Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

This is not a forum for general discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Jewish friends in Vienna

The article currently states "Several sources provide strong evidence that Hitler had Jewish friends in his hostel and in other places in Vienna." Is there even a contest that he had Jewish friends during this period of time? Surely it could just be trimmed to something without including "several sources provide strong evidence" when there isn't really any dispute that he had such relations during this time of his life. The sources provided are sufficient.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

It is sufficiently unusual that Hitler had Jewish friends that it is worth pointing out that the information is backed by multiple sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

But the sources themselves provide exactly what the sentence says. Hitler wasn't the genocidal mass murderer that the world knows him as today in the 1910s so I don't see how it's sufficiently unusual to stress the "several sources provide strong evidence".--Sein und Zeit (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hitler is known as an anti-Semite. It is obviously unusual for an anti-Semite to have had Jewish friends, so it is certainly worth stressing that the information is supported by multiple sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Hitler the politician and leader of the Third Reich is well-known as an anti-Semite but not in the 1910s and the sources already provide the strong evidence. I just personally see it as unnecessary when back then he wasn't even involved with politics and certainly didn't have thoughts that would ultimately lead to the Holocaust.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

When people think of Hitler, they think of an anti-semite. You apparently imagine that readers of the article will be thinking something like, "Oooh, Hitler was an anti-semite when he was the leader of the Third Reich, but maybe he wasn't anti-semitic in the 1910s". I really doubt that any reader of the article will be thinking anything like that. It isn't by any means unnecessary to mention that multiple sources show that Hitler had Jewish friends in the 1910s. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Do any of the sources specifically note that "several sources provide strong evidence"? If not, then it's kind of a meta fact that might be interesting, but it's OR from Wikipedia's viewpoint and it doesn't belong in the article. Let me be clear: I'm not saying that multiple sources shouldn't be cited in the footnote.Scaleshombre (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hitler having Jewish friends will be unexpected to many readers, and thus deserves explanation. But the "several sources" language is too vague. We should use more concrete and specific wording such as "eyewitnesses and historical documents show that Hitler had Jewish friends and associates." Examples could also be appropriate: "...such as his art dealer Jacob Altenberg." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We write for general readers; and especially given the bio we are writing about it is important to stress points, which the general reader does not know or may have some pre-conceived notion about; it is not OR and does not need trimming. Remember this is a GA rated article and been through vetting, Sein und Zeit. Kierzek (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that to many it might come across that Hitler had Jewish friends (just like how he also made several exceptions during the Third Reich) as rather odd but saying " Several sources provide strong evidence" seems to not really add anything of importance to the article when the sources are provided. Could it not be better worded? Such as like someone has already mentioned "Eyewitnesses and historical documents".--Sein und Zeit (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

How about this wording: "Historians such as Brigitte Hamann and Ian Kershaw note that Hitler likely had Jewish friends while he was living in Vienna." — Diannaa (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest: "Evidence exists that Hitler had Jewish friends while he was living in Vienna." Bus stop (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa's version is more encyclopedic. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your words Diannaa without "likely" because that is defined as an adjective "such as well might happen or be true; probable" or "apparently suitable; promising." and as a verb "probably". When in fact, the evidence proves without any doubt that Hitler had Jewish friends when he resided in Vienna. You could also just say "historians" without necessarily naming any since they are referred to in the sources.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't read Hamann, but Kershaw's account is more nuanced than the statement "Hitler had Jewish friends in Vienna" suggests. For instance, near the end of the Vienna chapter Kershaw writes: "Whether Hitler was on terms of real friendship with the Jews around him in the Men's Home ... might be doubted." I recommend giving that chapter a thorough reading before deciding on the best wording to describe Hitler's relationship with Jews. Scaleshombre (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to answer a question concerning the warmth of Hitler's relationship with Jews conclusively, and certainly not in one sentence. This is a cursory article on Hitler and this is the first sentence in this article introducing the surprising idea that Hitler had friends that were Jewish. That is why I am suggesting we write "Evidence exists that Hitler had Jewish friends while he was living in Vienna." That is sufficient for introducing the surprising idea that someone known for their antisemitism had friends, at one point in his life, that were Jewish. Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps something like "Some historians, however [in contrast to Kubizek's claim], say that Hitler had Jewish friends in Vienna." Then, as editor Shock Brigade Harvester Boris suggests, cite an example or two. For balance, end with Kershaw's doubts about the sincerity of the friendships. Scaleshombre (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible to have a lengthier treatment of the subject, I think. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It helps shed light on one of history's most toxic turning points. Again, to quote Kershaw: "Why and when did Hitler become the fixated, pathological antisemite known from the writing of his first political tract in 1919 down to the writing of his testament in the Berlin bunker in 1945? Since his paranoid hatred was to shape policies that culminated in the killing of millions of Jews, this is self-evidently an important question. Scaleshombre (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I also agree with Sein und Zeit that there is no need to write "Several sources provide strong evidence that Hitler had..." etc. I feel it is redundant and perhaps shows unnecessarily the attitude and thought processes of wiki editors. Which articles shouldn't really do [OR]. As Hitler definitely HAD FRIENDS in Vienna WHO WERE JEWISH, it seems only necessary -- in accordance with normal wikipedia poliicy -- to mention that fact and to cite the sources that verify it. If people feel this is so surprising and noteworthy, perhaps the remedy is to detail them. His friends in Männerheim included Siegfried Löffner from Moravia; the locksmith Simon Robinson from Galicia (who assisted Hitler financially); Karl Honisch mentions a Jewish friend Rudolf Redlich from Moravia. Hitler sold his paintings almost exclusively to Jewish dealers: Morgenstern, Landsberger, and Altenberg. Hitler also had friends who were half-Jewish who remained his friends for life such as his driver/bodyguard Emil Maurice. He also expressed his great respect and gratitude to the end of his life to the Jewish Doctor from Linz, Dr. Eduard Bloch. There are of course other examples after his time in Vienna. Such as his respect and affording protection to Ernst Hess, his company commander during WW1. Then there is of course his friendship with Berneli Nienau. Etc., etc. Maybe this is an aspect of his life that should get a sub-section? What do other editors think of that sugggestion?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think the article needs to include the names of the several Jews that Hitler had close relationships with but possibly mention their professions and why he had to deal with them. Another moot point is that Emil Maurice wasn't half-Jewish since it was only his great-grandfather that was Jewish but that was enough for him to not be allowed to be an SS officer. But yes, there were several people with notified Jewish ancestry that were exempt from the Nazi regime's discrimination against the Jews but since what we're discussing is Hitler's time in Vienna, such things don't need to be mentioned there (although possibly in another part of the article). I also don't think it's sufficient for a sub-section, I think personally that's a little bit ott. Since there seems to be a general consensus that the wording should be changed, the question is simply, what to?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

If I may clarify my suggestion, it has two parts to it. 1. The first is to take away what zi consider the unnecessary and redundant explanation that is deemed required because 'readers' will supposedly find it “surprising" that "someone known for their antisemitism had friends, at one point in his life, that were Jewish". 2. The second part, is that if its so suprising, then 'readers' will be better served and better informed if we give more detail about that unequivocal fact. Within such a suggested sub-section, Hitler's other positive, friendly, protective and respectful associations with Jews can be included with a brief explanation. The current solution of anticipating ignorance, surprise and writing a slightly overkill sentence to ameliorate that anticipated suprise seems to me an unencyclopedic solution. Its equivalent to saying 'your really going to find this hard to believe but its true and there is evidence to prove it'. I'm suggesting that that is not necessary. If its accepted that few know this fact then it would be better to just inform people of it more. This will also better serve the function of an encyclopedia. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Better wording

Since everyone who has responded has agreed that there should be a change in the current sentence regarding Hitler's Jewish associates and friends during his time in Vienna. The simple question is, what to? Would simply "Eyewitnesses and historical documents show that Hitler had Jewish associates and friends in his hostel and in other places in Vienna." be sufficient? Suggestions?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 21:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep it simple. "Some historians say that Hitler had Jewish friends in Vienna." Scaleshombre (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We don't use the wording "some historians", especially in a Good Article. Someone will immediately come along and template it {{Who}}. I am pretty sure the word "friends" is inaccurate anyways. He probably only ever had two actual friends: August Kubizek and Albert Speer. How about: "Historians such as Brigitte Hamann and Ian Kershaw note that Hitler likely had Jewish acquaintances while he was living in Vienna." — Diannaa (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

That sounds fine. Scaleshombre (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree to Diannaa's wording. Kierzek (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I still disagree. I still regard that as a misleading and even historically inaccurate sentence. "Some historians say"? Isn't that suggesting that there is some doubt about that? I suspect that such wording is still coming from an OR viewpoint that Hitler having Jewish friends and postive associations is somehow unbelievable. And I regard this from you Diannaa as unhistoric and unhelpful: "he probably only ever had two actual friends"??! To avoid a need to start defining 'friends' and 'friendship' I again argue that we only need to follow basic wiki policy of mentioning the fact and then providing reputable, verifiable, secondary sources that confirm it. Here is the fact: "Hitler had Jewish associates and friends in his hostel and in other places in Vienna during his stay at Männerheim." I think maybe the problem here is that this biographical section on his time in Vienna has two middle paragraphs informing readers about something else: about when his prejudice against Jews started. I suspect that an assumption is being subconsciously elevated in this section that it was well established during this period of his life. Therefore the contradicting fact that he had close friendships and positive associations with Jews during this period is being regarded by some editors as somehow untenable and problematical. Thus the suggested wording "likely had", as if it is in some doubt. I maintain that it isn't in doubt. He definitely DID have friends and postive social interaction with people who he knew were Jewish during this period of his life. So... Basically I suggest that the sentence is ONLY deemed problematical because its being inserted amidst two paragraphs that appear to contradict it. I therefore suggest that the problem isn't this sentence: its the two paragraphs within which it appears like a contradicting anomaly. Thus my suggestion is that they should be amended or moved.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I also think that the word "likely" should not be included in a revised edit of the sentence because it still implies doubt (likely = probably) when in fact all of the evidence suggests that it's a fact Hitler had both associates and friends who were Jewish and that didn't bother him at all. Most of his friends in the hostel were Jewish and the majority of the people who he sold his paintings to were Jews. Also, during his time in Vienna Hitler read pro-Semitic literature which helped shape his worldview. Kubizek even notes that Hitler didn't hold the Jews with contempt but with a somewhat envy because he possibly viewed them as "something better", ranging from a cultural interest and the intelligence of Jews compared to Christians at the universities. So overall, the complexity of Hitler having Jewish associates and friends during his time in Vienna goes way beyond just simply living at the hostel with Jews, he actually had close friendly relations with several well known Jews. If it's necessary to include Richard Evans's quote in full about Hitler's perception that the Jews were behind the loss of the war then possibly we may have to think that one sentence will not cover the difficulty of Hitler's relationship with Jews at this period of his life.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Diannaa's wording does not use, "Some historians say", Mystichumwipe. And "all of the evidence" does not show that as fact as you put forth, Sein und Zeit; you even use the word "suggests"; that is an equivocal word. Kierzek (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

My mistake, I should have just said "shows".--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I totally agree that Diannaa's suggestion does not use that wording. Good that we are reaching agreement on something, Kierzek. :-). Can we agree on this also? That Scaleshombre's did? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, yes, I agree with that; if this keeps up, Wikipedia will implode. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Would you like to add your suggestion into the article Diannaa or does the wording "Historians such as Brigitte Hamann and Ian Kershaw provide evidence that Hitler had Jewish acquaintances and friends while he was living in Vienna." sound any better? Since his relations with Jews went beyond just simply selling postcards.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 23:38, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Why are you asking only Diannaa? No-one person decides nor owns the page. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I tweaked it to be closer in wording to what was there before and taking into account the discussion above and sources. As for your comment Mystichumwipe, why would she not be asked for opinion, she helped promote the article to GA; knows the subject well and knows grammar well. She is a long time editor here and is a steward (see: WP:STEWARDSHIP) of the article. Kierzek (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, I like it. Good job! Scaleshombre (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it's okay too. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't. May I again ask editors to consider that the problem was not this sentence but the whole paragraph about when it is believed Hitler became an anti-semite within which it sits and therefore jars. That no-one has addressed that point perhaps shows that there is a sense of ownership and an inability to openly address constructive criticism? Just putting that out there for consideration. As for this new wording I would argue that this wiki article isn't about what certain historians think or believe. Its about Adolf Hitler. So I suggest that we do NOT need to mention which historians believe a certain thing. We only need to inform of the current consensus understanding and cite sources for it. Does anyone disagree with that?--Mystichumwipe (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with you. I think it's best to list the names of the historians who hold this opinion. Wording such as "historians agree.." or "the consensus among historians is that..." is frowned upon, because such statements are vague. It's better in my opinion to list the specific historians who have commented on the issue and are being cited. Please see WP:WEASEL for more information on this topic. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Further, we cannot say such things in Wikipedia's voice, attribution is needed. Kierzek (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I would again argue that what should concern editors here is not what individual editors "think" but more what best follows wikipedia policy. That you Diannaa reply with your personal opinion to a suggestion that an amendment contradicts this policy, (plus the evidence that other editors feel the need to appeal to your judgement when suggesting changes) again seems to show a culture of ownership has developed with this page. I repeat again, where does wikipedia say we have to cite the names of individual historians for basic uncontested facts? We only need cite them as sources. We do NOT need to — and I am arguing should not — name them in the article. Plus this misses what I have suggested is the actual problem here. May I again appeal to other editors to address my previous remarks that it may be that the ONLY reason certain editors feel the need to make such an issue out of the uncontested, well-established fact that Adolf Hitler had close associates and friendly, positive relationships with people who were Jewish whilst in Vienna is because of the unnecessary paragraph into which this uncontested fact is being inserted. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think you're getting into very subjective notions of what best follows Wiki policy. (To some extent, we're all "interpreters" of policy, like judges, that's why consensus as to how to best apply policy is vital.) Why do you think the paragraph's unnecessary? Hitler's anti-semitism fueled the genocide of millions and altered the course of history. Shouldn't some attempt be made to explore its roots in his thinking? Scaleshombre (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@Scaleshombre On the contrary, wiki policy is quite objective on this point of content and citations. I have already explained my thinking on this point. Please see further up above. You have misunderstood my point. I did NOT write that the paragraph was "unnecessary". @Diannaa Can you specify where wiki policy states or suggests or says anything about naming particular authors or even that there exist authors as authorities for a well-established fact in a bio page? It seems to me like writing something like "many scientists believe that the atmosphere on Mars consists of over 90% CO2". I'm arguing that its redundant to say the info comes from 'scientists' or to name a few of the most famous or most popular 'scientists' who reference this uncontested scientific fact. I'm arguing its the same with a page on history. We don't need to mention that a few historians "believe" something which no historian contests. Does that make my point any clearer? Erm... I feel I am having to repeat the same requests and arguments in slightly different wording. So I request editors see what I have written previously above and address my points. I will just add that Adolf Hitler must be one of the most written about persons of the last century. And this article appears to me to rely rather heavily — maybe too much — on the opinion and writings of one biographer Ian Kershaw. We don't need to put his name in the article as well. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:25, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

