a lonely voice, since some other "Wikipedia"s leaders are closer to my proposal.

1 . The German wikipedia: "Hitler autorisierte die wichtigsten Schritte des Judenmordes und ließ sich über den Verlauf informieren". Auto translation: Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews , and was informed about the course

2 The french wikipedia: "Sa politique impérialiste, antisémite et raciste est à l'origine du volet européen de la Seconde Guerre mondiale et en fait le responsable de crimes de guerre et crimes contre l'humanité ayant causé plusieurs dizaines de millions de victimes, crimes dont la Shoah reste le plus marquant."'. the auto translation: Its imperialist, anti-Semitic and racist policy is at the origin of the European part of World War II, and in fact the person responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity which caused several tens of millions of victims, crimes which the Holocaust remains the most striking.

3 The spanish wikipedia:"Por motivos raciales, Hitler fue causa de la muerte de diecisiete millones de personas,4 incluyendo seis millones de judíos y entre medio y millón y medio de gitanos. A eso se le denominó el Holocausto". Auto translation: For racial reasons, Hitler was the cause of the death of seventeen million people, 4 including six million Jews and between million??? and and a half million Gypsies. It was called that the Holocaust

* So may be some of the other Wikipedias are closer to my proposal rather than the present wording? Ykantor (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

We cannot use WP articles in other languages as yardsticks here, and machine translations are useless in this instance because they lose the nuances inherent to every language that are important to consider here. I can read and understand German well enough to see that the wording in the German WP does not contradict the agreed-upon wording here—authorising the Holocaust and being informed about his progress doesn't imply that he was "deeply involved." He gave Himmler and others carte blanche and did not micro-manage the killings. By contrast, he was deeply involved in military strategies in the later stages of the war and was sitting down at length with Speer to study and revise drafts for grandiose buildings and city projects.Malljaja (talk) 02:10, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

You are right that The German WP does not contradict the current wording, but it is improve it since:

1. It says:"Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews" i.e Hitler was involved in the holocaust at least at the level of its main steps, rather than the current wording of indirect involvement :"Under Hitler's leadership"

2. It is a short and direct sentence, rather than long and mentioning unnecessary detailed :"...and racially motivated ideology, the regime was..." . Please note that the French and Spanish WP too, are excluding any extra words between mentioning Hitler and the Genocide / holocaust.

* Hitler involvement in the Holocaust was not as deep as his dealing with military strategies or huge building projects, but he was involved to some degree, at least as the German DP says. Ykantor (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

One cannot use other English Wikipedia articles as cited sources, either, Ykantor. Further, as I stated, I do not believe the "current wording" is better for the reasons I state above, but I appreciate Diannaa's efforts in the matter and find the wording acceptable. I have to agree with Malljaja's points above; as Kershaw states, for example: "How much detail Hitler asked for or was given cannot be known." Kershaw (2008) Hitler, p. 735. And as Gerwarth points out: "Himmler was granted special responsibilities on behalf of the Fuhrer." Gerwarth (2011) Hitler's Hangman-The Life of Heydrich, p. 185. Kierzek (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

yours:"How much detail Hitler asked for or was given cannot be known." It is correct that we do not know the upper limit of Hitler involvement, but we do know the lower limit, as discussed in the sources (the talkpage next section)

* yours:"Himmler was granted special responsibilities on behalf of the Fuhrer.". The same applies for Speer and the re-armament.

*Please note that all other 3 WP state a direct connection between Hitler and the Genocide , with no intermediate words like:"...and racially motivated ideology, the regime was...". Moreover, the German WP explicitly says "Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews".

* BTW Concerning WW2, the current wording is:"Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered to be the primary cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe", which indicate that he was not the only cause for the war. In my opinion it should be improved like the German WP clear version: With the command to the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, he unleashed the second world war in Europe (Mit dem Befehl zum deutschen Überfall auf Polen im September 1939 löste er den Zweiten Weltkrieg in Europa). Ykantor (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is an interview of Götz Aly from the Yad Vashem's website. We can as a first conclusion state he is a respected scholar and not a Holocaust denier or biasied against Jews (or Israel) in any way.

This being said, the Bottom-Up Approach of the Holocaust for which he is one of the main defender, "focuses on those of lower rank and their pressuring of higher ranks to implement what we now know as The Final Solution." Based on a letter from 16 July 1941 (and other documents), Gotz Aly concluded that "it was the lowest ranks of the resettlement apparatus that thought up 'things' which, it was said, 'sometimes [sounded] fantastic'."

This doens't wipe the fact that Hitler was a fanatic dictator and as the leader of the German nation during these years, responsible of all the events under his rule.

Pluto2012 (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been following the conversation with some amusement and also some feeling of vindication. And you regulars claimed there was a consensus and was resolved back in... when was it, March?. Merry Winter-solstice-celebrations everyone!--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It's exactly because of the problem with editors like you that that this is even an issue. Ykantor's child-like need to put personal "blame" on Hitler is paralleled by weaselings of those who would wish to wriggle out of it. The reality is that the Nazi state led by Hitler constructed a mass murder machine, He inspired and approved it. Exactly how involved he was in the detail is a matter of supreme unimportance for a moral point of view, though obviously it is of interest to historians. And it matters very little in terms of moral culpability whether we put the figure at 5, 6 or 7 million, as if murdering 5 million people is somehow perfectly OK, but a few hundred thousand more is really just not on. Paul B (talk) 10:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your fair and honest review: "Ykantor's child-like need to put personal "blame". However, you missed my collaborators, the other 3 WP that share the same childish view, and especially the ultra childish Germans who says: "Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews , and was informed about the course". Why should not we assist them with some adult editors and save the poor Germans from their infancy? Ykantor (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, as already pointed out, using WPs in other languages as a basis for changes here is not going to work. Your above suggestion is a case in point: "he unleashed" is a mistranslation of "löste er...aus"—the latter means "he triggered." This, along with the fact that we cannot know how the language and content in the other entries has been arrived at, makes it not worthwhile to pursue this any further. Malljaja (talk) 14:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

It is agreed that "Using WPs in other languages as a basis for changes here is not going to work" , but the provided sources should work.

* Both "unleashed" and triggered" are fine in my opinion.

* If Shakespeare is being successfully translated to other languages, then it should not be a problem to translate those relatively simple sentences to English.

* Whatever is the translated sentence meaning, their wording is short and connecting Hitler directly to the crimes, without intermediate words.Ykantor (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

This is NO need to re-visit the sentence as to the start of World War II in Europe which was agreed at by lengthy consensus; nor is there further need to go 'round and 'round on the wording of Hitler's degree of information as to The Final Solution which as Kershaw points out will never fully be known; that only amounts to speculation and conjecture at this point. As Pluto2012 rightly states, Hitler "was the leader...during these years, responsible of all the events under his rule". That is clearly stated and he is NOT being let off the hook. BTW-besides the translation problems as noted by Malljaja, I note, for example, that the German Hitler article is not a GA rated article, which means it has not been vetted like this English Wikipedia article. But again, in the end, it does not matter as one cannot use any Wikipedia article for direct citing. Kierzek (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I add that I am a French native and the French version is very close to (not to say the same as) the current English version. It states that "Sa politique (...) est à l'origine [de la guerre] et en fait le responsable [de l'holocauste]" which can be translated by "His policy (...) is at the origin of [the war] and makes him responsible [of the Holocaust]." The French version underlines the undirect connexion without denying the responsibility, as the current English version and is far away from talking of a "deep involvment" in the "murderous stage". Pluto2012 (talk) 16:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Without wishing to get too involved, auslösen can be translated as "set off", "trigger" or "produce" (an effect etc.) There really isn't much difference between them. Rumiton (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Kierzek cited Kershaw:"as Kershaw states, for example: "How much detail Hitler asked for or was given cannot be known."

* However, Kershaw says: "The striking contrast between Hitler’s deliberate flaunting hints—barbaric, but nevertheless generalized and abstract—of the dire events unfolding in the east and the suppression of hard information about the actual mechanics of mass murder, mirrors the manner in which Hitler, as the driving force behind genocide, even privately combined massive threats against the Jews with a taboo on the details of extermination"

Could we adapt Kershaw words and write in the lead: "Hitler was the driving force behind the genocide"? Ykantor (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

If we start adapting sources where does it stop? Does anyone really want this change but you? See you after Christmas. Britmax (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yours:"Does anyone really want this change but you?" The guideline is not how many support the change but improving the article accuracy , based on the discussed sources. One more source, Kenez: "few historians question Hitler's decisive role in the extermination process". One more proposal:"Hitler's had a decisive role in the extermination process" ?

* Fleming says:"Fleming is successful in uncovering many references to Hitler's interventions in the extermination process"

* There are plenty supports to my proposals or close to them ( the 3 other WP). But where is the support for the present wording?

