![]() | 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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
There is a sentence in the "Legacy" section that reads as follows: ...the denial of the Holocaust along with the display of Nazi symbols such as swastikas, is prohibited by law in Germany and Austria. It should have a comma before "along." Currently, it suggests that it's all right to deny the Holocaust as long as you don't display a Nazi symbol. I can't make this change myself since the "Edit" button doesn't appear on the page. Hopefully someone literate will correct this error.( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC))
Why are people not happy with -
Hitler became obsessed with German nationalism from a young age as a way to rebel against his father, who proudly served the Austrian government. While many Austrians considered themselves "Germans" but still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany.[25][26][27] Hitler and his friends used the German greeting "Heil", and sang the German anthem "Deutschland Über Alles" instead of the Austrian Imperial anthem.[18][page needed]
It's fine and well cited, why do people keep reverting it back to 'culturally Germans' when they still considered themselves as just Germans back then not as culturally Germans, seems silly to keep reverting it.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your reply contradicts itself you say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans? Erm it's common sense that Austrians are ethnically German...no it's not too heavy because 'culturally' before Germans is silly there is no difference between that and just Germans to be fair and no hardly anyone has 'reverted it back' beside a couple of persons and yes this is about Adolf Hitler but he was born Austrian but back in his day the vast majority of Austrians consider themselves as "Germans" and no they were loyal to Austria, a Austrian nation didn't exist (even see the cited sources on it, German Austria in 1918 as well and then the welcoming of the Anschluss, the Austrian nation is a post-1945 everybody in history knows that. Don't say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans when Hitler himself was an ethnic German, so if there is no such thing as ethnically German people...who were Germans before 1871? The way it is now is perfectly fine I don't see how it's wrong, he was Austrian but like many others in his day and age considered himself German but Hitler expressed loyalty to just the German Empire, he always considered Austria as part of Germany (Greater Germany/Pan-Germanism).-- 14Adrian ( talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
{{ History of Austria}}
A recent edit which I changed: your wording was: "While many Austrians still considered themselves Germans, they remained loyal to Austria." The words "still" and "remained" imply that Austria was part of Germany in the past (ie, prior to the Anschluss). This is in fact not true: the Austrian Empire existed from 1804 to 1867, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867 till the end of WWI. The First Austrian Republic existed from 1919 to 1934. Here is a template that contains links to the various articles on this wiki that attest to the existence of Austria as far back as 1156. A third problem is your grammar and punctuation, which are lacking in some ways. Material added must be in grammatically complete sentences, must be gramatically correct, and must be correctly punctuated. Your recent edit: "While many Austrians considered themselves " Germans", [1] they still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; it has the word Germans in quotation marks for emphasis; it implies through the word "still" that Austria did not exist at the time. The new source you have added is not suitable for our purposes, as it describes what the people of Austria have been thinking and feeling from 1956 to the present day. I am once again re-working the sentence to reflect the known facts and to make it neutral in point of view. -- Dianna ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Austria was part of Germany before the Anschluss just not the nation-sate Germany, in fact up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany it was inside the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation until 1806 which the Habsburgs who were Austrian pretty much dominated and then the German Confederation and until Prussia defeated Austria well it was seen as not just part but the leader of Germany and if it wasn't for a political war with Prussia it would be Austria now who controlled all the German lands as "Greater Germany" the Austrian Empire was part of the German Confederation but not the German Empire, in 1918 "German Austria" wanted to join Germany this pretty much shows that Austrians certainly still felt and considered themselves Germans but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union between the German Republic (then in 1919) and German Austria and thus remained separate, and Germans are an ethnic group ethnic Germans not rocket science...so tell me if Austria had won Prussia in 1866 in the "German war" would you then be saying Prussians all of a sudden are not German? Up until 1945 there was no Austrian nation, no Austrian national identity but the people considered themselves part of the German nation and thrived a Greater Germany and the national identity of "Austrian not German" is just a post-1945 occurance.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Ethnicity doesn't all of a sudden just stop, do you genuinely have something wrong with you? Austrians will forever be ethnic Germans just not Germans by nationality.
Do you understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity?
Chinese are an ethnic group.
Americans is normally just nationality...but native Americans are ethnic group again.
Reverted for what, all the sources cited verify the text put in.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
He is claiming one thing yet Wikipedia even contradicts the user Malljaja.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 04:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The person can't answer me when claiming Austrians aren't Germans ethnically yet I asked "If Austria won Prussia in the German war in 1866 would you then be saying Prussians aren't Germans?" and I got no reply, the edit is not to heavy to say considered themselves Germans because around Hitler's time Austrians did describe themselves as Germans and this can be cited things are different post-1945 now of course but back then Pan-Germanism was high and although Austria (at his birth) was not part of Germany he still was an ethnic German I don't see why this should be changed to "culturally" when the Austrians back then considered themselves actually Germans not just as culturally Germans.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all these people you saying have ethnic Brazilians mothers and so forth well their are not German ethnically then just born in Germany so have German nationality...do you actually understand what an ethnic group is? *sighs*
Secondly, it was not at all a minority that people in Austria wanted to join Germany now stop with this rubbish because before Hitler was even in power the name of Austria in 1918 was German Austria and the vast majority of people wanted to be part of Germany and in parts 99% of them voted but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union and most Austrians did identify themselves as part of the German nation and as Austrian-Germans they are no different from say Prussian-Germans Hessian-Germans Bavarian-Germans they are all "German" ethnically, what don't you get about that? The Anschluss was hugely welcomed so stop listening to such rubbish, if history had turned out differently the Austrians would have been running Greater Germany now an inheriting the country Germany as the nation state unfortunately Prussia did instead, get your facts right. Do you have something wrong with stating that Austrians are ethnic Germans or something, does it boil you that the truth hurts? Check what the word Austria even means...I rest my case!-- 14Adrian ( talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hohum, I was adding cited sources into the references about everything I said hence why it's not getting reverted back now because back then it's true that Austrians were seen as Germans, a separate identity only occurred after WW2, and people further up are referring to "German" as a nationality and I don't think quite understand what an ethnicity is....-- 14Adrian ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Dianna do you accept you was in the wrong and not going to revert back then now? Without getting personal just know your stuff before saying it wasn't part etc, the Holy Roman Empire was seen as "Germany" and the Austrians literally dominated that and up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany, I think it's fine how it is placed now if need be I have a source you could put after the Germans bit if need be (if anyone wants to challenge how the Pan-Germanism paragraph is put now).-- 14Adrian ( talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great.[47] Wilhelm Röpke concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful."[48][49] Nishidani ( talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In 1197 pages of Fest's book, Luther is mentioned twice en passant, and not as an ideological infuence. Luther had a profound effect on German culture, antisemitism, but to treat him as a direct influence on Hitler, who had a Catholic upbringing, seems excessive. I know there was a controversy over this once, but one must distinguish between cultural milieu, and direct influence. Hitler's rhetoric certainly uses the voelkisch idiom of Luther's translation of the Bible to great effect. Unless sources say so, I doubt whether an Austrian in the intensely anti-semitic milieu of Vienna, needed to brush up on a specific text like 'On the Jews and their Lies' in order to hate Jews. Most of the antisemites I have encountered became so without any reading converting them. Nishidani ( talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great. [2] Wilhelm Röpke concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful." [3] [4] Nishidani ( talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The included painting, "Courtyard of the Old Residency", does not seem to be typical of his art. It has unsually austere colours compared to almost any of his other paintings, and in that respect may give a skewed impression. If anyone wants to check this, there are some youtube videos which give an oversight of his artistic works. JMK ( talk) 12:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone—I think it was Nishidani—added some new material with citations to Hamann, including "Hamann 2010 pp. 347-359,350." We are going to need more information on this book, as it is not presently in the bibliography. We also need more details on the cited work Hamann, Hitler's Vienna. Perhaps they are the same book? Could we get full details such as full name of the book and isbn? Thank you. -- Dianna ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Citation
| last = Hamann | first = Brigitte | authorlink = Brigitte Hamann | title = Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man | publisher = Tauris Parke Paperbacks | location = London, New York | year = 2010 | origyear = 1999 | others = Trans. Thomas Thornton | isbn = 978-1-848-85277--8 | ref = harv
The problem with different editions is that material will very likely appear on different pages. So it is necessary to cite each book as a different source. This may of course mean a specific book is listed more than once, but it allows better verifiability. You were correct not to remove the previous edition as a source. I will go ahead and add the newer edition to the bibliography. -- Dianna ( talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of moving all the citations out of the text and into a separate section at the bottom of the page. Please see Ted Bundy for an example of an article that has been converted to this style. If there are no objections or concerns, I will complete the change in the next few days. See WP:LDR for more information. -- Dianna ( talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Could this go in the entry?
Michael Fitzgerald, an expert in autism spectrum disorders, concludes that Hitler suffered from, and met all the criteria of Asperger syndrome as documented by Hans Asperger. As evidence of possible Asperger's, Fitzgerald cites Hitler's poor sleep patterns, food fads, dislike of physical contact, inability to forge genuine friendships, and an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men’s Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he seemingly lacked capacity. In Munich, Hitler was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings, that he was single-minded and inflexible. He was obsessive and rarely made good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who shared his obsessions or those in awe of, or dependent on him.
As far as hobbies or pastimes were concerned, Hitler spent a great deal of time examining architectural plans with Albert Speer, an activity that remained a major focus of his life throughout. His other major interest was in the music of Richard Wagner. His greatest interest, clearly, was in control of and power over people.
Fitzgerald further states that Hitler was an ideologue with unshakable convictions, and had a bed compulsion, which demands that the bed be made in a particular way with the quilt folded according to a prescribed pattern, and that a man must make the bed before he could go to sleep. He did not use language for the purpose of interaction with others, but only for the purpose of dominating others. He endlessly engaged in long-winded and pedantic speeches, with "illogical arguments full of crude comparisons and cheap allusions." He was unable to carry on a normal conversation or discussion with people. Even if only one other person was present, he had to do all the talking. His manner of speech soon lost any conversational qualities it might have had and took on all the characteristics of a lecture that easily developed into a tirade. He simply forgot his companions and behaved as though he were addressing a multitude, repeating the same stories over and over again in exactly the same form, almost as though he had memorised them. After the First World War, "his awkward mannerisms" were noted. At that time, he wore his gangster hat and trenchcoat over his dinner jacket, toting a pistol and carrying as usual his dog whip, he cut a bizarre figure in the salons of Munich’s upper-crust. But his very eccentricity of dress and exaggerated mannerism saw him lionized by condescending hosts and fellow guests. In his early days, he wore the Bavarian costume. His clothes were not clean; with his mouth full of brown, rotted teeth and his long fingernails, he presented a rather grotesque figure. His gait was a very lady-like walk; dainty little steps. Every few steps he ****** his right shoulder nervously, his left leg snapping up as he did so. He also had a tic in his face that caused the corner of his lips to curl upwards. People found his look "staring and dead." 58.170.59.250 ( talk) 05:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
please cite your source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.229.203 ( talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
According the the FBI records found at: http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler there was no evidence of Hitler having killed himself and his body was never found. Though they do have leads that suggest that he escaped to Argentina where he lived until the 60s.
The last line of the main article says, "In the final days of the war, during the Battle of Berlin in 1945, Hitler married his long-time mistress, Eva Braun. On 30 April 1945—less than two days later— the two committed suicide to avoid capture by the Red Army, and their corpses were burned.[5]"
That is obviously the propaganda that was released at the time. It should read:
"[338" FBI Records - The Vault - Adolf Hitler http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickyjeffries ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)I'd also like to add and echo Kierzek's comments that as far as one can tell, these documents are just a sundry paper trail of FBI records consisting of letters by various individuals, suggesting that they saw AH alive and well in various locations (e.g., in Argentina or even NYC). Anyone with a pen or paper and a wild story to tell would have ended up in those files. Whether their observations or suggestions were indeed true or not, these documents do not reveal. So it's not a reliable source. What's more, even if it were true that Hitler had reached foreign shores to go on living an undetected life, unless this became accepted by a significant number of historians or other scholars, it does not belong into WP. Malljaja ( talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The article reads:
I removed the "so-called", but Malljaja ( talk · contribs) restored it, with the edit summary explaining that '"so-called" is appropriate—"racial hygiene" is not an accepted and it's also a highly controversial term'.
I think the first bit must be a typo (an accepted what?) so I'll await clarification on that. As to the second point, I think we make clear that doctrines of racial hygiene are controversial (then and now) when we say they are in the sentence I quoted. However, phrases like "so-called" introduce bias by leading the reader to the favored conclusion, as in this case, where it vaguely suggests deception and doubt without introducing new meaning. For these reasons, "so-called" is included in Wikipedia's words to avoid:
causa sui ( talk) 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A contributor has recently tagged a translation of "FÜR FRIEDEN FREIHEIT
UND DEMOKRATIE
NIE WIEDER FASCHISMUS
MILLIONEN TOTE MAHNEN" into "For peace, freedom // and democracy // never again fascism // millions of dead remind [us]" with
citation needed. If this were a highly complex text, I'd concur that it may need a citation. However, this is an almost word-for-word translation that even a reader without the command of German can deduce the meaning. And for what it's worth, I can read German, and can confirm the accuracy of this translation. Any thoughts? Thanks.