It's not a policy but a guideline, part of our Manual of Style. I've already explained it twice: Here on 27 July I state "We don't use the wording "some historians", especially in a Good Article. Someone will immediately come along and template it {{Who}}. And again today, where I stated that I think it's best to list the names of the historians who hold this opinion. Wording such as "historians agree.." or "the consensus among historians is that..." is frowned upon, because such statements are vague. It's better in my opinion to list the specific historians who have commented on the issue and are being cited. Please see WP:WEASEL for more information on this topic. I am not sure what part of this is unclear. P.S. Please don't ping me to this page. I am very busy with copyright clean-up and will return here when I can (twice a day at minimum). — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, I'm not sure why you insist that it's "uncontested scientific fact". As I wrote earlier, even Kershaw introduces some doubt into his account of Hitler's relationships with Jews in Vienna. Per Kershaw: "Whether Hitler was on terms of real friendship with the Jews around him in the Men's Home ... might be doubted." I recommend giving that chapter a thorough reading. The only thing that might be "uncontested" is that Hitler had dealings with Jews in Vienna. Scaleshombre (talk) 20:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Dianna. Holy moly! Yes I read your point the first time, I understood it then AND just replied to it. Erm... didn't you understand the example with a scientific fact not needing to refer to 'scientists' nor naming them? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@Scaleshombre. You have misunderstood. I am not saying this point about Jewish friends is ""uncontested scientific fact". (Sheesh! is this deliberate obtuseness? :-/) Plus I think you are confirming my point about the danger of this article becoming a condensed version of the opinion of ONE historian. ;-) So... er... a similar question to you. Didn't you understand my point about over-relying on ONLY ONE historian (in this case Ian Kershaw)? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Hitler's initial thoughts of antisemitic literature

Since this is relevant to Hitler's relationship with the Jews in his early years, especially in Vienna, I wonder if there should be any input of Hitler's actual remarks in Mein Kampf, he says:

I cannot maintain that the way in which I became acquainted with them struck me as particularly pleasant. For the Jew was still characterized for me by nothing but his religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I maintained my rejection of religious attacks in this case as in others. Consequently, the tone, particularly that of the Viennese anti-Semitic press, seemed to me unworthy of the cultural tradition of a great nation. I was oppressed by the memory of certain occurrences in the Middle Ages, which I should not have liked to see repeated. Since the newspapers in question did not enjoy an outstanding reputation (the reason for this, at that time, I myself did not precisely know), I regarded them more as the products of anger and envy than the results of a principled though perhaps mistaken, point of view.

Of course I'm not saying that whole quote has to be included into the article but should there not be something mentioning that Hitler mentions in Mein Kampf that initially he was not interested in antisemitic literature and only gradually became convinced by their arguments.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 01:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I think a quote from Mein Kampf should be worked into the section. In fact, I think the whole question of when/how Hitler became anti-Semitic is worth exploring further. We'll never know with certainty when his feelings coalesced into pathological hatred, but given this development's terrible impact on history, it merits a closer look, either in the main article or possibly a new one. Scaleshombre (talk) 03:38, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

The trouble is, the article at 11875 words is already over the suggested 10,000-word page limit, so we really don't have room for expansion here. Perhaps the suggested improvements would be better placed at Political views of Adolf Hitler? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I also think this is a good suggestion. It accords with my previous suggestion that the topic of when and how Hitler decided he was an anti-semite and "hated the Jew" deserves its own sub-section. This I suggested would solve the problem of the wording regarding him having Jewish friends while he was at Männerheim seeming to contradict the paragraph that is now in the sub-section of his time in Vienna. All this needn't result in extra wording, as it can replace the text we already have. Plus if we remove reference to named historians and just cite a biography such as John Toland's which gives detail of who the Jewish friends were, it could result in a shorter text than we currently have. — Mystichumwipe 16:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it could be added there ("Political views of Adolf Hitler"). There is a sub-section already entitled: "Anti-Semitism and the Holocaust". It should be noted that the article starts in detail after the Vienna point-in-time of his life; after World War I, in 1919 to be exact. And frankly Mystichumwipe, Toland's bio (Vol. 1 & 2) (which I have read) are dated; first published in 1976; one has to keep that in mind. Kierzek (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Oh boy. Toland is dated? What a curious statement. I understand that a few of you for years now have tended to this page. And I understand that a subject like Hitler must be a popular one for vanadalism and less-than-qualified contributions. Forgive me for being totally frank, but it does increasingly seem to me that maybe a few of you --after your years of input here -- do seem to have developed an attitude of ownership. E.g. a few of you seem intent on misunderstanding -- or are incapable of comprehending -- simple statements of constructive criticism. Then when the point is hammered home, totally avoiding it. Or replying with strange justifications like this one from you, Kierzek. According to Reinhold Hanisch, who was his partner in selling his paintings, ALL of Hitler's friends at the men's hostel were Jewish. ALL of them!!! Let me say the same thing in other words to avoid misunderstandings: Hanisch maintained that Hitler associated almost exclusively with Jews during this time and said that Hitler's best friend in the home was the Jewish copper cleaner Josef Neumann. Another of his close Jewish friends mentioned by Hanisch was Simon Robinson, from Lisko in Galicia. This can be cited using the work of historian Brigitte Hamann who has specialised in researching just this part of Hitler's life and written a book entitled 'Hitlers Wien' published in 2010. Is that recent enough? This aspect of Hitler's life is referenced on page 242. Do you need more convincing? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, you need to relax. Have a drink. You are putting a lot of weight on Reinhold Hanisch statements. In the end, as I well know from my day job, people, such as Hanisch make statements and render opinions; as do experts like everyone else; expert's just carry more weight. Also, expert's can disagree and some are better qualified than others on a subject (and some so-called expert's will say whatever the attorney or person want's for enough money); I see this everyday. I am ofcourse speaking in general terms. The fact is Hitler's life in the days of his youth has some degree of the unknown and is open to more opinion than other segments of his life. And as we all know Hitler, himself, is not the best historian, as shown in "Mein Kampf". And you have been around long enough to know attribution has to be given, especially when writing statements concerning subject's such as Hitler's time in Vienna and his relationship with Jewish people at that timeframe. Anyway, I have no intention of going 'round and 'round on this subject. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Relax? He he. Oh boy. (sigh)! Erm, so do you accept Brigitte Hamann as a reliable citation or not? And can you accept that your “dated” comment was neither a valid reason for rejection nor a consistent one, as the whole article cites the unreliable and discredited 1960 Shirer biography numerous times, as well as the 1952 Bullock biography? Whatever. The reality remains that Hanisch — who was there — DID record this in writing. No-one at the time or since has ever refuted it that I know of. A recent published historian-biographer Haman has confirmed it. An allegedly 'dated' published biographer Toland (who rather uniquely amongst Hitler biographers interviewed 200 of Hitler's closest associates) confirmed it. Etc., etc., etc. Do you need more references? And what have we here to contradict this consensus? A reference — by editors who have difficulty engaging with and understanding simple points — citing Ian Kershaw who cast some tenuous and vague doubt on this eye-witness account. A vague doubt from Kershaw based upon nothing other than, well what... his intuition perhaps? Who knows? He didn't say. Perhaps it was just based upon a prejudiced disbelief that Hitler could ever have had Jewish friends, retroactively applied a century later. And then we have the editor Diannaa suggesting a century after-the-events that maybe Hitler was incapable of EVER having ANY friends?!! Really? C'mon. Can we get serious? Is this the level of scholarly, impartial editing we want here? So talking of relaxing, I suggest certain other editors maybe could perhaps “relax” their grip on this wiki page a bit? The names of Jewish people that Hanisch mentioned, and the places they came from, and the ethnicity/religion he stated they had, has apparently checked out. They did exist. They were at the men's home. We even have a wiki stub on Hanisch that states historians have confirmed this. If the ONLY person who has ever cast doubt on this point is Kershaw, then I suggest it again shows that editors relying too heavily ON ONLY ONE historian for a whole page. Just look at the list of cited references. His name appears more often than any other. And he is not noted for his impartial treatment of his subject. On the contrary. So... in conclusion, after all this wrangling over such a small but well attested detail, I suggest I just go ahead and make the improvements I think appropriate, and anyone who has any issues can bring them up here. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Toland was writing in 1976, which was before the Berlin Wall came down. After that event in the early 1990s historians such as Kershaw gained access to historical materials previously unavailable in East Berlin. This is why Kershaw might contain material not present in Toland or might contradict earlier biographies on some points. The size of the page has increased by only 800 words since its promotion to GA back in 2011, while the number of citations to Kershaw has increased from 64 to 97. The number of citations total has increased from 340 to 418. Kershaw's book (or books, if you consider the original 2-volume set) is the most current biography of Hitler and it is readily available. Toland's 1976 book is an okay source as well. My copy of Bullock has an index that doesn't match the content, so I don't use it much, but as far as I know it's an okay source as well. Mystichumwipe, perhaps you are mistaking stewardship for ownership. My opinion is that the article is in very good shape, and after nearly six years since its promotion to GA, still meets the GA criteria in every way. It's important that we keep it that way, as the page views are enormous, and school children are using it in their studies. Stewardship is what's going on here, not ownership. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:09, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll try and keep this brief. Forgive me if it comes across as too terse. The irony is I think this reply is proving my overall points about avoidance and a possible subliminal sense of ownership. I'll number the points to enable easier understanding of them and for any replies. 1. I request that you consider the possibility that you have just shown AGAIN an inability or unwillingness to understand (or reply) to simple points made. 2. Toland is NOT really the issue here. I regard concentrating on only that point as obfuscation of the actual issue (i.e. avoidance). 3. AND you have ignored the point/fact that there are numerous citations on this biography article from older (Bullock) and even discredited biographies (Shirer) so rejecting Toland as a source on this point is not a valid reason plus is inconsistent. 4. You haven't answered whether Brigitte Hamann is an acceptable citation for this info on Hitler's Jewish friends or not? Nor, if not why not? 5. You haven't answered what evidence to the contary has ever been discovered refuting Hitler's close friendship with ONLY Jews while at the men's home? 6. You wrote: "Kershaw might contain material..." etc. Er... might??! Well, OK. So what has Kershaw written that is not contained in or contradicts Toland and Hamann on this particular point about Hitler's Jewish friends in Vienna? 7. Kershaw wrote: "Whether Hitler was on terms of real friendship with the Jews around him in the Men's Home ... might be doubted." Might be?? Based upon what evidence? (I already made this point and it is yet another example of repeated avoidance/incomprehension). 8. I totally get that YOU think this page is in good shape. But if an editor comes with constructive criticism that is not engaged with nor answered, but is only met with an insistence that the page is OK as it is, plus with a dodging/incomprehension (?) of all points, what do we call that? I request you try it on for a bit longer, that after six years of what you call 'stewardship' according to your opinion, YOU think everything is fine, and therefore reject anything or ignore anything that doesn't agree with your opinion or which contradicts it/criticises it. 9. What benefit do schoolchildren get from putting a possibly unwarranted doubt in their minds about Hitler's early friendship with Jews? 10. Finally you have given the same reason before about this page and schoolchildren. I've always thought that a curious justification. Erm, so are you arguing that Wikipedia's raison d'être is to cater primarily to schoolchildren??!!! :-o --Mystichumwipe (talk) 05:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Vienna timeline, better wording, start of anti-semitic prejudices

I have had a go at improving the Vienna section based upon the discussions here. I tried to keep my changes to a minimum in the first instance. But I think there is room for further improvements. It previously stated he lived in Vienna from 1905 which is incorrect. His mother only allowed him a month there in 1905. Also we had sentence in the opening which I think was too general as a starting point. So I have moved the bit about bohemian lifestye to try and give some idea of the developement of his stay from attempting to be a student with Kubizek to eventual unemployed homelesness. When exactly he became impoverished and living rough is open to debate. Winter of 1908/1909? As for the section on the state of Vienna and his reading habits, etc. It seems extremely detailed and at the cost of a more clear and easily understood over-view of his time at Vienna. So I again suggest that the paragraphs about the racism in Vienna at the time, the leading thinkers of racist ideology, his reading habits and the developement of Hitler's anti-semitic attitudes could maybe have a seperate section. Finally, a general observation: it seems to me that this whole article/page seems to accentuate the worst possible aspects and to favour the least favourable interpretations of the subject. I understand if neutrality maybe hard to apply for some editors regarding AH, but we will all surely agree it -- being a key wiki principle --is still required. So I tried to provide some on the topic of the Austrian-Hungary army desertion allegation. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

One thing I did not want to get into here was the whole argument as to "good friends" or "close friends", especially when used in conjunction with Hitler. Hitler had no close friends, and as shown later in life, as one writer stated, "he did have two overlapping circles of preferred associates, a private one and a more official one". As another writer states of this timeframe: "He had no direction in his life and no close friends". I do agree with some of your ce to other sentences. I await input from others, as real life calls and there are matters I need to attend to today. Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed "Historians such as Brigitte Hamann and Ian Kershaw" to just simply "There is strong evidence" because both of the authors are used in the references/sources.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow! That was removed mighty speedily. I confess I'm suprised that the detail from Hamann got chopped so quickly and so completely. And back to "there is strong evidence"!? Double wow! And that after all the attempts at engaging people in discussing this? So where do we go from here?

