![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article intro and conclusion have wording that is expressly designed, and liked, because it denigrates Hitler and his legacy. I refer specifically to the final sentence in the article: Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had last ed a little over 12 years. This sentence gives no new information, but clearly is there just to cast a judgement. That violates NPOV, and the sentence, like all attempts to make articles assert opinions, should be deleted outright. Same goes for a similar statement in the introduction. Bookending the article like this with statements of aspersion is clearly against NPOV. If someone wanted to bookend the article with statements that Hitler lived a long life and achieved fame, power, wealth, and his pick of women, would that be acceptable? Are we playing the "what we like as a POV isn't POV" game? ChessPlayer 07:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I fail to understand how this is a POV statement. Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had lasted a little over twelve years. This is true. To say that Hitler failed is not POV - Both Nazis and anti-Nazis would agree on that, I think, as, ultimately, did Hitler himself. john 23:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
A statement is not POV if everyone would agree to it. Everyone would agree that Hitler failed, that his Reich failed to measure up to the expectations he and the Nazis had for it. Thus, it is not POV to point this out. It would be POV to say this was a good or bad thing, of course, but I don't see how the article does that. john 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, it is not POV to say that Hitler failed, or to say it in an indirect manner. Hitler did fail. john 02:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I spotted two inaccuracies more i.e. declaration of war to the USA by Germany and the time when Hitler discovered that he had oratory talents was earlier, when he was still working for the army delivering motivational speeches. Please correct asap. I also spotted one important omission in the article, that is the irrational fighting to the bitter end. Any normal person would have surrendered just after or even before the battle of the bulge/battle of Ardennes. Why was this? Another omission is, I think, Hitler as a statesman. What did he do for the institutions of the government? How was his style of leadership? I have read about about these subjects but little time. Andries 09:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Get the facts on Hitler's background from the book ADDOLF HITLER'S FAMILY TREE by professional genealogist Alfred Kondor, available from http://www.third-reich-books.com
I am new here at Wikipedia, so I don't intend to start a revert-and-flame-war on my first night, especially not on an article this controversial. However, as a (leftist) German, I feel that the introduction to the article is far too positive, and doesn't reflect at all the atrocities this man committed (think "Saddam times 10"). Using the sentences that were already there, and rephrasing / reshuffling these a bit, I would've formulated something like that: Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 - 30 April 1945) was the dictator of Germany and leader of the Nazi Party. From 1933 to 1945 he was also Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and state. The brutal embrace of total war by Germany in World War II resulted in a savage destruction of large parts of Europe and the racial policy of the Nazi state (which included the Holocaust) resulted in the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more. In the end he died by suicide in a Berlin bunker with Germany in ruins around him and his enemies closing in. Today, with the benefit of historical distance, Hitler is regarded by many as a gifted orator with a profound personal presence. Also he is seen as one of the significant leaders of world history who helped to pull Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe. Don't know if you are happy with that, but could maybe someone with a bit more seniority than myself consider changing this - even only partly? -- T-rence 22:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
The current intro has come about as a result of a very long process of compromise and discussion. I'd be highly reluctant to change it - your version also reads oddly in English at parts. john k 23:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I restored "ponderous" in describing Mein Kampf. Obviously Sam has never tried to read the book, or seen any of the criticism on it. It rambles. Even Nazis didnt read it. Danny 03:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, Sam, you are dealing with a period you know nothing about. Having it on a desk is not the same as reading it. If the period interests you, start with some basics: Richard Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, pp. 196-197 is a good start. Danny 03:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions that Hitler may be gay. That is fine but then I also feel that I have to include to extensive evidence that Hitler was a heterosexual to balance it. That would make the article unwieldy and it would have to be done in a separate article. May be, Hitler's private life Andries 07:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Well there ya go! I'm satisfied w that being enough evidence to suggest that some suspected it. Sam [ Spade] 08:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
ChessPlayer makes a good point, we should cite our sources. But it is perverse to fill this article up w bizarre slander about Hitler, who is probably the least popular man in history. I am beginning to think andries was right about creating a spin off article about crackpot "historical" sexology on the man. Sam [ Spade] 09:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Removed from article for lack of sources:
Some historians have wildly and variously speculated on Hitler's personal life, sometimes suggesting that he was impotent, or otherwise sexually abnormal, physically or mentally. One popular suggestion has been that he was possessed of a singular teste, and injected a combination of Bull semen and Jelly into himself daily to encourage virility. There is of course little documentation of this claim.
and
Some have written about Hitler's sexual orientation. It has been suggested that Hitler was bisexual, gay or even a coprophagiac.