Malljaja (
talk)
22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Weird, some reason why it seems not possible to remove unsourced material? The BBC article contains none of the things written in the article.
DS Belgium (
talk)
03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The unsourced material you removed is definitely gone. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version of the page? --Regards, -- Dianna ( talk) 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We quote Louis Farrakhan:
The quote is situated in a section on Hitler's legacy, between quotes describing some influential contemporary figures expressing a positive attitude toward Hitler or suggesting that Hitler's public image following World War II, while overwhelmingly negative, has pockets of support and admiration. This quote, as quoted and placed in the article, clearly implies that Louis Farrakhan is among the notable contemporary political figures who do not share the consensus view of Hitler's legacy.
The full context given by the citation is in an article on Louis Farrakhan documenting his many public gaffes, giving short direct quotes that suggest racist or bigoted attitudes on the part of Mr. Farrakhan toward whites and minorities other than his own. It reads:
What little we do get to infer from the added context is that Farrakhan is responding to critics' comparisons between him and Hitler. As a technique for improving his personal public image, it is obviously not a success. But it is also not clearly an explicit attempt to rehabilitate Hitler's image as much as it is a rhetorical device for responding to criticism in the context of public speaking to what is probably a friendly audience.
Beyond that, we do not get to see what Farrakhan said before that, or what he said after. In what way did Farrakhan think Hitler was "great"? Does Farrakhan want us to respect and admire Hitler and wish for more leaders like him (implying that Farrakhan thinks of himself as such a leader)? Or is Farrakhan identifying with the way that Hitler was a terror to his enemies and admiring that solitary aspect of his political career? Or was Farrakhan merely suggesting that in comparing him to Hitler, his critics are acknowledging his own significance? Or was it _anything_ else? No matter: we make these judgments on behalf of the reader through presentation and the context in which we place it. causa sui ( talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Backing up what Jeff said here Talk:Adolf_Hitler#How_Hitler_died. i found a rather interesting article which corresponds with the FBI files (also take into account that the skull fragement they believed to be his , was actually that of a woman see here [1] ) It was written by a chap who i believe has sadly passed away from cancer. However, he posted this remarkable thread [2] claiming to of met hitler in South America (as many prominent nazis were proven to of fled to , including Dr Mengele and Eichmann) Has anyone got any opinions on this, im not paticulary a conspiracy thereoist but this find proves to be very extraordinary. Nothing is what it seems.... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss) (Complain) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well not really, its been proven scientifically. Dont forget they killed someone who looked like Hitler (that was a proven fact) in the last days of the the war in europe. Besides what you said there was contradictary, afterall perhaps numerous people CLAIMED to of seen him commit suicide, but did they actually see it? And was it the real hitler? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss) (Complain) 09:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help). It is an exhaustive investigative look into Hitler's death.
Kierzek (
talk)
14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to submit the many book sources you claim exist that state the opposite of what the literature dealing with Hitler's death that currently is in the entry says (if that's what you mean by "state the opposite") for discussion here. Malljaja ( talk) 19:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section on Hitler's sexuality, we write:
He had a close bond with his half-niece Geli Raubal, which may have included sexual relations, though there is no evidence that conclusively supports such a relationship.[329] All three women attempted suicide, which has led to speculation that Hitler may have had sexual fetishes that affected the mental well-being of his close partners.[330]
We would be appalled to find such unencyclopedic content in an article on any other person, living or dead. Imagine:
Abraham Lincoln had a close bond with his half-niece, which may have included sexual relations, though there is no evidence that conclusively supports such a relationship.[329] All three women attempted suicide, which has led to speculation that Lincoln may have had sexual fetishes that affected the mental well-being of his close partners.[330]
Lincoln had a "close bond" with a family member. Scandalous! Of course, since historians are unaware of there having been an attendant following him around 24 hours a day, that relationship "may have" included sexual relations.
If there is no evidence confirming or even suggesting such a relationship, it is nothing above gossip and rumor. The same goes for the second sentence. We offer no hint to the reader that there is anything to the speculation except pure guesswork. causa sui ( talk) 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I do not have access to the sources in question, so perhaps editors who do can shed some light on this. As far as I know, the relationship between Hitler and his niece has received significant attention. Time permitting I'll look into this to see whether there are scholarly sources that could be helpful. Malljaja ( talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
How close is this article to being a GA? I'm thinking it's important enough that we should move it up the quality scale towards FA, and it seems to be referenced pretty well, which is the hardest part. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) & Kershaw, Ian (2000). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. New York; London: W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
0393322521. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Note: the 2008 biography of Hitler by Kershaw (
ISBN
0-393-06757-2) is the same as the two books above, put together as one, but without some verbiage, quotations and the detailed chapter footnotes (at the end of the book). It is the one I have used the most for citing herein.
Kierzek (
talk)
16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many references are inaccurate. (Not slight in error but significant) a) Reference is just an idea by the author and not sufficient to make a point. b) Reference does NOT support point. c) Reference is circular in nature, not substantive in nature.
So frequent are the inaccuracies, the article for college level work would receive an "F". This is largely due the references are off.
Suggest - rework article so references support the work in a more "concrete style" rather than "hear say" or "opinion" that has no relevant support for the claim made.
This is a problem for wiki I know, but I can only say a wiki story could be accurate however if the references are off, it's basically "trash writing". Perhaps, Adolf is still to controversy after 65+ years after his death. Unfortunately; likely true. Thank you.
75.70.115.177 (
talk)
12:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone please state why the text above Hitler's picture is titled 'Adolf Hitler billy'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broden ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"These gains were reversed in 1945..." implies Germany was in control of most of Europe and North Africa right up to some magic moment in 1945 - these gains were reversed much earlier, and Germany was finally conquered itself in 1945. Needs rewording by someone who can edit this (quite rightly highly restricted) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.193.168 ( talk) 12:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the information that Hitler may have gone to school with Wittgenstein. I feel that we don't really have room for this addition. The sources are apparently not clear on whether or not they even knew each other, and even if they did, it would be a lot more significant for Wittgenstein than for Hitler. -- Dianna ( talk) 23:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mkativerata ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to do this section-by-section. And then make comments about the lead at the end. Judging by earlier comments on this talk page, the ultimate objective of the editors of this article appears to be to get the article to FA. With that in mind I won't do the "bare GA" pass but instead make whatever comments I think might be useful with the FA objective in mind.
I have read through the article and find that the article tends to gloss over Hitler's atrocities committed during his dictatorship, in my opinion. Hitler is not even labeled as a dictator. The Night of the Long Knives sections seems to be only one paragraph. Mein Kampf can be expanded. Hitler was the most prolific anti-semite dictator in world history and this seems to be "matter of fact" in the article. I am not sure the article captures Hitler's ruthlessness and arrogance. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The regime is labelled as a dictatorship at the bottom of the section Adolf Hitler#Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act. The Adolf Hitler#Legacy section specifically states that historians uniformly describe the regime as "evil". However, we are not allowed to present our emotional reactions to Hitler when presenting the material from an encyclopedic point of view, and must leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented. -- Dianna ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This article passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:
Thanks very much for tolerating my slow and painstaking review :) I'm very happy to pass this vital article. My suggestion from here—whether this article is to take the next step or not—would be for the small group of editors who've invested in the article (Dianaa, Kierzek, etc) to rule the article with an iron fist to avoid it getting substantiallt above the 150KB mark. You never know, 150KB or a little less might be ok for FAC. Khruschev got through at about 130KB. If anyone is to take it to FAC, I'd suggest peer review first. You'll find better prose people than me there. Mkativerata ( talk) 05:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from the article:
John McCain, a political opponent of Barack Obama, claimed that Obama had urolagnia (sexual arousal by urine or urination), but Michelle Obama has disputed this claim.
Hopefully my reasoning is self-explanatory. causa sui ( talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Stephen A. Douglas, a political opponent of Abraham Lincoln, claimed that Lincoln had urolagnia (sexual arousal by urine or urination), but Ann Rutledge disputed this claim.
Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald sees fit to note the fact that Stephen A. Douglas, a political opponent of Abraham Lincoln, claimed that Lincoln had urolagnia (sexual arousal by urine or urination), but that Ann Rutledge disputed this claim.
( ←) I'll argue for removing it at Sexuality of Adolf Hitler too, though that is a slightly harder argument to make since I can't make an appeal along the lines that Mkativerata took. In the main article, it's a headshot. If the article were Abraham Lincoln, whoever added this would be reverted and templated for vandalism. causa sui ( talk) 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The "urolagnia" section is probably too tangential for the main entry. But taking into consideration the attention that Hitler's mental and physical state have received by historians and other authors to try to explain his motivations, I do not see that a thorough discussion of his mental state, including his sexuality, would constitute undue weight. The article on Mao Zedong also contains a brief account of his habits that is less than flattering. Again, given that Mao, like Hitler, was a highly controversial historical figure it provides the sort of information that — while being inappropriate for rather "ordinary" politicians (such as Lincoln and Obama) — has received significant attention by historical scholars in search for clues for motivation. Malljaja ( talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the Hitler living in Liverpool part. I also believe this should be taken out as it is only trivia: "The garrison commander of the besieged Festung Breslau ("fortress Breslau"), General Hermann Niehoff, had chocolates distributed to his troops in honour of Hitler's birthday". Kierzek ( talk) 20:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe this block quote should be taken out and moved to another article, if need be. See below:
Can we please have a discussion about the possibility that Hitler may have taken a trip to Liverpool? I removed it on the basis that such a trip, if it ever happened, is not significant enough an event to be included the article. The editor has now restored it, so could any interested editors please post their opinion as to whether or not this should remain in the article? Thank you. -- Dianna ( talk) 05:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Although this section does not seem to have much if any overlap with the information presented at Hitler in popular culture, I find that lists like this do not impart much useful information to the serious reader. I would like to start a discussion about whether we should consolidate this list with the other article and remove it from this article. The sections under consideration are "Documentaries post Third Reich", "Films and series", and "Plays". Thanks.-- Dianna ( talk) 15:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Our GA reviewer is suggesting the possible removal of the "Further reading" section as a way to trim the size of the article. I am not sure I want to go ahead with this change, and invite editors to post opinions. Thanks. -- Dianna ( talk) 05:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice that David Irving and his Hitler's War isn't used at all in the article. This is certainly understandable, given Irving's controversial position. Nevertheless, the writers should at least address this decision, given that this book has been praised by several prominent historians such as Keegan and Trevor-Roper. Lampman ( talk) 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the Mein Kampf section needs to be expanded at least with a few words or sentence(s). I know that words are a perogative with this article. The article currently states only that the book sold millions of copies, without, telling the reader what Hitler express in his book. I propose putting in the article that Hitler expressed his own Darwinian violent world view in Mein Kampf. This could be expanded upon. Here is the source: Gregor article link. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not closely familiar with either citation, but I think any citation should reflect the most accepted interpretation of MK among scholars—with one or two of the most-discussed possible caveats—not the view of a single individual. While some readers may view his writings as delirious and violent, others may interpret it as less so. "Violent intentions" also sounds a little too vague to me. Malljaja ( talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Mein Kampf has already its (long) own entry, and while I agree that some of the cited characterizations might be useful here, this needs to be judiciously balanced with the need to keep this entry at a manageable size. I understand this is what the current editorial drive is about. Malljaja ( talk) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Sourced to Kershaw. --
Dianna (
talk)
06:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the templates for Wikiproject Socalism and Wikiproject Atheism. They were added by User:Ejgreen77 who is not listed as a member of either project. The user also doesn't seem to be an active contributor to the article itself. For a controversial (in the sense that Hitler's affiliation with either is a matter of dispute) subject like this, it should be up to the project members to list this article if they feel it makes a good addition and are interested in building it. Not some unaffiliated user who adds them for unknown reasons. LittleJerry ( talk) 02:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed some unsourced material about television appearances by Hitler as part of the GA process. If anyone has a citation for this information, please feel free to re-add what you have. Thanks. -- Dianna ( talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)!
The article mentions that Adolf Hitler is the third among five children. However, the article on Hitler's mother Klara Hitler mentions that the third child is a baby named Otto who died 3 days after birth. This makes Adolf the fourth child. Could someone clarify this and make corrections to the article? I don't have any good references to back up either of the numberings. -- ADTC Talk Ctrb . 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I really think this kind of speculation doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the article. Of the two sources cited, the second concludes that the majority of researchers who have addressed this question have answered the question in the negative, while the first source was the subject of a very negative review in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which called it "fudged pseudoscience." [ [4]]. Ulpian ( talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Done
Ulpian (
talk)
04:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This says that Hitler had a fear of going to the dentist, suffered from bad breath, and had ten fillings in 1942:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hitler seems to have praised a few non-Judeo-Christian religions, including Islam and Shinto, and seems to have liked the Hindu swastika. But I don't think he had any serious understanding of these faiths. For example, he regarded Arabs as racially inferior while respecting the "Mohammedan religion" (its hard to respect Mohammedanism when you think Mohammad, an Arab, is "inferior"). VR talk 04:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, there may have been Swastika at "Kloster Lambach" where the young hitler joined in as a child. But this implements that Hitler could have invented the Swastika from his own experiences as commonly used symbol for the flag of the third reich. But this is not correct some other groups, which were not in a connection to the movement that raised in Munich "with" Hitler as "one" of the initiators of the so called "Beer Hous Putsch", in the ideology crisis at the early 20´s and 30´s in germany, were using the Swastika as a symbol of the Brigades against the "Bolchevism"(in the beinning just Anti Communistic, later abused by the NSDAP and Hitler in connection with the "internationl jewish establishment" and communism) like the "Marine Brigade Erhardt" by another coup d etat named as "Kapp Putsch" in Berlin leaded by the "Organisation Consul". They had the swastika on their helmet and on some other para militarian instruments like trucks and banners just 1-2 years before the "Beer house Putsch" ... So Hitler just used this symbol furthermore, and lead it on the banner of the "third reich". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FestNetz ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[sub-article]ANCESTRY Haplogroup
For genealogy, the chromosomal evidence of Hitler’s haplogroup carries more scientific weight than does conjecture by historical figures. [from main article HAPLOGROUP] In molecular evolution, a haplogroup (from the Greek: απλούς, haploûs, "onefold, single, simple") is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor having the same single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation in both haplotypes. Because a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, this is what makes it possible to predict a haplogroup from haplotypes. An SNP test confirms a haplogroup. Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, for example R1b1. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have different haplogroup designations. Haplogroups pertain to deep ancestral origins dating back thousands of years.[1]
In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. Y-DNA is passed solely along the patrilineal line, from father to son, while mtDNA is passed down the matrilineal line, from mother to offspring of both sexes. Neither recombines, and thus Y-DNA and mtDNA change only by chance mutation at each generation with no intermixture between parents’ genetic material.