I again argue that is misleading. It implies doubt. So can someone support with references other than Sir Ian why we should imply doubt. Humour me. Hamann states that numerous eye-witnesses attested to this fact. No-one yet has provded ANY evidence that contradicts these eye-witness testimonies. Kershaw's speculative "might" appears to be retroactive prejudice. And I don't see how his speculation trumps Hamann's research. And I maintain that it is factually incorrect to maintain Hitler had no friends throughout his life. I find it a quite bizarre position to take. This seems to me to exactly the sort of lack of neutrality that I appealed to be resisted. Do I need to provide a list of his friends? This Viennese Jewish friends issue is such a minor detail in a huge article. I confess I am quite amazed that certain editors are so resistant to allow a well-attested fact with a reputable reference?? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If different RS say different things, we should report both (briefly) per WP:NPOV and WP:SUMMARY. Nick-D (talk) 23:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

The "doubt" is because we only have eyewitness accounts to rely on. Read both Hamann and Kershaw for a more clearer understanding.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Wow! This is starting to be a bit worrying. I think you'll find it is YOU who have to give a specific, verifiable reference for YOUR position. I have already actually cited Hamann. She refutes what you are arguing. And Ian Kershaw on pages 64 to 65 of his work 'Hitler 1889-1936: Hubris' also expresses the opinion that Hitler invented a myth that his anti-semitism began in Vienna. So what we have here appears to be an editor edit-warring and refusing to allow the consensus accepted eye-witness testimony which has been discussed and is provided with cited, verifiable, reputable sources. And doing so because they say these cannot be relied on. But won't provide any specific verifiable source for that position!? --Mystichumwipe (talk) 7:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe, with all due respect. I don't think you have read either of the books or you wouldn't be getting in such a hissy fit every time your edits are getting reverted. Both historians highlight the problems off using Kubizek as a source and also contradict some of his assertions. Both also mention that Hitler had Jewish acquaintances, this is mentioned in the article. It is unnecessary to name some of the Jews that Hitler had dealings with during his time in Vienna. The article currently states "There is strong evidence that Hitler had Jewish acquaintances while he was living in Vienna." with Kershaw and Hamann used as sources. What is your problem exactly?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hissy fit every time?? He he. Oh boy! How many times is that then?

And I have ALREADY explained numerous times what my "problem is exactly". (Sigh). You have twice reverted my edit. But you haven't provided any reference to any secondary source to justify your position that there is doubt about the accuracy of numerous eye-witneeses of Hitler's friendship and good relations with Jews whilst in Vienna. Nor have you provided any page number of the books you claim support that doubt. YOU need to do that. I have already provided references for my edit, which you are ignoring with this your unsupported claim: "the 'doubt' is because we only have eyewitness accounts to rely on."

Here are more reputable, verifiable, secondary sources supporting my edit which you have edit-warred. Two of which come from the source you say contradicts my edit.

"his closest partner (apart from Hanisch) in his little art-production business, Josef Neumann, was also a Jew — and one with whom Hitler was, it seems, on friendly terms." - Kershaw. Hubris. p.55.

“Josef Neumann, as we have seen, became, as Hanisch put it, 'a real friend' to Hitler.” - Kershaw. Hubris. p63

“Two of Hitler's closest friends at the Männerheim were Jewish — a one-eyed locksmith named Robinson who often helped him and a part time Hungarian art dealer Josef Neumann... Hitler highly esteemed the latter and once remarked that he was “a very decent man”. He also expressed great regard for the three Jewish art dealers who bought most of his work and more than once told Hanisch... that he preferred doing business with Jews “because only they are willing to take chances.” - Toland. Hitler. Pg. 45.

"In 1911 or 1912 ...Hitler established a business connection with ...Morgenstern a Jew from Hungary with whom he had a very good personal rapport." - Hamann. Hitler in Vienna. p.174

“...twenty-one-year-old Hitler was entirely under the influence of his close Jewish friend Neumann.” - Hamann. Hitler in Vienna. p.167 --Mystichumwipe (talk) 13 August 2017 (UTC)

No one doubts that Hitler had dealings with Jews when he was in Vienna (this is already in the article). I've already said that the article already states this. Do you insist that the article should include the names of various Jews? If so, why? Other claims made by Hanisch, Kubizek, etc are to be taken dubiously. For example:

"Hanisch wrote his account in the thirties, with a clear anti-Semitic undertone and the obvious aim of discrediting the by now most famous anti-Semite, Hitler." Hamann, p. 167 Hanisch even claimed that Hitler himself "looked very Jewish" remarking "Also he had big feet, as a desert wanderer must have." p. 167

So what is it you are exactly not happy about it? The omission of the various Jews that Hitler had dealings with during his time in Vienna? "There is strong evidence that Hitler had Jewish acquaintances while he was living in Vienna." covers everything you seem to be squabbling about. Also, just because there is evidence that Hitler had dealings with certain Jews and made certain remarks about the Jews during his in time in Vienna, it does not mean he didn't hold any antisemitic sentiments. Hamann in the chapter "Was Young Hitler an Anti-Semite?" states that he read antisemitic literature when he was in Vienna and when he became Chancellor of Germany, many of his remarks about the Jews had a "Viennese ring" to it. So we have evidence that on the one hand he had dealing with Jews, respected certain Jewish traditions, etc, and yet on the other hand read quite clearly read antisemitic literature. Also, as Hamann states that although Mein Kampf shouldn't be seen as an autobiography, it was during his time in Vienna, that Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf:

"Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought. For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form: Is this a German?""--Sein und Zeit (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have expressed my thoughts, my argument and my suggestion for improvement NUMEROUS TIMES now. And you are here ignoring them and arguing against something unrelated to them. But here it is yet again: We do not need to write "there is strong evidence for" etc. Nor do we need to name historians who have reported this friendship with Jews during this period in Vienna. We only need to state the known, accepted consensus understanding and provide verifiable secondary sources as references for it. I have done that and you have reverted it twice. The second time giving a reason that DOES NOT have any equivalent supporting reference as the edit you reverted does. Also the reverted sentence that you replaced it with not only implies doubt about this friendship with Jews that is unwarranted, but it now sits in the middle of a paragraph without any context. Whereas my edit provided it. I.e. it was related to the false idea that Hitler was already a fully formed anti-semite in 1908 to 1912. Look at my second edit if you are not sure what I mean. I have repeatedly suggested that this whole concentration on Hitler's developing anti-semitism has totally taken over this small passage on his time in Vienna. There is now no longer any reference to his developing knowledgeable fascination with the opera of Wagner; hardly anything on his friendship and lodging with Kubizek; nor anything his time in the hostel; nor anything else. As I wrote earlier, I think we have much room for improvement. Both here and elsewhere. I tried to make very minor adjustemnets in the first instance to make this a collaboration. That editors will not allow such a simple and relatively minor factual edit, but are attached to a misleading and unnecessary sentence-structure to do with buttressing a discredited myth — one which Hitler himself helped create in Mein Kampf — is what I am attempting to correct. If an editor is not allowed to improve such a small relatively insignificant sentence, what room is there for improvement on bigger issues? And this isn't about having to name the Jewish friends. Which you must know, as you reverted my second edit that didn't include names. I really do not understand why such a simple and well-acknowledged, multiple eye-witness acknowledged small detail is so hard for you and others to accept. Hitler had close Jewish friends at this time in his life. Simple. He also had 'good personal rapport' with Jewish art dealers and preferred dealing with them. There. What's wrong with including this? This is an encyclopedia about an historic personage. We just note the main facts in his life and leave out personal opinions or beliefs about that. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 22:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The points you put forward are not the problem, but, don't you think that the sentence "Reinhold Hansich (who helped him sell his paintings) and other associates from this time said that Hitler had friendly relationships with Jews, associating almost exclusively with them during his time in the men's home." could be better worded? I've also mentioned that Hanisch as a person to rely on is dubious e.g see my previous citations of what he has said about Hitler.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I've rephrased it as "there is evidence that Hitler had friendly relationships with Jews during this period, associating almost exclusively with them during his time in the men's home and selling his postcards almost exclusively to Jewish dealers". I think that covers exactly what you want to be added into the article and avoids naming every single Jewish person who Hitler came into contact with, etc.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 16:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

The current wording (ce by Diannaa and your point as to whom he sold to Sein) covers the points to be made and is a good summary. Although, the words you added as to "evidence", is not needed; I agree. And it does not get into pov and Wikipedia:SYN problems. With that said, I am sure others will chime in, with their thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Sein und Zeit: Why are you constantly changing the information back to your preferred version ? Wouldn't it be wiser to finish the discussion and gain consensus first ? Maybe the article needs to be fully protected until consensus is reached. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@S&S. Hanisch is not regarded as a “dubious” source for this particular multiple-cited point concerning AH's friendships and respectful attitudes to Jews in Vienna as far as I know. If you have a reputable source that states that, please do provide it so that we can all verify that your claim is correct. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe, when using someone as a source, they need to be reliable consistently and not just simply someone that can be used by cherry-picking certain statements they have made and dismissing others. Why are you insisting on using only Reinhold Hanisch as a source? See Hamann p. 348 to see why she went beyond only using Hanisch as a source in the chapter "Was Young Hitler an Anti-Semite?". I don't disagree with your suggestion about removing "there is evidence", but do you really insist on stating Hanisch in the article when Hamann used other sources as well and on p. 348 she states that he tried to discredit Hitler as much as possible.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Does no one think that it could be better worded than "Reinhold Hanisch, who helped him sell his paintings, disagrees. Hitler had dealings with Jews while living in Vienna."?--Sein und Zeit (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

"and was central to the Holocaust."

I find this bit in the lede dissatisfying. The lack of a historical 'smoking gun' conclusively showing that Hitler ordered extermination of the European Jews is difficult to square with the absence of reasonable doubt that he, at the very least, knew of and approved of the program. I'm not sure what to suggest. Is there any way we can make this more descriptive without minimizing Hitler's personal responsibility? --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You may benefit from reading the talk page and archives where this matter has been discussed extensively. Britmax (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The absence of a written order from Hitler doesn't prove that he wasn't involved. Peter Longerich's book The Unwritten Order: Hitler's Role in the Final Solution shows clearly that Hitler's role can be traced through every single gradual process of the Holocaust.--Sein und Zeit (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

You are missing the point; it does not say he was not involved; the wording with chosen after long discussions' and a consensus was reached. Kierzek (talk) 18:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yikes. Looks like this has been going on for some time now. I'm now torn on stirring up the hornet's nest again, because this is obviously a contentious point for this article, but the consensus revision is just bad in my opinion. --causa sui (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The first para could better reflect the strong consensus of historians is that Hitler ordered and oversaw the Holocaust. As I've noted in the previous discussions, I'd prefer stronger wording - eg, "and was responsible for the Holocaust". But the last para of the lead says this, so it's not a big deal. 'The Holocaust' section expands on this topic fairly well (but again, could also be more strongly focused on Hitler's role and responsibility). Nick-D (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Later on in the article, we write:

Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced,[321] his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry.

So why don't we say in the lede that he 'conceived and authorized' the Holocaust? "Was central to" is too vague and does not summarize the content of the article, which leaves the responsibility squarely at his feet. --causa sui (talk) 20:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

"Was central to" is ok, but I agree that it doesn't really convey his role. "Conceived and authorized" is closer to the mark, but still not quite there. He did more than authorize the Holocaust -- he ordered it. What makes this issue so complicated from a historical point of view is that his subordinates conceived and executed all the major details. But, in the words of Kershaw, they were all "working towards the fuhrer." Scaleshombre (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to be careful here. We can't say that he ordered it, because there's no citation that says he ordered it, because there's no written record that he ordered it. — Diannaa (talk) 22:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Cannot say "conceived" and also cannot say "authorized", given no written order as Diannaa points out (even though verbally he stated as much and further as the central hub of Nazi power he had to have been well aware and approved. Kierzek (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If we can't say 'conceived' nor 'authorized' then the bit I quoted above needs editing. But I don't think it needs editing. --causa sui (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Just spit-balling here, but how about moving the first sentence of the fourth paragraph to the end of the lede graph so that it reads as follows:

As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939; under his leadership and racially motivated ideology, the Nazi regime engineered the genocide of at least 5.5 million Jews and millions of other victims whom he and his followers deemed Untermenschen (sub-humans). -- Scaleshombre (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards Nick-D call for stronger wording and Scaleshombre version seems to work well for me, nice job IMO, I'm not an expert on this subject, but as an average reader the wording honestly and truthfully portrays the image I've always had of Hitler, but it is just my opinion :) - FlightTime Public (open channel) 05:03, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

This works for me, FWIW. --causa sui (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Barring any further objections, should I make the change? Scaleshombre (talk) 00:34, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"Engineered" is unclear, as it implies that Hitler and the Nazis merely initiated or facilitated the Holocaust. I'd suggest replacing "engineered the genocide of" with "murdered". This provides clearer and stronger text IMO. Nick-D (talk) 10:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

"As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939"; not needed as redundant to what is already written in the fourth paragraph. Also I believe the word "genocide" is more descriptive as to what they were doing pursuant to the desires of the Nazi leadership (and Hitler specifically) and the racially motivated ideology of the party which developed. I don't see the above as an improvement. Kierzek (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Instead of 'engineered' how about 'planned and executed' or maybe just 'perpetrated the genocide of...'? --causa sui (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I still think 'murdered' is the most appropriate language: it's direct and consise. The nature of Hitler's role in the Holocaust is expanded on later in the lead, and then further in the article so we should aim for brevity here. Nick-D (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

As I see it, the problem is that people are just inventing wording to fit their own belief-systems. Wiki is supposed to be about impartially and neutrally summarising current consensus understandings, and doing that by referring to reputable, verifiable sources. This doesn't appear to be happening here. E.g. what reputable and authoritative secondary sources state that Hitler "initiated WW2 in Europe"? Or that he "engineered", "planned", "executed" or "perpetrated" the "holocaust"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mystichumwipe (talk • contribs) 13:35, August 6, 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion at Talk:Adolf

Should Adolf become a redirect to Adolf Hitler as a wp:primary redirect? Please comment or !vote here.--Nevé–selbert 15:57, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Adding Oswald Mosley and Unity Mitford pages to See Also section.

I was looking to add a note about Hitler's pre- and post-war social impact on upper classes featuring these three as example, but since the page is locked; would an Administrator of this page be inclined to simply add Oswald Mosley, his wife, Diana Mitford, and her sister Unity Mitford, to the See Also section? Lindenfall (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Strange entry on this page

This Talk page has a strange, mostly empty entry that starts, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations." I don't understand the wikiprogramming that creates this. Could someone fix or delete it please? David Spector (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

On my page it says after that:

• "Topics that spark Wikipedia 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. (details)
• Josh Fjelstad (22 June 2011). "The 100 Longest Entries On Wikipedia". BuzzFeed. Retrieved 13 December 2014. (details)

If there's a "[show]" button on the top right of the box on your page, click that and the text should appear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

1934 referendum

In this article, we say:

On 19 August, the merger of the presidency with the chancellorship was approved by 90 per cent of the electorate voting in a plebiscite.

