![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've heard allegations that he was anti-semitic, is this true?
Has anyone heard of Karl Ossietz? I've recently placed this article up for votes for deletion, because I can't find any good information on him via Internet searches. I'd appreciate any info anyone has to add at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Ossietz. Thanks. func (talk) 23:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found him mentioned in an Allen Churchill book from 1979 called Eyewitness Adolf Hitler. I believe it was from a letter that this Karl Ossietz was mentioned as Hitler's personal astrologer. Eyewitness
So is that saying about Hitler having only one testicle an urban legend or does it have basis in reality?
I linked to the page about the the specific term for the annexion of Austria ( Anschluss) in the article header as well. While the "Anschluss" page is not a great article yet, I think the topic is important enough (as one of the main causes of the war) to deserve a link in the header... - Marcika 00:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hitler’s Mein Kampf is not widely available in Germany. His legacy, as interpreted by some historians, has caused him to be one of the most denounced men in history. Other historians, however, point out that Hitler's attempt to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and how he went about it, was, in essence, no different than that of many other leaders in history and thus this denouncement is hypocritical and not completely objective.
How was Hitler "no different" than leaders like Churchill or FDR? At least they didn't gas people in attempting to improve economic and political standing. Who were the historians who said this denouncement is hypocritical and not not objective? This all sounds very stupid to me and should be edited. Wareware 04:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He wife?
For who ever removed this reference, have you read the article, or the refrences for it? I can give you reams of info on the subject. As far as Hitler or Nazism being popular in some parts of the Islamic world... of course I can find some cites, but is it really necessary? Do you actually dispute that? Sam [ Spade] 13:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did read the links. There's not really much there about Hitler being 'worshipped as a deity'. Just a reference to one guy, Devi, viewing him as an Avatar of Vishnu. You also say that you are concerned about the possibility of verifying it. In that case, it shouldn't be said. I also think this whole thing seems unconnected with Hitler, the man. And that's what this article's about. The page Nazi mysticism links into the Nazism page. Those who want to read about it can find it there, where it belongs. Unless you have evidence of Hitler encouraging or supporting attempts to deify him, that comment does not belong here. (Oh, and Hitler didn't reign either, only monarchs (kings, queens, emperors, etc.) reign.) jguk 14:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And that's your problem, not mine. And I find you calling me buck-o offensive and ask you to be more civil towards me. There's no reason why we cannot disagree civilly. You say can't begin to quantify numbers: 1,000s, 10,000s, 100,000s, more? IMHO you'd need at least tens of thousands worshipping him as a deity to make it noteworthy enough for an article. If you can't support your assertion with verifiable evidence of its noteworthiness, the assertion needs to go until you can. I ask you to leave the article as it is - provide evidence to support your views, and if it is deemed reliable enough by the wikicommunity, your statement can go back in.
I have added by point by point comments for each of your references (apart from the books, which I obviously can’t get at from my laptop) in bold. It is a crude way, but one that is effective in separating my comments from yours. They show that there is a very small number of people who argue that Hitler is an avatar of Vishnu. They do not quantify the number, but that number seems to be very small. Indeed, one of the articles you quoted was called ‘Nutty Nazis’. It is clear that this is a sub subtopic at the very most.
There is no disagreement that Nazi mysticism or Esoteric Hitlerism exist. And it is right that Wikipedia has articles covering them. But you have so far failed to prove that a significant number of people worship Hitler as a deity for that comment to remain in this article. It is not relevant to Hitler. I will add under ‘Related articles’ Esoteric Hitlerism. Nazi mysticism properly belongs as a link off Nazism rather than Hitler, and quite rightly it is already there.
I have now spent quite a bit of time reading your references. Many of which had little to offer on the subject at hand. If you want to quote further references to me, I should be grateful if you would ensure they are to the point, and in particular that they offer some sort of quantification of how many people worship Hitler as a deity. Until and unless you provide evidence of quantification, please do not reinsert your statement. You have not yet proven that it is relevant enough to Hitler, the man, to have in this article. Finally, perhaps we can keep our disagreement on this talk page rather than reverting each other. I agree that if you provide evidence to prove your claim is notable (which would include some quantification of those worshipping Hitler as a deity), your comment can return. I ask you agree that until you have done so, the comment stays out. jguk 16:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A point by point rebuttal by jguk follows (the rebuttals are in bold):
In the first part of the article, there is no reason to say that Hitler was "reported to have committed suicide," when the suicide has been documented by many eyewitnesses and finally confirmed with the opening of the KGB files on the disposal and eventual total destruction of his remains.