[from main article LIST OF HISTORICAL FIGURES etc] Haplogroups can be determined from the remains of historical figures, or derived from genealogical DNA tests of people who trace their direct maternal or paternal ancestry to a noted historical figure. Some contemporary notable figures have made their test results public. Adolf Hitler is believed to belong to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b. According to Ronny Decorte, genetics expert at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven who sampled Hitler’s current living relatives, “the results of this study are surprising” and “Hitler would not have been happy”.[35][36]
[from main article E1b1b] E1b1b and E1b1b1 are quite common amongst Afro-Asiatic speakers. The linguistic group and carriers of E1b1b1 lineage have a high probability to have arisen and dispersed together from the region of origin of this language family.[13][14][15] Amongst populations with an Afro-Asiatic speaking history, a significant proportion of Jewish male lineages are E1b1b1 (E-M35).[16] Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18%[3] to 20%[17][18] of Ashkenazi and 8.6%[19] to 30%[3] of Sephardi Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population.[20][Note 3]
The International Society of Genetic Genealogy see Haplogroup definition in DNA-NEWBIE GLOSSARY [1] • ^ Hitler verwant met Somaliërs, Berbers en Joden, De Standaard, Wednesday 18th August 2010 • ^ Hitler was verwant met Somaliërs, Berbers en Joden Knack, 18th August 2010
[SOURCES FROM MAIN ARTICLES ABOVE] Mb30748271 ( talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thought it might be worth noting many efforts have been made to name babies 'adolf hitler', but such efforts have been denied around the world as 'damaging to the child'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 10:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring for the moment the dubious inclusion of the US O.S.S report, can we find a better quotation than Konrad Heiden's: "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." The statement doesn't agree at all with what is known about Hitler's religious attitudes, and sounds very atheist, which Hitler certainly detested. If it could be grounded to a primary source I wouldn't be so bothered by the discrepancy, but it appears de novo from Heiden's biographies without any trace of a verifiable original source (see p.100). When was this said? In front of who? How was it documented? In 1935 Hitler had recently signed the Reichskonkordat and was still trying to unify the Protestant Churches into a National Reich Church. It seems absurd that these words would have come out of Hitler's mouth. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opening sentence of the main article shows Hitler's D.O.B as 20 April 1889 instead of 2 August 1934. While it is correctly shown below the Hitler's image on right side 114.143.84.7 ( talk) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble verifying Hitler's alleged expulsion from the Realschule in Steyr and the events that may have precipitated it. The story of him getting drunk and soiling his grade sheet is only traceable to Robert Payne, and I have not seen it mentioned independently anywhere else. Kershaw does not mention it, despite covering his childhood extensively. Payne apparently was given to embellishment and also suggested the now-discredited story of H's visit to England. So my question is whether the expulsion story has enough merit to stay in the entry. Thanks. Malljaja ( talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Done! Many thanks to both of you for your prompt input (and general diligence on this entry). Malljaja ( talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add some more updated information
203.51.60.65 ( talk) 06:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC) thanks
In the second paragraph it says "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's western border." Shouldn't it be "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's eastern border?"
I didn't want to just change it because I don't know a lot about WWII and I may just be interpreting it wrong. I just though the Soviets were on the eastern border of Germany.
Neosiber ( talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This article states that the einsatzgruppen existed in "Poland and Russia". This is incorrect, or at least incomplete. For example, they operated very prominently in soviet Ukraine which is emphatically NOT "Russia". Please change this to "Poland and the soviet union." even though the "russia/soviet union" error is freqUently made even by educated people, I am shocked that it has survived for so long in such a major article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 ( talk) 13:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
In a reverting edit summary User:Diannaa said "We don't have room for" a mention that Hitler may have fathered a child with a French teen but I believe room could be made for a brief mention of something that is fairly consequential if true. The Telegraph discusses this as do French sources. The person who claimed to be Hitler's son may have been trying a little too hard by sporting the mustache he did, but apparently recently revealed German military documents show cash deliveries to the supposed mother during the German occupation of France. It's also said that paintings found in her attic bore Hitler’s signature and a painting of a woman by Hitler is said to look just like her.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
were did you get your information? because if you have a reliable source it should be briefly mentioned in the article. ( user: Matthew.congdon1414 )
During the 1920s and into the 1930s there was theory that a vegetarian diet was a help in warding off Parkinsons disease. Could Hitler have had some suspicions that at an early stage in his life he was already experiencing some early symptoms of this disease? AT Kunene ( talk) 10:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In the section "Hitler in media", he's described as possessing "personal magnetism" and "hypnotic blue eyes". I submit that this is phrased from a non-neutral POV and is unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.233.96 ( talk) 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I've now added some info regarding his effect on people in more private settings from two sources. Feel free to amend if needed. Malljaja ( talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a question posed on my talk page. -- Dianna ( talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen your edit message in the View History for the Adolf Hitler page. I can see that there's a form of citation there that I haven't come across before and with which I am unfamiliar. As far as I'm aware, Maser did more personal research on Hitler's background than anyone else, so I think his book should be included in any list. Where would I add it to the Citation List? The entries do not seem to be in any kind of alphabetical order. Also, I would like to look over the Hitler page carefully and probably make some changes, because I have already removed some very odd information on it (see the most recent items in View History) and expect there will be a lot more. 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My reply: We are using a combination of
list-defined references and a form of Harvard-style notation using {{
sfn}} templates. For sources that are only used once, we have them in the list-defined references (listed in the order they are used in the article), and for the primary sources, the books are listed in the
Adolf Hitler#References section in citation templates (alphabetical order by author). Note that the sources include the parameter | ref = harv
and that the citations are clickable links down to the references section. If you intend to source a lot of material to Maser, the book should be added to the References section, thus:
* {{cite book | last = Maser | first = Werner | title = Hitler: Legend, Myth, Reality | year = 1973 | publisher = Allen Lane | location = London | isbn = 978-0-7139-0473-4 | ref = harv }}
Then, each citation is wrapped in an {sfn} template, thus:
{{sfn|Maser|1973|p=42}}
However, as a work published in 1973, material found therein may have been superceded by more recent sources such as Kershaw. In particular, Maser is a proponent of the theory that Hitler had a son named Jean-Marie Loret, and the decision was taken recently not to include this fringe theory in the article; see the section "May have had affair in June 1917 resulting in son born in France in 1918" above. Please be cautious when editing this article, as we are trying very hard to keep the size down; it is still some 1250 words over the recommended upper limit of 10000 words. Thank you for your interest in improving this article. -- Dianna ( talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My vote would go to retaining this section, but it could be shortened. Looking more broadly, this entry is quite heavy on AH the agitator and politician and light on him as a person. This clearly accords with what others (such as Kershaw) have observed, namely that he hardly had a personal life to speak of. So I'd be careful to remove any traces of what could give potential clues to what may (or may not) have informed his private world view. It may be worthwhile looking into whether the content in the "occult" section could be merged with content elsewhere in the entry. Malljaja ( talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just came across this discussion on your Talk page. I think there is a reason for keeping this paragraph that hasn't been mentioned yet. History Channel, with a large worldwide audience, has broadcast "documentaries" on Nazis and occultism that skirted the edge of sensationalism and may paint a picture in the viewer's mind that is inaccurate. therefore, including this paragraph and mentioning the foremost scholars could be useful to steer readers in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.62.173 ( talk) 16:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be in favour of removing the quote about his dreams to become an architect; it's already explained in the text. The ones about antisemitism are more to the point, though -- Dianna ( talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have taken out the quote about being an architect; that seems an uncontroversial edit, and it can be placed back in if anyone objects. What about the chart with election results? It was suggested by our GA reviewer that it could go, but I left it in. What does everyone think? The material is also available at Nazi Party. I have a krappy connection today; off to walk the dog. -- Dianna ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
A short sentence should be inputted. Quote from Hitler Youth, 1922-45: An Illustrated History, by Jean-Denis LePage on p. 44 "The Führer’s aversion to meat, liquor and tobacco was firm and categorical. His dream was to convert the German people to a vegetarian diet." So something should be mentioned about his extreme veggyness. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.216 ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hitler was not a vegetarian. His personal chef will attest to him loving bavarian sausages and canary cream pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 ( talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This article states almost parenthetically that Hitler was the oldest surviving child:
He was the fourth of six children to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl (1860–1907). Adolf's older siblings – Gustav, Ida, and Otto – died in infancy.[10]
The Wikipedia article on Hitler's family [1] clearly indicates the contrary:
1890s
Adolf was a sickly child, and his mother fretted over him. Alois was 51 when he was born, had little interest in child rearing and left it all to his wife. When not at work he was either in a tavern or busy with his hobby, keeping bees. In 1892, Hitler was transferred from Braunau to Passau. He was 55, Klara 32, Alois Jr. 10, Angela 9 and Adolf was three years old. In 1894, Hitler was reassigned to Linz. Klara gave birth to their fifth child, Edmund, on 24 March 1894, and so it was decided that she and the children would stay in Passau for the time being.
In February 1895, Hitler purchased a house on a nine acre (36,000 m²) plot in Hafeld near Lambach, approximately 30 miles (48 km) southwest of Linz. The farm was called the Rauscher Gut. He moved his family to the farm and retired on 25 June 1895 at the age of 58 after 40 years in the customs service. He found farming difficult; he lost money, and the value of the property declined. On 21 January 1896, Paula was born. Alois was often home with his family. He had five children ranging in age from infancy to 14; Smith suggests he yelled at the children almost continually and made long visits to the local tavern. Robert G. L. Waite noted, "Even one of his closest friends admitted that Alois was 'awfully rough' with his wife [Klara] and 'hardly ever spoke a word to her at home.'" If Hitler was in a bad mood, he picked on the older children or Klara herself, in front of them. After Hitler and his oldest son Alois Jr had a climactic and violent argument, Alois Jr left home, and the elder Alois swore he would never give the boy a penny of inheritance beyond what the law required.
Alois Jr left home at 14 due to increasingly violent arguments with his father and apparently strained relations with his stepmother Klara. After working as an apprentice waiter in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, he was arrested for theft and served a five-month sentence in 1900, followed by an eight-month sentence in 1902.
This seems a fundamental biographical fact. Is there really this much ambiguity?
Lawrencewaugh ( talk) 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I still think Hitler's view on the Christmas truce deserves mentioning, even though I was reverted, although the reason is hard to explain since it's twisty&fuzzy, (ie. even myself would have reverted the edit on the Christmas truce if I wasn't the guy who added it, but because I already had the twisty but true rationale in my mind, I decided to add it. If some1 else made the edit and I reverted, they would have a hard time explaining it to me too).
For a comparison, see why the article on Westboro_church mentions how the church's quotes about Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, even though its quotes on those are not important to itself. Westboro church's reputation is dominated by its speeches and "protests" on homosexuality, so it has not affected itself by those speeches. Westboro church's talks of race and ethnicity are even less important to itself, but still nevertheless mentioned, why? Well, you know that articles on Wikipedia are meant to give information on the subject, and Westboro church's speeches give away hints and information on its beliefs and ideology, so they can be noteworthy for the article even if the speeches does not affect the subject, as long as the information explains the subject. Hitler's views on the Christmas truce do give the reader information about his beliefs, so I think that should mean they can be inserted to this article. Sorry about the long Paragraph, but I hope you can understand the reason I've invented. DontClickMeName talk contributations 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(much of the text here is copied from elsewhere) DontClickMeName talk contributions 01:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That seems very convincing, and indeed it would feel completely correct if I agreed (so again, I wouldn't think differently if I were you). However, I, with more time to think about it, say that none of what Hitler did (such as "his artwork, drawing cartoons and instructions for an army newspaper", having "a second bout of blindness" learning of defeat, etc.) during his time in the army is really worth mentioning compared to what he does as a dictator. I don't like sounding like this, but according to this reason (which I would feel completely correct agreeing with), the whole "early years" section should be removed. Are we going to do that? DontClickMeName talk contributions 03:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Because that Hitler considered war as the greatest of all experiences is supported well by the available sources, whereas his view on the Christmas truce seems rather anecdotal. So you have a significant burden of proof that this snippet should be included in the entry, which is already very long. Malljaja ( talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
DontClickMeName, The vast majority of statements of fact in the entry are supported by book references from very reputable historians. Your reference for the Christmas truce anecdote is an article in the NYT, which, therefore, jars with the rest of the sources. This along with the fact that we're striving to compact this long entry is enough reason to leave this minor episode out of it. Like Kierzek, I too think that this discussion has run its course — we're not discussing the finer points of a major debate among historians, which would justify such lengthy discussion. Malljaja ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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?