* to Kierzek: yours:"This is NO need to re-visit the sentence as to the start of World War II in Europe which was agreed at by lengthy consensus". I will appreciate it if you indicate where is this discussion. thanks Ykantor (talk) 08:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have just discovered that Kierzek and Malljaja have preferred a better alternative:"He was at the centre of ... the Holocaust." Although it is still inaccurate (miss his involvement, as the German WP states) It might be an acceptable compromise. Would it be acceptable to write:"Hitler was at the center of the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." ? Ykantor (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ykantor, please do NOT quote me out of context. The discussion you point to was, in the end, as to language and points to make clearer in the body of the article. And at any rate, would be superseded by the later discussion and my agreement to language in: dispute resolution. That is also where you will find the discussion as to Hitler is relation to the start of World War II in Europe. I have made my points on these queries clear and do not plan to keep replying to each and every one of your posts as it just prolongs matters which should die a natural death, at this point in time. There are plenty of other articles to work on, not to mention real life (which will have the majority of my attention the next few days, to say the least). Kierzek (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I for one wouldn't like to put Hitler too much into focus as the main blame bearer for the Holocaust which this wording seems for me to do. Him being a leader of the murderous regime is blame enough; it is also accurate. Putting more blame on him personally takes some blame from the rest of them, even if a little bit (and is also less accurate). They all did, under his leadership. That's fair enough for me. -- About being "driving force", what about the Mufti? What about Ford? (yes Ford, his ideological contribution is undeniable even if he personally did nothing specific... ideas move the masses, you know). Why absolve any of them?

I have other qualms about the recent tweak: I'd much prefer "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for has perpetrated the genocide campaign of targeted mass extermination ...": 1st, "was responsible" is much too passive tense here IMHO, a drunk driver "is responsible" for results of his inadvertent actions, that's not what happened; and 2nd, the word "genocide" is used much too broadly today and is too imprecisely defined. I don't think it is even grammatical to say "genocide of ... millions of people" ("people" here being plural of "man, person"); genocide is perpetrated against whole Peoples, i.e. nations, or ethnicities, by definition. (And if you think that's strange, it just illustrates my point).

I understand the objection to saying that all more than 5.5 million Jews died as targeted victims; of course some died of general war-related causes. But they were all intended by the regime. I still think my wording is the most accurate and objective. Saying they perpetrated the targeted campaign is not saying all 5.5 million died directly because of that campaign. Some died indirectly because of it, too. Any objections? -- WillNess (talk) 22:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither the Mufti nor Henry Ford had any discernible ideological or practical contribution to the Holocaust. We really are straying into really marginal territory here. The real pragmatic contributions were made by members of the SS. Ideological justification was from antisemitic and racial theorists like Rosenberg. But I think your central point is important, that this need to emphasise that "Hitler did it" takes responsibility away from others by turning them into automata. It's a naive need to demonise one person rather than see how a whole system can generate inhumane willingness to be destructive. Paul B (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Concerning:"this need to emphasise that "Hitler did it" takes responsibility away from others by turning them into automata". This is not true. The claim of "merely following orders" was not accepted at Nuremberg Trials.

* Concerning "It's a naive need to demonise one person rather than see how a whole system can generate inhumane willingness to be destructive". Why "rather than" ? why not both ? and why it was fine here until 2011, and some editors here supported it:"He was at the centre of ... the Holocaust." ?

*to Kierzek: I have mentioned your support at that point in time only.

* RICHARD EVANS review of Friedlander:"These people were the victims, Friedländer argues, not of anonymous processes generated in the machinery of Nazi and SS administration, but of one man above all: Adolf Hitler....

**"As the United States committed itself ever more firmly to the Allied side in the summer and fall of 1941, Hitler delivered one tirade after another against the Jewish conspiracy he thought lay behind Roosevelt’s policy. It was at this point that he escalated his persecution of the Jews first to deportation to the East and then to mass murder and total extermination. "...

**"The German defeat by the Red Army at the Battle of Stalingrad in February 1943, blamed by Hitler yet again on the Jews, raised his anti-Semitic fury to fresh heights. The Jews, ... he said in May, as the genocide was reaching its height," Ykantor (talk) 22:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

So you've discovered quotations proving that Hitler was antisemitic. Congratulations. What is the point of this? You are just filling the talk page with verbiage. Argument by attrition is not going to impress anyone. Paul B (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read it and see a correlation of escalated persecution of the Jews and what Hitler perceived as one more Jewish conspiracy step against Germany. Ykantor (talk) 07:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Surely it would be better to rely on the analysis of Hitler's overall role presented in the huge literature on this topic than trying to interpret individual incidents. Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D. Trying to pull information from various sources to advance a point constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS and thus is original research. The current wording reflects the fact that the consensus of most historian is that although Hitler's words and policies instigated and enabled the Holocaust, he didn't personally "lead" this effort. Malljaja (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D and Malljaja. It's not Wikipedia's place to interpret or synthesise but to report what reliable historians say on the topic. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa, Nick-D and Malljaja that the article should report what reliable historians say on the topic. Hence , as discussed, each the following RS words, might be cited here:

***Kershaw 1987- Hitler, as the driving force behind genocide

***Kenez 2013- few historians question Hitler's decisive role in the extermination process"

***fleming 1987- we have seen, however, that he [Hitler] kept constantly informed of the extermination process and made ad hoc interventions in it

***Longerich (Irving trial)- In the period 1942-1945 we have numerous further statements by Hitler that show that he continuously intervened in "anti-Jewish policy" and tried to push it forward in the sense of a radical "solution

***Longerich (Irving trial)- he was deeply involved in the anti-Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage

* It seems that the discussion is stuck, and I have to consider a wp:drn. Ykantor (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In spite of nearly a month of talk page posts and thousands of word posted, you have failed to convince any of the other interested editors that the wording needs to be changed. You are the only one in favour of changing the wording, and consensus is against you. It's time to face the fact that you've lost the debate. Please drop the stick and consider finding a more productive way of contributing to the encyclopedia. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Prior to a DRN, I have re-read the section and tried to summarize the claims:

• Kierzek - He knew but was not the main and only "executioner"...the entire regime was involved

  *Britmax - The quotes you give...but cannot establish his sole position,

  *mine- Agreed but does not refer to the proposal.

• Malljaja - Hitler kept the issue of how to deal with the "Jewish question" at arm's length

  *Dianna -Hitler made the overall policy, but other people directed and executed the genocide

  *Mine- does not agree, in a sense that Hitler contribution was more than "just" setting the policy.

• Alex2006 - Hitler has not led the holocaust...Why not "Hitler inspired..."?

  *Mine - He intervened, not only inspired.

• Each of the following proposals is fine for me:
  • Nick-D - there's consensus among historians that Hitler ... ordered and oversaw the Holocaust from 1941
  • The Anome -Perhaps "originated, oversaw and directed" might be the best way
  • The German Wikipedia lead- Hitler authorized the main steps of the murder of the Jews , and was informed about the course
  • Kershaw 1987- Hitler, as the driving force behind genocide
  • Kenez 2013- few historians question Hitler's decisive role in the extermination process"
  • fleming 1987- we have seen, however, that he [Hitler] kept constantly informed of the extermination process and made ad hoc interventions in it
  • Longerich (Irving trial)- In the period 1942-1945 we have numerous further statements by Hitler that show that he continuously intervened in "anti-Jewish policy" and tried to push it forward in the sense of a radical "solution
  • Longerich (Irving trial)- he was deeply involved in the anti-Jewish policy during the war, particularly when it reached a murderous stage. Ykantor (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Kershaw 2001 ch. 10 VII, ...Hitler’s role. This had often been indirect, rather than overt. It had consisted of authorizing more than directing. .... Nevertheless, there can be no doubt about it: Hitler’s role had been decisive and indispensable in the road to the ‘Final Solution’. Ykantor (talk) 19:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Presenting other editors' views by grabbing a single sentence (or part of a sentence) of what they've written as part of a lengthy discussion is generally not a good idea, and in this case you've misrepresented my post to make it more favourable to your position by leaving out the second half of the sentence you've quoted and ignoring its final sentence in which I explicitly disagreed with your position. More generally, the point raised in an unsigned post below my original post that "The lead must remain neutral in front of the debate: Functionalism versus intentionalism" seems highly sensible given that historians' interpretations of Hitler's role in the conduct of the Holocaust differ: you seem to favour taking one side of this argument, as shown by the fact that you've been compiling only sources which support it rather than attempting to determine the weight of differing interpretations. This isn't good editing practice, and is a disservice to our readers. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, before you waste more time by starting a DRN post, I'd suggest that you ask for additional input on the relevant Wikiproject talk pages and the like. DRN is a rather tiresome process which is not likely to deliver any results. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

If you do not like your sentence usage, please feel free to delete it from my post. Anyway, I have re-read your 8 December post, and I agree to every word there. Your post final sentence is:"though some stronger wording for the lead which makes it clear that Hitler ordered the killings would make things clearer." and Kierzek responded with:"Nick-D, what wording tweak might you be considering?".