The section on "Economics and Culture" is couched in terms that are far too positive and sympathetic. It also uses the term "civil improvement," which to American readers, at least, does not clearly denote public works projects, but sounds rather more like an improvement in society.
The sentence, " Hitler's health initiatives for ethnic Germans were successful and progressive," has a vaguely völkisch flavor and makes it sound as if he were a benevolent ruler; further, it is vague to the point of meaninglessness, since there is no explanation of the term "health initiatives."
The sentence, " Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the breadwinners, women’s priorities being Church, Kitchen and Children," similarly sounds as if it were written by a right-wing admirer of Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (in American terms: barefoot and pregnant) -- in other words, a blatant sexist.
The next sentence, "Excellence was encouraged in all spheres," may be true in some very limited sense, but I don't think Wiki should put itself in the position of making such a blandly positive statement about the greatest mass murderer of all time who in the process of "encouraging excellence" burned and banned great literature, confined German art to puerile representiveness and caused many of the country's leading artists and scientists to flee to the U.S. and other countries.
User:sca 8nov04
You ought to capitalize the beginnings of your sentences. As to "nobody" agreeing about Hitler's death -- you ought to have your head examined.
Why are all of the pictures of him relatively sympathetic? Although it's also bias to always show him screaming at a microphone, please show both if you will.
I had always thought Hitler was Catholic by background. CJCurrie 03:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"intimidated" in describing the actions of the Centre Party,Germany is disputed and the dispute broadens to the error in claiming on its' page that the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrumspartei) was " dissolved by Hitler ". See also Pope Pius XII . Flamekeeper 09:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sir John Wheeler-Bennett in The Nemesis of Power-The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 indexes the Centre Party's condonation of Nazism after Hitler gained the Chancellorship and came therefore to power in 1933 . Wheeler-Bennett says that the Centre , whatever its mental reservations ,condoned his Government by voting for him . Flamekeeper 10:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I came across in some writings Hitler referring to the November Republic. Now I assume (and am pretty confident) that this is the same as the Weimar Republic, but I wanted to have this confirmed before I went ahead and made a redirect. I assume someone here can back me up (or correct me if I'm mistaken). I was going to write this at the Weimar talk page, but this one has tons more traffic. - R. fiend 20:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I saw this on Unsolved Histories on Discovery Channel, it's title is Hitler in the Andes.
They said that the FBI had an eleven year investigation of wheter or not he died. Seeing that much of the information available that time were propaganda, wheter it was from the Allies, the Nazis, the Russian, and several other parties, do anyone here has any info or fact about this investigation?
Oh yeah, if Hitler's body was cremated, how can there be a Soviet autopsy that revealed that he has only one testicle? Just curious. -- Vandal Unknown 19:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Put your proposals here, and I will hopefully do the split on Sunday on the basis of consensus reached. I am putting a note at the top of the article to let readers participate in the debate.
Seriously, people, do you really need three adjectives praising Hitler's supposedly wonderful speaking style? Strunk and White says cut down on the adjectives, and this man is Hitler, not Tony fucking Robbins. -- JG
Yes he was an amazing speaker and an insipration, but he was a horrible man.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Adolf_Hitler article:
Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback:
I like it,
I hate it,
Please don't link to —
LinkBot 11:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please keep in mind the neutrality policy. Hitler is widely regarded as having been among the worlds most successful oraters. The purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince people Hitler was bad. If they don't think he's bad already, reading a biased article won't convince them any. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not a question of trying to promote certain feelings about Hitler. I am willing to try to find language that people can agree on but I have much more substantive objections. The sentence: "A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence", has two significant problems.
First, the perhaps more minor problem is that, while Hitler was undoubtedly a sucessful and charismatic orator, there is often associated with oration a certain lyrical and literary quality that Hitler's oration lacked. I would not refer to him as a inherently gifted orator. Hitler spoke with great emotion and fervor, many would say vengeful rage, about topics that resonated with the German public. However I know of no historian or writer who thinks that Hitler had a great command of the German language in the way that Churchill or Lincoln did of theirs. Hitler himself often wrote his speeches, at least early in his career, and, like his writing, they are almost universally thought to have little or no literarly value. I dont think an assessment of writing ability is really such a subjective thing. If Hitler wrote like Churchill, German literary circles would not deny it. Admittledly, this is somewhat of a semantic problem with what one means by oration.