Reply to Andries, who was concerned that the article " mentions that Hitler may be gay". The article right now, at least until someone changes it again, does not in any way assert the idea that Hitler may have been gay, but simply in a NPOV way gives the reader the fact that a historian has written a book that claims he was gay. If you feel that simply mentioning this POV is biased without mentioning other POV's on the issue, then add them, please find a historian who argues that Hitler was NOT gay, and mention him as I did for Machtan. Please do not have the article itself assert a viewpoint, nor use weasel words and unverifiable statements about what "historians" think. If the majority view is as you claim, and I am not disputing you, then finding a prominient historian who gives the majority view should be very easy. Lest you think I am being eccentric about this, founder Jimbo Wales has said: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." ChessPlayer 23:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to add a section on the psychology of Hitler, to discuss more what he believed, his self-image, what he believed was his destiny, his motivation, all that sort of stuff. I know a lot of it is sprinkled through the text, but it might be a good idea to also bring it all together in one place. Maybe also talk about philosophical influences on him, like Nietzsche. Cerebral 10:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
According to the article, Hitler presented himself as Uebermensch. Can somebody provide a reference for this? Thanks in advance. Andries 21:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I removed the assissnation attempt by Helmut Hirsch because he was arrested before he tried and because it is not mentioned in Ian Kershaw's extensive biography and because there were many attempts, some of which like Georg Elser were more important. Andries 08:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This site claims that according to Karl Mayr's auto-biography, it was Ludendorff himself who had "come to [Mayr] and personally suggested that Hitler should be allowed to join the party and build it up." This of course makes sense in the bigger picture - Hitler was at the time a small cog in the machinery of the Reichswehr; Ludendorff was an enemy of the republic who would have liked nothing more than to install a military dictatorship and get ready for the next war. Building up a political and paramilitary party with a skilled "drummer", as Hitler called himself, at the top only made sense to achieve this goal. Indeed, we know that the NSDAP later directly received funds from the Reichswehr through Röhm (although the article, with its many present deficiencies, neglects to mention this and indeed contains virtually no information on funding).
However, I hesitate to include this claim without a direct source. I have not been able to track down a citation for this alleged auto-biography. This would be interesting for other reasons as well, of course, as this chapter of Hitler's personal history is largely ignored by most biographies and Hitler is instead portrayed as an outsider who acted alone. So, if anyone can find a citation for this alleged book, that would be very helpful.-- Eloquence *
I miss Albert Speer who was the minister of armament in the list of changes in Hitler's cabinet. He succeeded Fritz Todt. Andries 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The article intro and conclusion have wording that is expressly designed, and liked, because it denigrates Hitler and his legacy. I refer specifically to the final sentence in the article: Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had last ed a little over 12 years. This sentence gives no new information, but clearly is there just to cast a judgement. That violates NPOV, and the sentence, like all attempts to make articles assert opinions, should be deleted outright. Same goes for a similar statement in the introduction. Bookending the article like this with statements of aspersion is clearly against NPOV. If someone wanted to bookend the article with statements that Hitler lived a long life and achieved fame, power, wealth, and his pick of women, would that be acceptable? Are we playing the "what we like as a POV isn't POV" game? ChessPlayer 07:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I fail to understand how this is a POV statement. Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had lasted a little over twelve years. This is true. To say that Hitler failed is not POV - Both Nazis and anti-Nazis would agree on that, I think, as, ultimately, did Hitler himself. john 23:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
A statement is not POV if everyone would agree to it. Everyone would agree that Hitler failed, that his Reich failed to measure up to the expectations he and the Nazis had for it. Thus, it is not POV to point this out. It would be POV to say this was a good or bad thing, of course, but I don't see how the article does that. john 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, it is not POV to say that Hitler failed, or to say it in an indirect manner. Hitler did fail. john 02:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I spotted two inaccuracies more i.e. declaration of war to the USA by Germany and the time when Hitler discovered that he had oratory talents was earlier, when he was still working for the army delivering motivational speeches. Please correct asap. I also spotted one important omission in the article, that is the irrational fighting to the bitter end. Any normal person would have surrendered just after or even before the battle of the bulge/battle of Ardennes. Why was this? Another omission is, I think, Hitler as a statesman. What did he do for the institutions of the government? How was his style of leadership? I have read about about these subjects but little time. Andries 09:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Get the facts on Hitler's background from the book ADDOLF HITLER'S FAMILY TREE by professional genealogist Alfred Kondor, available from http://www.third-reich-books.com