As loth as I am to improve the Hitler page, I must note that the Ancestry section is conspicuously missing mention of Hitler's mother, just his father is mentioned. The news today mentioned moving the parents headstone and that the site was available for re-rental, I was curious why the bodies weren't buried there (but even the Alois and Klara pages don't answer that). Lost interest now. DavesPlanet ( talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pleased, that question is correct: "Jewish ancestry" and not "Is he a jew?", like about some other famous persons with jewish grandfather. Jews are scared of rumours about his jewish heritage. But actually, persons who have only jewish grandfather are non-jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrom1234 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems odd that such an article makes no mention of the relationship between Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan? In 1937, when the Reichstag received word from Rabe regarding the atrocities being committed by the Imperial Army in China, ordered the NSDAP member and businessman to return to Berlin immediately. Rather than do anything to stop what happening, Hitler's "comeback" order withdrew one of the only people who was protecting thousands of of Chinese civilians in the Nanking Safety Zone from the mass raping and killing.
Hitler's action helped seal the fate of those trapped in the safety zone because after February 1938, when Rabe left, Japanese troops moved in and forcibly closed it down. Most of the male civilians were then shot as Chinese soldiers, young women were systematically raped and killed and the remaining others were sent to work camps. It's not nice and just another string to Hitler's bow. But something that der fuhrer had a hand in because he knew what was happening but preferred to ignore it because of the Third Reich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.41 ( talk) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC) i was born in 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy123456 ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we could says He was an writer. Yes, I know, he published Mein Kampft, but it wasn't a book for me. For example, Thomas Mann was an writer, Kipling was one. But not Hitler. I don't know why he wrote a book. -- Bobybarman34 ( talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent research on Hitler's activities immediately after World War I have challenged previous assumptions made about Hitler. Recent research shows that Hitler was not immediately an anti-Semite nor an anti-communist at the end of World War I in November 1918, in fact Hitler served in his communist-led battalion of the Bavarian Soviet Republic where he served with distinction - serving as a liason with the communist government's Department of Propaganda, and stayed in it until the Bavarian Soviet Republic collapsed. There were many Soviet Republic soldiers who frequently and easily defected to the counter-revolutionary and pro-monarchist Freikorps, but Hitler never did - because he was not yet an anti-communist and in fact at that time believed in the ideal of a classless society and he was an anti-monarchist at the time. Furthermore there is film evidence of Hitler attending the funeral procession of Bavarian communist leader Kurt Eisner - who also was Jewish - with Hitler wearing both a black mourning armband and a red communist armband at the funeral. It was neither November 1918 when he became an anti-Semite, nor his claim in Mein Kampf that he became an anti-Semite in 1913, it is now known that Hitler became an anti-Semitic German nationalist in response to the news that Germany's social democratic government signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 that placed war guilt on Germany, ceded German territories, and demanded reparation payments. The Treaty of Versailles had a massive political impact in Germany - enraging ex-soldiers like Hitler with the German government that then drew them into adhering to the "Stab in the Back" legend of the so-called "November Criminals".
Prior to the Treaty of Versailles and after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hitler's battalion returned to German army control - and many of the leadership figures in his battalion were at that point social democrats and not yet anti-Semitic nationalists. However after the Treaty of Versailles, anti-Semitic nationalism soared, and a number of Hitler's soldier friends and himself then became anti-Semitic nationalists.
The current article has outdated sources - like William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - that my university history teacher who taught on the topic of totalitarianism, described Shirer's account as very outdated due to the new discoveries in historical research. There are other outdated sources that do not match up with present-day evidence that is now known about Hitler and the German military in World War I.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Dianna's comments. You have made very substantial changes that are both controversial and do not read well. For example, you dismiss Shirer, yet you provide only two sources by researchers who appear to be relative novices or reside at the fringe of the field of historical research (such as Thomas Weber). Just because they give different accounts of historical events does not "disprove" previously existing ones. For example, Ian Kershaw, widely considered an authority on Hitler, discusses Hitler's alleged sympathies or even involvement in the Räterepublik in post-WWI Bavaria. Kershaw comes to the conclusion that Hitler more than likely was neutral to opposed to the revolutionary radical left and only aligned himself with left-leaning groups within the army out of opportunism and not political conviction (see Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris, p. 120). This is not to say that Kershaw's account speaks the absolute truth about what happened during that time, but his research is well regarded and so it carries significant weight that is entirely missing in your recent additions. Malljaja ( talk) 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
To say that Shirer is outdated may or may not be true. He's done a lot of research, so are you saying that all of it is out of date, or some of it? In addition, is Thomas Weber a recognised eminent expert on the events in question? The half-life of his claims may be shorter than those of Shirer (who documented events as they were occurring). Hitler's whereabouts and temporary political allegiance in post-war Munich is well documented by Kershaw (and probably others) and this could be included. Just for general perspective and considering the length of this entry, that Hitler was serving in a "red" army unit during the chaotic days of post-war Bavaria is probably less newsworthy than his equally opportunistic pact with Stalin in 1939. So I do not think that the Munich episode deserves much space here. Malljaja ( talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, the Evans review, while following convention not to openly knock a fellow scholar, is not exactly glowing if not stealthily eviscerating. For example, he takes issue with Weber's apparent heavy handedness in analysing the political situation and trajectory of the Weimar Republic and only lauds him for dusting off old military records and clearing up some myths regarding Hitler's rank. Hardly the stuff that a scholar would like to see in a review of his work. He ends on rather bland high note that suggests that while it's an engaging read one needs to crunch the salt.
I'm not sure if Norman Stone formed his opinion on having personally observed Hitler pre- and post-WWI, in which case I'm inclined to belief him, or whether he gives this account on the basis of having studied what little is known about Hitler's early views, in which case I'm sceptical. Malljaja ( talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Having re-visited the historical period in question as discussed by Kershaw in "Hubris", I've come to the conclusion that Weber is attacking a straw man. In the chapter "Drop-out" of said book Kershaw very carefully dissects the (scant) available evidence for the origin and genesis of Hitler's antisemitism. He finds some evidence for as well as against the assertion that he became an antisemite in Vienna; one strong argument is that antisemitism was so rampant in Vienna at the time that any of his comments would not have received much attention. That he was good friends with a number of Jewish people is not good evidence alone — he was an eternal opportunist who sought friendships to gain personal (and political) advantage, not because of deeply held convictions (his political and personal relationship with the openly homosexual Ernst Röhm is also a good example for that). His service briefly in a "red" army unit fits right along with this — he wanted to stay in the army, because it gave him his first real job, because he did not know what else to do with himself. That Hitler used the Versailles Treaty for popular advantage is hardly any news. I'm not opposed to using the Weber source, but I do not think that it provides the earth-shaking new evidence R-41 suggests that it does. Malljaja ( talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I note that you are silent on Kershaw, who has written recent and extensive bios of Hitler, and can be considered a foremost authority on the subject. That Hitler was an opportunist is not my opinion, Kershaw states this repeatedly (see, for example, in "Hubris", page 310), and this behavioural pattern is also demonstrated by his aforementioned friendship with Röhm, whose sexual preference was reason for others to be killed or sent to concentration camps (that Hitler had him killed was solely for political reasons). In summary, Hitler was rarely principled about anything, other than about satisfying his own ambitions, a fact that has already been established prior to the work of Weber (which you now you conflate with Hamann's). I support Dianna's, Kierzek's, and Kim's statements on this matter that converge on the point that we cannot, nor should we, absolutely ascertain what the exact sequence of events in the development of Hitler's views was — we should merely present the views of historians, including points on which they diverge. Malljaja ( talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany’s defeat, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe. His first political activities for the army during the Revolution of 1918 even involved propagandizing in the ranks for the revolutionary government in Munich. It was only later, when he was sent to observe far-right political groups, that his political convictions became clear and firm. What effect service in the war had on his political views is shrouded in mystery.
— Richard J. Evans, The Globe and Mail, June 22, 2011.
I keep encountering Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich being used that is presented inaccurate and since disproven material. It has not been updated in fifty years and has fallen badly behind recent research. For material that remains unchallenged it is acceptable, but for material that has been challenged or disproven, it needs to be removed or replaced with a modern up-to-date source. For instance, one sentence in this article that uses Shirer as a reference claims that Hitler "experienced major combat, including the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele". More recent research has uncovered that Hitler spent most of his time serving regimental headquarters that was typically 10 kilometres behind the frontline, Thomas Weber notes that this created a confrontational division between the frontline soldiers versus soldiers who served behind the frontline - so associating Hitler in common with frontline soldiers as Shirer does is extremely inaccurate and misleading.-- R-41 ( talk) 15:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Some worshippers of Hitler have pointed out now that the job of a dispatch runner was more dangerous than that of a soldier in the trenches. While the troops in the first line could calmly lie under cover, it is said in Hitler’s defence, the dispatch runners would have been much more exposed to enemy fire while on duty. However, I can accept that only for the dispatch runners of companies or maybe also of battalions. In the worst-case scenario, the regimental dispatch runner had to go to the dugout of a battalion which still lay far behind the first line. And even in those cases, it was for the most part the dispatch runners of the battalion themselves who had to pick up the messages at the regimental headquarters, particularly when things were getting dangerous. All the duties of a regimental dispatch runner lay outside the dangerous zone of machine-gun fire.
— Josef Stettner, quoted in Hitler's First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War by Thomas Weber, p. 100
R-41, again be more careful and precise with your language. To say "that disputes claims by Hitler and his supporters that he faced regular danger as a dispatch runner" (emphasis mine) entirely misses the point. One need not be a "supporter" of Hitler to acknowledge that there are several historians whose work give good evidence for Hitler having had combat experience. In addition, the entry does not say that Hitler faced "regular danger". Lastly, as I've pointed out to you earlier, Hitler was wounded and suffered serious gas poisoning — so, although he likely was not the war hero he made himself out to be and irrespective of what Weber's Stettner claims (i.e., one source of many), he did not have a cushy time either. Malljaja ( talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is some specific information about how Hitler got wounded: The regiment was moved south on 2 October 1916 and was engaged at the Somme. Hitler was wounded in the left thigh when the dispatch runners dugout was hit by a shell. Several people were killed and wounded. He was treated at a field hospital and spent almost two months recovering in a Red Cross hospital at Beelitz. This is all in Kershaw (2008, p. 57). Kershaw is considered one of the top Hitler biographers, as you are probably aware. -- Dianna ( talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Your analysis is original research. It is not our task to question how the casualties in Kershaw's example were clustered or to conduct a detailed exegesis of Shirer's work. If reputable scholars have called them on the respective points you made, then it would be our task to consider including such criticism into the article. Malljaja ( talk) 02:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
R-41 is right to ask that Weber's research be included in this article. A brief mention of Hitler's staying with the Bavarian Soviet Republic's military while others were defecting to the Freikorps, and mention of the view that his rabid antisemitism did not emerge until after the Treaty of Versailles, are surely not excessive. Kershaw may be the "gold standard" for Hitler scholarship but this does not mean that one has to wait until he publishes a revised edition of his works incorporating more recent research of Hamann and Weber (and Hamann, at least, may well be considered the foremost auhtority on Hitler's early years). 82.113.98.5 ( talk) 08:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Accounts of deceased eyewitnesses are static and thus no longer respond to interactive enquiry. They become subject to considerable interpretation and speculation (for example, if an eyewitness had a favourable or negative opinion about a person or subject or was even present as they had claimed). This was the point I was trying to make. That there are many, many biases in the interpretation of historical events is without question—befitting the subject of this entry, the Historikerstreit is another good example of that. Your response did not address my question. Malljaja ( talk) 19:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the use of more recent sources than Shirer. What I am objecting to are blanket statements about the quality of the work of one researcher to push for its elimination in favour of insertion of other sources whose main merit is that they are newer. I have questioned this merit on the basis of the argument that direct accounts by scholars who have lived during the time in question and even been in the same room as the subject of this entry have a greater value than static accounts by dead witnesses. Do you understand this difference?
