Talk:Adolf Hitler's rise to power/Archive 1

Title

Shouldn't the title be "Adolf Hitler's Rise to Power"?--Mycomp (talk) 03:55, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mycomp: WP:TITLEFORMAT suggests making the title all lowercase. APerson (talk!) 00:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Similar article to another

I'm not sure, but this seems overwhelmingly similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_seizure_of_power. Is this a mistake / duplicate or is the difference just enough to warrant separate articles? (MaelstromOfSilence (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC))

Good article

This should be nominated.Ernio48 (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Everything?

So, everything? And linkage everywhere? And full inclusivity in NPOV of whatever supposed agenda. I refer to my recent consideration of the Avro Manhattan agenda and the fact that he is in fact a likely Primary Source(for his direct contacts within the vatican). Well I'll go along with this but- what of Hitler and the church . That will be relating and absorbing too? Let's face it there are so many lengthy factors that the page could big bang outwards- and no I don't mean the church(es).Edgar Ansel Mowrer and John Wheeler- Bennett are the foreign experts for the rise, the former up to the turn of 32-33, and the latter specialist in Hindenberg and in the Army to 1945. Shirer arrived after Mowrer left, and may not have possessed the benefit of his deep german grounding. Arthur Rosenberg is the contemporary native expert, again falling short at the last fence like Mowrer, due presumably to having to run for it. In fact the trials were the full study, and this Article will be based upon those affidavits and findings. Wheeler-Bennett advised the british Govt during the war, and may for his advice then still be resented by natives. He contributed to the disparagement of the Widerstand, which is sensitive to natives still.

Let me lay claim to the manner of the text. It is concise and clear yeah? Can we aim to marry the encyclopedic with the intelligent here, and not with the accessible ? Oh- I forget, I'm pushed on a protest strike. Maybe one day they'll un-cuff me and others will stop force feeding me mental excreta. If you require source here, you don't have far to look in that which I have distributed. I don't see Str1977 accepting Avro's Centre Party take, so without a German speaker, we will not be able to overcome his barriers.

But in all I second this move of Cberlet's as long overdue, and thank him for rallying to the need to save the initial text.EffK 01:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I will clarify that it is made impossible for me to further contribute to Wikipedia Articles by bad faith denialism of clerical revisionist editors. I will not be submitting myself to such un-verifiably based interventions. To CBerlet who seems interested in Concepts relating to Nazism, I suggest you try and find a copy of The Roots of National Socialism by Rohan D'O. Butler, Faber & Faber, London 1941. This book is erudite determination of the roots of Hitlerism, of why Hitlerism fell into fertile receptive ground, and of its disastrous future failure pre-figured by great German minds.In this book will be found in English the entire relevant history of German philosophical developement since 1783. I would help by entering some of it here in Wikipedia discussions, but I am sick of being abused. I seem to remember even some editors with no apparent axe to grind were willing to make an assumption of my bad faith. I will expand the source on concepts now, as used by Butler. I remind you that Butler was a highly respected member of All Souls College , Oxford. I write this because the apparent Wikipedia assumption that Hitlerism was peculiar to Adolf Hitler is too simplistic.--EffK 10:12, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, EffK, but a big part of the problem is that for many of us, myself included, your prose style is so convoluted that we find imuch of what your write incomprehensible; and certainly not adequate to defend some of your edits.--Cberlet 14:32, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Forgiveness is perhaps wiki rules,but I must directly address your statement.Your saying style is a big part 'of the problem' is to minimise the severe editorial conflict I have suffered for a year.It is to completely ignore the question of bias in here in WP.If you do not see it, please say so. Otherwise this is most unfair,as it is not universal and bespeaks a total lack of your sympathy or understanding .Within assumption of good faith , it is to knife me intellectually. I remind you I have suffered enormous loss of time wrongly. You diminuish me. I am therefore aggravated to defend myself, am I not? Address the issues or don't address the issues. To simply focus on what you do not understand or the length and style convolution, is to ignore the veracity of my conclusions. I remind you that I solely re-wrote the historical facts re:Hitler in here that put his rise into it's illegality. I can prove this to you. All were accepting of the revisionsit slant of legality. I alone de-convoluted Weimar Republic, supplying Wyss with the text. Do you or do you not approve of the clear prose style represented by this text that you saved here? Do you or do you not believe that the part from the Magnates which is appended here, is POV as charged and deleted? My discussion style is determined by the level of guarding raised against me, and I think my disputant has never found it other than clear, actually. I write a lot because there is always a lot to say. I think you could get off your rather high horse, and concern yourself rather less with the issue of my writing. The point of WP is to input proper verifiable text, and I ask you clear as daylight-Do you contend or criticise me in any way for being in error either historically or in purely WP verifiability terms? If you again suggest that I am in the wrong, "certainly not adequate to defend some of your edits"- I shall again have to defend myself. You particularly should not be lessening my capacity to correct WP error and slant. Go to Ludwig Kaas and Centre Party and deal with the real short certain itemisation, and face up to the WP reality I define. I have made it abundantly clear I will not roll over and be trampled, and you are being zero help whilst yet benefiting from my texts and efforts. Please qualify your critical statements here and made earlier, or if you find me so criticsisable, join the rush. Not everyone desires to focus on such an easy part of the FK issues. In good faith I have supplied you with direction to the , probably, most useful source for Concepts underlying the Nazi reality. You mentally slap me for it. I shall not expect to have to answer you any further, at this rate, as you might withdraw. I have to digitally regret your digitally immortal intervention, Cberlet.