** I do not favor any sides mentioned in Functionalism versus intentionalism article. The proposal is not related to the question whether there was a master plan or alternatively that the pressure came from below. (to be continued) Ykantor (talk) 23:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yours:"you've been compiling only sources which support it". The extent of Hitler involvement (limited or general) and the question whether there was a master plan are debated, but since each the next section quotes, provides a case in which Hitler was directly involved, ( e.g. The Hungarian Jews, Rome Jews etc) than one can not claim that he was not involved at all, other than being familiar with the details. Kershaw, who developed a synthesis of the functionalist and intentionalist views says: "It had consisted of authorizing more than directing" (see more above), but authorizing means taking a decision, which is involvment. Ykantor (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Concerning additional input on the relevant Wikiproject talk pages, I have looked at:

* Category:Holocaust perpetrators

* Category:Nazi leaders

* Category:World War II political leaders

* Category:Adolf Hitler

and their talk pages seem to be abandoned. I still hope that the wp:drn (or similar) may be beneficial, especially since there are no personal tensions. Ykantor (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Those are categories, not projects. There is a list of relevant Wikiprojects at the top of this page. I note that you're still quoting me selectively. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yehuda Bauer: "Hitler was the decisive factor, though by no means the only one, and he was not the weak dictator that some historians have posited. He was directly involved. He pointed out the direction in which he wanted things to develop" written on 19:32, 8 January 2014 by ykantor

Saul Friedlander states that "a man above all: Hitler" started the process and that it was not "generated in the machinery of Nazi and SS administration". That is quite normal he argues in that direction, given he is an "intentionalist".

The opposite quotes can be found as well :

• Christopher Browning, The Path to Genocide: Essays on Launching the Final Solution, Cambridge University Press, 1995, p.87 writes :

"Martin Broszat and Hans Mommsen, however argued that [the mass murder] occured without any specific and comprehensive Hitler decision or order. The system's automatic mechanisms for 'cumulative radicalization' more than Hitler's ideology and leadership explained the origin of the Final Solution"

• Christopher Browning, La décision concernant la solution finale from Colloque de l.Ecole des Hautes Etudes en sciences sociales, L'Allemagne nazie et le génocide juif, Gallimard-Le Seuil, Paris1985, page 19 writes :

First the ideological and political pressure for the creation of a Jew-free Europe that stemmed from Hitler and then the military reverses on the eastern front that led to stoppages in railway traffic and caused the buffer zones into which the Jews were to be removed to disappear. Once the annihilation program was in progress, it gradually institutionalized itself until it was noticed that it offered the simplest solution logistically and became a program universally applied and single-mindedly pursued. From this standpoint, Hitler was a catalyst but not a decision-maker."

• Gerald Fleming, Hitler and the Final Solution, University of California Press, 1987, p.II writes :

"It may be tempting to state that each approach has its merits and to seek an synthesis between the two positions. In fact, functionalism, which stresses the dynamics of a system instead of a central role of a leader, fits better in many ways within the mainstream of modern historiography. The image it offers of Nazism is more 'normal', easier to explain: any group can stumble hapharzadly, from step to step, into the most extreme criminal behavior. Responsibility remains obviously; but it is more deluted, more nebulous, because of the very automatism of the process, its outcome unforseeable, and because of the absence of real premeditation as well. Intentionalism at the other hand asserts that the course of action was in some way planned. This latter view gives Hitler a predominant role, but it also implies much greater awareness at various level; whereas functionalism pushed to its logical conclusion, gets very close to denying that Hitler had accurate knowledge of the Final Solution. It leaves most of the operation to subordinates agencies - in a nutshell, to police terror."

...

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to point this out at this stage after this very long argument has run and run, but while many of the posts above use historians to point out different viewpoints, there seems to be little indication to the reader of the article that there is in fact disagreement about the nature of Hitler's leadership within the historical literature; how exactly he is tied to the millions of deaths of Jews and others in the 1940s is still a matter of debate. Surely a sub-text of your arguments is in fact that professional historians have not reached a consensus about the matter. Wikipedia can only indicate what is agreed about and indicate where there is a lack of consensus. How are you ever going to agree when the "experts" don't?

I think there should be a paragraph, or perhaps a section on the page which can discuss this problem. The reader should be able to go and make up their own mind. Clearly he is responsible, but there is a lack of agreement about the mechanics involved within the Nazi hierarchy. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources- Hitler led the systematic extermination of ...

The lead sentence is:"resulted in the deaths of at least 5.5 million Jews".

I propose to replace it with:" Hitler led the systematic extermination of ..."  ?"

Sources for "Hitler led"

• Gotz Aly interpretation,according to Kershaw, is that Hitler's role, was confined to decisions as an arbiter between competing Nazi leaders whose own schemes to deal with the "Jewish question" had created insoluble problems. Hence even according to a functionalist, Hitler was making decisions and was involved in the holocaust advance. Ykantor (talk) 21:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Kershaw says:(p. 38) "Hitler's authority - most probably given as verbal consent to propositions usually put to him by Himmler - stood behind every decision of magnitude and significance...(p. 39) Hitler continued to be closely involved in the " Final Solution. " (p. 40)...In the wake of the German military ...catastrophe at Stalingrad, Hitler took a direct hand in trying to persuade them to be more cooperative. ... he pressed his Romanian and Hungarian allies to sharpen the persecution...(p. 42)... Hitler's role in the " Final Solution. " This role had often been indirect, rather than overt, frequently granting approval rather than initiating. The unparalleled outpourings of hatred were a constant amid the policy shifts. They often had a propaganda or mobilizing motive, and usually remained generalized. Even so, there cannot be the slightest doubt: Hitler's role was decisive and indispensable to the unfolding of the " Final Solution" Ykantor (talk) 21:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Richard Evans reviewing "Bloodlands: Europe between Hitler and Stalin" by Timothy Snyder : "Initially, Snyder argues, they were killed as useless consumers of much needed foodstuffs. But once Barbarossa got into difficulties a month after the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22 June 1941, Hitler began to see the mass murder of the Jews as an end in itself, an act of revenge against an imagined Jewish world conspiracy. At this point, Himmler’s SS task forces began shooting Jewish women and children as well as Jewish men; and as German forces suffered their first serious reverses in the East in December, Hitler went over to an unrestrained policy of annihilation, resulting in the creation of the death camps and the murder of virtually the entire Jewish population of the ‘bloodlands’."
• March 1941:" In a speech to German military leaders in March 1941 during the planning for Operation Barbarosa, Hitler had explained that the upcoming campaign in the Soviet Union would be different than all others, that a war of extermination was at hand, and that Russia was to be cleared of all racial groups that were not Aryan. The slaughter of Jews would be complemented with the policy of allowing the hundreds of thousands of Russian prisoners of war taken in the early part of the campaign to die of starvation, neglect, and disease " source: UNITED STATES CRYPTOLOGIC HISTORY , Eavesdropping on Hell: , Historical Guide to Western , Communications Intelligence , and the Holocaust, 1939-1945 , Robert J. Hanyok , CENTER FOR CRYPTOLOGIC HISTORY , NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY , 2005 , Second Edition.

• The summer of 1941: For example, in Breslau (Wroclaw). the capital of Silesia, the Jews were first evicted from their apartments in the summer of 1941 and at that time sent to remote corners of the Reich,(26) for Hitler had still not agreed to banish them altogether.
• 1 December 1941: In his table talk on the night of the 1 December 1941, Hitler declared: 'Many Jews had also not been conscious of the destructive character of their existence. But he who destroys life risks death himself, and nothing else but that is happening to them.'45 Irving v. Lipstadt trial Evidence for the Implementation of the Final Solution: Electronic Edition, by Browning, Christopher R.
• 18 Dec 1941: A note handwritten by Himmler referring to a meeting just held with Hitler says: 'Jewish question - exterminate as partisans.(the Guardian)
• On 19 December 1941, Wilhelm Stuckart, State Secretary at the Interior Ministry, told one of his officials: "The proceedings against the evacuated Jews are based on a decision from the highest authority. You must come to terms with it."
• On Dec 1941 Hitler addressed a meeting of Gauleiters. Goebbels wrote in his diary afterward: With regard to the Jewish Question, the Führer is determined to make a clean sweep of it.Kershaw, Hitler, II, p 490. I have not verified yet this source of Joseph Goebbels article yet. One more ref:
• "Hitler would sometimes slow down that radicalisation of the anti-Jewish policy which he himself had decisively accelerated; he did this when it came into conflict with other elements of his policy. Thus in the fall of 1939 he stopped the Nisko project and in the spring of 1941 he stopped the further deportations into the Generalgouvernement because they interfered with military campaigns. However, these measures to halt the persecutions were invariably introduced as tactical manoeuvres and were of a provisional nature; they must be seen in the general context of the policy of extermination which was decisively determined by Hitler. " Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial
• on 24 July 1942 "Hitler's statements ... to deceive his listeners; for example, his remarks at his dinner table on 24 July 1942, when he tried to make his listeners ... believe that the "Führer" had nothing to do with the rumoured murder of the Jews:

  After the end of the war, he will rigorously take the standpoint that he will smash to pieces city after city if the dirty Jews don't come out and emigrate to Madagascar or another Jewish national state. [...] When it was reported to him that Lithuania was also free of Jews, that was therefore significant.169

  18.10In fact, the plan to deport Jews to Madagascar (occupied by British troops in May), had been officially abandoned in February 1942; according to the files of the Foreign Office, it was Hitler who had taken this decision.170 The fact that Hitler referred in the same statement to the fact that Lithuania had been made "free of Jews" (in fact the vast majority had been murdered, only those forced to work for the Germans had been spared171) gives us a clear idea what the term "emigrate" represented. Longerich report, Irving v. Lipstadt trial

• September 20 to 22, 1942: "What should be done with the Jews, who constituted a substantial portion of the skilled work force of the armament industry in both the Generalgouvernement and the Reich proper? ...Hitler’s decision on the matter was. “The Führer accepts Sauckel’s suggestion that for the present the skilled Jewish workers should remain in the Generalgouvernement. but he stresses the importance of removing the Jews from the armament industry in the Reich.

• At the end of 1942, Hitler himself had authorized ransoming of reach Jews in exchange of large sums of foreign money
• On 17 April 1943 telling Horthy to send the the Hungarian Jews to camps in Poland,
• On September 23, 1943 Ribbentrop submitted to the Fuehrer a memo concerning the danish Jews with question:"Does the Fuehrer want the action against the Jews to be carried out now? ". Ribbentrop handwritten remark: "Must be implemented as ordered"
• on 1943 "Hitler's decision that the Danish and Italian Jews be deported"
• On Oct 1943, concerning the deportation of Rome's Jews "The senior figures in Rome, Moelihausen, Kesselring, and probably also Kappler, had effectively formed a triumvirate to block deportation. Any prospect of a ‘clean’ round-up was fading fast in this entanglement. Hitler’s order cut decisively through the mess and made clear in no uncertain terms that the Jews of Rome were still to be deported and not to be kept in Italy on fortification work". According to Bauer: "in Oct 1943, on Hitler's direct order, the Germans tried to deport all roman Jews...shipping them to Auschwitz on 18 Oct"
• On July 1944, Hitler permitted a proposal to release some Hungarian Jews to the Allies in return for valuable goods.
• On July 13 Veesenmayer reported that Horthy felt himself swamped with petitions to save the Jews, and that he had contacted Hitler directly on the matter. On July 16 Ribbentrop sent Veesenmayer a sharp protest from Hitler to Horthy. Ribbentrop. in Hitler’s name, threatened Horthy that Hungary would be occupied if he tried to change his government or sabotage the continued deportation of the Jews.
• On summer 1944, Hitler himself sought to trap Horthy by suggesting he would permit Hungary to deliver 40,000 Jews to neutral countries as a sop to external opinion, but only on condition...

• Hitler's personal secretary Christa Schroeder has given us her version:

I can categorically affirm that Himmler meticulously informed Hitler about the events in the concentration camps. He regarded all the atrocities as measures necessary to maintain his regime. But here as in all other areas he was very concerned about his good reputation. He thought it unbearable that his name be brought into connection with the actions in the camps that flew in the face of all humanity. For this reason he played his most hypocritical role exactly here and abused the good faith of his numberless adherents. [...] One day Himmler was confronted by a few generals about the atrocities committed in Poland. To my surprise Himmler defended himself with the assurance that he was only carrying out the 'Führer's' orders. But he immediately added: 'The Führer's person may on no account be brought into connection with this. I take on full responsibility.'304 Irving v. Lipstadt trial David Irving, Hitler and Holocaust Denial: Electronic Edition, by Richard J. Evans

Sources for the systematic extermination

Hitler led the systematic extermination of ...

"The use of the term ‘Holocaust’ was ultimately a secondary issue. However it was labelled, there was wide agreement among historians that there was a systematic attempt undertaken by the Nazi regime in Germany between 1941 and 1945 to kill all the Jews of Europe, and that it succeeded to the extent of murdering between 5 and 6 million of them in a variety of ways, including mass gassings in camps specially constructed for the purpose"

Please keep discussing in the previous section. I would like to keep this section for sources only, and plan to add more sources.

the "Final solution" and the Lebensraum

The Holocaust section opening sentence is:"The Holocaust and Germany's war in the East was based on Hitler's long-standing view that the Jews were the great enemy of the German people and that Lebensraum was needed for the expansion of Germany.". The statement is not sourced and I wonder if there is a dependency between the "Final solution" and the Lebensraum - the expansion to the east ? Hitler wanted to get rid of the locals (Slavs and Jews) in order to obtain the needed living space, but it does not necessarily means killing the west European Jews. Hypothetically, if he would not attack the Soviets, it could have mean no Holocaust ? I doubt it. Speer said that actually Hitler was rather pragmatic except of his ideas concerning the Jews.

Could this sentence be split into 2 sentences i.e one for the Holocaust and the other for the expansion? Ykantor (talk) 13:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Photograph dispute

There seems to be an ongoing dispute about the main photograph. So it seems it's time to discuss the two competing images. I've looked at the newer image (the current shot of Hitler facing the camera) a few times now, and I have to say that it hasn't grown on me—it's a very poor attempt at a portrait, with half of his face cast in shadow, and it seems to have been taken when he was in ill health (he looks as if buried and then dug up again). That's not to say that the original image is of great quality, but in my view it's preferable to the more recent one. Any thoughts? Malljaja (talk) 02:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

• 
  Option 1
• 
  Option 2

To help this discussion I've posted the two options above. I prefer the one I've labelled Option 1 on pretty much the grounds Malljaja does: the face-on composition in Option 2 isn't very good, especially as half of the face is in shadow. I also don't like the somewhat "heroic"/bombastic nature of the attempted composition: we shouldn't be using a blatantly propaganda image of Hitler such as this attempt to cast him as a Nazi superman. Option 1's composition is superior (a more relaxed pose, but still showing the subject as a puffed up jerk to modern eyes), and the image quality is much better. Nick-D (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Neither one is ideal. I do agree this slow revert war of the main photo should come to a close. I would have to agree with Malljaja and Nick-D as to "option 1" being less of a propaganda pose. Kierzek (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Better option 1. Alex2006 (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Malljaja said:"he looks as if buried and then dug up again". Sure. That is the reason for his terrible bad breath. Ykantor (talk) 06:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Image quality of Option 1 is higher. It is a better choice than option 2. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:52, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I like option 1; it shows him in uniform and his face is not as shadowy. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler in 1937
(Option 3)

Those 2 photos presents a respectful leader. The proposed image, reflect some toughness , which is more suitable. It is already used in some Wikipedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ykantor (talk • contribs) 21:07, December 13, 2013

This is also a good image; I have tagged it as Option 3. My rankings are (in order of preference): Option 1, option 3, option 2. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

My preferences are the same as Dianaa's—1, 3, and 2. Malljaja (talk) 03:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Option 1 presents a realistic image of what the man might have looked like at the time; neither a god nor a demon, but a rather ordinary-looking man in an overdone military uniform. The ordinariness of his appearance is one of the shocking things about him; that this unimpressive-looking man whipped one of the most civilized nations in the world up into a barbaric killing frenzy. -- The Anome (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

@The Anome, where do you come from with the view that his appearance was not very impressive? From many accounts Hitler's appeal was very appealing especially his "blue eyes" and he had a hypnotic effect on people, I am not saying he was a god or a demon but apart from at the very last stages of the war he was actually very impressive to both females and males. Alfons Heck on a brief description of a Hitler speech said "We erupted into a frenzy of nationalistic pride that bordered on hysteria. For minutes on end, we shouted at the top of our lungs, with tears streaming down our faces: Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil, Sieg Heil! From that moment on, I belonged to Adolf Hitler body and soul." A documentary a while back called Fatal Attraction of Adolf Hitler which can be viewed on youtube here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cCRN1flMOk at the start one says "when I came face to face with Hitler I felt I had came face to face with god".--Windows66 (talk) 14:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Support option 1. As per the comments above; Option 1 shows more of his face and is a higher quality and therefore should be used as the main photo readers will see. The others have their own merit, and could be used later in the article, but don't really show as clearly what he looked like. This surely is the point of having a photo? I think other considerations are largely irrelevant in this particular instance (readers can make up their own mind about his character from the Lede and the rest of the article). Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Option 1 - So far, Major Bloodnok has made the most pertinent argument and I agree with it. Option 1 shows more of the subject's face and is of highest quality. Doesn't matter if it's Adolf Hitler or Kermit the Frog, the requirements for the main photo of a bio are the same. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 23:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2014

i`m black Drugdealer78 (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

So. Answered malformed request.—John Cline (talk) 12:32, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

intro

In the intro there is a small typo centre should be center — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgjacobs353 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's correctly spelt in UK English. HiLo48 (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What did Hitler actually think of the Aufbau Vereinigung ?