The second more substantive objection relates to Hitlers personal presence. I am not going to argue that this is purely a subjective notion. Certain people, like Martin Luther King for example, have been almost universally recognized to have had great charisma in private settings. Certain more sinister characters like Saddam Hussein are also fairly widely seen to have been personally charasmatic. The problem with applying this sort of language to Hitler is that one of the things he is known for is to have been, at least among a large minority, a very disappointing person to meet personally. Even Mussolini found him to be a very ascetic and somewhat withdrawn character. Hitler was also known for doing very poorly in social cirlces and he was not someone who was known, at least while he lacked power, to have had much of any sexual attractiveness to either sex. He had great difficulty rising above Corporal in the first World War despite a record of some distinction. Some think this was due to a bad psychological evaluation but it is almost certainly due to a lack of command presence. It is just a fact that over the course of Hitler's life many people found him to be repulsive or a non-entity, and this really affected his early life. Obviously this is only part of the story and he was undoubtedly charismatic in a sense. However he had to overcome a sort of lack of attractiveness in his personality that manifested itself over the course of his entire life. This is not someone who I would refer to as one who is "possessed of a profound personal presence". -- Wtmgeo 17:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To the anonymous poster who keeps adjusting the Thackeray reference:
(1) The reference to Thackery is *entirely* appropriate for the section of the article which concerns Hitler's legacy. You have claimed that "no indian group or political leader supports Hitler's philosophy or ideology", but Thackeray's own words suggest otherwise. Here are a few quotes from an AsiaWeek article, dated 1995:
"BOMBAY'S BALASHAHEB "BAL" THACKERAY, 68, does not object to the assertion that he is a demagogue - he openly revels in it. A short time after telling an Indian newspaper that he wanted to be the "Hitler of India" he repeated the claim - with pride - to Asiaweek."
[...]
"[Interviewer]: You recently described yourself as the Hitler of Bombay, and you have expressed a desire to be the Hitler of India. Is that correct?
[BT]: Why not? I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common. Look at the amount of good we have done in just six months in Maharashtra. Actually, we have too much sham-democracy in this country. What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand."
Check out [www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0922/nat5.html] for the full interview.
A few years ago, when he was trying to pass himself off as a "moderate", Thackeray backed away from statements like these (or claimed he was misinterpreted). Notwithstanding which, it would be a difficult task to gloss over the presence of at least some support for "Hitler's philosophy or ideology" in the quote referenced above. </understatement mode off>
(2) Given that a reference to Thackeray is appropriate, it also seems appropriate to mention that he leads Shiv Sena, a right-wing Hindu nationalist party which embraces the principles of Hindutva, and has become even more militant in support of these principles since the BJP's defeat last year. (In passing, I can only imagine that Shiv Sena's own drubbing in the recent Maharashtra poll will push it even further toward its core constituency on this issue.)
If you want to mention that *not all* of supporters of Hindutva agree with Thackeray's views on Hitler, that might be fine. (Though in that case it should also be noted that *many* authors have drawn parallels between Hindutva and fascism.)
(3) This isn't really relevant to the article at hand, but I might add in passing that Thackeray's support for the destroyers of the Ayodhya mosque, and his party's general policy towards India's Muslim population, have some parallels with the conduct of the Nazi regime toward minority groups.
Comparing modern leaders to Hitler is usually a cop-out, but since Thackeray himself has invited the comparison ... well, let's just say it seems appropriate under the circumstances. CJCurrie 00:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Its beyond slanderous to claim that the attitude of Hindutva towards Muslims is somehow on par with Nazi policies towards minority groups.
In the context of this article, its a gross exaggeration. The Nazis had an explicitly racist and malicious agenda of systemized exclusion, revocation of citizenship, and ultimate elimination with regards to the Jews and other undersirables.
The BJP has advocated nothing of the sort towards the Islamic community, and has mainly pushed for a Uniform Civil Code and called for Muslims to do more to assimilate within mainstream Indian society.
This is in fact the diametric opposite of the Nazi regime's disposition towards the Jews, whom it deliberately attempted to exclude and eventually destroy. Even the Shiv Sena, which is far more extreme than the BJP, has not voiced sentiment that could be construed as aiming at the extermination of the Muslims on par with the Nazi atrocities.
As far as the Ayodhya issue is concerned, Im not going to get into a long-winded debate over the subject, but lets just say that attempting to build a temple on what is one of the most holiest sites in Hinduism is a far cry from Krstallnacht.