Malljaja (
talk)
16:45, 7 May 2012 (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 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
There is a sentence in the "Legacy" section that reads as follows: ...the denial of the Holocaust along with the display of Nazi symbols such as swastikas, is prohibited by law in Germany and Austria. It should have a comma before "along." Currently, it suggests that it's all right to deny the Holocaust as long as you don't display a Nazi symbol. I can't make this change myself since the "Edit" button doesn't appear on the page. Hopefully someone literate will correct this error.( WP Editor 2011 ( talk) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC))
Why are people not happy with -
Hitler became obsessed with German nationalism from a young age as a way to rebel against his father, who proudly served the Austrian government. While many Austrians considered themselves "Germans" but still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany.[25][26][27] Hitler and his friends used the German greeting "Heil", and sang the German anthem "Deutschland Über Alles" instead of the Austrian Imperial anthem.[18][page needed]
It's fine and well cited, why do people keep reverting it back to 'culturally Germans' when they still considered themselves as just Germans back then not as culturally Germans, seems silly to keep reverting it.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
Your reply contradicts itself you say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans? Erm it's common sense that Austrians are ethnically German...no it's not too heavy because 'culturally' before Germans is silly there is no difference between that and just Germans to be fair and no hardly anyone has 'reverted it back' beside a couple of persons and yes this is about Adolf Hitler but he was born Austrian but back in his day the vast majority of Austrians consider themselves as "Germans" and no they were loyal to Austria, a Austrian nation didn't exist (even see the cited sources on it, German Austria in 1918 as well and then the welcoming of the Anschluss, the Austrian nation is a post-1945 everybody in history knows that. Don't say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans when Hitler himself was an ethnic German, so if there is no such thing as ethnically German people...who were Germans before 1871? The way it is now is perfectly fine I don't see how it's wrong, he was Austrian but like many others in his day and age considered himself German but Hitler expressed loyalty to just the German Empire, he always considered Austria as part of Germany (Greater Germany/Pan-Germanism).-- 14Adrian ( talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
{{ History of Austria}}
A recent edit which I changed: your wording was: "While many Austrians still considered themselves Germans, they remained loyal to Austria." The words "still" and "remained" imply that Austria was part of Germany in the past (ie, prior to the Anschluss). This is in fact not true: the Austrian Empire existed from 1804 to 1867, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867 till the end of WWI. The First Austrian Republic existed from 1919 to 1934. Here is a template that contains links to the various articles on this wiki that attest to the existence of Austria as far back as 1156. A third problem is your grammar and punctuation, which are lacking in some ways. Material added must be in grammatically complete sentences, must be gramatically correct, and must be correctly punctuated. Your recent edit: "While many Austrians considered themselves " Germans", [1] they still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; it has the word Germans in quotation marks for emphasis; it implies through the word "still" that Austria did not exist at the time. The new source you have added is not suitable for our purposes, as it describes what the people of Austria have been thinking and feeling from 1956 to the present day. I am once again re-working the sentence to reflect the known facts and to make it neutral in point of view. -- Dianna ( talk) 04:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Austria was part of Germany before the Anschluss just not the nation-sate Germany, in fact up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany it was inside the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation until 1806 which the Habsburgs who were Austrian pretty much dominated and then the German Confederation and until Prussia defeated Austria well it was seen as not just part but the leader of Germany and if it wasn't for a political war with Prussia it would be Austria now who controlled all the German lands as "Greater Germany" the Austrian Empire was part of the German Confederation but not the German Empire, in 1918 "German Austria" wanted to join Germany this pretty much shows that Austrians certainly still felt and considered themselves Germans but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union between the German Republic (then in 1919) and German Austria and thus remained separate, and Germans are an ethnic group ethnic Germans not rocket science...so tell me if Austria had won Prussia in 1866 in the "German war" would you then be saying Prussians all of a sudden are not German? Up until 1945 there was no Austrian nation, no Austrian national identity but the people considered themselves part of the German nation and thrived a Greater Germany and the national identity of "Austrian not German" is just a post-1945 occurance.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Ethnicity doesn't all of a sudden just stop, do you genuinely have something wrong with you? Austrians will forever be ethnic Germans just not Germans by nationality.
Do you understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity?
Chinese are an ethnic group.
Americans is normally just nationality...but native Americans are ethnic group again.
Reverted for what, all the sources cited verify the text put in.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
He is claiming one thing yet Wikipedia even contradicts the user Malljaja.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 04:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The person can't answer me when claiming Austrians aren't Germans ethnically yet I asked "If Austria won Prussia in the German war in 1866 would you then be saying Prussians aren't Germans?" and I got no reply, the edit is not to heavy to say considered themselves Germans because around Hitler's time Austrians did describe themselves as Germans and this can be cited things are different post-1945 now of course but back then Pan-Germanism was high and although Austria (at his birth) was not part of Germany he still was an ethnic German I don't see why this should be changed to "culturally" when the Austrians back then considered themselves actually Germans not just as culturally Germans.-- 14Adrian ( talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
First of all these people you saying have ethnic Brazilians mothers and so forth well their are not German ethnically then just born in Germany so have German nationality...do you actually understand what an ethnic group is? *sighs*
Secondly, it was not at all a minority that people in Austria wanted to join Germany now stop with this rubbish because before Hitler was even in power the name of Austria in 1918 was German Austria and the vast majority of people wanted to be part of Germany and in parts 99% of them voted but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union and most Austrians did identify themselves as part of the German nation and as Austrian-Germans they are no different from say Prussian-Germans Hessian-Germans Bavarian-Germans they are all "German" ethnically, what don't you get about that? The Anschluss was hugely welcomed so stop listening to such rubbish, if history had turned out differently the Austrians would have been running Greater Germany now an inheriting the country Germany as the nation state unfortunately Prussia did instead, get your facts right. Do you have something wrong with stating that Austrians are ethnic Germans or something, does it boil you that the truth hurts? Check what the word Austria even means...I rest my case!-- 14Adrian ( talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hohum, I was adding cited sources into the references about everything I said hence why it's not getting reverted back now because back then it's true that Austrians were seen as Germans, a separate identity only occurred after WW2, and people further up are referring to "German" as a nationality and I don't think quite understand what an ethnicity is....-- 14Adrian ( talk) 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Dianna do you accept you was in the wrong and not going to revert back then now? Without getting personal just know your stuff before saying it wasn't part etc, the Holy Roman Empire was seen as "Germany" and the Austrians literally dominated that and up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany, I think it's fine how it is placed now if need be I have a source you could put after the Germans bit if need be (if anyone wants to challenge how the Pan-Germanism paragraph is put now).-- 14Adrian ( talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great.[47] Wilhelm Röpke concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful."[48][49] Nishidani ( talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In 1197 pages of Fest's book, Luther is mentioned twice en passant, and not as an ideological infuence. Luther had a profound effect on German culture, antisemitism, but to treat him as a direct influence on Hitler, who had a Catholic upbringing, seems excessive. I know there was a controversy over this once, but one must distinguish between cultural milieu, and direct influence. Hitler's rhetoric certainly uses the voelkisch idiom of Luther's translation of the Bible to great effect. Unless sources say so, I doubt whether an Austrian in the intensely anti-semitic milieu of Vienna, needed to brush up on a specific text like 'On the Jews and their Lies' in order to hate Jews. Most of the antisemites I have encountered became so without any reading converting them. Nishidani ( talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great. [2] Wilhelm Röpke concluded that "without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful." [3] [4] Nishidani ( talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
The included painting, "Courtyard of the Old Residency", does not seem to be typical of his art. It has unsually austere colours compared to almost any of his other paintings, and in that respect may give a skewed impression. If anyone wants to check this, there are some youtube videos which give an oversight of his artistic works. JMK ( talk) 12:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone—I think it was Nishidani—added some new material with citations to Hamann, including "Hamann 2010 pp. 347-359,350." We are going to need more information on this book, as it is not presently in the bibliography. We also need more details on the cited work Hamann, Hitler's Vienna. Perhaps they are the same book? Could we get full details such as full name of the book and isbn? Thank you. -- Dianna ( talk) 07:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Citation
| last = Hamann | first = Brigitte | authorlink = Brigitte Hamann | title = Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man | publisher = Tauris Parke Paperbacks | location = London, New York | year = 2010 | origyear = 1999 | others = Trans. Thomas Thornton | isbn = 978-1-848-85277--8 | ref = harv
The problem with different editions is that material will very likely appear on different pages. So it is necessary to cite each book as a different source. This may of course mean a specific book is listed more than once, but it allows better verifiability. You were correct not to remove the previous edition as a source. I will go ahead and add the newer edition to the bibliography. -- Dianna ( talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of moving all the citations out of the text and into a separate section at the bottom of the page. Please see Ted Bundy for an example of an article that has been converted to this style. If there are no objections or concerns, I will complete the change in the next few days. See WP:LDR for more information. -- Dianna ( talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Could this go in the entry?
Michael Fitzgerald, an expert in autism spectrum disorders, concludes that Hitler suffered from, and met all the criteria of Asperger syndrome as documented by Hans Asperger. As evidence of possible Asperger's, Fitzgerald cites Hitler's poor sleep patterns, food fads, dislike of physical contact, inability to forge genuine friendships, and an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men’s Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he seemingly lacked capacity. In Munich, Hitler was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings, that he was single-minded and inflexible. He was obsessive and rarely made good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who shared his obsessions or those in awe of, or dependent on him.
As far as hobbies or pastimes were concerned, Hitler spent a great deal of time examining architectural plans with Albert Speer, an activity that remained a major focus of his life throughout. His other major interest was in the music of Richard Wagner. His greatest interest, clearly, was in control of and power over people.
Fitzgerald further states that Hitler was an ideologue with unshakable convictions, and had a bed compulsion, which demands that the bed be made in a particular way with the quilt folded according to a prescribed pattern, and that a man must make the bed before he could go to sleep. He did not use language for the purpose of interaction with others, but only for the purpose of dominating others. He endlessly engaged in long-winded and pedantic speeches, with "illogical arguments full of crude comparisons and cheap allusions." He was unable to carry on a normal conversation or discussion with people. Even if only one other person was present, he had to do all the talking. His manner of speech soon lost any conversational qualities it might have had and took on all the characteristics of a lecture that easily developed into a tirade. He simply forgot his companions and behaved as though he were addressing a multitude, repeating the same stories over and over again in exactly the same form, almost as though he had memorised them. After the First World War, "his awkward mannerisms" were noted. At that time, he wore his gangster hat and trenchcoat over his dinner jacket, toting a pistol and carrying as usual his dog whip, he cut a bizarre figure in the salons of Munich’s upper-crust. But his very eccentricity of dress and exaggerated mannerism saw him lionized by condescending hosts and fellow guests. In his early days, he wore the Bavarian costume. His clothes were not clean; with his mouth full of brown, rotted teeth and his long fingernails, he presented a rather grotesque figure. His gait was a very lady-like walk; dainty little steps. Every few steps he ****** his right shoulder nervously, his left leg snapping up as he did so. He also had a tic in his face that caused the corner of his lips to curl upwards. People found his look "staring and dead." 58.170.59.250 ( talk) 05:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
please cite your source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.229.203 ( talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
According the the FBI records found at: http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler there was no evidence of Hitler having killed himself and his body was never found. Though they do have leads that suggest that he escaped to Argentina where he lived until the 60s.
The last line of the main article says, "In the final days of the war, during the Battle of Berlin in 1945, Hitler married his long-time mistress, Eva Braun. On 30 April 1945—less than two days later— the two committed suicide to avoid capture by the Red Army, and their corpses were burned.[5]"
That is obviously the propaganda that was released at the time. It should read:
"[338" FBI Records - The Vault - Adolf Hitler http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickyjeffries ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help)I'd also like to add and echo Kierzek's comments that as far as one can tell, these documents are just a sundry paper trail of FBI records consisting of letters by various individuals, suggesting that they saw AH alive and well in various locations (e.g., in Argentina or even NYC). Anyone with a pen or paper and a wild story to tell would have ended up in those files. Whether their observations or suggestions were indeed true or not, these documents do not reveal. So it's not a reliable source. What's more, even if it were true that Hitler had reached foreign shores to go on living an undetected life, unless this became accepted by a significant number of historians or other scholars, it does not belong into WP. Malljaja ( talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The article reads:
I removed the "so-called", but Malljaja ( talk · contribs) restored it, with the edit summary explaining that '"so-called" is appropriate—"racial hygiene" is not an accepted and it's also a highly controversial term'.
I think the first bit must be a typo (an accepted what?) so I'll await clarification on that. As to the second point, I think we make clear that doctrines of racial hygiene are controversial (then and now) when we say they are in the sentence I quoted. However, phrases like "so-called" introduce bias by leading the reader to the favored conclusion, as in this case, where it vaguely suggests deception and doubt without introducing new meaning. For these reasons, "so-called" is included in Wikipedia's words to avoid:
causa sui ( talk) 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
A contributor has recently tagged a translation of "FÜR FRIEDEN FREIHEIT
UND DEMOKRATIE
NIE WIEDER FASCHISMUS
MILLIONEN TOTE MAHNEN" into "For peace, freedom // and democracy // never again fascism // millions of dead remind [us]" with
citation needed. If this were a highly complex text, I'd concur that it may need a citation. However, this is an almost word-for-word translation that even a reader without the command of German can deduce the meaning. And for what it's worth, I can read German, and can confirm the accuracy of this translation. Any thoughts? Thanks.
Malljaja (
talk)
22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Weird, some reason why it seems not possible to remove unsourced material? The BBC article contains none of the things written in the article.
DS Belgium (
talk)
03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
The unsourced material you removed is definitely gone. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version of the page? --Regards, -- Dianna ( talk) 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
We quote Louis Farrakhan:
The quote is situated in a section on Hitler's legacy, between quotes describing some influential contemporary figures expressing a positive attitude toward Hitler or suggesting that Hitler's public image following World War II, while overwhelmingly negative, has pockets of support and admiration. This quote, as quoted and placed in the article, clearly implies that Louis Farrakhan is among the notable contemporary political figures who do not share the consensus view of Hitler's legacy.