"A critical influence on his thinking during this period was the Aufbau Vereinigung,[102] a conspiratorial group of White Russian exiles and early National Socialists. The group, financed with funds channelled from wealthy industrialists like Henry Ford, introduced Hitler to the idea of a Jewish conspiracy, linking international finance with Bolshevism." This is vague : "critical influence" needs to be expanded on in what way it was an influence. Was Hitler pro or anti and why - Aufbau was apparently far right and National Socialist too. "...idea of a Jewish conspiracy..." : did Hitler think Aufbau was some sort of Jewish conspiracy, funded by foreigners ? If not, in what way did it introduce him to such theories ? More detail is needed to remove potential ambiguities in the text. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This stuff came from Kellogg (2005). The Russian Roots of Nazism: White Émigrés and the Making of National Socialism, 1917-1945. Does anybody have access to that book? I can get it on inter-library loan, but it will take up to eight weeks. Alternatively, we could replace this with material on the influence of Karl Haushofer, who was Hess's geopolitics professor and a proponent of the concept of Lebensraum. - Diannaa (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on the Aufbau Vereinigung. I have access to the book. I don't think there's much doubt that Scheubner-Richter and Rosenberg were huge influences on the early Hitler. The OP seems to think the phrasing is confusing, as if it's not clear whether Hitler was "pro or anti" the views of the society. I don't find it ambiguous myself. It's pretty clearly saying that the Society was proto-Nazi, not that it was itself a "Jewish" conspiracy. There has been a tendency to overstate the influence of such groups, especially the more mystical ones like the Thule society with which Rosenberg was also linked, but in this case it seems clear that the Society was an early model for Nazi ideology. It was much more explicitly political than the esotericist Nordic-pagan ones. I think the inclusion of Ford is pretty gratuitous. He's mentioned a couple of times in the book, but that's all - mainly as a financial supporter of Cyril Vladimirovich, Grand Duke of Russia, whose Royalist faction was obliquely connected to other anti-Soviet emigre groups. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is with imprecise word usage : "influence on" is vague and merely implies that some idea had some effect on some other idea. It needs to be expanded to say in what way - positively, negatively, major or minor influence, intellectually or emotionally etc. My views can be influenced both by those I agree and disagree with. The mention of Ford indeed potentially confused the issue : a foreign financial supporter juxtaposed with mention of "Jewish conspiracy, funded by foreigners". Rcbutcher (talk) 05:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree the mention of Ford should come out. It's coat-racking negative information about Ford into this article, where it is off-topic. And if it's not well covered in the quoted source, that's another justification for removal of the content. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I agree with you and Diannaa that the Ford mention should be removed. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Censorship?

Just recently I found out it's virtually prohibited to even mention the name(!) of Haj Amin al-Husseini in the article, even though he cooperated and had a strong relationship with Hitler (see his article). Now User:Diannaa reverted me again when I cited a sentence using a source by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Diannaa's reason was "This already has two citations; that's plenty". Since edit warring isn't war me, please find my a policy based quote that says there can't be more than two sources for citation in one place (which there already is in the article.) The two existing sources aren't accessible since they are links to books and so I wanted to add that one as well. -Shalom11111 (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Raising a suggestion and not having it endorsed by other editors does not mean that the topic is somehow "prohibited": there was a consensus to not cover Hitler's meeting with the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem in the article on the grounds that it is not considered a significant relationship by Hitler's biographers (no biographical sources were ever provided to support the contention that this was an important relationship in Hitler's life, which is the subject of this article). You had your recent edit removed because it was unnecessary: Toland and Kershaw's books are among the leading sources on Hitler and are easily accessible for most readers, and citing more sources than necessary is bad practice (it confuses readers over what the source of the statement was, and over-referenced statements can look dubious: the essay WP:OVERCITE explains the general attitude to over-referencing). Claiming that such routine discussions and editing somehow amounts to "censorship" is ridiculous. Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D you are correct. The USHMM website is a lower quality source, and we don't need three citations - it's overkill. No offense was intended, -- Diannaa (talk) 02:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Klara was a devout Roman Catholic and attended church regularly with her children.[5] Of her six children with Alois, only Adolf and Paula survived childhood.

Why are you running away from the fact that Adolph Hitler's early consciousness, good or bad, was in formed by Roman Catholicism???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klara_Polzl#cite_note-5

Not sure what you mean. Are you aware that there is a whole article on Hitler's religious views, and that if you can find reliable sources you can add to it? Britmax (talk) 12:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Mental Health

I find it strange that there is no real discussion of Hitler's mental health, even though he has always been described as mad. Yet there is a separate article on his sexuality.--Jack Upland (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's a commonly-held view among historians at all: it's generally agreed that Hitler behaved irrationally at times and made some spectacularly bad decisions, but this is generally not attributed to his mental state. Can you suggest any sources which discuss this topic? Nick-D (talk) 11:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not the point of view of main line historians and is frankly an oversimplification. Kierzek (talk) 13:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

To add to Nick's and Kierzek's comments, Hitler never underwent a formal medical evaluation of his mental health. So, any discussion of this topic, even by experts in the field, comes with the caveat that it would rely on heavy speculation, not fact. This is probably the reason why qualified historians usually do not discuss his mental health or state much or at all. Malljaja (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that most historians viewed him as mad, but that it is a popular perception. I wasn't advocating that the article should state any position. More broadly there is very little about his psychology, personality, mental abilities, and private life. And yet, as I said there is a whole article on his sexuality.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Is Hitler a slave owner?

Should Category:Slave owner be added? CensoredScribe (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• No. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• No. Kierzek (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Moot, but No. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• No, definitely not. Do you have a source that says he was? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• No, but it would be easy enough to make a sourced case that he was. After all, Hitler was the supreme authority of the Reich, ownership is the legal authority to control, the Reich owned slaves, which Hitler therefore had the legal authority to control. There's even this, but it's obviously synthesis to make the claim, so for Wikipedian purposes, the answer is no.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• No, unless clearly and directly referenced to an exceptionally reliable established source. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No cites in the intro?

For example... "Hitler's aggressive foreign policy is considered to be the primary cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe." Doesn't this deserve one of those superscript "By whom?" Maybe its wikipedias style not to put citations in these long intros but if that's the case it's strange.... why allow paragraphs and paragraphs of substantive info and sometimes contentious assertions without any sources? I would say it wasn't Hitler's aggressive foreign policy, it was due to the terrible conditions in the Treaty of Versailles and the general lack of closure at the end of WWI in finding a way to reintegrate the losers into global politics. The Allies learned from their WWI mistakes - look at the huge transformations of Japan and Germany post-WW2. Both became economic powers quite quickly considering how recently WW2 had ended. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.21.183 (talk) 04:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Cites are rarely placed in the WP:LEAD of an article. The lead is a summary of the article contents. Cites are placed in the articles where needed to support statements made. That is what was done in this article. Further, it does not matter what we believe (see WP:OR) but what the historical facts/supported opinions of the historians and WP:RS sources state. That is what is presented herein. Kierzek (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Reader feedback: hitlers views on india are not given.

117.196.13.15 posted this comment on 9 February 2014 (view all feedback).

hitlers views on india are not given.

Any thoughts?

Obenritter (talk) 04:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC) For more on Hitler's worldview (particularly that regarding India), there are numerous biographies available. The most famous of them are from Alan Bullock, John Toland, Ian Kershaw, and Joachim Fest. India was seen as a subjugated possession of the British Empire and was an example of how Hitler wanted to rule others. Of course, his worldview included extermination of racial others and slave labor so that would not have been good for India. For another look into Hitler and the Nazi regime's understanding of the world, see either of the following:

1) Jackel, Eberhard, and Herbert Arnold. Hitler's World View: A Blueprint for Power. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1981.

2) Smith, Woodruff D. Ideological Origins of Nazi Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Hope this helps.

I don't think Hitler's views on India are of great significance. Of course "Aryan" identity is important in India, so I can understand why an Indian might think Hitler viewed the country as special, but I know of no evidence that he did. The more avowedly "Aryanist" leaders of the Nazis were different. Himmler supposedly carried a copy of the Bhagavad Gita and Rosenberg wrote about India (in less than flattering terms). But in geopolitical terms Hitler had no designs on India. He would have been content to let the British keep it if they'd agreed to peace in 1940. After '41, it would have been part of the Japanese sphere of influence. Paul B (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Paul has stated correctly here...India does not figure much in Hitler's planning aside from hoping that British concern about the Raj and their dominance there would distract them, making his work in Europe easier. These are the only mentions that William Shirer really notes in his tome The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Nowhere in Joachim Fest's massive work on Hitler does he mention India whatsoever. The mentions of India in Mein Kampf are also directly related to English hegemony there. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, "England will never lose India unless she admits racial disruption in the machinery of her administration (which at present is entirely out of the question in India) or unless she is overcome by the sword of some powerful enemy." Hilter also states, "I as a German would far rather see India under British domination than under that of any other nation."