Its not simply that not *all* of Hindutva followers are sympathetic towards Hitler, there isnt even a minority which is. Mainstream Hindutva organizations like the RSS and VHP have never published anything that can even remotely be construed as being supportive of Hitler's philosophy of genocide and discrimination. To conflate the fact that Thackeray is an admirer of Hitler with his party's acceptance of Hindutva is simply shading the truth.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a thought. This thought is that people who primarily want to make points about politics and politicians in India should find another place on Wikipedia to do so. References to Hitler are a fine way to strike ones political opponents over the head or to put ones foot in ones mouth, as this guy Bal Thackery has evidently done, but what relevance do they have to a very short biography of Hitler? Why dont you create another page titled something like "Hitler as a modern political device", and take your debate there. -- Wtmgeo 06:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article has a section "Medical health .... Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer ... and a missing left testicle.". Is this last item from valid medical evidence or other genuine reports? Or does it only refer to the common vulgar song "Hitler's only got one ball ..."? I see no purpose in merely commemorating an obscene traditional popular song here. (Even if the report is valid, it may refer to cryptorchidism rather than to complete absence.) Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not only things that have been proven should be recorded in an encyclopedia article. If a legend is associated with a historical character, and that legend is significant (as is the case with Hitler's rumored monorchidism) then the fact of the legend should be recorded. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was until very recently a notice at the top of this article:
"Hitler" redirects to this page. For other people named Hitler, see Hitler (disambiguation).
In my view it was a useful link. Everyking and I cannot agree on whether it is "clutter." Everyking has placed it under "Hitler's family" which makes sense. On balance I think I still prefer to have it at the top. Any other people with preferences? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 07:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See:
The short answers are: yes, there is loads of doubt from everybody who has looked into his death with any kind of interest, and it was meth he was on, not coke. He didn't know that was what it was tho, his doctor told him it was the super-soldier serum, or vitimins, or some such. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A brief section on the Hitler Youth might be a good idea (and not in the form of "Hitler was brainwashing youth to be his unquestioning fully obedient soldiers" but in terms of the focus on athletics and companionship and so on).
This section of the document is severely flawed.
It is still only speculation that the "Final Solution" (being genocide) was decided here, or that the Final Solution even meant killing of the Jews. Anyone can read the Wannsee minutes, where they clearly talk about EVACUTION of the Jews and removing them from "all spheres of German life", not of removing them from the face of the planet.
For all Holocaust believers or generally average schmoes who learn their "history" piecemeal from movies and TV shows and what have you, they really believe that at Wannsee Hitler ordered genocide of the Jews, which is utter nonsense. It can be inferred that remaining Jew (after all other solutions being exhausted) "dealt with accordingly" meant killing them, but that alone is certainly no evidence of a systematic plan to slaughter every Jew in europe.
Okay, I've taken the libery and performed some editing myself. I believe it to be NPOV and rather fair to both sides of the debate. I have not denied there was a Holocaust (despite my personal beliefs) but I have made a far more accurate and informed edit about Wannsee (and Himmler's comments stating "we can not gas them or shoot them").
I put a lot of work into that, so please do not hastily revert it. Re-edit as you see fit, but to remove valid and complete facts in favour of half-facts which carry a different meaning, I hope that won't done....
The article says Poetsch gave anti-Semetic lectures and yet "was not anti-semitic at all." Is this actually true? It sounds a lot like a contradiction borne of editor differences. Deco 11:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the Confessing church, it was a protestant organization, and it prompted action against protestant (in particular Lutheran) clergy, not Catholic, as was stated in the article.
The article is blatantly not neutral, and would require a complete rewrite to make it so. Any fair minded person can see that talking about Hitler in glowing terms when so much of the world considers him evil is unconscionable. Until such time a disclaimer must be put in place. -- 69.158.175.185 16:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there any information about the New World Order Hitler was trying to create? I think that there should be an article about it. All I know is that he wanted to colonize the Ukraine with SS guards and their families, and Germany would extend up to Moscow and beyond.
![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I've heard allegations that he was anti-semitic, is this true?
Has anyone heard of Karl Ossietz? I've recently placed this article up for votes for deletion, because I can't find any good information on him via Internet searches. I'd appreciate any info anyone has to add at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Ossietz. Thanks. func (talk) 23:17, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I found him mentioned in an Allen Churchill book from 1979 called Eyewitness Adolf Hitler. I believe it was from a letter that this Karl Ossietz was mentioned as Hitler's personal astrologer. Eyewitness
So is that saying about Hitler having only one testicle an urban legend or does it have basis in reality?