EffK 11:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Hitler succeeds"

Is it just me, or is the "Hitler succeeds" blatantly POV? +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It is ... or at least terribly worded. I have my own suspicions who wrote this and hence I can say, he didn't mean to write in a pro-Nazi way. The whole article is a wreck. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed this section because it is quite simply a piece of Nazi propaganda. It is also appallingly written. White Guard 00:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A wreck? You are far too kind; its gone well beyond that stage. White Guard 00:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

this article desperately needs to be "squared."

This article has been improved but still needs much more help. I'm going to be editing this article as much as I can to improve it. --Banime (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Could somebody please post a list of sources? I may have missed them, but there seems to be absolutely none listed.

shouldn't the quotations "Now we have him where we can control him" be cited, doing a google search (with quotations to find an exact match) i couldn't find anything to reference to, so i believe that the phrase may be made up or may just be a summary of what was said. (AraH 15:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

The phrase is actually more like "now we have him right where we want him." I can find the source I know exactly where one makes mention of it (Gordon Craig's Germany 1866-1945). I'll keep editing the article and see what I can do. --Banime (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Conclusion

Compared to past votes Hitler was a key subject that connected this all together, its like a tower of bricks, remove a significant part like the Wall Street Crash or the Nazi propaganda then there will be no Nazi power.

The crash may have hurt American economy but the whole German country was dependant on the American loan and, once removed, German economy like American was crippled. 90 days was the set time for Germany to repay America back for the loans but regardless of this time there was no real cure for the impact of the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Germany has been victim to economy failures in the past with the Hyperinflation crisis, of cause if they did not learn from there mistakes of producing more money they would be in even more trouble.

I like the idea of having a conclusion, but this one seems POV. Can we source this viewpoint to its adherents? --Uncle Ed 15:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dam man , it was a good idea. it took me time but ahh well i understand your pointT,J,B..L33t 3Lit3 16:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Quality of writing

I read this article for this first time today (3-July-2006) and must agree with those who have problems with the writing. To be blunt, the current version is one of the most incomprehensible and poorly written articles I have encountered in the English Wikipedia. Someone might try to clean it up, if only they could discern the intended meaning. I suspect, however, that any attempts to clarify the text, would only arouse in the primary contributor suspicion of bias or mean-spiritedness. Robert

I understand this has already gotten a little discussion, but here's my two cents: I can't vouch for the accuracy of the information because my interest in the subject is purely casual. However, the prose should be re-written by a third party whose first language is English. Why? No offense to the original writer (who has obviously put considerable time and effort into the article), but personally I don't think the writing is clear. Also, what's up with the word "squared"?

-Chris.

I'm working on it and have considerable knowledge of the period. I will rewrite all the poorly worded areas as well. --Banime (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

HITLER WAS A LOONY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.40.54 (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

What needs to be done July 2007

This article needs a lot of work. It basically starts at the end, 1933. Hitler's rise began in 1921, or even 1919. What happened to get him to where he was in 1933?