The full context given by the citation is in an article on Louis Farrakhan documenting his many public gaffes, giving short direct quotes that suggest racist or bigoted attitudes on the part of Mr. Farrakhan toward whites and minorities other than his own. It reads:
What little we do get to infer from the added context is that Farrakhan is responding to critics' comparisons between him and Hitler. As a technique for improving his personal public image, it is obviously not a success. But it is also not clearly an explicit attempt to rehabilitate Hitler's image as much as it is a rhetorical device for responding to criticism in the context of public speaking to what is probably a friendly audience.
Beyond that, we do not get to see what Farrakhan said before that, or what he said after. In what way did Farrakhan think Hitler was "great"? Does Farrakhan want us to respect and admire Hitler and wish for more leaders like him (implying that Farrakhan thinks of himself as such a leader)? Or is Farrakhan identifying with the way that Hitler was a terror to his enemies and admiring that solitary aspect of his political career? Or was Farrakhan merely suggesting that in comparing him to Hitler, his critics are acknowledging his own significance? Or was it _anything_ else? No matter: we make these judgments on behalf of the reader through presentation and the context in which we place it. causa sui ( talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Backing up what Jeff said here Talk:Adolf_Hitler#How_Hitler_died. i found a rather interesting article which corresponds with the FBI files (also take into account that the skull fragement they believed to be his , was actually that of a woman see here [1] ) It was written by a chap who i believe has sadly passed away from cancer. However, he posted this remarkable thread [2] claiming to of met hitler in South America (as many prominent nazis were proven to of fled to , including Dr Mengele and Eichmann) Has anyone got any opinions on this, im not paticulary a conspiracy thereoist but this find proves to be very extraordinary. Nothing is what it seems.... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss) (Complain) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Well not really, its been proven scientifically. Dont forget they killed someone who looked like Hitler (that was a proven fact) in the last days of the the war in europe. Besides what you said there was contradictary, afterall perhaps numerous people CLAIMED to of seen him commit suicide, but did they actually see it? And was it the real hitler? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss) (Complain) 09:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check date values in: |year=
(
help). It is an exhaustive investigative look into Hitler's death.
Kierzek (
talk)
14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to submit the many book sources you claim exist that state the opposite of what the literature dealing with Hitler's death that currently is in the entry says (if that's what you mean by "state the opposite") for discussion here. Malljaja ( talk) 19:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
In the section on Hitler's sexuality, we write:
He had a close bond with his half-niece Geli Raubal, which may have included sexual relations, though there is no evidence that conclusively supports such a relationship.[329] All three women attempted suicide, which has led to speculation that Hitler may have had sexual fetishes that affected the mental well-being of his close partners.[330]
We would be appalled to find such unencyclopedic content in an article on any other person, living or dead. Imagine:
Abraham Lincoln had a close bond with his half-niece, which may have included sexual relations, though there is no evidence that conclusively supports such a relationship.[329] All three women attempted suicide, which has led to speculation that Lincoln may have had sexual fetishes that affected the mental well-being of his close partners.[330]
Lincoln had a "close bond" with a family member. Scandalous! Of course, since historians are unaware of there having been an attendant following him around 24 hours a day, that relationship "may have" included sexual relations.
If there is no evidence confirming or even suggesting such a relationship, it is nothing above gossip and rumor. The same goes for the second sentence. We offer no hint to the reader that there is anything to the speculation except pure guesswork. causa sui ( talk) 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I do not have access to the sources in question, so perhaps editors who do can shed some light on this. As far as I know, the relationship between Hitler and his niece has received significant attention. Time permitting I'll look into this to see whether there are scholarly sources that could be helpful. Malljaja ( talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
How close is this article to being a GA? I'm thinking it's important enough that we should move it up the quality scale towards FA, and it seems to be referenced pretty well, which is the hardest part. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) & Kershaw, Ian (2000). Hitler, 1936–1945: Nemesis. New York; London: W. W. Norton & Company.
ISBN
0393322521. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Note: the 2008 biography of Hitler by Kershaw (
ISBN
0-393-06757-2) is the same as the two books above, put together as one, but without some verbiage, quotations and the detailed chapter footnotes (at the end of the book). It is the one I have used the most for citing herein.
Kierzek (
talk)
16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Many references are inaccurate. (Not slight in error but significant) a) Reference is just an idea by the author and not sufficient to make a point. b) Reference does NOT support point. c) Reference is circular in nature, not substantive in nature.
So frequent are the inaccuracies, the article for college level work would receive an "F". This is largely due the references are off.
Suggest - rework article so references support the work in a more "concrete style" rather than "hear say" or "opinion" that has no relevant support for the claim made.
This is a problem for wiki I know, but I can only say a wiki story could be accurate however if the references are off, it's basically "trash writing". Perhaps, Adolf is still to controversy after 65+ years after his death. Unfortunately; likely true. Thank you.
75.70.115.177 (
talk)
12:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Could anyone please state why the text above Hitler's picture is titled 'Adolf Hitler billy'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broden ( talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
"These gains were reversed in 1945..." implies Germany was in control of most of Europe and North Africa right up to some magic moment in 1945 - these gains were reversed much earlier, and Germany was finally conquered itself in 1945. Needs rewording by someone who can edit this (quite rightly highly restricted) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.193.168 ( talk) 12:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the information that Hitler may have gone to school with Wittgenstein. I feel that we don't really have room for this addition. The sources are apparently not clear on whether or not they even knew each other, and even if they did, it would be a lot more significant for Wittgenstein than for Hitler. -- Dianna ( talk) 23:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Mkativerata ( talk · contribs) 21:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to do this section-by-section. And then make comments about the lead at the end. Judging by earlier comments on this talk page, the ultimate objective of the editors of this article appears to be to get the article to FA. With that in mind I won't do the "bare GA" pass but instead make whatever comments I think might be useful with the FA objective in mind.
I have read through the article and find that the article tends to gloss over Hitler's atrocities committed during his dictatorship, in my opinion. Hitler is not even labeled as a dictator. The Night of the Long Knives sections seems to be only one paragraph. Mein Kampf can be expanded. Hitler was the most prolific anti-semite dictator in world history and this seems to be "matter of fact" in the article. I am not sure the article captures Hitler's ruthlessness and arrogance. Cmguy777 ( talk) 00:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
The regime is labelled as a dictatorship at the bottom of the section Adolf Hitler#Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act. The Adolf Hitler#Legacy section specifically states that historians uniformly describe the regime as "evil". However, we are not allowed to present our emotional reactions to Hitler when presenting the material from an encyclopedic point of view, and must leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusions from the facts presented. -- Dianna ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
This article passed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of December 16, 2011, compares against the six good article criteria:
Thanks very much for tolerating my slow and painstaking review :) I'm very happy to pass this vital article. My suggestion from here—whether this article is to take the next step or not—would be for the small group of editors who've invested in the article (Dianaa, Kierzek, etc) to rule the article with an iron fist to avoid it getting substantiallt above the 150KB mark. You never know, 150KB or a little less might be ok for FAC. Khruschev got through at about 130KB. If anyone is to take it to FAC, I'd suggest peer review first. You'll find better prose people than me there. Mkativerata ( talk) 05:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from the article:
John McCain, a political opponent of Barack Obama, claimed that Obama had urolagnia (sexual arousal by urine or urination), but Michelle Obama has disputed this claim.
Hopefully my reasoning is self-explanatory. causa sui ( talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Stephen A. Douglas, a political opponent of Abraham Lincoln, claimed that Lincoln had urolagnia (sexual arousal by urine or urination), but Ann Rutledge disputed this claim.
Lincoln biographer David Herbert Donald sees fit to note the fact that Stephen A. Douglas, a political opponent of Abraham Lincoln, claimed that Lincoln had urolagnia (sexual arousal by urine or urination), but that Ann Rutledge disputed this claim.
( ←) I'll argue for removing it at Sexuality of Adolf Hitler too, though that is a slightly harder argument to make since I can't make an appeal along the lines that Mkativerata took. In the main article, it's a headshot. If the article were Abraham Lincoln, whoever added this would be reverted and templated for vandalism. causa sui ( talk) 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The "urolagnia" section is probably too tangential for the main entry. But taking into consideration the attention that Hitler's mental and physical state have received by historians and other authors to try to explain his motivations, I do not see that a thorough discussion of his mental state, including his sexuality, would constitute undue weight. The article on Mao Zedong also contains a brief account of his habits that is less than flattering. Again, given that Mao, like Hitler, was a highly controversial historical figure it provides the sort of information that — while being inappropriate for rather "ordinary" politicians (such as Lincoln and Obama) — has received significant attention by historical scholars in search for clues for motivation. Malljaja ( talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the Hitler living in Liverpool part. I also believe this should be taken out as it is only trivia: "The garrison commander of the besieged Festung Breslau ("fortress Breslau"), General Hermann Niehoff, had chocolates distributed to his troops in honour of Hitler's birthday". Kierzek ( talk) 20:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe this block quote should be taken out and moved to another article, if need be. See below:
Can we please have a discussion about the possibility that Hitler may have taken a trip to Liverpool? I removed it on the basis that such a trip, if it ever happened, is not significant enough an event to be included the article. The editor has now restored it, so could any interested editors please post their opinion as to whether or not this should remain in the article? Thank you. -- Dianna ( talk) 05:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Although this section does not seem to have much if any overlap with the information presented at Hitler in popular culture, I find that lists like this do not impart much useful information to the serious reader. I would like to start a discussion about whether we should consolidate this list with the other article and remove it from this article. The sections under consideration are "Documentaries post Third Reich", "Films and series", and "Plays". Thanks.-- Dianna ( talk) 15:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Our GA reviewer is suggesting the possible removal of the "Further reading" section as a way to trim the size of the article. I am not sure I want to go ahead with this change, and invite editors to post opinions. Thanks. -- Dianna ( talk) 05:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
I notice that David Irving and his Hitler's War isn't used at all in the article. This is certainly understandable, given Irving's controversial position. Nevertheless, the writers should at least address this decision, given that this book has been praised by several prominent historians such as Keegan and Trevor-Roper. Lampman ( talk) 15:20, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
I believe the Mein Kampf section needs to be expanded at least with a few words or sentence(s). I know that words are a perogative with this article. The article currently states only that the book sold millions of copies, without, telling the reader what Hitler express in his book. I propose putting in the article that Hitler expressed his own Darwinian violent world view in Mein Kampf. This could be expanded upon. Here is the source: Gregor article link. Cmguy777 ( talk) 17:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not closely familiar with either citation, but I think any citation should reflect the most accepted interpretation of MK among scholars—with one or two of the most-discussed possible caveats—not the view of a single individual. While some readers may view his writings as delirious and violent, others may interpret it as less so. "Violent intentions" also sounds a little too vague to me. Malljaja ( talk) 15:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Mein Kampf has already its (long) own entry, and while I agree that some of the cited characterizations might be useful here, this needs to be judiciously balanced with the need to keep this entry at a manageable size. I understand this is what the current editorial drive is about. Malljaja ( talk) 22:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Done Sourced to Kershaw. --
Dianna (
talk)
06:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the templates for Wikiproject Socalism and Wikiproject Atheism. They were added by User:Ejgreen77 who is not listed as a member of either project. The user also doesn't seem to be an active contributor to the article itself. For a controversial (in the sense that Hitler's affiliation with either is a matter of dispute) subject like this, it should be up to the project members to list this article if they feel it makes a good addition and are interested in building it. Not some unaffiliated user who adds them for unknown reasons. LittleJerry ( talk) 02:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
I have removed some unsourced material about television appearances by Hitler as part of the GA process. If anyone has a citation for this information, please feel free to re-add what you have. Thanks. -- Dianna ( talk) 20:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)!