I linked to the page about the the specific term for the annexion of Austria ( Anschluss) in the article header as well. While the "Anschluss" page is not a great article yet, I think the topic is important enough (as one of the main causes of the war) to deserve a link in the header... - Marcika 00:15, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hitler’s Mein Kampf is not widely available in Germany. His legacy, as interpreted by some historians, has caused him to be one of the most denounced men in history. Other historians, however, point out that Hitler's attempt to improve the economic and political standing and conditions of his people and how he went about it, was, in essence, no different than that of many other leaders in history and thus this denouncement is hypocritical and not completely objective.
How was Hitler "no different" than leaders like Churchill or FDR? At least they didn't gas people in attempting to improve economic and political standing. Who were the historians who said this denouncement is hypocritical and not not objective? This all sounds very stupid to me and should be edited. Wareware 04:44, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
He wife?
For who ever removed this reference, have you read the article, or the refrences for it? I can give you reams of info on the subject. As far as Hitler or Nazism being popular in some parts of the Islamic world... of course I can find some cites, but is it really necessary? Do you actually dispute that? Sam [ Spade] 13:43, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did read the links. There's not really much there about Hitler being 'worshipped as a deity'. Just a reference to one guy, Devi, viewing him as an Avatar of Vishnu. You also say that you are concerned about the possibility of verifying it. In that case, it shouldn't be said. I also think this whole thing seems unconnected with Hitler, the man. And that's what this article's about. The page Nazi mysticism links into the Nazism page. Those who want to read about it can find it there, where it belongs. Unless you have evidence of Hitler encouraging or supporting attempts to deify him, that comment does not belong here. (Oh, and Hitler didn't reign either, only monarchs (kings, queens, emperors, etc.) reign.) jguk 14:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
And that's your problem, not mine. And I find you calling me buck-o offensive and ask you to be more civil towards me. There's no reason why we cannot disagree civilly. You say can't begin to quantify numbers: 1,000s, 10,000s, 100,000s, more? IMHO you'd need at least tens of thousands worshipping him as a deity to make it noteworthy enough for an article. If you can't support your assertion with verifiable evidence of its noteworthiness, the assertion needs to go until you can. I ask you to leave the article as it is - provide evidence to support your views, and if it is deemed reliable enough by the wikicommunity, your statement can go back in.
I have added by point by point comments for each of your references (apart from the books, which I obviously can’t get at from my laptop) in bold. It is a crude way, but one that is effective in separating my comments from yours. They show that there is a very small number of people who argue that Hitler is an avatar of Vishnu. They do not quantify the number, but that number seems to be very small. Indeed, one of the articles you quoted was called ‘Nutty Nazis’. It is clear that this is a sub subtopic at the very most.
There is no disagreement that Nazi mysticism or Esoteric Hitlerism exist. And it is right that Wikipedia has articles covering them. But you have so far failed to prove that a significant number of people worship Hitler as a deity for that comment to remain in this article. It is not relevant to Hitler. I will add under ‘Related articles’ Esoteric Hitlerism. Nazi mysticism properly belongs as a link off Nazism rather than Hitler, and quite rightly it is already there.
I have now spent quite a bit of time reading your references. Many of which had little to offer on the subject at hand. If you want to quote further references to me, I should be grateful if you would ensure they are to the point, and in particular that they offer some sort of quantification of how many people worship Hitler as a deity. Until and unless you provide evidence of quantification, please do not reinsert your statement. You have not yet proven that it is relevant enough to Hitler, the man, to have in this article. Finally, perhaps we can keep our disagreement on this talk page rather than reverting each other. I agree that if you provide evidence to prove your claim is notable (which would include some quantification of those worshipping Hitler as a deity), your comment can return. I ask you agree that until you have done so, the comment stays out. jguk 16:53, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A point by point rebuttal by jguk follows (the rebuttals are in bold):
In the first part of the article, there is no reason to say that Hitler was "reported to have committed suicide," when the suicide has been documented by many eyewitnesses and finally confirmed with the opening of the KGB files on the disposal and eventual total destruction of his remains.
The section on "Economics and Culture" is couched in terms that are far too positive and sympathetic. It also uses the term "civil improvement," which to American readers, at least, does not clearly denote public works projects, but sounds rather more like an improvement in society.
The sentence, " Hitler's health initiatives for ethnic Germans were successful and progressive," has a vaguely völkisch flavor and makes it sound as if he were a benevolent ruler; further, it is vague to the point of meaninglessness, since there is no explanation of the term "health initiatives."