In the Wiki-linked article (German referendum, 1934) we say the vote was 88.1% for. Which is it? --causa sui (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I checked the cited source (Shirer page 229) and it says 90 per cent. If we're going to change the data we need to source it. I found Evans 2005 page 110 says 88 per cent, so I am changing it to that. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:48, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it. By the way, do you know what is the purpose of the 'nbsp' template in the snippet I cited? --causa sui (talk) 18:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

It places a non-breaking space between "per" and "cent" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, I know that... but, why? :-) --causa sui (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

"German politician"

thats not totally correct, in that sense what is German? He was born in Austria and was Austrian citizen until he almost took over the power in Germany..... Yes both cultures have been always pretty similiar and you could probably say Austrian are Germans but then you could also say South-Belgium people are actually French, or north Belgium people are Dutch and so on..... fact is when he was born he was Austrian and today also Austrian people consider themselvees as Austrian not Germans and vice versa......

what would be more accurate is "Austrian politician" or "Politician in the German Reich" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.155.236.202 (talk) 10:28, 15 October 2017‎ (UTC)

We've been over this before. Many times. Birthplace is one thing. Political action and holding office is another. It is true that borders changed, but the article satisfactorily elucidates the relevant facts and parses the distinctions. User:7&6=thirteen 14:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

What was wrong with "Austrian born German politician"? Britmax (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, I do not know and his connection to Austria should be noted in the first sentence one way or another. It was noted previously, but someone granted himself/herself authority to roll back this issue to the talk page.Ernio48 (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Austrians are Germans. People who don't comprehend this lack a basic knowledge of human history.Ernio48 (talk) 12:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see a reason in beating this dead horse at this point. Kierzek (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I think "German politician" is accurate. It means that Hitler, nationally Austrian, was a politician in Germany. But he was not a typical politician. He was jailed for treason. Maybe "German agitator and politician" would be more accurate. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

We’ve been over this extensively before (sorry, on my phone or I would link to it). The article lead, body and infobox all make very clear what the situation was regarding Hitler’s birthplace, nationality etc, while also summarising succinctly as German in the first line (because Hitler became a notable encyclopaedia subject as leader of Germany, etc, see WP:OPENPARA). For one thing it was Austria-Hungary was he was born, but that’s another conversation really. I see no reason to shoehorn ‘Austrian’ into the first line just for the hell of it. —  Cliftonian (talk)  05:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

JFK docs show CIA heard rumor that Adolf Hitler escaped to South America

Why is this not mentioned in the article? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/adolf-hitler-escape-nazi-germany-rumor-cia-documents-jfk-assassination/ AHC300 (talk) 21:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it's rubbish. The Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death covers the theories put forward by cranks claiming that Hitler somehow didn't kill himself. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Nick-D is correct. Unsubstantiated reports and a photo that cannot be authenticated, do not prove anything new. The CIA report states that neither the contact who reported his conversations, nor the CIA station "is in a position to give an intelligent evaluation of the information". Rumors mean nothing of substance. Kierzek (talk) 00:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Totalitarian

The lead currently states "....a one-party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideology of National Socialism." I think totalitarian should be removed. Instead, we mention in the "Leadership style" section that Hitler's regime has been descripted as totalitarian and discuss the merits of that claim. Many historians of Nazi Germany, including have disputed the "totalitarian" label for the regime. It is noted that Hitler's leadership style was very unlike an totalitarian dictator. LittleJerry (talk) 16:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I think Totalitarian is an understatement and should be kept. It is the least we can say. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's your opinion that its an "understatement". Many experts, including those who specialize in Nazi Germany, have taken issue with the totalitarian label. If Hitler was a totalitarian leader, then please explain why he had such little interest in everyday governing and bureaucracy. LittleJerry (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

And that would be your opinion. And your unsourced argument. Ipse dixit? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I have given a source. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I agree with 7&6=thirteen here. It will take a lot more than a link to a file on a random (seemingly short-lived and long defunct) wordpress.com blog to even start this discussion. If the "many experts" claimed above can be listed, confirmed as genuine, non-crank authorities on the subject, and referenced as unambiguously dissenting from the description as "totalitarian" then we might have the beginnings of a discussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Non-cranks like Ian Kershaw? Martin Broszat? Hans Mommsen? Timothy Snyder? I would be willing to write a small paragraph with sources and post it here for approval. LittleJerry (talk) 20:31, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Before you write anything, please provide citations from all the people you just listed, in which they definitively state that the Nazi regime was not totalitarian. Quotes and full sources, please, not name-dropping. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, there is a vast and unwaivering consensus that the Nazi regime was the epitome of "Totalitarian". So even if you provide it and it is convincing, I cannot imagine the word "Totalitarian" will be dropped. At best you get an explanatory footnote. But have at it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

You should check out this article which gives an overview of scholarly opinions on the nature of the Third Reich. It states that "Likewise, Broszat and Mommsen discarded the totalitarian model of the Nazi state...." Mommsen and Broszat were both known for calling Hitler a "weak dictator". In this article 'Working Towards the Führer.' Reflections on the Nature of the Hitler Dictatorship, Kershaw states that the totalitarian model has "no explanatory power" and goes on to explain how disattached Hitler was from everyday governing. LittleJerry (talk) 00:02, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You dropped names, now please give us the quotes and citations connected to those names. I want to see where Kershaw and Synder and Mommsen and company say that the Nazi regime was "not totalitarian". If you can't do that, then please drop this subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I already gave you a source were Kershaw disputes the totalitarian model, but if you need more, on page 45 of his book The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspective he states clearly that "Beyond this, it seems to me that depictions of Nazism as a 'totalitarian system' are best avoided..." and “All and all, the value of the totalitarian concept seems extremely limited and the disadvantages of its deployment greatly outweigh its possible advantages...". On the same page he quotes Mommsen stating "The totalitarian theory is the myth which stands in the way of any real social historical explanation [of Nazism]". As for Snyder, he has disputed the "totalitarian" label in one of his video lectures which I can't locate at the moment. LittleJerry (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. When you have the quotes and cites for all the names you dropped, please list them here together, so they can be evaluated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:43, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Why can't you evaluate the quotes I already have. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I will evaluate your citations when you provide the citations that you claimed exist. If you want to withdraw that claim, and say now that only these two things exist, we can go from there. But until you do, you've made specific claims about specific people, and I have to insist that you back them up. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest you read Totalitarianism, Fascism and Organic theory of the state and the sources therein. I recognize that totalitarianism is for some a a "loaded word" but in the case of Nazi Germany and the Nazi party, it is a fitting descriptor. The attempt to separate Adolph Hitler from his philosophy and his government's actions (so that he was allegedly not the overarching architect or administrator) is Bullshit. He was a great admirer of Mussolini and his fascist model. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 02:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no need to be uncivil. None of the people I cited suggested that Hitler had nothing to do with his government's polices or philosophy. The point is, Hitler was a big picture guy who cared little for details and everyday bureaucracy. LittleJerry (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

He was a dictator and the core of the Nazi Party. The party was the government and it was a totalitarian and autocratic ideology. The Nazis used Gleichschaltung, the process of successively establishing a system of totalitarian control and coordination for all aspects of society after obtaining national power. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I was not being uncivil. I was criticizing your idea because it is flagrant, not you. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2017

On the last line of the Path To Defeat subsection under WW2, in the sentence "Later, Hitler ordered savage reprisals resulting in the execution of more than 4,900 people."

My suggestion is to change the use of the word "savage" to something more encyclopedic. Possibly replacements could be "heavy" or "serious", or the adjective could simply be omitted completely. Savage is not an empirically measurable term, and in my opinion it doesn't reflect Wikipedia's emphasis on neutrality.

I know it's a small change, but we could always improve the neutrality of articles, it can't hurt. 2606:A000:4C8A:3000:D0D:EC60:ACC4:FA7B (talk) 19:34, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that downplaying the savagery of the slaughter of ca. 5,000 people is warranted. As Josef Stalin is reputed to have said: 'The loss of your grandmother is a "tragedy"; the killing of a million people is a "statistic."' Quote Investigator (May 10, 2010). "A Single Death is a Tragedy; a Million Deaths is a Statistic". Retrieved November 9, 2017. Words convey meaning, denotation and connotation. Our choice of words can reflect our moral outrage. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:54, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The words used therein are accurate and it is not a matter of pov; no reason to soft-pedal the facts. Not to mention, the words "heavy" or "serious" are vague and ambiguous. Kierzek (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

We are supposed to be neutral. Not "neutered." 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I can think of several editors to whom that procedure could be applied with profit. Let's add it to the ANI toolbox. EEng 14:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

No adjective is necessary. If a reader sees that 4,900 people were killed and doesn't consider it "brutal," there isn't much we can do for them. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Is the intended meaning more savage reprisals or more-savage reprisals? EEng 14:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

"Savage" is le mot juste, as at least eight of the victims were hung by their necks with piano wire from meat hooks. "'They must all be hanged like cattle,' Hitler had ordered." Shirer, page 1071. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure le mot juste is quite the right way of putting it. EEng 14:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2017

Please see below. I would like to have this matter discussed with a wider audience.

References

•  Not done An extensive change such as this will have to be discussed on the talk page, and a consensus of editors will need to agree to the change before it can be made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that while Shirer's book is still an excellent resource, there's been a huge amount of research done on this subject (Hitler's view of the Jews and Judaism) in the 57 years since it was published. Anything added to the article now should reference Kershaw, Bullock, Fest, Overy, Rosenbaum, Burleigh and others, not be based primarily on Shirer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

This article is quite large and we don't have room for any more content. That's why some of the material is located in other articles. Political views of Adolf Hitler would be a better place for your suggested material. Also, I am generally not in favor of using extensive quotations to build our articles. We're better off using prose we write ourselves, as it makes for more interesting, easier-to-read articles. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: The following information comes from the definitive book of it's time in the United States, William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", written in 1959. I believe all the information is true. Also, because of its importance, I would like to add it to the main page about Adolph Hitler. Please place the information thusly: Under the chapter, “Entry into Politics”, after the first paragraph, I would like to add a second paragraph titled, “Position on the Jews”. Please place the existing paragraph about the Gemlich letter first, then add the following two paragraphs:

Hitler’s first mention of the jews occurred during World War I: “…And indeed had he not seen this for himself in the German homeland while convalescing from his leg wound in the middle of the war? After his discharge from the hospital at Beelitz, near Berlin, he had visited the capital and then gone on to Munich. Everywhere he found ‘scoundrels’ cursing the war and wishing for its quick end. Slackers abounded, and who were they but Jews? ‘The offices,’ he found, ‘were filled with Jews. Nearly every clerk was a Jew and nearly every jew was a clerk… In the year 1916-17 nearly the whole production was under control of Jewish finance…The Jew robbed the whole nation and pressed it beneath his domination…I saw with horror a catastrophe approaching.' [1] Hitler could not bear what he saw and was glad, he says, to return to the front." [2]

On February 24, 1920, the fledgling German Workers’ Party held its first big speech (at Hitler’s urging) at the Hofbrauhaus in Munich (seating capacity 2,000). That evening, Hitler announced the 25-point platform of the German Worker’s Party. Among these points was a plan for the jews. “The Jews were to be denied office and even citizenship in Germany and excluded from the press. All who had entered the Reich after August 2, 1914, were to be expelled.” <Shirer, William L., “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” MJF Books, New York, 1959, pg. 41> These 25 points became the official program of the Nazi Party when the German Workers Party changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (NSDAP) on April 1, 1920. They guided Nazi party policies throughout the war. The points were drawn up earlier that day by Anton Drexler (founder of the German Workers’ Party), Gottfried Feder (the group’s self appointed economics expert), and Adolph Hitler himself. [3] Music man214 (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Jump up ^ Mein Kampf, p. 193 Jump up ^ Shirer, William L., “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” MJF Books, New York, 1959, pg. 31 Jump up ^ Shirer, William L., “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” MJF Books, New York, 1959, pgs. 35-40

• I agree with the comments above: the source is outdated, and the proposed material quoting Hitler's ramblings isn't suitable for the article. Nick-D (talk) 04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• @Music man214: Please do not continue to open new edit requests when there is one already open. Continuing to do so may well be considered to be disruptive editing, which can get you blocked from editing. You've gotten three responses now, I'm sure others will chime in, but do not open a new request hoping to get a "wider audience". Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• We do not need a lot of extensive quotations and frankly it is not suited for a GA article; one problem is copyright issues and another is bytes (we do not have room in this article for more content on a subject, which is covered); we should write clear, tight prose for presentation to the readers, cited to RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 06:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
• I think you are overly critical. I am new to this environment, so forgive me if I sound out of line. I think this meets the criteria a FA article (featured article). Also, on the use of quotations, I can drop them, but I'm not prone to plagiarism. The information comes directly from Shirer's book. If you can find any experts on Hitler, you will find that this work was the definitive book on him. I put the information up because of its importance and my like for everything Wikipedia. How well versed are the editors here on Hitler? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Other editors obviously disagree with you, and we operate by WP:Consensus on Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• Quotations for footnote #1 (ie. Hitler's ramblings) come directly from Mein Kampf. I typed the information exactly as it was written by Shirer, because I know it is important. I can paraphrase this work, but I know it is important to stick to historical accuracy. This is the purpose of the quotations. If you find the information hard to verify, search for the book at a public library, or buy it outright on eBay (what I recommend). With Hitler, it is hard to find a credible author. Books written in the 1980's and 90's, to me, lack credibility. They reek of amateurism. You will find the Shirer worked from a warehouse of information (all the Reich paperwork) obtained by the US Army after the war, and shipped back to the United States. This paperwork was later returned to the Germans, by the Americans, as part of a goodwill effort, a decade later. Today, the internet and its revelations are important for writers. However I think these new writers may be contaminated by less than stellar knowledge. If you pretend to be an expert on Hitler, you will want this book. I also recommend both volumes of Mein Kampf. Beyond that, just watch shit on Youtube. If you think my paragraphs belong somewhere else, I would say you are crazy. If they should be reformatted, please tell me how? If you question the quality of the writing, please send me a link below so that I can improve. Beyond that, the information should be posted as is, exactly as I described. Thank you.