The section on "Rhenish-Westphalian industrial magnates" is a good contribution, but because it is about 25% of the article right now, it gives undue weight to one factor. It almost makes it seem like the "Rhenish-Westphalian industrial magnates" levered Hitler into power, which is not true. They had a hand in it. By 1933, Hitler had money to spend on propaganda and advertising. But in those days, that was basically limited to speeches and posters. The fact that millions and millions of Germans in free elections voted for Hitler cannot be explained by the fact that some rich men contributed to Hitler. That Hitler was able to gain so many votes is the central factor in explaining his rise to power.--Mcattell 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Final note

As of July 22, 2007, this article is incoherent and incomprehensible.--Mcattell 17:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some sources are more even-handed and reliable than others

The Nemesis of Power by Wheeler-Bennett is cited as a source here. It is a good source, but it was written over fifty years ago.

There are two sources in English that are very thorough, and very well researched, and very balanced, and rely on recent, up-to-date research. They are:

• Hitler: Hubris 1889-1936, by Ian Kershaw (1999);

and

• The Coming of the Third Reich , by Richard J. Evans (2004).

Go to your library. Check them out. Read them. Then make contributions. There are plenty of other books to use, but these are recent, even-handed, and well-written.--Mcattell 16:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Total revision

I've completely revised the page, the prior version was terrible. Some of what I've put is covered by the NSDAP section already but I've elaborated on the street battles and other information which can't be found on wiki, which I think should be the purpose of this article.Iconoclast322 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Were you the one who made that whole change anonymously? I'm not quite sure what to make of it; I was ready to revert, but now that you've made a note on the talk page, it helps. The Evil Spartan 17:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, with all due respect though, I cannot see any reason to revert. I rushed it a little so there may be some spelling errors and so forth, but everything in it is true and substantiated by the sources quoted...which is more than can be said for a lot of wiki articles.Iconoclast322 17:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem much, except that an IP with no previous contributions, who doesn't use an edit summary or mention anything on the talk page, and changes the entire text of the article... this presents a problem. Like I said, it's better that you've left a note here. The Evil Spartan 17:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous version of this article was complete shambles. It was nearly incoherent. The article at this point still needs a lot of work, such as citations. (For a good example of a properly cited article on Nazism, see Night of the Long Knives, a featured article.) However, at least this article has a proper structure that can be expanded on. Iconoclast322 might in the future try to develop the article more incrementally, using edit summaries. But good work in revising it from what it was.--Mcattell 00:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good work so far, I'll go where you've left off. --Banime (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I've looked over it and given minor changes so far for NPOV and grammar, however the most concerning thing about the article is lack of sources. The article is generally factually correct but there are tiny anecdotes and asides that are unsourced that I am unsure of their truth. Keep looking for more sources so we can improve this article. --Banime (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I rarely contribute, but happen to have read Shirer, so am adding that source. I've also looked at Goldhagen, which helps understand the social psychology of how a whole people supported H's rise to power. I'm a bit daunted, though, by the degree of copyediting needed. And I'm unsure of Wiki policy on cutting--if it were my own piece, I'd cut radically all that data on percentages of votes aquired and such. Just to clarify. What do others think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtorosyan (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, the more sources the better. Make sure to maintain NPOV --Banime (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Section called "Fatalities"

I think that having a separate section called "fatalities" detracts from the article. First, it is completely against Wikipedia style to have a separate section that just a sentence fragment. Second, it's uncited, and I can't see how someone can really come up with such a precise number that would list all fatalities that occurred over more than a decade of street violence in every city and every region of Germany. Why does it only include Communists and Nazis and few others? The Nazis broke up meeting of Social Democrats and brawled with them also. What about people killed without any political affiliation? Third, the information about deaths from street violence should be wrapped up into other sections. It shouldn't just be a scoreboard at the end of the article without any context.--Mcattell 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I wouldn't want something like that in an encyclopedia article. If anything, it could be "notable deaths due to or during Hitler's rise to power" or something similar. --Banime (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Replacing "NSDAP" with "Nazi Party" or "Nazis"

I think that we should replace most references to "NSDAP" to "Nazis" or "Nazi Party." I think it will make the article much easier to read for non-specialists, since this is how the NSDAP is usually referenced in English. In addition, the Wikipedia article on NSDAP is titled "Nazi Party." Within the article the party is mostly referred to as "Nazi." Does anyone object to this? Would this renaming be historically inaccurate in some way? --Farbotron (talk) 20:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Germany expansion

I saw that this article needs expansion, and so I can take my myriad of references from my library to improve it. Shirer's works only reflect a part of the whole story, and so I will be using others as well- Taylor, Toland, and Bullock to start. Any edits I make will be purely from referenced sources that are NPOV, so no worries. Monsieurdl ^{mon talk-mon contribs} 14:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I am compiling a list of the changes here as I spot them.