The sentence, " Hitler's policies emphasised the importance of family life: men were the breadwinners, women’s priorities being Church, Kitchen and Children," similarly sounds as if it were written by a right-wing admirer of Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (in American terms: barefoot and pregnant) -- in other words, a blatant sexist.
The next sentence, "Excellence was encouraged in all spheres," may be true in some very limited sense, but I don't think Wiki should put itself in the position of making such a blandly positive statement about the greatest mass murderer of all time who in the process of "encouraging excellence" burned and banned great literature, confined German art to puerile representiveness and caused many of the country's leading artists and scientists to flee to the U.S. and other countries.
User:sca 8nov04
You ought to capitalize the beginnings of your sentences. As to "nobody" agreeing about Hitler's death -- you ought to have your head examined.
Why are all of the pictures of him relatively sympathetic? Although it's also bias to always show him screaming at a microphone, please show both if you will.
I had always thought Hitler was Catholic by background. CJCurrie 03:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"intimidated" in describing the actions of the Centre Party,Germany is disputed and the dispute broadens to the error in claiming on its' page that the Catholic Centre Party (Zentrumspartei) was " dissolved by Hitler ". See also Pope Pius XII . Flamekeeper 09:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sir John Wheeler-Bennett in The Nemesis of Power-The German Army in Politics 1918-1945 indexes the Centre Party's condonation of Nazism after Hitler gained the Chancellorship and came therefore to power in 1933 . Wheeler-Bennett says that the Centre , whatever its mental reservations ,condoned his Government by voting for him . Flamekeeper 10:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I came across in some writings Hitler referring to the November Republic. Now I assume (and am pretty confident) that this is the same as the Weimar Republic, but I wanted to have this confirmed before I went ahead and made a redirect. I assume someone here can back me up (or correct me if I'm mistaken). I was going to write this at the Weimar talk page, but this one has tons more traffic. - R. fiend 20:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I saw this on Unsolved Histories on Discovery Channel, it's title is Hitler in the Andes.
They said that the FBI had an eleven year investigation of wheter or not he died. Seeing that much of the information available that time were propaganda, wheter it was from the Allies, the Nazis, the Russian, and several other parties, do anyone here has any info or fact about this investigation?
Oh yeah, if Hitler's body was cremated, how can there be a Soviet autopsy that revealed that he has only one testicle? Just curious. -- Vandal Unknown 19:58, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This article is overweight and needs to be split into 2 in order to guarantee editorial freedom. Put your proposals here, and I will hopefully do the split on Sunday on the basis of consensus reached. I am putting a note at the top of the article to let readers participate in the debate.
Seriously, people, do you really need three adjectives praising Hitler's supposedly wonderful speaking style? Strunk and White says cut down on the adjectives, and this man is Hitler, not Tony fucking Robbins. -- JG
Yes he was an amazing speaker and an insipration, but he was a horrible man.
An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Adolf_Hitler article:
Additionally, there are some other articles which may be able to linked to this one (also known as "backlinks"):
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these suggestions may be wrong, some may be right.
Feedback:
I like it,
I hate it,
Please don't link to —
LinkBot 11:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please keep in mind the neutrality policy. Hitler is widely regarded as having been among the worlds most successful oraters. The purpose of this article is to inform, not to convince people Hitler was bad. If they don't think he's bad already, reading a biased article won't convince them any. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam Spade Wants you to vote!]] 16:39, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is not a question of trying to promote certain feelings about Hitler. I am willing to try to find language that people can agree on but I have much more substantive objections. The sentence: "A gifted, charismatic orator possessed of a profound personal presence", has two significant problems.
First, the perhaps more minor problem is that, while Hitler was undoubtedly a sucessful and charismatic orator, there is often associated with oration a certain lyrical and literary quality that Hitler's oration lacked. I would not refer to him as a inherently gifted orator. Hitler spoke with great emotion and fervor, many would say vengeful rage, about topics that resonated with the German public. However I know of no historian or writer who thinks that Hitler had a great command of the German language in the way that Churchill or Lincoln did of theirs. Hitler himself often wrote his speeches, at least early in his career, and, like his writing, they are almost universally thought to have little or no literarly value. I dont think an assessment of writing ability is really such a subjective thing. If Hitler wrote like Churchill, German literary circles would not deny it. Admittledly, this is somewhat of a semantic problem with what one means by oration.