• I believe everyone understands where the information came from, and no one has accused you of misrepresenting it. Please re-read the reasons you've been given for this not being accepted into the article, because I don't think you're understanding what you've been told. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

• And, just for the record, I've read Shirer. I would bet you that everyone who has commented here has read Shirer. Some of them may have read Mein Kampf as well, but I have not, and do not intend to, although I know a fair amount about it from third-party sources. Again, read closely the reasons you've been given, and comment -- if you must -- on those reasons, and do not make assumptions on the backgrounds and erudition of the editors who have responded to you. But I warn you, this is not going to go on forever, we all have better things to do then to continue telling you the same things over and over again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have two copies of Shirer; I keep a spare one just in case I spill my coffee on my working copy. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I have read both Shirer's tome (which is dated, but still has value) and "Mein Kampf" (Barnes & Noble comes in handy like your library, but better, you can get coffee!). I have Kershaw, Joachimsthaler and Evans, to name a few; and yes, Music man, I am very "well versed" on Herr Hitler and the other's who made up the NSDAP leadership. I agree with BMK's comments and you should take his advice. Kierzek (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Is Evans worthwhile? I have them on my "to get" list, but haven't lit a fire under myself to get them. I'd also recommend Fest (Hitler and The Face of the Third Reich), Bullock, Burleigh, Overy, Rosenbaum, and a couple of others. I'm reading Schramm now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I guess I should also mention Ferguson, whose books I find very interesting, but frequently wrong-headed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Tooze is helpful as well. It's not directly about Hitler as an individual, but gives context for some of the pressures and rivalries inside the regime. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Tooze I'm not familiar with. I'll look into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it's as widely known as some of the others. Convenience link for those interested. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Evans is worthwhile and well regarded; but, is better for reading and citing in relation to the rise of the Nazi Party and the history of Nazi Germany; but ofcourse Hitler is the hub of the wheel for both of those. Fest's books mentioned above, I have also read (and use to own), but now do not consider him as strong of a RS source for Hitler or the Nazi leadership. Bullock (which I have also read) is older, but still a good source; not too dated. Kierzek (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Bullock's Hitler and Stalin: Parallel Lives (1992) updates A Study in Tyranny somewhat. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

So everybody likes Shrier Shirer! Let's blow the roof off this place! BTW, how many pages is that book? Am I screwed here because of immaturity? I believe that's the case! Is it because I'm smarter than you? Step aside, and stop being dunced up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 10:58, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

While this already went to ANI, perhaps this continued abuse of the TP requires a topic ban, as he got his ears pinned back and is now lashing out here? What do others think? 104.169.28.113 (talk) 12:11, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you've got it backwards. He posted the comment above first, and the about a half-hour later posted the ANI complaint. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Who are you people? and why did you take control of this page? You are certainly not experts. I would like to be an editor up here. I know I will improve things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music man214 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

To User:Music man214

@Music man214: It's my impression from the AN/I complaint you posted [1] that you recently read Shirer's book (and please note the correct spelling of his name) and, having done so, you have now appointed yourself an expert on the very complex subject of Adolf Hitler, and especially his views on Jews, so much so that you consider yourself worthy of criticizing every editor who has responded to you edit request on this paqe. However, looking through the 80 edits you've made in the 21 months you've had an account, I note that you have not made a single edit to any article about Hitler, Nazism, Fascism, or anti-semitism. In fact, as your account name would imply, the majority of your mainspace edits are to articles about music.

There's nothing wrong with editing about music, and nothing wrong about posting on another subject than the one you had been concentrated on. The point of my comment is this: you need to drop the stick. You do not become an expert on Hitler after reading one book, and it's more than likely that every single editor who has responded to you knows more about Hitler, and his opinions about Jews, than you appear to. You need to stop insulting them, stop complaining that we're some kind of cabal who have taken "control" of this page for nefarious purposes, and stop filing requests for your suggested edit to be added to the article, since that is simply not going to happen.

I am not a Wikpiedia administrator (although at least one of the participants in this discussion is), so I cannot say with certainty that you'll be blocked from editing if you continue what has become disruptive and tendentious editing, but I can tell you this: if you continue posting in this manner on this page, your behavior will be brought to the attention of an administrator (not the ones involved here) or posted on AN/I (which does not deal with content disputes, but does deal with behavioral issues) for consideration of some sort of sanction -- at the very least a trouting. You have been given a considerable amount of leeway because we adhere to the policy of assuming good faith about our editors, and because you are obviously new here, but you've petty much used all of that up with your behavior here. Please consider yourself to be on notice that you must curtail your behavior. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I will post this on your talk page as well, to make certain that you see it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Message on my user talk page

I figured I'd let everyone know that Music man214 left a message on my talk page here, which I was more than happy to respond to. I hope it helps -- ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:05, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

″Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939″

As Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the lead section "should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article". In the light thereof, while I might be overlooking something in the article, I fail to see any content therein that would support this statement (″As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939, >″): I consciously cut it off the way I did, as its closing part (on the Holocaust) is grounded in the content. I stress that I am not, at this stage, dispute the validity of this statement on merits; but my objection is based on what the relevant Guideline instructs us to do.Axxxion (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You fail to see any content which shows that Hitler provoked World War II by invading Poland? Really? Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Where does the article say that, expressly? I suspect Nuremberg trials did put the responsibility on the Nazi leadership (quite frankly never was especially interested in the topic and it is indeed beyond my ken; am just reading this article and find it clumsy and unconvincing); but the article does not mention it. Does it?Axxxion (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Besides, the text we have does not say ″provoked World War II" (your wording, Beyond My Ken): Pls read and write carefully.Axxxion (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You have lost any credibility here with this question. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I had a much more detailed response, showing how the article supported the statement, but I'm just not going ot play this game. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, the plain fact is the article does not say anything about him ″initiating World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939″. Binksternet, your writing here is infra dig -- this happens when people have no tangible argumets. I feel I am being misunderstood, as you guys are being emotional: I am not disputing this sentence on merits; am just saying the article should explain why we state precisely this: ″Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939″. Is it based on a court′s ruling, the UK gov′s stance; history text-books, or else? Why, for example, we do not say "He, along with Stalin, intitiated...", which is actually what a lot of articles in Wiki imply or even directly say? Or his invasion of Yugoslavia did not initiate?Axxxion (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Moreover, this statement (″Hitler initiated World War II in Europe with the invasion of Poland in September 1939″) appears to be directly contradicted to by what the current text of the article says: section Adolf Hitler#Start of World War II: ″Hitler was concerned that a military attack against Poland could result in a premature war with Britain. Hitler's foreign minister and former Ambassador to London, Joachim von Ribbentrop, assured him that neither Britain nor France would honour their commitments to Poland. Accordingly, on 22 August 1939 Hitler ordered a military mobilisation against Poland. [...] On 1 September 1939, Germany invaded western Poland [...] In response, Britain and France declared war on Germany on 3 September, surprising Hitler and prompting him to angrily ask Ribbentrop, "Now what?"″. Very clear from this text (for what it is worth) that Hitler did not intend to (indeed, hoped not to) have a world war on his nands in September 1939 by invading Poland.Axxxion (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

In 1938, he invaded Czechoslovakia, for example: Why is it not the initiation of the WW? Because the UK gov then decided thus? I think these are legitimate questions, which are not clarified (or even addressed) in the article.Axxxion (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, you are right about Czechoslovakia. And did not mention Austria. He should have been confronted far earlier. And as these actions — including the invasions of Poland and a host of other countries — were of a single piece in a larger plan, one could well argue that the war had already begun. Notwithstanding appeasement attempts. But one has to draw an historical line somewhere, and the allies recognized the inevitability of war and drew the line at the invasion of Poland. But the historical line is blurred. And the article makes that all clear.

But more to the point, none of this absolves Adolph from his responsibility. Res ipsa loquitur. Amen. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:53, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

We talk at cross-purpose here, 7&6=thirteen: you discuss Adolf and history, whereas i am discussing the article.Axxxion (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about Adolph and history. False choice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A case can be made that World War II began earlier than the invasion of Poland, but a case can also be made that World War I and World War II were the same war with a 20-year cease-fire between the outbreaks. Historians adopt the invasion of Poland as the beginning of World War II because that's when the UK and France declared war on Germany, and Germany did likewise in return. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well and good, then as per Beyond My Ken′s explanation above, we would have to write: the WW began on 3 September 1940, after Britain and France, along with their dependencies the world over, declared war on Germany.Axxxion (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

No we don't, as it is written is perfectly fine. Hitler's act was the casus belli that initiated the war, which then formally began with the declarations. Stop being so fucking literal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Look, amnot playing any games and amnot trying to be literal; I just would like to find a reference point for saying what the the lede says — at least in the article itself, but there seems to be none. The article clearly says he hoped there would be no big war: apparently he miscalculated, or made a blunder, or some such; but any of these are not equivalent to what the lede says.Axxxion (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

All i see in response to my questions here is fits of emotions, obscene swearing and insults (See posts above) -- quite indicative. As far as I understand, the only point of reference for this claim in the lede could be the rulings of the Nuremberg court, namely the indictment against the governing bodies of Nazi Germany: See in Nuremberg trials#Trial - ″Participation in a leadership of the Nazi party, the Reich Cabinet common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace″. But this article fails to say anything on the matter, although Hitler is mentioned in the Court′d rulings, him being dead notwithstanding, I gather. This is actually a broader deficiency in the article. Has to be a section on that.Axxxion (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok. It is clear that this article is not subject to the WP′s standards that apply to other articles, just like 9/11: human hatred of truth supersedes all else. Even discussion is apparently forbidden.Axxxion (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Your query has been answered on this page, see above and below on one of the multiple discussion threads you have started. And given this article is and has been GA rated for sometime, your post above is not correct. I would suggest you drop the stick; WP:Deadhorse. Kierzek (talk) 23:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

As ☎ appear to have insisted that we do discuss ″Adolph and history″ here, I will allow myself a few final words (as it is clear that any impartial encyclopedic debate here is impossible): I think AH is definitely THE most fascinating human being we all know, and the word ″all″ is quite important to start thinking about it, as he is obviously the best-known human being, probably along with Jesus, on this planet. No one else ever before or after elicited such sincere adoration of folks ruled by him and such institutionalised hatred, posthumously. This fact in its own right is of great scientific interest, I believe. What we humans need to face is that he was a human being. Second, that he is (as far as I know) the first leader of the vanquished side that was not simply defeated but legally declared criminal as well. I think this latter fact is of great consequence for our recent history and future, as it is a quantum leap in the human evolution that signifies that the winner side is not simply a side that is superior in murder but it is officially superior in moral terms. Quite fascinating indeed. And hatred endures (read this thread above).Axxxion (talk) 00:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

This stick is turning into a fucking Sequoia. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what this originally was but what it is now is completely unproductive and not a little nauseating. It stops here. This is an encyclopaedia not a general forum for opinions, navel gazing and general kvetching. There is nothing to be gained by continuing. It is not like this is progressing towards any specific beneficial change to the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

|}

″As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe″

As per my recent edits, I would also like to raise an objection to the wording of this sentence, without prejudice to the issue raised in the foregoing section, namely the inherent logic of the opening: I find the sentence inherently illogical, or/and poorly worded. I suspect that what was meant by whoever the author thereof was is: ″As dictator, Hitler was responsible for initiating...″ Having said this, it is also arguably inaccurate, as his responsibility for the prosecution of war stemmed from his position of the Commander-in-Chief, which in fact is supported by the text′s content: ″He assumed the role of supreme commander of the armed forces during 1938, and subsequently made all major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy″. By using a loaded epithet (which is an assessment of his leadership style, not the actual position as a state leader), we strip the article of its encyclopedic value and weight, making it sound like a propaganda pamphlet.Axxxion (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Really it is a bare statement of fact. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

What precisley is ″a bare statement of fact″. I think his authority vis-a-vis the armed forces was based on his position as Supreme Commander (and still fiercely resented by German generals who were accustomed to autonomy in their actions -- what the artcile says), not our assessment of him as a dictator. Granted, he also declared himself the Leader of the nation, but that happened after 1939. Theses are facts, are they not?Axxxion (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

He didn't become "Fuhrer" -- literally "Leader" -- in 1939, he took that title after Hindenberg's death in 1934. Also he took over the War Ministry in 1938, but didn't become "Supreme Commander of the Army" until 1941. So his authority was based on his being the only game in town from 1934 on. There was no President, there was no Reichstag (except in a ceremonial sense), so unless the Army was going to rebel en masse, they had to follow Hitler's orders. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, according to Führer#Germanic Führer: "on 23 June 1941 [...] he declared himself the "Germanic Führer" (Germanischer Führer), in addition to his duties as Führer of the German state and people. -- this is what i meant by saying he declared himself the Leader of the nation after 1939; prior to that the term Führer referred to more specific entities such the Party, or State.Axxxion (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

And as you say, they are articulated at length in the article. He was in charge, even as some questioned his orders. So what is your point? 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have said what my beef is: See above. the text is illogical and inaccurate, also poorly worded.Axxxion (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

There is no effective difference between "Hitler initiated World War II in Europe″ and "Hitler was responsible for initiating World War II in Europe," except that the former is more direct and the latter a tad more weasely. Drop the stick, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I almost agree with your statement above; but my (linguistic) objection was not to "Hitler initiated World War II in Europe", but to ″As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe″: What is it supposed to signify in totality? That he initiated war due to the fact of being dictator? Next we would say this: ″As a democratically elected head of government Neville Chamberlain declared war on Germany″. My point being, the wording is either idiotic, or unclear: Does the "as..." clause here introduce the reason, or simply state the capacity in which the person was capable of doing it? It is plain muddy and slipshod.Axxxion (talk) 17:58, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You're misreading the sentence. Read it as "While he was dictator of Germany, Hitler initiated...". Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

BMK, is correct above as to the meaning of how the sentence should be read. These sentences were highly vetted and as the archives show went through much discussion and re-write until consensus was agreed upon. Seems to be quibbling over semantics. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• Tim Cook (29 September 2015). Fight to the Finish: Canadians in the Second World War, 1944-1945. Penguin Canada. pp. 10–. ISBN 978-0-14-319612-9.--Moxy (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It is clear Hitler had total power over Nazi Germany by 1939. He invaded Poland starting WWII. Hitler ruled Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. No propaganda. Just the facts. Brenda Haugen (2006) Adolf Hitler: Dictator of Nazi Germany Cmguy777 (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes and to the editor attempting to change "dictator" to "Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht" or some other military-related phrase: the decision to invade Poland was strictly a political one, there was absolutely no military necessity for the invasion, nor did the idea originate with the General Staff (who were actually counting on a few more years to finish building up their forces) - it came from Hitler, who wanted to start his campaign for "lebensraum" in the east, get rid of the Danzig corridor as non-German territory, and capitalize on his successes in Austria and Czechoslovakia. He arranged for the "friendship" pact with Stalin, and for Poland to be divided between the two countries. All of this was politically- and ideologically-motivated, it was not a military decision and was not made in his position as Supreme Commander, but as dictator of Germany. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