Another revealing comment from Hitler is this remark: "What India is for England, the eastern territory will be for us."

Hitler also expressed admiration for the way a small contingency of Brits were able to rule and subjugate such a large number of Indians and hoped to emulate this model in Russia. In fact, he marveled at the British efficiency and attributed their success to the dominance of their race and force of personality.

On one occasion during negotiations with the British, Hitler told Lord Halifax that the way to take care of the protests in India was to shoot Ghandi and a large portion of his followers.

Hopefully this gives you a little insight. What Paul told you above is right on the mark based on my knowledge as well.--Obenritter (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Notes

References

• Jochmann, Werner. Adolf Hitler. Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941-1944. Hamburg: Albrecht Knaus Verlag, 1980.
• Kershaw, Ian. Hitler: 1936-1945, Nemesis. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001.
• Weinberg, Gerhard L. Hitler’s Foreign Policy 1933-1939: The Road to World War II. New York: Enigma Books, 2005. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obenritter (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Order of first three sentences

I'd like to change the order of the first three sentences (ABC -> ACB).

Reasoning: Embedded versions of Wiki articles mostoften use the first two sentences (omitting the brackets) to display the most important parts about the topic.

The current "Hitler"-google search reads:

"Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945."

If my proposal was not being reverted, it would be this way:

"Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust."

In my opinion the second one has more important information. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You might get this change if you don't try to smuggle the "at the centre" wording in with it. Otherwise, I don't think so. Britmax (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"At the centre" was already part of the last sentence. I don't want to smuggle anything into it. All I want is to change the order, so the most important part about him is mentioned in short, embedded wiki articles.

What might work as well, although I am not entirely sure: Replacing the "." between the first two sentences might trick the embedding algorithm into using the third sentence as well.

"Otherwise, I don't think so." regarding what? Hitler's involvement in WW2 & Holocaust being more important than the title he gave himself? --RicardAnufriev (talk) 18:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It means you invited comparison between three sentences while only quoting two of them, and that although I am sometimes wrong I do not believe that you will obtain consensus for these changes. Britmax (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be confused.

If I quote sentences "AB" and "AC", then I have quoted sentences "A", "B" and "C". The amount of those elements is 3 (three): 1 + 1 + 1 = 3 (one plus one plus one equals three)

If you have further questions regarding basic Addition, please read the article.

This begs the question wether the other part of my question was understood: Does anyone understand what I mean with "Short, embedded wiki articles (e.g. Google Search)"? If yes, isn't it desirable to include the most important parts about the subject into those? (Which, in my opinion, is WW2, Holocaust and Nazis, not his titles)

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that Google does not take the first two sentences as their "little blurb". Currently one sentence is showing which states: "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party as well as chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945." Therefore, the text that Google displays is not based on sentence count but on word count, as well. Further, the lead is a summary of ordered content and points of the sections of the article. What is stated are not just "titles" but the order of his life; rise to power and control. Kierzek (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It should be the two-sentences-version. (I reverted my edit some days ago and Google seems to update their cache after 12-24 hours)

Do you use non-English Google?

I wonder if the auto-update is different based on region.

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The Google blurb now reads "Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party. He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945" which is a paraphrase of the first two sentences of our article. Obviously there's been some human intervention, with the folks at Google eliminating some of our content to meet their own needs. I don't agree with tweeking our opening paragraph in a (probably futile) attempt to get the Google blurb to read a certain way. Better to leave the material in the order it is, as this best meets the needs of this website imo. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is no human intervention.

The algorithm, based on my experiments (might be wrong, not sure), works as follows:

- Every so often (12-24 hours?) check for content-change (which was automatically saved)

- Take plain text (no HTML, links or formating)

- Remove brackets and their content.

- Cut off text at some point (between 100 and 179 characters. 160 as in Twitter? dunno)

- Complete the sentence in which the cut occured.

- Add data from the most basic template (in this case person, thus: birth, death, etc.)

------

Why I think it would be cool to make those changes (not only Hitler article):

Definition apps, which give a short description of entities (e.g. Siri's definitions, Google queries, Android apps) come from some database. Improving wiki articles increases the information gain for many users and raise Wikipedia's usability in this regard. Spreading high-quality information + increasing Wikipedia's usefulness = winwin

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ricard. Though I must say I prefer "was central to" rather than "at the centre of". Hitler's main impact on the world was through the world war and holocaust - not from being the leader of the Nazi party. Hence, I believe a change would be good. The first paragraph was worse a while back - there used to be nothing derogatory about Hitler until the third paragraph. Made him out to be a saint. Andrewthomas10 (talk) 09:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Present first paragraph:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); National Socialist German Workers Party). He was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945. Hitler was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust.

Proposed first paragraph:

Adolf Hitler (German: [ˈadɔlf ˈhɪtlɐ] ( listen); 20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the Nazi Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP); National Socialist German Workers Party). He was at the centre of Nazi Germany, World War II in Europe, and the Holocaust. Hitler was chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945 and dictator of Nazi Germany (as Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945.

Or alternatively "at the centre of" becomes "central to". Does anyone have strong objections to the change in sentence order? -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I can agree to your proposed changes, Diannaa, although I don't believe there is really a need for it. I would keep "at the centre of" because he was the center of the wheel in which Nazi Germany revolved. Kierzek (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It doesn't really work, does it. Maybe just leave it? Andrewthomas10 (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree the present version works better, but I don't have a strong opinion either way. Let's just leave the matter open for a while and see if anyone else comments. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jews and other people

"Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior."

Why the random emphasis on Jews?

Based on quantity more Slavs were killed as part of the genocide. (Even if you subtract military deaths and famine victims)

Just because there are more popular Hollywood movies about Jews during the Holocaust does not make it more important. The whole "Lebensraum" and "Generalplan Ost" concepts were the major reasons to invade and exterminate Slavs in the east of Germany. It was a planned genocide, bigger in scale and scope than the Holocaust. --RicardAnufriev (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not "random", but intentional and for good reason. We have been through all this before. The last time was in Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 55. There are several threads there as to what you ask. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing a page with a bit more than 20000 words worth of discussion, but due to time constraints, please, tell me which part might be relevant...

Do you mean the uber long discussion which mentions "Slavic", but is about Hitler's direct involvement regarding the Holocaust? (which is not what I was talking about)

Or do you mean the post, which mentions "Slavs", which theorizes wether the Holocaust would have happened in the west if etc. etc.?

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

A Jewish life is more valuable, thats why a non-Jewish life is just a simple nameless "other". Seriously though, it does sound offensive the way it is worded now. MANY groups were treated poorly, and MANY such as Gypsies were going to be sent to the ovens to. A Jew is not more important than a Gypsy or a Slav. 107.222.205.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

The Jews were uniquely targeted for extermination. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a vast list of reading material about Hitler. Anyone wishing to update, improve, or expand the article is likely to find their answers there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Random"? Don't be absurd. Anti-Jewish legislation was passed as soon as the Nazis came to power, and persecution increased from that point on. Hitler was obsessed by Jews. He wasn't obsessed by Slavs. They were, rather, just in the way. I don't know where you get your numbers from to support the claim that "more Slavs were killed as part of the genocide. (Even if you subtract military deaths and famine victims)". But that would be a debate for the Holocaust page. Certainly projected deaths of Slavs per "Generalplan Ost", would, in the end, have far outnumbered those of Jews, but they never got to implement it. Paul B (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"Anti-Jewish legislation was passed as soon as the Nazis came to power, and persecution increased from that point on."

So? As did legislations and persecutions against political opponents, homosexuals and all the other "life unworthy of life".

"Hitler was obsessed by Jews. He wasn't obsessed by Slavs. They were, rather, just in the way."

Where do you get this information from?

He planned to exterminate the majority of them and his troops were executing those plans. (read about e.g. Belarus in WW2)

"I don't know where you get your numbers"

Please refer to the sources of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties#Total_deaths

(and the proportion of ethnics in those countries) --RicardAnufriev (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Many countries had legislation against homosexuals, including Britain and the USA. Nazi legislation was, in fact, quite similar. There was never any plan to murder homosexuals.They weren't even deprived of citizenship rights, as Jews were from the beginning. That has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of "life unworthy of life", and neither does the internment of political opponents, which, of course, is typical of repressive regimes everywhere. The treatment of Jews is very specific to Nazism, and we all know this. What he planned to do in the East and what he did do are wholly different things. Plans change for all sorts of reasons. We can't know what would have happened in fact. Please read the article you link to more carefully. You will see that it does not support what you claim. Paul B (talk) 22:27, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

"There was never any plan to murder homosexuals."