The second more substantive objection relates to Hitlers personal presence. I am not going to argue that this is purely a subjective notion. Certain people, like Martin Luther King for example, have been almost universally recognized to have had great charisma in private settings. Certain more sinister characters like Saddam Hussein are also fairly widely seen to have been personally charasmatic. The problem with applying this sort of language to Hitler is that one of the things he is known for is to have been, at least among a large minority, a very disappointing person to meet personally. Even Mussolini found him to be a very ascetic and somewhat withdrawn character. Hitler was also known for doing very poorly in social cirlces and he was not someone who was known, at least while he lacked power, to have had much of any sexual attractiveness to either sex. He had great difficulty rising above Corporal in the first World War despite a record of some distinction. Some think this was due to a bad psychological evaluation but it is almost certainly due to a lack of command presence. It is just a fact that over the course of Hitler's life many people found him to be repulsive or a non-entity, and this really affected his early life. Obviously this is only part of the story and he was undoubtedly charismatic in a sense. However he had to overcome a sort of lack of attractiveness in his personality that manifested itself over the course of his entire life. This is not someone who I would refer to as one who is "possessed of a profound personal presence". -- Wtmgeo 17:31, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To the anonymous poster who keeps adjusting the Thackeray reference:
(1) The reference to Thackery is *entirely* appropriate for the section of the article which concerns Hitler's legacy. You have claimed that "no indian group or political leader supports Hitler's philosophy or ideology", but Thackeray's own words suggest otherwise. Here are a few quotes from an AsiaWeek article, dated 1995:
"BOMBAY'S BALASHAHEB "BAL" THACKERAY, 68, does not object to the assertion that he is a demagogue - he openly revels in it. A short time after telling an Indian newspaper that he wanted to be the "Hitler of India" he repeated the claim - with pride - to Asiaweek."
[...]
"[Interviewer]: You recently described yourself as the Hitler of Bombay, and you have expressed a desire to be the Hitler of India. Is that correct?
[BT]: Why not? I am a great admirer of Hitler, and I am not ashamed to say so! I do not say that I agree with all the methods he employed, but he was a wonderful organizer and orator, and I feel that he and I have several things in common. Look at the amount of good we have done in just six months in Maharashtra. Actually, we have too much sham-democracy in this country. What India really needs is a dictator who will rule benevolently, but with an iron hand."
Check out [www.asiaweek.com/asiaweek/95/0922/nat5.html] for the full interview.
A few years ago, when he was trying to pass himself off as a "moderate", Thackeray backed away from statements like these (or claimed he was misinterpreted). Notwithstanding which, it would be a difficult task to gloss over the presence of at least some support for "Hitler's philosophy or ideology" in the quote referenced above. </understatement mode off>
(2) Given that a reference to Thackeray is appropriate, it also seems appropriate to mention that he leads Shiv Sena, a right-wing Hindu nationalist party which embraces the principles of Hindutva, and has become even more militant in support of these principles since the BJP's defeat last year. (In passing, I can only imagine that Shiv Sena's own drubbing in the recent Maharashtra poll will push it even further toward its core constituency on this issue.)
If you want to mention that *not all* of supporters of Hindutva agree with Thackeray's views on Hitler, that might be fine. (Though in that case it should also be noted that *many* authors have drawn parallels between Hindutva and fascism.)
(3) This isn't really relevant to the article at hand, but I might add in passing that Thackeray's support for the destroyers of the Ayodhya mosque, and his party's general policy towards India's Muslim population, have some parallels with the conduct of the Nazi regime toward minority groups.
Comparing modern leaders to Hitler is usually a cop-out, but since Thackeray himself has invited the comparison ... well, let's just say it seems appropriate under the circumstances. CJCurrie 00:41, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Its beyond slanderous to claim that the attitude of Hindutva towards Muslims is somehow on par with Nazi policies towards minority groups.
In the context of this article, its a gross exaggeration. The Nazis had an explicitly racist and malicious agenda of systemized exclusion, revocation of citizenship, and ultimate elimination with regards to the Jews and other undersirables.
The BJP has advocated nothing of the sort towards the Islamic community, and has mainly pushed for a Uniform Civil Code and called for Muslims to do more to assimilate within mainstream Indian society.
This is in fact the diametric opposite of the Nazi regime's disposition towards the Jews, whom it deliberately attempted to exclude and eventually destroy. Even the Shiv Sena, which is far more extreme than the BJP, has not voiced sentiment that could be construed as aiming at the extermination of the Muslims on par with the Nazi atrocities.