We avoid synthesis and go with what the sources say. The line in question is ″As dictator, Hitler initiated World War II in Europe″, not "As Fuhrer, ......". If a number of established sources describe Hitler as dictator before the war, then current sentence would be correct, as Hitler would have been a dictator initiating the war to acquire Danzig and the Polish Corridor. SamHolt6 (talk) 15:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

Section Adolf Hitler#Leadership style (second para) reads: ″He assumed the role of supreme commander of the armed forces during 1938, and subsequently made all major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy″. Whereas section Adolf Hitler#Dictatorship (para 3 and 4, excl the initial quote) reads: ″On 2 August 1934, Hindenburg died. The previous day, the cabinet had enacted the "Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich".[2] This law stated that upon Hindenburg's death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of government, and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). [...] As head of state, Hitler became supreme commander of the armed forces.″ Thus, the question arises: When did he become the Supreme Commander: in 1934, or 1938?Axxxion (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

References

Cabinet ministers had their own purviews, and the Wehrmacht was that of the War Minster, an office which Hitler didn't take on until 1938, after Goering and Himmler managed to get Blomberg and Fritsch stripped of their offices -- Blomberg was War Minister and Fritsch was Commander-in-Chief of the Army. Fritsch was replaced by Brauchitsch, but Hitler didn't replace Blomberg, taking the War Ministry for himself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

You've changed your text while I was responding to it. He became Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht in 1938, and then added Supreme Commander of the Army in 1941 - in which position he was his own boss twice over. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well and good, I am ready to trust you, Beyond My Ken. But what about the passage I cited from Adolf Hitler#Leadership style, which essentially says he in 1934 ″became supreme commander of the armed forces″, upon Hindenburg′s demise. Is correct too?Axxxion (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler#Leadership style says "He assumed the role of supreme commander of the armed forces during 1938, and subsequently made all major decisions regarding Germany's military strategy." Hindenberg's name is not mentioned in that section, nor is the date 1934. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon, I meant of course Adolf Hitler#Dictatorship (para 3 and 4, excl the initial quote): ″As head of state, Hitler became supreme commander of the armed forces. The traditional loyalty oath of servicemen was altered to affirm loyalty to Hitler personally, by name, rather than to the office of supreme commander or the state.″, which refers to 1934, after Hindenburg died.Axxxion (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe the text in section Adolf Hitler#Dictatorship needs refinement: apparently he did not in 1934 become head of state as such, but merely assumed powers of that office, which was effectively ablished. Hence, this passage ″As head of state, Hitler became supreme commander of the armed forces″ need amending to make clear he was formally neither.Axxxion (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, it appears he was formally both. Using Kershaw as my primary source, things seem a bit confusing. Kershaw does indeed say that the Head of State (Hindenberg) was Supreme Commander of the Wehrmacht, and that by succeeding him as Head of State (under the title "Fuhrer") Hitler became Supreme Commander (1934). When dealing with the Blomberg-Fritsch affair, Kershaw doesn't refer to H. becoming Supreme Commander at that time (1938), but refers to Hitler "taking over" the Wehrmacht by becoming War Minister after getting rid of Blomberg. I believe the difference is in the level of practical control. As Head of State, Hitler was, apparently, titularly Supreme Commander of the armed forces, but by installing himself as War Minister, he increased his level of de facto control.

As for the change of oath to Hitler personally that came immediately after Hinderberg died on 2 August 1934. It was initiated by the Reichswehr (army) leadership, including Blomberg as War Minister. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I have no access to any good sources; but we do have contradictory (or confounding) statements in the artcile. In the light of what you have said, it may be the case that section Adolf Hitler#Leadership style is actually off the mark, at least inaccurate in wording, and has to be along the lines of this perhaps: ″As War Minister, he put himself directly in charge of the armed forces during 1938.″Axxxion (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Amending head of section Adolf Hitler#Dictatorship

I think the headline of the section does not fully reflect the actual content, which is much broader (that is if we mean "Hitler becomes dictator"), or outright different (if taken literally, as the section is not about dictatorship but about Hitler). The section is actually about Hitler′s gradual consolidation of power throughout the period of 1933−1939.Axxxion (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It accurately defines the content of the section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it is utterly meaningless: the article is a biography, in the light of which a section like "Childhood", "Education", "Career" and similar that describe certain periods in a person′s life do make sense. this one describes a form of rule as an abstract notion.Axxxion (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

It is accurate for the section of this GA rated article; he was already at a position of national power (just tightened his grip, so to speak). Kierzek (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was amiss a bit in my original first post here: the section actually begins from 1933, when he was merely head of government in a multi-party political system under the President as head of state and Supreme Commander. The section does not speak about his "Dictatorship"; it highlights the major events and changes in his status within a period of six years.Axxxion (talk) 21:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding "the clique of hatred-mongers that control this article"

Going nowhere --NeilN talk to me 01:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

On his talk page, [2] User:Axxxion referred to "the clique of hatred-mongers who control this article", about which I would like clarification: who does Axxxion imagine that this "clique" hates, Adolf Hitler or him? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC) I would refer you to your own posting such as ″Stop being so fucking literal″ ([3]) -- very academic discussion apparently. Hatred of all, except yourself -- my answer to your query.Axxxion (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC) So, the clique "hates" you, that is your answer? And you know that the "clique" hates you because I asked to you "Stop being so fucking literal", is that right? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Very KGB move on your part: next you will say I am paranoid and need psychiatric treatment. First, read my postings: I said: humans hate truth about themselves -- I think it is quite obvious: Unlike other animals who kill mainly in order to eat, we, humans, kill to have power AND also to be good. Therefore we proclaim that God is leading us, or we obey His commands (no matter which religion or ideology -- all the same, just our fiction to feel good about ourselves). YOUR problem appears to be that you seem to be unable to read carefully.Axxxion (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC) (ec) Perhaps, but the depth of my comments on many issues on many talk pages would tend to belie your "observation". So, just to be clear, in your estimation I am not only a member of a "clique of hatred-mongers", but I hate everyone who is not myself, I behave in a manner similar to the KGB, and whatever "problems" I may have are similar to those of religious fanatics who kill to be good and those who kill for power. Are there any other personal attacks about myself or the rest of the "clique" you'd like to get off your chest? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Secondly, I have been taken care of in this department exactly by the KGB for the past exactly 20 years (minus one month probably), so i am very thoroughly treated, unlike most of Americans, who usually gad about insane until they commit mass murder and get in prison. :)Axxxion (talk) 00:33, 30 November 2017 (UTC) I'd be lying if I said I understood your first statement, but I do want to point out that the KGB hasn't existed since 1991. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Reading the synopsis of Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind by Yuval Noah Harari might clarify my point about humans and God.Axxxion (talk) 01:10, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Anyway, this is getting us nowhere. Please respect consensus (even if the consensus consists of "a clique of hatred-mongers") and do not make edits which oppose that consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC) Thank you for communicating respectfully. Apropos your queries above (apparently meant as rhetorical): pls pay attention that I was using pronoun "we, us, etc": unfortunately I belong to same zoological species. KGB goes strong (shorthand, commonly used by every one in the know, as modern Russia has such a plethora of successors thereto, the main one being the Kremlin itself). Good luck and God bless you. (But i do hope sb will address my first posting on this page in a constructive way: I think there needs to be a section on the N Trials).Axxxion (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Thread started by yet another sock of community-banned User:HarveyCarter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
South America Since there is no evidence Hitler died in Berlin (the Soviet "evidence" was proven to be faked) the article should mention the CIA believed Hitler had escaped from Germany to South America via Spain. (81.159.6.157 (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)) Your theory that there is no evidence is extremely WP:FRINGE and should not be presented in the article. The Russians opened up their archives, and the evidence is overhelming that they body they recovered in the garden of the Reichs Chancellery was Hitler's. No reputable historian thinks overwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC) BMK is correct. The facts in the article that are RS cited speak for themselves; this is not an entertainment show for ratings like the so-called History Channel produces. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC) The bone fragments belonged to a young woman and the dental records were faked as well. (81.132.48.129 (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)) Uh-huh. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2017

I was just going to add leader in parenthesis next to fuhrer 206.207.175.213 (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Where? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 ^{Happy Holidays!} 01:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hitler in Argentina?

The politest description I can think of is "Unedifying".
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There needs to be a section about Hitler going to Argentina in 1945 after WWII. There is evidence that Hitler could have left his bunker from an underground tunnel that led to the airport on April 21, 1945, then taken a flight out. Later getting on a U-Boat that went to Argentina. The bodies found in the bunker were NEVER verified to be Hitler and Eva. In fact, the skull fracture that the Soviets have with a bullet hole is actually female, not mail Aviator18 (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC) There is no such evidence in reliable sources, the theory that the bodies are not Hitler and Braun is a WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory, and the article will not include the information you wish to add. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Have you not seen the tv show "Hunting Hitler"? Aviator18 (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Do you not know that a History channel TV program is a mixture of facts and audience-titillating factoids and is not a reliable source? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Aviator, I have seen their program on "Chariots of the Gods", as well , but that does not make it fact by a long shot. Kierzek (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC) But either way. There is NO proof that Hitler committed suicide. It's all hear say from the Soviets. I'm not trying to say that Hitler for sure went to Argentina but at least say that it was possible, considering other know top Nazis went to Argentina. Aviator18 (talk) 16:32, 3 January 2018 (UTC) There is, in fact, abundant evidence. Stop watching pesudo-history on TV and pick up a book on the subject. Try Hugh Trevor-Roper's The Last Days of Hitler or the book of the same title by Anton Joachimsthaler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC) @Aviator18: I've watched many of those episodes and the information is compelling, but until they re-write school history books it's all just theories. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC) I don't believe its "compelling". I have read these "books" and they are akin to tabloid reporting. Not that our opinion is what matters, in the end. It is not the "school books", but changes to the RS works by renowned historians, such as Ian Kershaw, which will lead to any changes to this article. And btw, there is an article on conspiracy theories as to this subject matter already. Kierzek (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC) One thing to consider, is that even if Hitler had somehow survived WW2, since we are nearing his 128th birthday, he would have died of old age long ago. At that point, anyone who knew where he was hidden would lose their reason to keep the info secret. In fact, they could make a lot of money and the location would become a shrine for neo-Nazis, which would be plenty of reason for them to go public with Hitler's body, which DNA tests could then verify against relatives. Nobody having done so also adds to the disproof that Hitler survived. Also, the identification of a skull as male or female was iffy prior to DNA testing, mainly just assuming that larger skulls were male. Since Hitler was only 5 foot 9 inches tall, and had a slight build, his skull could be mistaken for a woman's. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC) There is an amassing heap of evidence suggesting Hitler's possible survival of WWII. At least enough to warrant a section of possible theories. The main points of evidence include: that he had many doubles, the secret tunnel leading to the airport, the body being quickly burned by only a few Germans, the Germans being the first to announce his death, the Soviets film of the body being identified as doppelgänger Gustav Weler, the FBI account of his arrival to Argentina (strongly supported by J. Edgar Hoover), the CIA photograph of a former SS officer with who he was convinced was Hitler, and the skull sutures being recognized as belonging to a somebody 20-40, when Hitler was 56. The fact that fringe theorists jump at new evidence to make their own arguments does not negate its existence. UpdateNerd (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2018 (UTC) our job as editors at Wikipedia is to summarize the reliable published secondary sources. Which ones are you summarizing? Rjensen (talk) 11:12, 15 February 2018 (UTC) NO, not here; it is all WP:Fringe and there is no hard evidence from RS sources. If you read, as I have, the FBI reports and the CIA station report they could not confirm anything; unsubstantiated reports. All hearsay, speculation, conjecture, surmise and fiction thrown in. It does sell books and TV shows, however. There is for example, photos that cannot be authenticated, that do not prove anything new. The CIA report states that neither the contact who reported his conversations, nor the CIA station "is in a position to give an intelligent evaluation of the information". This has all been covered on the Death of Adolf Hitler talk page and the Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death talk page. And is included in the second linked article. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 15 February 2018 (UTC) Nothing has been confirmed nor denied. There is also nothing "proving" his death happening in 1945 except a body with a mustache. The very existence of CIA and FBI documents are noteworthy on their own. The conclusions drawn from them are personal opinion. As the individual bits of evidence were all discovered at different times by different entities, the ones I referenced are all coming from those disparate sources. There is no "unified theory" linking them all together yet, but again, the very existence of them tells a different story than the popularly believed one. UpdateNerd (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2018 (UTC) No, it has been confirmed and there is no "...body with a mustache". Kierzek (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2018 (UTC) My god! They shaved the moustache off? Is there no limit to this sordid conspiracy? How low will they sink to cover up the truth? And where is the moustache now? Nobody will say! The topic wasn't even raised in Davos. Ilumuminati confirmed. Honk! Woof! And now we have hit the very apogee of silliness I think it is time to roll this up and turn our attention to something more constructive. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Austo-Hungarian

Following Wikipedia's usual policies, shouldn't the article open with him being an "Austro-Hungarian-born German politician"? --188.27.125.67 (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed in the past, and the article shows he result of that consensus discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

I need to edit a fact on his birthdate. GOD-1 (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@GOD-1: Please indicate what exactly you wish to do in the format of "change X to Y", as the template above states. 331dot (talk) 15:51, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Editor is a vandal. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 February 2018

just adding a external link

• Case Hitler Adolf : File (OSS)(201-93533) R3D/SP/AN/OSS European Center of Military History

that's it :) Gunter Gillot (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done I see nothing on this site to indicate that it is a reliable source, instead it seems to be a self-published source. I believe adding it to the external links would violate WP:ELNO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Thwe document belongs--this is a legit document at a poor site. For a high quality site see https://archive.org/details/Hitler-OSS-CIA Rjensen (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

 Done Rjensen: On that basis I have added the link to archive.org to the EL section. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Are the OSS' assessments of Hitler actually considered credible by modern historians? We know a lot more now about how Hitler operated and his intentions than the US intelligence services did during the war, and shouldn't direct readers to outdated resources. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter, as we're not including them in the article using Wikipedia's voice, but presenting them to our readers as additional information, clearly labelled as to its origins, which allows them to be assessed for biases and time-dependent errors. If we were using such primary sources for citations, it would be a different matter, as they would only be usable to show what the OSS or CIA knew or thought they knew at the time the documents were generated, and not for the truth of the information itself. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

The US used the OSS ideas in responding to Hitler in WW2--. There is a major scholarly article on Murray's study = Stephen Benedict Dyson, "Origins of the Psychological Profiling of Political Leaders: The US Office of Strategic Services and Adolf Hitler." Intelligence & National Security. Sept 2014, Vol. 29 Issue 5, pp 654-674. DOI: 10.1080/02684527.2013.834217. Rjensen (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. From searching JSTOR, I see that the article Psychology and the CIA: Leaders on the Couch which was published in in Foreign Affairs during 1994 says that while the studies "could not reflect either subsequent advances in abnormal psychology or the vast collection of documents about Hitler that surfaced after the war", one of them was commercially published as The Mind of Adolph Hitler in the 1970s, so I guess this is a useful link. Thanks Gunter for originally suggesting it, and Rjensen for finding a better link. Nick-D (talk) 04:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Rummel's numbers

Currently the Holocuast and Legacy sections mention Rudolph Rummel's estimates of 19.3 civilians death under the Nazis. That seems fairly high, higher than other scholarly estimates. Rummel seems to have a reputation for giving very high statistics for regime-caused deaths (see here) claiming that Stalin was responsible for 60 million and Mao for 77 million. Rummel's numbers would be fine in the main Holocaust article with the caveat that they are higher than other estimates, but for this article I think it's undue weight. LittleJerry (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, here. LittleJerry (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, you reverted my edit again and said "see talk" but I see no post from you. Please justify why you think Rummels numbers belong in the article. LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I've been watching this and would rather see your justification for deleting Rummel's numbers. The argument that Rummel got something else wrong so he must also be wrong here is unpersuasive. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That's not all I said. Please address my full criticism. LittleJerry (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Sorry I missed this on the first go-round.