I am new here at Wikipedia, so I don't intend to start a revert-and-flame-war on my first night, especially not on an article this controversial. However, as a (leftist) German, I feel that the introduction to the article is far too positive, and doesn't reflect at all the atrocities this man committed (think "Saddam times 10"). Using the sentences that were already there, and rephrasing / reshuffling these a bit, I would've formulated something like that: Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 - 30 April 1945) was the dictator of Germany and leader of the Nazi Party. From 1933 to 1945 he was also Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and state. The brutal embrace of total war by Germany in World War II resulted in a savage destruction of large parts of Europe and the racial policy of the Nazi state (which included the Holocaust) resulted in the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more. In the end he died by suicide in a Berlin bunker with Germany in ruins around him and his enemies closing in. Today, with the benefit of historical distance, Hitler is regarded by many as a gifted orator with a profound personal presence. Also he is seen as one of the significant leaders of world history who helped to pull Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe. Don't know if you are happy with that, but could maybe someone with a bit more seniority than myself consider changing this - even only partly? -- T-rence 22:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
The current intro has come about as a result of a very long process of compromise and discussion. I'd be highly reluctant to change it - your version also reads oddly in English at parts. john k 23:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I restored "ponderous" in describing Mein Kampf. Obviously Sam has never tried to read the book, or seen any of the criticism on it. It rambles. Even Nazis didnt read it. Danny 03:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Once again, Sam, you are dealing with a period you know nothing about. Having it on a desk is not the same as reading it. If the period interests you, start with some basics: Richard Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, pp. 196-197 is a good start. Danny 03:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
The article mentions that Hitler may be gay. That is fine but then I also feel that I have to include to extensive evidence that Hitler was a heterosexual to balance it. That would make the article unwieldy and it would have to be done in a separate article. May be, Hitler's private life Andries 07:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Well there ya go! I'm satisfied w that being enough evidence to suggest that some suspected it. Sam [ Spade] 08:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
ChessPlayer makes a good point, we should cite our sources. But it is perverse to fill this article up w bizarre slander about Hitler, who is probably the least popular man in history. I am beginning to think andries was right about creating a spin off article about crackpot "historical" sexology on the man. Sam [ Spade] 09:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
Removed from article for lack of sources:
Some historians have wildly and variously speculated on Hitler's personal life, sometimes suggesting that he was impotent, or otherwise sexually abnormal, physically or mentally. One popular suggestion has been that he was possessed of a singular teste, and injected a combination of Bull semen and Jelly into himself daily to encourage virility. There is of course little documentation of this claim.
and
Some have written about Hitler's sexual orientation. It has been suggested that Hitler was bisexual, gay or even a coprophagiac.
Reply to Andries, who was concerned that the article " mentions that Hitler may be gay". The article right now, at least until someone changes it again, does not in any way assert the idea that Hitler may have been gay, but simply in a NPOV way gives the reader the fact that a historian has written a book that claims he was gay. If you feel that simply mentioning this POV is biased without mentioning other POV's on the issue, then add them, please find a historian who argues that Hitler was NOT gay, and mention him as I did for Machtan. Please do not have the article itself assert a viewpoint, nor use weasel words and unverifiable statements about what "historians" think. If the majority view is as you claim, and I am not disputing you, then finding a prominient historian who gives the majority view should be very easy. Lest you think I am being eccentric about this, founder Jimbo Wales has said: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." ChessPlayer 23:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I think it would be interesting to add a section on the psychology of Hitler, to discuss more what he believed, his self-image, what he believed was his destiny, his motivation, all that sort of stuff. I know a lot of it is sprinkled through the text, but it might be a good idea to also bring it all together in one place. Maybe also talk about philosophical influences on him, like Nietzsche. Cerebral 10:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
According to the article, Hitler presented himself as Uebermensch. Can somebody provide a reference for this? Thanks in advance. Andries 21:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
I removed the assissnation attempt by Helmut Hirsch because he was arrested before he tried and because it is not mentioned in Ian Kershaw's extensive biography and because there were many attempts, some of which like Georg Elser were more important. Andries 08:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
This site claims that according to Karl Mayr's auto-biography, it was Ludendorff himself who had "come to [Mayr] and personally suggested that Hitler should be allowed to join the party and build it up." This of course makes sense in the bigger picture - Hitler was at the time a small cog in the machinery of the Reichswehr; Ludendorff was an enemy of the republic who would have liked nothing more than to install a military dictatorship and get ready for the next war. Building up a political and paramilitary party with a skilled "drummer", as Hitler called himself, at the top only made sense to achieve this goal. Indeed, we know that the NSDAP later directly received funds from the Reichswehr through Röhm (although the article, with its many present deficiencies, neglects to mention this and indeed contains virtually no information on funding).
However, I hesitate to include this claim without a direct source. I have not been able to track down a citation for this alleged auto-biography. This would be interesting for other reasons as well, of course, as this chapter of Hitler's personal history is largely ignored by most biographies and Hitler is instead portrayed as an outsider who acted alone. So, if anyone can find a citation for this alleged book, that would be very helpful.-- Eloquence *
I miss Albert Speer who was the minister of armament in the list of changes in Hitler's cabinet. He succeeded Fritz Todt. Andries 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)