• Party attendance- Hitler attended his second party meeting on 12 September. It wasn't listed in Mein Kampf, but both Toland and Bullock reference it.
• Hitler joins the party- Hitler joined the party in September of 1919, but did not get a membership card until February of 1920 when they were numbered accordingly.

Article structure: contributory factors vs chronology

I came to this article expecting to read about the factors contributing to Hitler's rise, such as the hardship and discontent in the populace, role of the media, the use of violence and intimidation, etc. Instead the article is a chronology. Would it be suitable to split the article into a timeline like Early Nazi Timeline and a more analytical article. At the moment, it's a bit of a hybrid of the two. pgr94 (talk) 00:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

sentence needs correction

It* was anti-Marxist and was opposed to the democratic post-war government of the Weimar virulent anti-Semitism.

• DAP

67.86.106.128 (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Where did the money come from?

"An unprecedented amount of money was thrown behind the campaign." This begs the question and I am surely not the only one who is curious where such unprecedented sums of money come from during world economic crisis. Richiez (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

hey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.127.246 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Beer Hall Putsch vs Coup D'État

Isn't a putsch only a coup d'etat if it in fact succeeds? ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Goebbels treason

The article states that "Goebbels was convicted of high treason at the end of May [1930]." Is that correct? It makes no mention of any punishment, which seems odd - high treason is not the sort of offence that is usually dealt with by a slap on the wrist. The article on Goebbels makes no mention of a trial, let alone conviction, for treason. 86.20.66.253 (talk) 15:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting

"I registered as a member of the German Workers' Party and received a provisional membership card with the number 7".

Hitler's registered number for the DAP was 555 - and it's often claimed that he doctored this to claim that his membership number was 7 (ie that he had a vision/was destined from very close to the start". But since this was a provisional card - and a low-numbered one at that - isn't it more logical to assume that what's meant is that the party was not very active? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.25.244 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

When he joined the DAP it was a small Party and as you know he was the 55th member, but the Party started counting at 500 to make it appear larger in numbers/members than it was at the time. So, Hitler's original Party number given was 555. Hitler, in his work Mein Kampf, later claimed to be the seventh party member (he was in fact the seventh executive member of the Party's central committee). Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Seizure of control

Seizure of control is a misleading and emotive term. Hitler was appointed chancellor under the democratic parliamentary system - the party did not seize power.122.59.213.148 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

(1) The "seizure of power" (Machtergreifung) is exactly what the Nazis called it, and considered it to be. Although Hitler's appointment was constitutional (see #2), Hitler almost immediately started taking steps to overthrow the Weimar Republic from within, and by the time of the Reichstag fire and the Presidential emergency decree that followed from it -- only a few months later -- Germany was well on its way to being a dictatorship. So, yes, it was indeed a "seizure of power."

(2) The process by which Hitler was appointed chancellor was not parliamentary in any sense, and "democratic" only by stretching the definition of that word so thin that you could see through it. The Reichstag was deadlocked, there was no majority party, and no one could make a coalition (although Hitler briefly considered one with the Center Party), thus according to the Weimar Constitution, the Chancellor would be appointed by the President, Hindenburg. Hindenburg didn't want Hitler, but von Papen and others hammered at him until they had convinced the old field marshal that von Papen and other ultra-conservatives in the cabinet could control the Nazis. Hinderburg held on to the last possible minute and finally, grudgingly, acquiesced to appointing Hitler. Thus, Hitler was not a "Parliamentary Chancellor" he was a "Presidential Chancellor", and his appointment wasn't democratic, but it was constitutional, which is not the same thing, as in that respect the Weimar Constitution was not democratic. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

citation needed

@Beyond My Ken: Could you describe to me what my POV is when I tagged an unsourced claim as needing a citation? I'm curious to know. Thank you. KinkyLipids (talk) 02:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you should be perceptive enough to know what your POV is when you tag a "sky is blue" fact. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