So, let's see some more sources regarding Rummel's "reputation for giving very high statistics for regime-caused deaths", since the New York Review of Books article you cite only refers to Rummel's numbers in regard to deaths caused by Mao. It says that he is not a "China specialist", but doesn't tell us if he is a Nazi or Holocaust specialist, so I don;t think it establishes that Rummel is ipso facto unreliable. Let's see something that says specifically that he is unreliable in regard to the precise numbers cited here. Also, for contrast, please provide the "scholarly estimates" that Rummel's are higher then, and sources to support those numbers.

In the meantime, since the numbers are sourced to what seems to be a reliable source, they should stay in the article until a consensus is reached here regarding whether his numbers are indeed out of whack. (I'm not defending them as being right, just trying to see that we don't delete something in an offhand manner for reasons that might not be accurate.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

P.S. You can't see a comment from me if you're posting to complain you don't see a comment from me, and your edit conflicts with mine. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

But why state Rummel's estimate as fact when there are multiple estimates that are lower? LittleJerry (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, Rummel was not a Holocaust specialist either. He studed state-killings in general. See his article. LittleJerry (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

why state Rummel's estimate as fact when there are multiple estimates that are lower? Well, the idea is not to give the lowest numbers, it's to give the most accurate numbers or most widely accepted by experts numbers. I have deliberately avoided getting into the deep dark details of the Holocaust, Aktion T4, slave labor deaths etc., as I find the entire subject extremely depressing, so I'm not arguing from my own reading that Rummel is right. What I'm asking is for you to justify your removal of sourced material by showing either that Rummel is generally considered to be unreliable (not just by one person writing in a non-specialist magazine), or that there is a generally-accepted set of numbers for what Rummel is describing, and those numbers do not agree with Rummel's. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

There's extensive discussion on this topic and additional data and sources at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. Rummel's data specifices "institutional killings" of 11.28 million and "democidal killings in occupied Europe" ( which he defines as "the murder of any person or people by a government, including genocide, politicide and mass murder") of 19.3 million. His number of 11.28 million for "institutional killings" is in fact a little lower than the tally I collated from multiple sources (see my edit of 20:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC) on the dispute resolution page for the data). He defines "Institutional killing" as forced euthanasia, forced labor, dead prisoners of war, dead in concentration camps, and dead in death camps. "Democide" includes those victims plus murder of hostages, reprisal raids, starvation, exposure, medical experiments, and terror bombing. His tally is for occupied areas only, and does not (for example) include Soviet starvation deaths. Page 111. Some of the material is also visible here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

And why exactly should Rummel's numbers be given weight when he isn't even a specialist for Nazi Germany or the Holocaust? You yourself even added up the number of sourced death numbers of Jews, POWS ect, and got numbers of 11-12 millions which is the total given by Snyder. What other scholar give a number of 19 million? LittleJerry (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

The 19 million is the total Rummel gives for "democidal killings", which is not the same as what Snyder counts in his tally, which is equivalent to Rummel's tally of "institutional killings". Rummel's total is not very different from Snyder's when counting only those deaths. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Should this difference be emphasized in some way in the text of the article? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was fairly clear in the body, as it immediately follows discussion of the Hunger Plan and Generalplan Ost, but maybe not. Earlier in the same paragraph it specifies that the SS was directly responsible for circa 11 million intentional killings. So perhaps the sentence "These partially fulfilled plans resulted in the democidal deaths of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war" should be altered? perhaps to "These partially fulfilled plans brought the total number of democidal deaths to an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war." Other suggestions welcome. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I like your adjustment, which makes it clear that additional deaths are being referred to. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

We could actually use the word "additional", for example by saying "These partially fulfilled plans resulted in additional deaths, bringing the total number of civilians and prisoners of war who died in the democide to an estimated 19.3 million people." Let's change it in the morning if there's no objections or better suggestions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

First, thanks Diannaa for pulling up and linking the long, detailed discussion we were involved in from several years ago at: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. I would suggest, editors interested in this discussion read through it. I also agree with the latest revision suggested by Diannaa, with input from BMK. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I've gone ahead with the amendment, using the second version. I have that old dispute resolution page bookmarked, as some points we covered in those weeks are raised from time to time. Verry useful to not have to re-do all that research. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to go by what reliable sources say. Rummel's 19.3 million should remain in the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Hitlers title Führer

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I just wanted to mention, that "Führer" (of Germany) is not correct. The title "Führer" was invented from Hitler himself and his NSDAP, mostly it came from Goebbels I think. It was a Fantasytitle. The correct word would be "Dictator" as it is used in the german version of Wikipedia. Greetings from Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.201.194.33 (talk) 16:42, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

No, as cited in footnote: "the position of 'Führer' ('Leader') replaced the position of 'President' which was the Head of State for the Weimar Republic. Hitler took this title after the death of Paul von Hindenberg, who had been serving as President. He was afterwards both Head of State and Head of the Government, with the full official title of Führer und Reichskanzler des deutschen Volkes ('Führer and Reich Chancellor of the German People')". He became a dictator, in due course, as stated and cited after being made chancellor of Germany. Kierzek (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course "Führer" replaced the position of "President", but the title "Führer" did not exist in german policy untill this point. Hitler himself invented this title after Hindenburgs death on August 2. 1934. He did unite the position of the President and the chancelor and since then he reigned as "Führer and Reichschancelor". Hitler invented this position by himself, it was his own creation of his Fantasy! The position of the Führer was official only because Hitler made it an official position! Calling him "Führer" means to overtake terms of the National-socialist speech. He didn´t want to take the title "Reichspresident" because, from his point of view, it was to much connected with Hindenburg. Then he wanted to be adressed with "Führer and Reichskanzler of the German Empire". He just invented this title! Never before or after Hitler, the title "Führer" existed in the german political system. It is historicaly not correct to use this term. "Führer" was never a real title!

Due to this point, in Germany we never use the word "Führer". Hitler was the "Reichskanzler of Germany" and then became "Dictator of Germany"! Thats it. Sina — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:961:59E0:8D4F:14B0:88A9:B163 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No, that "title" conveyed and used long before August 1934. At a special party congress on 29 July 1921, Hitler became party chairman. The committee was dissolved, and Hitler was granted nearly absolute powers as the party's sole leader. He held that position for the remainder of his life. Hitler, a short time thereafter, acquired the title Führer and after a series of internal conflicts it was accepted that the party would be governed by the Führerprinzip. See Kershaw, Hitler (2008). Kierzek (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

If Hitler or his party invented it doesn´t matter! The National-socialists invented it! You are completely right with all your mentions, but it doesnt change the fact, that "Führer" was never a real political title. If the NSDAP would have given him the title "Great Gardener", he would had become the "Great Gardener of the german Reich". Using the term "Führer" means to follow the national-socialist thinking. It was a Nazi-expression. With "Führer" one overtakes the national-socialist jargon.

Let me bring another example: In november 1938 Hitler and Göbbels called out the "Reichskristallnacht" where hundreds of Jews were killed and tenthousands were arrested and brought to a concentration-camp, jewish shops were lifted and so on as you know. The NS used the term "Kristallnacht" (chrystal due to the thousand times smashed windows) to pretend that the normal german people were responsible for this as an act of resistance against the "jewish threat" to pretend that Germany is "awaking". So, using the word "Reichskristallnacht" is wrong because its a Nazi-expression. The historical correct word is Reichspogromnacht. Because "Reichskristallnacht" is a cynical expression. One can not work with the words or terms the NS invented because the NS-speech was there to misslead the germans and the rest of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:961:59E0:8D4F:14B0:88A9:B163 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

No, the National Socialists did not invent "Fuhrer" as a term, it, and the Fuhrerprinzip were kicking around Germany for quite a long time prior to the start of that party. Check out Fuhrerprinzip#Ideology for more information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not say the Nazis invented it, but it was conveyed on Hitler and he used it; it became an official title and position in the NSDAP party and later in the state; you cannot remove the party from the state, 2A02:908:961:59E0:8D4F:14B0:88A9:B163. Kierzek (talk) 13:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed - he was the "Fuhrer" of the NSDAP long before he was the "Fuhrer" of Germany. My point was that the title had currency in Germany well before the founding of the NSDAP. If my memory is correct it was even used by German youth groups, and the "Fuhrerprinzip" was certainly integral to the Reichswehr, the German Army in WWI. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Dictator is the most accurate word to describe Hitler. Führer is German for Leader. Reichskanzler or Chancellor does not really describe Hitler. We are talking about someone who had planned to take over the world, complete German domination. Hitler had plans to invade the United States. The man was a psychopath. The Nazis would have continued their horrible experiments on humans. Had Hitler had a nuclear weapon, it would have been hell on earth. The world is still paying repercussions for WWII. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to spell out how bad Hitler was, everyone involved here understands that and does not require your explicating it, since nobody is attempting to downplay it, as you seem to be implying. However, it's a simple fact that "Dictator" was an actual title in ancient Rome, but since then it has been a description, referring back to the Roman title, and not an actual title itself. Hitler's title was Fuhrer und Reichskanzler, or Fuhrer for short. It is not wrong to refer to him informally or colloquially as the "dictator" of Nazi Germany, but it is wrong to give his title as "Dictator". Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with BMK; he became a dictator, but that was not his title. And as far as, "planned to take over the world", that is best saved for the movies. Kierzek (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. A least in the early days, it appears he would have been content to get lebensraum in the east and a free hand in Europe, with the British Empire continuing to be the "ruler of the seas," and the Italians being the dominant power in the Mediterranean. Given his propensity for changing his mind, it's doubtful that he would have remained content with that, but he never really expressed a desire to "take over the world," per se. Hitler wasn't messianic about spreading Nazism (or even Fascism more generally) in the way that Trotsky was about Communism. (Stalin much less so, once the Soviet Empire had been assembled, although I don't think he would have had any compunction about adding territory on the borders if it helped to protect the Russian heartland.) What might have happened after Hitler, with a second generation of Nazi leadership (and the thought of the potential infighting then between Göring, Himmler and Goebbels, among others, boggles the mind) is an interesting parlor game, but so far outside the realm of the factual it's useless to speculate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to continue in response to Cmguy777 a little more: Whether Hitler and the men around him were psychopaths or not I'm not qualified to say -- although they certainly seem to me to have been sociopaths at the very least. But having a pathologically deviant personality doesn't mean that one cannot think or act logically. In the case of Hitler and the Nazis, if one accepts their precepts:

• That Germany would have won World War I if it were not for the "stab-in-the-back" by socialists and Jews
• That the Treaty of Versailles intentionally punished and decimated Germany
• That all ethnic Germans should be together in one political entity
• That the only way that Germany could recover from the devastation of the war and the economic ruin brought about by the Treaty and the Depression was for the country to be run by a strong and hard ruler
• That German culture and society could only be saved by a return to traditional values
• That Jews were not human beings, they were vermin, an infestation of dangerous beings who needed to be exterminated to purify German society, and indeed all of Europe
• That Slavs and other races were subhuman, inferior to Germans (and their relatives, the Anglo-Saxons) and fit only to be slaves
• That it was the natural right of a superior race to rule inferior races
• That there was not enough space in Germany for its people to live in, so they needed to take the "living space" that they needed from the east, from the Slavs

If you take these as givens (which I, of course, do not, with the partial exception that the Versailles Treaty was indeed meant to punish Germany for its culpability in starting the war, although I doubt very much that the Allied leaders realized exactly how devastating the results would be for Germany -- and they could not have predicted the effects of the stock market crash and the Depression), then almost everything that Hitler and the Nazis did was a logical outcome of following these ideas. Their actions were immoral, inhumane and inhuman, certainly, but they still represent a logical path of action. Their pathology (whatever kind it was) was in accepting the most immoral of their precepts, and in not having the perception and morality to realize how inhuman their intended acts actually were; that they lacked any conscience about what they were doing.

Finally, while we are certainly still living with some of the consequences of Hitler and the Nazis, we are also also still living with the consequences of WWI, the treaties which "settled" it, the Russian Revolution, the decline of the Western empires, decolonization, the rise of American soft imperialism, the resurgence of China, etc. etc. etc.. What's perhapsworse is that we are currently living with the consequences of electing people to office who have little or no conception about what these things were, and the part they played in bringing us to our current state of play. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between rationalizations and logical reasoning. In America, blacks were considered inferior and so were put under perpetual slavery, while Indians were considered inferior and were made slaves or just killed. All this was done because of "superior" versus "inferior" world view of the different races of humans. Since Hitler is dead, Nazi Germany has been destroyed, Wikipedia is no longer in obligation call Hitler Führer. He was a dictator, not in any Roman sense. Hitler was psychopathic tyrant of the German people and to the world. Hitler had no laws other than kill his enemies. Calling Hitler Führer is just legitimizing his reign of terror and dictatorship. Maybe the best compromise is to just take away his title, neither call him Führer or Dictator. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

No, we're not going to do that.