As far as the Ayodhya issue is concerned, Im not going to get into a long-winded debate over the subject, but lets just say that attempting to build a temple on what is one of the most holiest sites in Hinduism is a far cry from Krstallnacht.
Its not simply that not *all* of Hindutva followers are sympathetic towards Hitler, there isnt even a minority which is. Mainstream Hindutva organizations like the RSS and VHP have never published anything that can even remotely be construed as being supportive of Hitler's philosophy of genocide and discrimination. To conflate the fact that Thackeray is an admirer of Hitler with his party's acceptance of Hindutva is simply shading the truth.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this? CJCurrie 02:10, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I have a thought. This thought is that people who primarily want to make points about politics and politicians in India should find another place on Wikipedia to do so. References to Hitler are a fine way to strike ones political opponents over the head or to put ones foot in ones mouth, as this guy Bal Thackery has evidently done, but what relevance do they have to a very short biography of Hitler? Why dont you create another page titled something like "Hitler as a modern political device", and take your debate there. -- Wtmgeo 06:23, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This article has a section "Medical health .... Hitler's medical health has long been the subject of debate, and he has variously been suggested to suffer ... and a missing left testicle.". Is this last item from valid medical evidence or other genuine reports? Or does it only refer to the common vulgar song "Hitler's only got one ball ..."? I see no purpose in merely commemorating an obscene traditional popular song here. (Even if the report is valid, it may refer to cryptorchidism rather than to complete absence.) Anthony Appleyard 08:11, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Not only things that have been proven should be recorded in an encyclopedia article. If a legend is associated with a historical character, and that legend is significant (as is the case with Hitler's rumored monorchidism) then the fact of the legend should be recorded. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 16:51, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
There was until very recently a notice at the top of this article:
"Hitler" redirects to this page. For other people named Hitler, see Hitler (disambiguation).
In my view it was a useful link. Everyking and I cannot agree on whether it is "clutter." Everyking has placed it under "Hitler's family" which makes sense. On balance I think I still prefer to have it at the top. Any other people with preferences? --[[User:Tony Sidaway| Tony Sidaway| Talk]] 07:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See:
The short answers are: yes, there is loads of doubt from everybody who has looked into his death with any kind of interest, and it was meth he was on, not coke. He didn't know that was what it was tho, his doctor told him it was the super-soldier serum, or vitimins, or some such. [[User:Sam Spade| Sam]] Spade wishes you a merry Christmas! 22:00, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A brief section on the Hitler Youth might be a good idea (and not in the form of "Hitler was brainwashing youth to be his unquestioning fully obedient soldiers" but in terms of the focus on athletics and companionship and so on).
This section of the document is severely flawed.
It is still only speculation that the "Final Solution" (being genocide) was decided here, or that the Final Solution even meant killing of the Jews. Anyone can read the Wannsee minutes, where they clearly talk about EVACUTION of the Jews and removing them from "all spheres of German life", not of removing them from the face of the planet.
For all Holocaust believers or generally average schmoes who learn their "history" piecemeal from movies and TV shows and what have you, they really believe that at Wannsee Hitler ordered genocide of the Jews, which is utter nonsense. It can be inferred that remaining Jew (after all other solutions being exhausted) "dealt with accordingly" meant killing them, but that alone is certainly no evidence of a systematic plan to slaughter every Jew in europe.
Okay, I've taken the libery and performed some editing myself. I believe it to be NPOV and rather fair to both sides of the debate. I have not denied there was a Holocaust (despite my personal beliefs) but I have made a far more accurate and informed edit about Wannsee (and Himmler's comments stating "we can not gas them or shoot them").
I put a lot of work into that, so please do not hastily revert it. Re-edit as you see fit, but to remove valid and complete facts in favour of half-facts which carry a different meaning, I hope that won't done....
The article says Poetsch gave anti-Semetic lectures and yet "was not anti-semitic at all." Is this actually true? It sounds a lot like a contradiction borne of editor differences. Deco 11:55, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Regarding the Confessing church, it was a protestant organization, and it prompted action against protestant (in particular Lutheran) clergy, not Catholic, as was stated in the article.
The article is blatantly not neutral, and would require a complete rewrite to make it so. Any fair minded person can see that talking about Hitler in glowing terms when so much of the world considers him evil is unconscionable. Until such time a disclaimer must be put in place. -- 69.158.175.185 16:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Is there any information about the New World Order Hitler was trying to create? I think that there should be an article about it. All I know is that he wanted to colonize the Ukraine with SS guards and their families, and Germany would extend up to Moscow and beyond.