The article mentions that Adolf Hitler is the third among five children. However, the article on Hitler's mother Klara Hitler mentions that the third child is a baby named Otto who died 3 days after birth. This makes Adolf the fourth child. Could someone clarify this and make corrections to the article? I don't have any good references to back up either of the numberings. -- ADTC Talk Ctrb . 18:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
I really think this kind of speculation doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the article. Of the two sources cited, the second concludes that the majority of researchers who have addressed this question have answered the question in the negative, while the first source was the subject of a very negative review in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which called it "fudged pseudoscience." [ [4]]. Ulpian ( talk) 21:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Done
Ulpian (
talk)
04:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
This says that Hitler had a fear of going to the dentist, suffered from bad breath, and had ten fillings in 1942:
WhisperToMe ( talk) 17:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Hitler seems to have praised a few non-Judeo-Christian religions, including Islam and Shinto, and seems to have liked the Hindu swastika. But I don't think he had any serious understanding of these faiths. For example, he regarded Arabs as racially inferior while respecting the "Mohammedan religion" (its hard to respect Mohammedanism when you think Mohammad, an Arab, is "inferior"). VR talk 04:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
Hello, there may have been Swastika at "Kloster Lambach" where the young hitler joined in as a child. But this implements that Hitler could have invented the Swastika from his own experiences as commonly used symbol for the flag of the third reich. But this is not correct some other groups, which were not in a connection to the movement that raised in Munich "with" Hitler as "one" of the initiators of the so called "Beer Hous Putsch", in the ideology crisis at the early 20´s and 30´s in germany, were using the Swastika as a symbol of the Brigades against the "Bolchevism"(in the beinning just Anti Communistic, later abused by the NSDAP and Hitler in connection with the "internationl jewish establishment" and communism) like the "Marine Brigade Erhardt" by another coup d etat named as "Kapp Putsch" in Berlin leaded by the "Organisation Consul". They had the swastika on their helmet and on some other para militarian instruments like trucks and banners just 1-2 years before the "Beer house Putsch" ... So Hitler just used this symbol furthermore, and lead it on the banner of the "third reich". — Preceding unsigned comment added by FestNetz ( talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[sub-article]ANCESTRY Haplogroup
For genealogy, the chromosomal evidence of Hitler’s haplogroup carries more scientific weight than does conjecture by historical figures. [from main article HAPLOGROUP] In molecular evolution, a haplogroup (from the Greek: απλούς, haploûs, "onefold, single, simple") is a group of similar haplotypes that share a common ancestor having the same single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) mutation in both haplotypes. Because a haplogroup consists of similar haplotypes, this is what makes it possible to predict a haplogroup from haplotypes. An SNP test confirms a haplogroup. Haplogroups are assigned letters of the alphabet, and refinements consist of additional number and letter combinations, for example R1b1. Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups have different haplogroup designations. Haplogroups pertain to deep ancestral origins dating back thousands of years.[1]
In human genetics, the haplogroups most commonly studied are Y-chromosome (Y-DNA) haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups, both of which can be used to define genetic populations. Y-DNA is passed solely along the patrilineal line, from father to son, while mtDNA is passed down the matrilineal line, from mother to offspring of both sexes. Neither recombines, and thus Y-DNA and mtDNA change only by chance mutation at each generation with no intermixture between parents’ genetic material.
[from main article LIST OF HISTORICAL FIGURES etc] Haplogroups can be determined from the remains of historical figures, or derived from genealogical DNA tests of people who trace their direct maternal or paternal ancestry to a noted historical figure. Some contemporary notable figures have made their test results public. Adolf Hitler is believed to belong to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1b. According to Ronny Decorte, genetics expert at Katholieke Universiteit Leuven who sampled Hitler’s current living relatives, “the results of this study are surprising” and “Hitler would not have been happy”.[35][36]
[from main article E1b1b] E1b1b and E1b1b1 are quite common amongst Afro-Asiatic speakers. The linguistic group and carriers of E1b1b1 lineage have a high probability to have arisen and dispersed together from the region of origin of this language family.[13][14][15] Amongst populations with an Afro-Asiatic speaking history, a significant proportion of Jewish male lineages are E1b1b1 (E-M35).[16] Haplogroup E1b1b1, which accounts for approximately 18%[3] to 20%[17][18] of Ashkenazi and 8.6%[19] to 30%[3] of Sephardi Y-chromosomes, appears to be one of the major founding lineages of the Jewish population.[20][Note 3]
The International Society of Genetic Genealogy see Haplogroup definition in DNA-NEWBIE GLOSSARY [1] • ^ Hitler verwant met Somaliërs, Berbers en Joden, De Standaard, Wednesday 18th August 2010 • ^ Hitler was verwant met Somaliërs, Berbers en Joden Knack, 18th August 2010
[SOURCES FROM MAIN ARTICLES ABOVE] Mb30748271 ( talk) 19:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thought it might be worth noting many efforts have been made to name babies 'adolf hitler', but such efforts have been denied around the world as 'damaging to the child'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.14.106 ( talk) 10:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ignoring for the moment the dubious inclusion of the US O.S.S report, can we find a better quotation than Konrad Heiden's: "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany." The statement doesn't agree at all with what is known about Hitler's religious attitudes, and sounds very atheist, which Hitler certainly detested. If it could be grounded to a primary source I wouldn't be so bothered by the discrepancy, but it appears de novo from Heiden's biographies without any trace of a verifiable original source (see p.100). When was this said? In front of who? How was it documented? In 1935 Hitler had recently signed the Reichskonkordat and was still trying to unify the Protestant Churches into a National Reich Church. It seems absurd that these words would have come out of Hitler's mouth. Best, Miguel Chavez ( talk) 20:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Opening sentence of the main article shows Hitler's D.O.B as 20 April 1889 instead of 2 August 1934. While it is correctly shown below the Hitler's image on right side 114.143.84.7 ( talk) 20:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm having trouble verifying Hitler's alleged expulsion from the Realschule in Steyr and the events that may have precipitated it. The story of him getting drunk and soiling his grade sheet is only traceable to Robert Payne, and I have not seen it mentioned independently anywhere else. Kershaw does not mention it, despite covering his childhood extensively. Payne apparently was given to embellishment and also suggested the now-discredited story of H's visit to England. So my question is whether the expulsion story has enough merit to stay in the entry. Thanks. Malljaja ( talk) 15:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Done! Many thanks to both of you for your prompt input (and general diligence on this entry). Malljaja ( talk) 17:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would like to add some more updated information
203.51.60.65 ( talk) 06:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC) thanks
In the second paragraph it says "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's western border." Shouldn't it be "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's eastern border?"
I didn't want to just change it because I don't know a lot about WWII and I may just be interpreting it wrong. I just though the Soviets were on the eastern border of Germany.
Neosiber ( talk) 08:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
This article states that the einsatzgruppen existed in "Poland and Russia". This is incorrect, or at least incomplete. For example, they operated very prominently in soviet Ukraine which is emphatically NOT "Russia". Please change this to "Poland and the soviet union." even though the "russia/soviet union" error is freqUently made even by educated people, I am shocked that it has survived for so long in such a major article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.12.110 ( talk) 13:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
In a reverting edit summary User:Diannaa said "We don't have room for" a mention that Hitler may have fathered a child with a French teen but I believe room could be made for a brief mention of something that is fairly consequential if true. The Telegraph discusses this as do French sources. The person who claimed to be Hitler's son may have been trying a little too hard by sporting the mustache he did, but apparently recently revealed German military documents show cash deliveries to the supposed mother during the German occupation of France. It's also said that paintings found in her attic bore Hitler’s signature and a painting of a woman by Hitler is said to look just like her.-- Brian Dell ( talk) 09:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
were did you get your information? because if you have a reliable source it should be briefly mentioned in the article. ( user: Matthew.congdon1414 )
During the 1920s and into the 1930s there was theory that a vegetarian diet was a help in warding off Parkinsons disease. Could Hitler have had some suspicions that at an early stage in his life he was already experiencing some early symptoms of this disease? AT Kunene ( talk) 10:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
In the section "Hitler in media", he's described as possessing "personal magnetism" and "hypnotic blue eyes". I submit that this is phrased from a non-neutral POV and is unverifiable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.233.96 ( talk) 18:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I've now added some info regarding his effect on people in more private settings from two sources. Feel free to amend if needed. Malljaja ( talk) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a question posed on my talk page. -- Dianna ( talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I've seen your edit message in the View History for the Adolf Hitler page. I can see that there's a form of citation there that I haven't come across before and with which I am unfamiliar. As far as I'm aware, Maser did more personal research on Hitler's background than anyone else, so I think his book should be included in any list. Where would I add it to the Citation List? The entries do not seem to be in any kind of alphabetical order. Also, I would like to look over the Hitler page carefully and probably make some changes, because I have already removed some very odd information on it (see the most recent items in View History) and expect there will be a lot more. 17:26, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My reply: We are using a combination of
list-defined references and a form of Harvard-style notation using {{
sfn}} templates. For sources that are only used once, we have them in the list-defined references (listed in the order they are used in the article), and for the primary sources, the books are listed in the
Adolf Hitler#References section in citation templates (alphabetical order by author). Note that the sources include the parameter | ref = harv
and that the citations are clickable links down to the references section. If you intend to source a lot of material to Maser, the book should be added to the References section, thus:
* {{cite book | last = Maser | first = Werner | title = Hitler: Legend, Myth, Reality | year = 1973 | publisher = Allen Lane | location = London | isbn = 978-0-7139-0473-4 | ref = harv }}
Then, each citation is wrapped in an {sfn} template, thus:
{{sfn|Maser|1973|p=42}}
However, as a work published in 1973, material found therein may have been superceded by more recent sources such as Kershaw. In particular, Maser is a proponent of the theory that Hitler had a son named Jean-Marie Loret, and the decision was taken recently not to include this fringe theory in the article; see the section "May have had affair in June 1917 resulting in son born in France in 1918" above. Please be cautious when editing this article, as we are trying very hard to keep the size down; it is still some 1250 words over the recommended upper limit of 10000 words. Thank you for your interest in improving this article. -- Dianna ( talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
My vote would go to retaining this section, but it could be shortened. Looking more broadly, this entry is quite heavy on AH the agitator and politician and light on him as a person. This clearly accords with what others (such as Kershaw) have observed, namely that he hardly had a personal life to speak of. So I'd be careful to remove any traces of what could give potential clues to what may (or may not) have informed his private world view. It may be worthwhile looking into whether the content in the "occult" section could be merged with content elsewhere in the entry. Malljaja ( talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just came across this discussion on your Talk page. I think there is a reason for keeping this paragraph that hasn't been mentioned yet. History Channel, with a large worldwide audience, has broadcast "documentaries" on Nazis and occultism that skirted the edge of sensationalism and may paint a picture in the viewer's mind that is inaccurate. therefore, including this paragraph and mentioning the foremost scholars could be useful to steer readers in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.62.173 ( talk) 16:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I would be in favour of removing the quote about his dreams to become an architect; it's already explained in the text. The ones about antisemitism are more to the point, though -- Dianna ( talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I have taken out the quote about being an architect; that seems an uncontroversial edit, and it can be placed back in if anyone objects. What about the chart with election results? It was suggested by our GA reviewer that it could go, but I left it in. What does everyone think? The material is also available at Nazi Party. I have a krappy connection today; off to walk the dog. -- Dianna ( talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
A short sentence should be inputted. Quote from Hitler Youth, 1922-45: An Illustrated History, by Jean-Denis LePage on p. 44 "The Führer’s aversion to meat, liquor and tobacco was firm and categorical. His dream was to convert the German people to a vegetarian diet." So something should be mentioned about his extreme veggyness. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.216 ( talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Hitler was not a vegetarian. His personal chef will attest to him loving bavarian sausages and canary cream pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 ( talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
This article states almost parenthetically that Hitler was the oldest surviving child:
He was the fourth of six children to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl (1860–1907). Adolf's older siblings – Gustav, Ida, and Otto – died in infancy.[10]
The Wikipedia article on Hitler's family [1] clearly indicates the contrary:
1890s
Adolf was a sickly child, and his mother fretted over him. Alois was 51 when he was born, had little interest in child rearing and left it all to his wife. When not at work he was either in a tavern or busy with his hobby, keeping bees. In 1892, Hitler was transferred from Braunau to Passau. He was 55, Klara 32, Alois Jr. 10, Angela 9 and Adolf was three years old. In 1894, Hitler was reassigned to Linz. Klara gave birth to their fifth child, Edmund, on 24 March 1894, and so it was decided that she and the children would stay in Passau for the time being.
In February 1895, Hitler purchased a house on a nine acre (36,000 m²) plot in Hafeld near Lambach, approximately 30 miles (48 km) southwest of Linz. The farm was called the Rauscher Gut. He moved his family to the farm and retired on 25 June 1895 at the age of 58 after 40 years in the customs service. He found farming difficult; he lost money, and the value of the property declined. On 21 January 1896, Paula was born. Alois was often home with his family. He had five children ranging in age from infancy to 14; Smith suggests he yelled at the children almost continually and made long visits to the local tavern. Robert G. L. Waite noted, "Even one of his closest friends admitted that Alois was 'awfully rough' with his wife [Klara] and 'hardly ever spoke a word to her at home.'" If Hitler was in a bad mood, he picked on the older children or Klara herself, in front of them. After Hitler and his oldest son Alois Jr had a climactic and violent argument, Alois Jr left home, and the elder Alois swore he would never give the boy a penny of inheritance beyond what the law required.
Alois Jr left home at 14 due to increasingly violent arguments with his father and apparently strained relations with his stepmother Klara. After working as an apprentice waiter in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, he was arrested for theft and served a five-month sentence in 1900, followed by an eight-month sentence in 1902.
This seems a fundamental biographical fact. Is there really this much ambiguity?
Lawrencewaugh ( talk) 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I still think Hitler's view on the Christmas truce deserves mentioning, even though I was reverted, although the reason is hard to explain since it's twisty&fuzzy, (ie. even myself would have reverted the edit on the Christmas truce if I wasn't the guy who added it, but because I already had the twisty but true rationale in my mind, I decided to add it. If some1 else made the edit and I reverted, they would have a hard time explaining it to me too).