<remainder of comment redacted by the author> Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:52, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Remember, our opinion, Cmguy777, does not matter. Presenting the facts in an WP:NPOV historical way, according to the WP:RS sources, is what matters. So, BMK is correct, we are not going to change it to meet some POV viewpoint. It has nothing to do with "legitimizing" anything. Kierzek (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This article is POV by calling Hitler Führer it honors Hitler. Wikipedia is suppose to be neutral. My opinion does matter. It just can't be added to the article. The facts. Hilter committed suicide. His body was cremated by Russians. Hitler is no longer in power. He is no longer Führer, apparently a self appointed title. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen in quite some time on Wikipedia. Adolf Hitler's official title in Germany, from 1934 through 1945, was Führer und Reichskanzler and was officially shortened to simply Der Führer in all written and verbal correspondence. This was not only recognized in Germany, but in every other country which had diplomatic ties with Germany. Hitler's title of Führer was the recognized phrase for the designated German head of state. It was recorded as such on millions of primary source documents and Hitler was routinely referred to Führer in all subsequent Allied and Soviet documentation and investigations after the Second World War. To this day, Hitler's title of Führer is the recognized academic term for his title as leader of both Nazi Germany, and the Nazi Party, as supported by every single recognized academic source in the world about the Second World War. To say he should not be called that is a fringe statement and should be quickly disregarded. -O.R.^Comms 18:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Indeed. There is a world of difference between feeling that Hitler did not deserve such a title, as he so obviously did not, and in wishing to de-emphasise or remove the fact that he did hold such a title. History is full is self-appointed Emperors, Popes/Anti-popes (and some of the real Popes were worse than the Anti-popes!), Dictators], and other puffed up thugs with fancy titles. Hitler was probably the very worst of the whole lot but the usual rules still apply. In an encyclopaedia, our job is not to strip them of those titles, provided that they were officially held in the first place. Our job is to say who they were, what titles they held, and what they did. The readers should be more than capable of seeing the hollowness of such grandiose titles when applied to Hitler. They don't add up to the smallest hill of beans next to the mountains of innocent victims he was responsible for. If that isn't obvious then that is a defect in the reader not in the article. If nothing else, covering these titles might encourage readers to hold a healthy suspicion of excessively impressive titles and also of the sort of people who hold them. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Führer was a self appointed title by Hitler who had dissolved the Presidency. Did FDR, Stalin, and Churchill recognize Hitler as Führer ? Wikipedia does not have to recognize Führer as a legitimate title of leadership. "German head of state" ? When Hitler took over France, was then France Germany ? Was Hitler Führer of France, even though the country was taken over by war ? We talk as if Hitler took over Germany legally or without violence or that Hitler never killed off his opposition. Certainly Churchill did not recognize German France and for that matter neither did the USA under FDR. Führer was a paper title for dictator. Did Britain and the U.S. accept the German occupation of Italy and Africa ? Did Britain and the U.S. accept German occupation of Scandinavia ? Does Wikipedia recognize Nazi Germany as a legitimate state ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

One other thing. yes, the Wikipedia article very clearly recognizes Nazi Germany as a legitimate nation state placed between the era of the Wiemar Republic and the post war Allied control which lead to the formation of East and West Germany. Nazi Germany was also recognized, at the time, diplomatically by nearly every other country in the world and maintained embassies with ambassadors who were accepted by their credentials. it was most definitely a real country. -O.R.^Comms 20:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll answer this not to drag on the conversation, but just to show how out of this world your statements are getting. To begin with, yes, all three of those world leaders you mentioned, at one point or another, engaged in diplomatic correspondence with Germany and referred to Hitler by his designated title "Führer und Reichskanzler". In the records of the State Department, Hitler's title is also translated as "Leader and Chancellor of the German Nation". British and Soviet documents had similar translations. As for your question about France, when Germany occupied that country, the surrender documents of the Vichy government referred to Hitler quite clearly as "Führer und Reichskanzler". Occupied France, in the North, was never part of the German Reich, so no, Hitler was never stated to be "Führer of France". He was stated to be the Führer of Germany while France was under the authority of the German military occupation government of France. There really is no argument here. This was Hitler's designated title and was recognized internationally. -O.R.^Comms 20:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Why are we even having this discussion? Reliable sources overwhelmingly support Führer. End of story. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Yep. This is going nowhere. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Going no where ? I did not start this discussion. I appreciate editors in allowing me to "talk". From what I have read about Hitler, or at least understood, is that Hitler was a fraud, and his Third Reich, was an illegal government, established by brute force and murder. How can Hitler Führer and Nazi Germany be recognized, when the Allied powers were intent on destorying it ? In fact, Hitler's hideaway The Berghof was bombed in April 1945 by British aerial bombs. That does not sound like recognition of Hitler Führer as a legitmate head of state. What is on paper is not always the reality. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:27, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Berghof - Hitler's house on the Obersalzberg Cmguy777 (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The governments' were at a state of war; ofcourse, the Allies were intent on destroying the German war machine (just as they were intent on doing the same to the Japanese) and given said state of war, also why the Allies wanted to bomb "The Berghof". By your theory would you also say the British burning of the White House in August 1814 was proof England did not recognize the US as a "legitimate" government (during the War of 1812) or the President was not a "legitimate" head of state. Time to drop the stick. Kierzek (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

CMGuy, with all due respect to your views, they are not supported by reliable sources and at this point, this discussion is breaking several policy rules regarding talk page usage, mainly WP:FRINGE and WP:SOAP. With that said, and again with respect to your views, if you wish to pursue this further you need to visit one of the many military or political history noticeboards on Wikipedia and solicit opinions and get consensus. Until that is done, this article will rest on the reliable source data which does indeed state Nazi Germany was a legitimate country which did exist and that Adolf Hitler was indeed referred to by these titles. Thank you -O.R.^Comms 23:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2018

Paul von Hindenburg is spelled Paul von Hindenberg (with an e) in the first note of the Notes section. 128.0.73.55 (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:01, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Vegetarian

Does anyone that he was a vegetarian Quirky super girl (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I meant know Quirky super girl (talk) 20:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

It's a bit more complicated than that. In fact, we have a whole article about it here: Adolf Hitler and vegetarianism. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:29, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 May 2018

There have been many claims of Mr.Hitler dying from cyinide not a gunshot wound and I belive this should be changed. Cameron0314 (talk) 02:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 03:08, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

It is addressed here and in more detail in the Death of Adolf Hitler article and frankly has been dismissed by WP:RS historians. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Article beginning has wrong publication date for Mein Kampf

Second paragraph says it was released 1924. It was released 1925-26. I can't edit article to fix this mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lostinvention (talk • contribs) 08:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Please share your source for this new date with us, and the article may be adjusted accordingly. Britmax (talk) 11:29, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The article says the book was released in 1925 and 1926. The lead was poorly worded - Hitler was released from prison in 1924, not the book released in 1924, so I've added a few words to make it clearer. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

James H. Meredith (1999). Understanding the Literature of World War II: A Student Casebook to Issues, Sources, and Historical Documents. Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 75–. ISBN 978-0-313-30417-0. Volume 1 of Mein Kampf was published in 1925 and Volume 2 in 1926.

Oh, the article is locked. What a surprise. :) 77.69.34.203 (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

"NSDAP" vs. "Nazi Party"

The vast majority of people, including our readers, have almost certainly never heard of the "National Socialist German Workers Party" or its initials in German, "NSDAP". This is why our article on the organization is under the name that most people know it by, the Nazi Party. We are not -- or should not be -- in the business of whitewashing Nazis by referring to their party by a name no one knows it by. In writing articles, it's certainly fine to alternate between "Nazis" and "National Socialists" or other equivalents, that's simply good writing to prevent endless repetition, but in listing information in the infobox, which is intended to be a quick summary of the most important and pertinent facts about the subject, it is a distinct disservice to the readers to use terms that they're not familiar with, when there are perfectly good terms to use which they are familiar with. We're here to serve our readers and to convey information to them. We cannot do that if we cloak important information in obscure or esoteric terminology. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Similarly, to refer to Hitler's death place as "Germany" -- but linking it to "Nazi Germany" -- is also sub-standard. "Germany" can refer to many different polities: the German Empire, Weimar Germany, or the current state, for instance, while "Nazi Germany" refers to one thing only. There is absolutely no sense in listing "Germany" and linking it to "Nazi Germany", when it is easier and more informative to our readers to simply list "Nazi Germany" as Hitler's place of death. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Incidentally, the change from "Nazi Germany" to "Germany" (linked to Nazi Germany) was made yesterday with this edit. The long-standing status quo of the article is to list the death place as "Nazi Germany", so since that has been disputed, any change from it requires a consensus. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:35, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"Germany" by itself is not the name of any "polity", it is the name of a country in Europe. No one is going to think, just because we do not give the country's name as "Nazi Germany" that maybe Hitler died in the German Empire or Weimar Germany. Your reasoning makes no sense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

"polity: an organized society; a state as a political entity"

Get a consensus to change the status quo of the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Fine, I'll wait for consensus. It's not a crucial issue anyway. As for using the name "National Socialist German Workers' Party" rather than "Nazi Party", I simply think that there is a benefit in being formal and correct in the infobox. You may possibly be correct that most readers are not familiar with the term "National Socialist German Workers' Party", but it is going too far to call the name "obscure", when it is widely used, for example, in scholarly literature. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Scholars and others intimately familiar with this subject matter don't read Wikipedia to get information, people who don't know about it, or want to know more, do. The purpose of an infobox is not formality, the purpose is to convey information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Initially, the full formal name of the Party should be used (just as German Workers' Party is used), with the initials and common name "(NSDAP; Nazi Party)" and in the body, "(NSDAP), commonly known as the Nazi Party". After that, Nazi Party I believe is the better way, as it is the common post-World War II name used and the one general readers know. In the info box, I would suggest using the formal name of the Party with a tweak: National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party). I would suggest a consideration to change the part that reads: Führer of the German Reich and Führer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party to: Leader of the German Reich and Leader of the Nazi Party. I await other editors to weigh-in with their thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

What you write makes sense for the article itself, but the infobox is a somewhat different matter. There, quick presentation of information is what's important. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

True. Then for the info box, I believe the formal name of the Party should be used. Kierzek (talk) 13:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Really? That surprises me, since the purpose of the infobox is to provide quick information, and it seems counter-productive to provide that information in a form the typical reader will not understand. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see what others say, I will go with consensus. Kierzek (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

[[National Socialist German Workers' Party|National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party)]] as a kludge? It's cumbersome, and I'm not sure I would seriously support that. I can see both sides - Nazi Party is the most widely known name in the English-speaking world, though NSDAP would be factually more correct. I'm slightly leaning towards calling it NSDAP - even though the infobox is there to provide some basic info for a casual reader, I don't think that it has to simplify it too much. NSDAP was the name of the party at the time, and the reader could learn that by glancing at the infobox. If they don't know what NSDAP is, it's linked to the Nazi Party article. Besides, I doubt many readers coming to this article don't know that Hitler was a Nazi - thus, having the full name of the party visible at the first glance might be helpful to the readers. byteflush _Talk 02:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party) would make everyone happy, I can live with it, although my preference would still be for the direct and easiest conveyance of information provided by Nazi Party. There's no need to link National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazi Party), since it links directly to Nazi Party (and so does National Socialist German Workers' Party for that matter, and NSDAP -- since our article is at the title Nazi Party, all roads lead there eventually). My only concern is to provide information efficiently to people who read only the infobox, but I take your point that if we can familiarize them with "National Socialist German Workers' Party" at the same time, we've killed two birds with one stone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

NSDAP alone, should not be used in the info box as it is only the German initials for the Party; that would be confusing to a general reader, I believe. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad, I was... errrm, tired... at the moment, so I may have caused a confusion. By NSDAP I meant National Socialist German Workers' Party, I just shortened it - using the German initials - so, yeah, my bad. =) byteflush _Talk 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I think that Nazi Party is the common name and should be used in preference to other less common names. Likewise, Nazi Germany is Wikipedia's name for the political entity existing in Germany at the time of Hitler's death. Someone who died in Oslo in 1943 died in the Reichskommissariat Norwegen not in Norway, which did not exist at the time. It would be incorrect to say that the Prague uprising occurred in Czechoslovakia (it was under the administration of the puppet Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.) Catrìona (talk)

Yes, I should comment on that, as well. I believe Nazi Germany is more precise. Kierzek (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'll note that the editor LargelyRecycylable reverted away from the status quo ante (which was "Nazi Party" and "Nazi Germany") without reference to this discussion. BRD specifies that articles should stay in the status quo ante while discussion is ongoing, so it really ought to be returned to that. I asked them on their talk page to revert their edit, but they point-blank refused. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Well noted? Your tone suggests scandal but I can't find it. LargelyRecyclable (talk) 15:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler as a soldier during World War I (1914–1918)

The image with this label may not be from WWI. It's on his NDSAP photo dated 1921 (although he's still in uniform). One cause for confusion is that he had to partially shave his mustache, so people may have thought this was his "original" appearance—but this is actually trimmed from the longer, curly "Kaiser" style he wore before. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a point, so I removed the image. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Long-time lover Eva Braun

The second-to-last paragraph of the main section currently includes the phrase “long-time lover Eva Braun”. It should be changed to “longtime companion”, because 1. longtime doesn’t need a dash 2. there’s no evidence Braun and Hitler were in “love”, but there is to the contrary. She was always kept at a distance; Albert Speer attested that they kept separate bedrooms. UpdateNerd (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

The word "lover" can also have the meaning of being involved in a sexual relationship rather than a romantic one. That's the usage that is intended here. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

English is my secondary language, but the term "lover" translates to sexual partner and mistress (lover). Nothing to do with romance. Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa as to its use herein. No need to change the word. Kierzek (talk) 20:36, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There’s no indication they were sexually involved, whether romantic or not. UpdateNerd (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not correct per the RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Clearly Hitler and Braun established an (one might say the ultimate) "committed" relationship, even if it was not a "healthy" one (or overtly sexual) by most standards. I really don't see a need for us to inject our own interpretations of the word "lover" as it pertains to Hitler and Braun. General Ization ^Talk 22:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with the above editors. "Lover" is a better word than "companion". There's very little doubt that they were sexual partners. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

People interested in sourced content on their sex life can refer to Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and Eva Braun, both of which are Good Articles in which I was heavily involved so I personally can verify that the sources used in these articles all check out. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2018 (UTC)