So it was just an accident? When homosexuals were sent to concentration camps forced into labor and starved to death ("Extermination through labor") it was not intentional?

"The treatment of Jews is very specific to Nazism, and we all know this."

We know this? What I know is this:

MANY groups of people were treated as bad as jews. That's why I wonder why it talks about "jews and other people".

So, why does it?

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Instead of ranting, why don't you actually look at the articles and the evidence. The great majority of homosexuals were sent to ordinary prisons with time-limited sentences, as in the UK and US at the time. It is increasingly obvious that you know next to nothing about Nazi Germany. It's simply false to say that many groups were treated as badly as Jews. The only group that's at all comparable is gypsies, and in that case the numbers were a lot lower and the decisions much more ad hoc. Paul B (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"The great majority of homosexuals were sent to ordinary prisons with time-limited sentences"

Yes, in the beginning. Maybe you should do the reading instead. Btw. I find it rude, if you accuse me of knowing nothing about the subject and putting my arguments off as "ranting".

"The great majority of homosexuals were sent to ordinary prisons with time-limited sentences, as in the UK and US at the time."

The "great majority" is irrelevant, if "an estimated 5,000 to 15,000 of [homosexuals] sentenced were incarcerated in Nazi concentration camps."

Did the UK and the US do the same?

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

The great majority is entirely relevant, because Jews were not sent to prisons with time-limited sentences for the crime of being Jewish. The main reason why some homosexuals were sent to camps is the simple fact that the prisons were completely full. And in any case you are consistently mixing up concentration camps with death camps, which again demonstrates the primitive level of your knowledge of the subject. Many concentration camps were full of "conventional" criminals. The fact you keep changing your argument without acknowledging the fact is a further indication that you should read up on the subject. I don't say that as an insult. If you really want to contribute to useful debate, and to make helpful suggestions regarding the content of the article, that is the best approach. Otherwise your comments will not be taken seriously and you will be doomed to frustration. Paul B (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Dude. I am talking about X. You _assume_ that I am talking about Y. Then you keep on insulting me based on this assumption.

Here, I quote myself: "When homosexuals were sent to concentration camps forced into labor and starved to death ("Extermination through labor") it was not intentional?"

Where did I write "death camps"?

I wrote that people died because of the Nazis, many, different people.

You don't want to acknowledge this fact. All you care about is 'how to differentiate the Jewish victims from other victims such that only the Jews get the focus of attention? All the other victims were just accidents and not intended. All the other atrocities were no atrocities, just the normal modus operandi.'

But let's stop wasting time and start being productive.

The sentence "Under Hitler's leadership and racially motivated ideology, the regime was responsible for the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews, and millions of other people whom he and his followers deemed racially inferior." should either have more specifics (mentioning the victims Jews, Gipsies, Slavs, Blacks, Homosexuals, Communists, Jehova's Witnesses, Free Masons, etc. etc. etc. and motivations "racial", "political", "religious", "territorial", etc. etc., as well as methods "extermination" (by work, hunger, gas, etc.), "sterilization", "experimentation", "ostracizing", etc. etc., etc.) or put everything into one general sentence (e.g. "xy million victims, who were regarded as enemies of the state")

I look forward to a constructive contribution (please no "You don't know jack! Only Jews suffered! Everybody was treated like everywhere else!")

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I care about the truth "dude". I think you are the one who is fixated on Jews, not me. Your absurd list (including "blacks" "freemasons" and "homosexuals") indicates that you have no interest in what serious scholars say about this at all. Nazi Germany was a lot safer than, say, Alabama at the time if you were black. However, no one is saying that only Jews suffered under Nazism. It was an oppressive regime for everyone, though that in itself is far from unique. Jews were subject to a policy of extermination. That's what's distinctive. Paul B (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I should stop believing Wikipedia as it states:

Blacks: "The Nazis originally sought to rid the German state of Jews and Romani by means of emigration, while blacks were to be segregated and eventually exterminated through compulsory sterilization."

Freemasons: Hitler seemed to have believed in Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion, which was one cornerstone of his hate against the Jews. Freemasons were controlled by the Jews (Judeo-Masonic_conspiracy_theory) in his believes. But I must admit, that I have misremembered Freemasons + Holocaust, as it could have been, that non-Jewish Freemasons in concentration camps were imprisoned because of their other politicial believes. Nevertheless Hitler fought Freemasons systematically. Destroying their organization, stealing their assets, watching/prosecuting members, waging propaganda campaigns against the idea of Freemasonry.

Homosexuals: Didn't I cover that already? Thousands in concentration camps, 60% death toll of those, forced human experiments (e.g. Buchenwald) to "cure" homosexuals, etc.? It seems it was in another discussion.

"I think you are the one who is fixated on Jews, not me."

I argue in remembrance of all the victims. You make it sound as if it is something bad...

Maybe you empathise only with Jews because it was a systematic, short-term, physical killing based on race, while the other ones were either "long-term extermination" (Slavs, Blacks), "brainwashing" (e.g. hormonal experiments with Homosexuals), "societal/cultural destruction" (social democrats, communists, freemasons) or "just too few victims to be mentioned" (Roma, Sinti).

What is it?

Although I already know what you will answer: "This is absurd. You know nothing. Read the 'serious scholars' I read, so you understand, how to create some arbitrary distinction, which enables you to ignore all other victims."

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Do remember that this is the article about Hitler. We already have articles about the Holocaust and World War 2. Britmax (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

There was not "long term extermination" of blacks or of Slavs (though there was intended to be one of the latter in certain areas). The statistics you quote are largely made up. What you say about freemasons has next to nothing to do with the Holocaust. There is no point in responding any more to this farrago. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone mind, if I delete this whole discussion? I never intended to sound antisemitic or racist; I just wanted to include the many other victims into that sentence. Someone had enough time on his hands to quote-mine this discussion and slander me. Nothing happened, because I had the opportunity to explain myself. I'd dislike to get a disadvantage if this repeats, but I'm not given an opportunity again.

--RicardAnufriev (talk) 09:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page discussions are not deleted, and this won't make your remarks go away regardless, as the diffs will still be present in the history. The best we can do is to archive the discussion. I will do that later if no one objects. Sorry, -- Diannaa (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014

6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust, in this article, in the 4th paragraph, it claims 5.5. 98.109.222.2 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It currently reads "at least 5.5 million", and in the section on The Holocaust, it reads "5.5 to six million", with references. I'm not sure what the issue is. Anon126 (talk - contribs) 00:46, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler and Mannerheim recording

This article need some information and link to the Hitler and Mannerheim recording article. It's after all a very important and valuable source in the understanding of Hitler, and his reasons for invading the Soviet Union. Since I'm unsure about where exactly to add it, I would appreciate someone else did it. Cheers. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What material are you proposing to include? Given that many other primary sources on Hitler's motivations exist (including verbatim records of his "Table Talk" and various conferences with German officials), I have to say I'm sceptical that this one needs to be highlighted in the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be added to the "See also" section, if need be. Kierzek (talk) 17:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, after I created the article 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony I wanted to add it too, and eventually added "Following the unexpected swift victory, Hitler promoted twelve generals to the rank of field marshal during the 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony."

I'm thinking something similar to that. Jonas Vinther (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the incident is important enough to include in the prose. Maybe add a link in the See Also section. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hitler regarded as an AVATAR in Hindu-Nazi mysticism

Savitri Devi, An admirer of German National Socialism (Nazism), Savitri Devi who authored the book The Impeachment of Man in 1959 was a proponent of Hinduism and Nazism, synthesizing the two, proclaiming Adolf Hitler to have been sent by Providence, much like an avatar of the Hindu god Vishnu. She believed Hitler was a sacrifice for humanity which would lead to the end of the Kali Yuga induced by who she felt were the powers of evil, the Jews. Her writings have influenced neo-Nazism and Nazi occultism. This is the book in which she proclaimed her viewsThe Lightning and the Sun Can this be added in Legacy of Hitler or Views on Hitler. Rim sim (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be included, as it's a fringe view not supported by mainstream historians. --Diannaa (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

She believed that Hilter was Kalki, a fact that has been repeatedly deleted from the Kalki article. Given the Devi has next-to-no followers it's not important here. Paul B (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a mass murder and psychopath