For a comparison, see why the article on Westboro_church mentions how the church's quotes about Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, even though its quotes on those are not important to itself. Westboro church's reputation is dominated by its speeches and "protests" on homosexuality, so it has not affected itself by those speeches. Westboro church's talks of race and ethnicity are even less important to itself, but still nevertheless mentioned, why? Well, you know that articles on Wikipedia are meant to give information on the subject, and Westboro church's speeches give away hints and information on its beliefs and ideology, so they can be noteworthy for the article even if the speeches does not affect the subject, as long as the information explains the subject. Hitler's views on the Christmas truce do give the reader information about his beliefs, so I think that should mean they can be inserted to this article. Sorry about the long Paragraph, but I hope you can understand the reason I've invented. DontClickMeName talk contributations 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
(much of the text here is copied from elsewhere) DontClickMeName talk contributions 01:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
That seems very convincing, and indeed it would feel completely correct if I agreed (so again, I wouldn't think differently if I were you). However, I, with more time to think about it, say that none of what Hitler did (such as "his artwork, drawing cartoons and instructions for an army newspaper", having "a second bout of blindness" learning of defeat, etc.) during his time in the army is really worth mentioning compared to what he does as a dictator. I don't like sounding like this, but according to this reason (which I would feel completely correct agreeing with), the whole "early years" section should be removed. Are we going to do that? DontClickMeName talk contributions 03:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Because that Hitler considered war as the greatest of all experiences is supported well by the available sources, whereas his view on the Christmas truce seems rather anecdotal. So you have a significant burden of proof that this snippet should be included in the entry, which is already very long. Malljaja ( talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
DontClickMeName, The vast majority of statements of fact in the entry are supported by book references from very reputable historians. Your reference for the Christmas truce anecdote is an article in the NYT, which, therefore, jars with the rest of the sources. This along with the fact that we're striving to compact this long entry is enough reason to leave this minor episode out of it. Like Kierzek, I too think that this discussion has run its course — we're not discussing the finer points of a major debate among historians, which would justify such lengthy discussion. Malljaja ( talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
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?
As loth as I am to improve the Hitler page, I must note that the Ancestry section is conspicuously missing mention of Hitler's mother, just his father is mentioned. The news today mentioned moving the parents headstone and that the site was available for re-rental, I was curious why the bodies weren't buried there (but even the Alois and Klara pages don't answer that). Lost interest now. DavesPlanet ( talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm pleased, that question is correct: "Jewish ancestry" and not "Is he a jew?", like about some other famous persons with jewish grandfather. Jews are scared of rumours about his jewish heritage. But actually, persons who have only jewish grandfather are non-jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrom1234 ( talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Seems odd that such an article makes no mention of the relationship between Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan? In 1937, when the Reichstag received word from Rabe regarding the atrocities being committed by the Imperial Army in China, ordered the NSDAP member and businessman to return to Berlin immediately. Rather than do anything to stop what happening, Hitler's "comeback" order withdrew one of the only people who was protecting thousands of of Chinese civilians in the Nanking Safety Zone from the mass raping and killing.
Hitler's action helped seal the fate of those trapped in the safety zone because after February 1938, when Rabe left, Japanese troops moved in and forcibly closed it down. Most of the male civilians were then shot as Chinese soldiers, young women were systematically raped and killed and the remaining others were sent to work camps. It's not nice and just another string to Hitler's bow. But something that der fuhrer had a hand in because he knew what was happening but preferred to ignore it because of the Third Reich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.41 ( talk) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC) i was born in 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy123456 ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think we could says He was an writer. Yes, I know, he published Mein Kampft, but it wasn't a book for me. For example, Thomas Mann was an writer, Kipling was one. But not Hitler. I don't know why he wrote a book. -- Bobybarman34 ( talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Recent research on Hitler's activities immediately after World War I have challenged previous assumptions made about Hitler. Recent research shows that Hitler was not immediately an anti-Semite nor an anti-communist at the end of World War I in November 1918, in fact Hitler served in his communist-led battalion of the Bavarian Soviet Republic where he served with distinction - serving as a liason with the communist government's Department of Propaganda, and stayed in it until the Bavarian Soviet Republic collapsed. There were many Soviet Republic soldiers who frequently and easily defected to the counter-revolutionary and pro-monarchist Freikorps, but Hitler never did - because he was not yet an anti-communist and in fact at that time believed in the ideal of a classless society and he was an anti-monarchist at the time. Furthermore there is film evidence of Hitler attending the funeral procession of Bavarian communist leader Kurt Eisner - who also was Jewish - with Hitler wearing both a black mourning armband and a red communist armband at the funeral. It was neither November 1918 when he became an anti-Semite, nor his claim in Mein Kampf that he became an anti-Semite in 1913, it is now known that Hitler became an anti-Semitic German nationalist in response to the news that Germany's social democratic government signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 that placed war guilt on Germany, ceded German territories, and demanded reparation payments. The Treaty of Versailles had a massive political impact in Germany - enraging ex-soldiers like Hitler with the German government that then drew them into adhering to the "Stab in the Back" legend of the so-called "November Criminals".
Prior to the Treaty of Versailles and after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hitler's battalion returned to German army control - and many of the leadership figures in his battalion were at that point social democrats and not yet anti-Semitic nationalists. However after the Treaty of Versailles, anti-Semitic nationalism soared, and a number of Hitler's soldier friends and himself then became anti-Semitic nationalists.
The current article has outdated sources - like William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - that my university history teacher who taught on the topic of totalitarianism, described Shirer's account as very outdated due to the new discoveries in historical research. There are other outdated sources that do not match up with present-day evidence that is now known about Hitler and the German military in World War I.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to echo Dianna's comments. You have made very substantial changes that are both controversial and do not read well. For example, you dismiss Shirer, yet you provide only two sources by researchers who appear to be relative novices or reside at the fringe of the field of historical research (such as Thomas Weber). Just because they give different accounts of historical events does not "disprove" previously existing ones. For example, Ian Kershaw, widely considered an authority on Hitler, discusses Hitler's alleged sympathies or even involvement in the Räterepublik in post-WWI Bavaria. Kershaw comes to the conclusion that Hitler more than likely was neutral to opposed to the revolutionary radical left and only aligned himself with left-leaning groups within the army out of opportunism and not political conviction (see Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris, p. 120). This is not to say that Kershaw's account speaks the absolute truth about what happened during that time, but his research is well regarded and so it carries significant weight that is entirely missing in your recent additions. Malljaja ( talk) 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
To say that Shirer is outdated may or may not be true. He's done a lot of research, so are you saying that all of it is out of date, or some of it? In addition, is Thomas Weber a recognised eminent expert on the events in question? The half-life of his claims may be shorter than those of Shirer (who documented events as they were occurring). Hitler's whereabouts and temporary political allegiance in post-war Munich is well documented by Kershaw (and probably others) and this could be included. Just for general perspective and considering the length of this entry, that Hitler was serving in a "red" army unit during the chaotic days of post-war Bavaria is probably less newsworthy than his equally opportunistic pact with Stalin in 1939. So I do not think that the Munich episode deserves much space here. Malljaja ( talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, the Evans review, while following convention not to openly knock a fellow scholar, is not exactly glowing if not stealthily eviscerating. For example, he takes issue with Weber's apparent heavy handedness in analysing the political situation and trajectory of the Weimar Republic and only lauds him for dusting off old military records and clearing up some myths regarding Hitler's rank. Hardly the stuff that a scholar would like to see in a review of his work. He ends on rather bland high note that suggests that while it's an engaging read one needs to crunch the salt.
I'm not sure if Norman Stone formed his opinion on having personally observed Hitler pre- and post-WWI, in which case I'm inclined to belief him, or whether he gives this account on the basis of having studied what little is known about Hitler's early views, in which case I'm sceptical. Malljaja ( talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Having re-visited the historical period in question as discussed by Kershaw in "Hubris", I've come to the conclusion that Weber is attacking a straw man. In the chapter "Drop-out" of said book Kershaw very carefully dissects the (scant) available evidence for the origin and genesis of Hitler's antisemitism. He finds some evidence for as well as against the assertion that he became an antisemite in Vienna; one strong argument is that antisemitism was so rampant in Vienna at the time that any of his comments would not have received much attention. That he was good friends with a number of Jewish people is not good evidence alone — he was an eternal opportunist who sought friendships to gain personal (and political) advantage, not because of deeply held convictions (his political and personal relationship with the openly homosexual Ernst Röhm is also a good example for that). His service briefly in a "red" army unit fits right along with this — he wanted to stay in the army, because it gave him his first real job, because he did not know what else to do with himself. That Hitler used the Versailles Treaty for popular advantage is hardly any news. I'm not opposed to using the Weber source, but I do not think that it provides the earth-shaking new evidence R-41 suggests that it does. Malljaja ( talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
I note that you are silent on Kershaw, who has written recent and extensive bios of Hitler, and can be considered a foremost authority on the subject. That Hitler was an opportunist is not my opinion, Kershaw states this repeatedly (see, for example, in "Hubris", page 310), and this behavioural pattern is also demonstrated by his aforementioned friendship with Röhm, whose sexual preference was reason for others to be killed or sent to concentration camps (that Hitler had him killed was solely for political reasons). In summary, Hitler was rarely principled about anything, other than about satisfying his own ambitions, a fact that has already been established prior to the work of Weber (which you now you conflate with Hamann's). I support Dianna's, Kierzek's, and Kim's statements on this matter that converge on the point that we cannot, nor should we, absolutely ascertain what the exact sequence of events in the development of Hitler's views was — we should merely present the views of historians, including points on which they diverge. Malljaja ( talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Moreover, historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany’s defeat, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe. His first political activities for the army during the Revolution of 1918 even involved propagandizing in the ranks for the revolutionary government in Munich. It was only later, when he was sent to observe far-right political groups, that his political convictions became clear and firm. What effect service in the war had on his political views is shrouded in mystery.
— Richard J. Evans, The Globe and Mail, June 22, 2011.
I keep encountering Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich being used that is presented inaccurate and since disproven material. It has not been updated in fifty years and has fallen badly behind recent research. For material that remains unchallenged it is acceptable, but for material that has been challenged or disproven, it needs to be removed or replaced with a modern up-to-date source. For instance, one sentence in this article that uses Shirer as a reference claims that Hitler "experienced major combat, including the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele". More recent research has uncovered that Hitler spent most of his time serving regimental headquarters that was typically 10 kilometres behind the frontline, Thomas Weber notes that this created a confrontational division between the frontline soldiers versus soldiers who served behind the frontline - so associating Hitler in common with frontline soldiers as Shirer does is extremely inaccurate and misleading.-- R-41 ( talk) 15:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Some worshippers of Hitler have pointed out now that the job of a dispatch runner was more dangerous than that of a soldier in the trenches. While the troops in the first line could calmly lie under cover, it is said in Hitler’s defence, the dispatch runners would have been much more exposed to enemy fire while on duty. However, I can accept that only for the dispatch runners of companies or maybe also of battalions. In the worst-case scenario, the regimental dispatch runner had to go to the dugout of a battalion which still lay far behind the first line. And even in those cases, it was for the most part the dispatch runners of the battalion themselves who had to pick up the messages at the regimental headquarters, particularly when things were getting dangerous. All the duties of a regimental dispatch runner lay outside the dangerous zone of machine-gun fire.
— Josef Stettner, quoted in Hitler's First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War by Thomas Weber, p. 100
R-41, again be more careful and precise with your language. To say "that disputes claims by Hitler and his supporters that he faced regular danger as a dispatch runner" (emphasis mine) entirely misses the point. One need not be a "supporter" of Hitler to acknowledge that there are several historians whose work give good evidence for Hitler having had combat experience. In addition, the entry does not say that Hitler faced "regular danger". Lastly, as I've pointed out to you earlier, Hitler was wounded and suffered serious gas poisoning — so, although he likely was not the war hero he made himself out to be and irrespective of what Weber's Stettner claims (i.e., one source of many), he did not have a cushy time either. Malljaja ( talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Here is some specific information about how Hitler got wounded: The regiment was moved south on 2 October 1916 and was engaged at the Somme. Hitler was wounded in the left thigh when the dispatch runners dugout was hit by a shell. Several people were killed and wounded. He was treated at a field hospital and spent almost two months recovering in a Red Cross hospital at Beelitz. This is all in Kershaw (2008, p. 57). Kershaw is considered one of the top Hitler biographers, as you are probably aware. -- Dianna ( talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Your analysis is original research. It is not our task to question how the casualties in Kershaw's example were clustered or to conduct a detailed exegesis of Shirer's work. If reputable scholars have called them on the respective points you made, then it would be our task to consider including such criticism into the article. Malljaja ( talk) 02:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
R-41 is right to ask that Weber's research be included in this article. A brief mention of Hitler's staying with the Bavarian Soviet Republic's military while others were defecting to the Freikorps, and mention of the view that his rabid antisemitism did not emerge until after the Treaty of Versailles, are surely not excessive. Kershaw may be the "gold standard" for Hitler scholarship but this does not mean that one has to wait until he publishes a revised edition of his works incorporating more recent research of Hamann and Weber (and Hamann, at least, may well be considered the foremost auhtority on Hitler's early years). 82.113.98.5 ( talk) 08:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Accounts of deceased eyewitnesses are static and thus no longer respond to interactive enquiry. They become subject to considerable interpretation and speculation (for example, if an eyewitness had a favourable or negative opinion about a person or subject or was even present as they had claimed). This was the point I was trying to make. That there are many, many biases in the interpretation of historical events is without question—befitting the subject of this entry, the Historikerstreit is another good example of that. Your response did not address my question. Malljaja ( talk) 19:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not objecting to the use of more recent sources than Shirer. What I am objecting to are blanket statements about the quality of the work of one researcher to push for its elimination in favour of insertion of other sources whose main merit is that they are newer. I have questioned this merit on the basis of the argument that direct accounts by scholars who have lived during the time in question and even been in the same room as the subject of this entry have a greater value than static accounts by dead witnesses. Do you understand this difference?
Malljaja (
talk)
16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)