This article should introduce the subject by describing Hitler as "an Austrian-born German mass murderer and psychopath who accomplished the destruction of millions of people of many races, nations and religions through his actions as a politician and leader of the Nazi Party in Germany." Describing Hitler, at the outset of this article, as a politician and leader of a party is to accept the manner in which he deliberately presented himself to history, rather than to describe what he was. There have been countless politicians and party leaders throughout history, but Hitler is singular and unique in the scope and scale of his destructive pathology, including his ability to conceal himself under the guise of a politician and party leader. He is now correctly known primarily as a mass murderer and psychopath, who happened to act as politician or party leader. Those closest to him (Junge, Linge, Dietrich, Speer and others) meticulously describe how he succeeded in concealing his pathologically destructive nature under the forms of a political leader, and how only after his death were they able to see through his meticulously constructed outward form to his true nature. Otto Dietrich, Reich Press Chief, ultimately described Hitler using words like demonic, and his loyal valet Heinz Linge wrote about how he was unable to understand after Hitler's death how Hitler had succeeded while alive in persuading so many, including Linge, to believe irrational notions. This is a rare, perhaps unique, instance in which objectivity and truth are best expressed in language that would be controversial in other contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.128.111 (talk) 01:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering the enormous amount of visitors this article gets every single day, I'd say it would be more professional and Wikipedia-like to keep the intro as it is (where I imagine you'd "reformulated" it). And, Hitler was certainly not the only "mass murder and psychopath" in history, so it would be wrong to define him as that, as if he was the only one. Also, Hitler was a politician and leader of the Nazi Party, so those things should defiantly be included. Furthermore, what the intro is supposed to say has already been heavy discussed in great detail, which you can see in the talk page archive. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitlers military service

In the table on the right, Hitlers military service is said to be in the time span of 1914 to 1918 while in reality he was discharged from the army on 31 March 1920.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.231.169.25 (talk • contribs)

The years of service in the info box pertains to his service in the 16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment. In the prose it says he served as an intelligence agent for the Reichswehr in 1919–1920. – Diannaa (talk) 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that once again brings up the point that info boxes, while generally helpful, can be a pain. Technically, he continued to serve in the military after the Empire became the Weimar Republic. Yet that info is missing from the box. According to Kershaw, despite Hitler's disgust with the new government, he was actually loath to leave the army since he had no perspectives at the time. AFAIK, his "intelligence" work was mainly propaganda and indoctrination work among his fellow troops. But that still rates as "active military duty" in my book.Drow69 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I have added it to the info box. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmmm... Since the article mentions that Hitler used "charismatic oratory" and "frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as being part of a Jewish conspiracy". should there be some information regarding his use of psychological projection, which defined his public speaking talents and body language? With the tiny bit of information added about the things he used, talked, discussed, attacked, or denounced, it would be relative easy to added some regarding his use of projection. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:11, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Our articles should only contain what is already written about by others in reliable sources. What sources would be available on the topic of psychological projection? HiLo48 (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, it's not clear what you mean by "his use of psychological projection." I can think of at least two possible interpretations. It's possible there's sourcing for something about this, depending on what you mean, but look at the paragraph beginning "Hitler's vitriolic beer hall speeches began attracting regular audiences." in this section: Adolf_Hitler#Entry_into_politics. Do you mean something distinct from what's being described there? If so, what?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I know it's extremely outdated, but Langer's OSS report on Hitler from 1943 has a great deal of information about Hitler's use of psychological projection. I believe it should be included because even though Langer's report is outdated, it contained many amazingly accurate predictions about Hitler's future conduct which, in my eyes, boosts the value of the report:

1. As the war turns against him, his rages will intensify and become more frequent, and his public appearances will become less and less, because he's unable to face a critical audience.

2. There might be an assassination attempt on him by the German aristocratic officer corps, because of his superhuman self-confidence in his military judgment.

3. There will be no surrender, capitulation, or peace negotiations. The course he will follow, will almost certainly be the sureties road to immortality, and that at the same time, reaches the greatest vengeance on a world he despises.

4. From what we know of his psychology, the most likely possibility is that he will commit suicide. It's probably true he has an enormous fear of death, but being a psychopath he would undoubtedly screw himself up into the superman character, and perform the deed.

Langer wrote in his OSS report, regarding Hitler's used of projection:

"Hitler's outstanding defense mechanisms is one commonly called projection. It's the technic in which the ego of an individual defenses itself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in himself, while attributing them to others. It's therefore reasonable to expect, that as the perversion developed, and became more disgusting, this was projected upon the Jew."

Of course all of this would depend on if Langer's report is regarded as "reliable". The things about Hitler's perversion is defiantly reliable as it was explained by Otto Strasser in an interview with Langer in Canada, May 1943, for Langer's report. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm officially sorry I asked. So you're talking about projection as a neurotic symptom that Hitler had himself?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No, more like a common case of psychological projection. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler projecting onto others and making use of that or other people projecting onto Hitler which Hitler made use of?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The first you mentioned. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Hitler's Death

According to the FBI's investigation of Hitler's death, he did not commit suicide in 1945, but lived out his [numerous] post-WWII years in Argentina . Some say that he didn't actually die until the '60s . As I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor, I felt this was the place to address this issue. I am wondering why the FBI's documentation hasn't been accounted for in this article, and why there doesn't seem to be any discussion here on the subject.Will Szal (talk) 19:22, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

That's easy to answer. This type of question comes up once in a while. In summary, these accounts are treated much the same as UFO conspiracies. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Different versions of Hitler's fate in the late 1940s especially (through the 1960s) were presented by the Soviet Union according to its political desires. See: Eberle & Uhl (2005), The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides, p. 288. At the time of the Potsdam conference in 1945, it was not conclusively known by the western Allies what was the fate of Hitler. The Soviets knew by then, that is the point. That is why Dick White, then head of counter-intelligence in the British sector of Berlin (and later head of MI5 and MI6 in succession) had their agent Hugh Trevor-Roper investigate the matter to counter the Soviet claims. His findings were written in a report and published in book form in 1947. Trevor-Roper deserve credit for being the first to write a detailed western account of Hitler's last days (which countered the Soviet propaganda at the time). However, the book lacked information (and insight) of key inner-circle players who were locked up in the east by the Soviets and the book is now is quite dated. The FBI file is OLD; they were only investigating the rumors at that time. The info. Willszal is nothing but WP:fringe at best. Kierzek (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Stories regarding the "true faith" of Hitler's death "revealed" during the Cold War should not be taken serious. Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Suicide myth

Linked sources show "it is believed they committed suicide" as there is no actual evidence. No bodies were ever found. Recent DNA testing and other evidences indicate Hitler did not commit suicide [1] and may have escaped by ratline with the other party officials towards the end of the war.69.29.212.128 (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You have misread the source. It does not say that evidence indicates Hitler did not commit suicide. It does say that the existing evidence that he did commit suicide must now be discounted, but it doesn't prove the opposite. We just don't know. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with you HiLo, I think the evidence is pretty solid that they did commit suicide. These theories of escape to South America have been pretty much discounted. There's more information at Death of Adolf Hitler. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Gee, it's great when one's view is misinterpreted by others on both sides of the debate. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is there without the so-called skull fragment. But, books still sell well these days and TV shows get rating based on nothing more than WP:fringe or speculation and possibilities. Kierzek (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What evidence? The evidence was looked at for this History Channel special who sent the forensics team to Russia and Germany. They concluded there is no evidence. The skull fragment was conclusively proven not to even be from a male and blood from a couch not to be from Adolf. The only so-called evidence is a witness. The witnesses has thus been discredited. No body - no evidence.69.29.212.128 (talk) 05:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You are relying on the History Channel, really? Enough said. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is overwhelming. It comes from many witnesses who all told the same story. The skull and "blood from a couch" are just items people in Russia claim came from some archive of left-over bits. Given the history of Russia since the war, we can have absolutely no faith in the veracity of claims about the validity of these relics. Your argument is comparable to saying that Elvis is still alive because some hair sold on ebay that was said to be taken from his body turned out not to be from his head. Paul B (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek. TV documentaries or shows regarding World War II are mainly used as a modern propaganda tool to boost certain country's involvement in the war. Also, Hitler attracts viewers, and speculation and controversy attracts viewers. I think that is all that is too it. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Memorial

Perhaps some of Hitler's memorials should be listed in the article. I think this is appropriate as almost all famous artists have memorial locations listed. 92.251.255.14 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Needless to say, he was not a "famous artist". I suspect this is just trolling, but just in case you actually mean something, could you explain what you mean by "memorial locations"? Paul B (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

No need to suspect, it is just trolling - see this diff for a recent edit by this same IP. - Eron^Talk 19:51, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought it was common courtesy to assume the best in someone. Whether or not this is "trolling" it is certainly a point that needs to be addressed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_birthplace_memorial_stone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.255.14 (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't assume good faith in those who make edits like the one I linked above. To your point about the memorial stone, it is for his victims, not the man. As it should be. - Eron^Talk 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, one "assumes" something when one doesn't know otherwise. In this case, we do. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The parents of Hitler's grave in Linz, Austria, is the only memorial to the Hitler family. And, if I'm not too far off, will probably be the only one for the foreseeable future. Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There is only Hitler birthplace memorial stone as the IP indicated - that said there were many during his life. -- Moxy (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)