HAhaha. Sorry, I guess I'm not very perceptive. I came to this encyclopedia article in order to learn about something that I don't know much about and that I haven't formed many opinions about, which is generally what an encyclopedia is for, I think. I'm sorry that I'm not as familiar with this referendum that happened in 1929 in Germany as I am familiar with the color of the sky. It must have happened when I wasn't paying attention, which is unusual for me because I try to vote when I can :)

I saw this isolated sentence in the article, claiming that a referendum was important and that it had an unprecedented effect ("...recognition and credibility [the Nazi Party] never had before"). That's a pretty strong claim, yet the sentence has no source. Sources are sort of important to Wikipedia, I think. I also look for sentences that have a lot of adjectives and superlatives, indicating subjectivity (e.g. "I'm a very stable genius. You've never met anyone smarter than me before. Believe me.").

I have no opinion or point-of-view about this referendum, since I've never heard of it until now. When I tag something as needing a source, I'm not laying out a manifesto, I'm only saying that it's unsourced. Whenever I read something in an article that interests me, I like to see the source, in case the source is a book that might interest me. So that's my ulterior motive for tagging the unsourced sentence as needing a source. I want to know that this information exists in the real world outside of Wikipedia. When I add "cn" to an article, I hope that other editors can assume that my edit is in good faith, instead of trying to read a whole ideology into those two letters. I was very surprised when my ordinary, routine edit was reverted, and even more surprised by the explanation for the revert, hence this long paragraph. Sorry for writing a novel. Thank you for reading to the end. KinkyLipids (talk) 03:38, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

If you know nothing about a subject, then everything in an article about that subject could appear to you to need a citation, whereas CN tags should be added to information which someone doubts the factuality of, and is therefore in need of verification. Please read WP:V, and note that not all information needs to be verified, it needs to be verifiable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I added a citation myself, hopefully to resolve this, although I'm not well placed to find a suitable citation because I'm not an expert or regular editor to this article, hence the tag, and I wasn't able to access the source to verify it myself, hence the tag.

The Verifiability policy says, "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, you can tag a sentence with the citation needed template by writing cn or fact."

I was following policy. I was not asking for proof that the sky is blue or that humans have five fingers on each hand. I was not pushing a POV against the factuality of the information. I followed policy to the letter.

The policy also emphasizes the need for sources so that information is verifiable. That's what verifiable means—having a reference so that it can be verified by another editor "that a reference supports the text" (WP:V).

The citation I added comes from the article on the referendum. Is this acceptable? KinkyLipids (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not ideal, as the editor who adds a citation ought to be aware of what it says. If the citation does not support the statement, you are responsible, not the person who added it to the other article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Removal of "The" from section header

WPMOS "Do not use A, An, or The as the first word (Economy of the Second Empire, not The economy of the Second Empire), unless it is an inseparable part of a name" apples to section headings as well as to titles--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the place where it says that it applies to section headings as well as titles. I can only find that quote in the section about article titles. Where exactly (and I do mean precisely, with a link and a quote) do you see it mentioned for section headings? --Jhertel (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:HEAD says "Section headings should follow all of the guidance for article titles" -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 15:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Finlay McWalter. And Kintetsubuffalo, please refrain from personal attacks as you did in your edit summary, as per WP:NPA. That's in no way okay. --Jhertel (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hitler's use of murder during the rise to power

The following comment was placed in the article itself and was (properly) deleted. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

The body of the article (Hitler’s Rise to Power) does not address Hitler’s use of murder as a tactic in his rise to power. A horrible bias in favor of Hitler and his legacy may be inferred from this omission. If Hitler rose to power without resorting to murder of opponents, that would be a huge historical fact to be understood. This is what the article implies. On the other hand, if murder was plausibly a part of Hitlers strategy, murder would be addressed in any honest article on the subject. An article like the above, that simply omits mentioning the murder factor, likely is properly classed as propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KHJack (talk • contribs) 09:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

@KHJack: It's refreshing to have a Wikipedia article on Hitler or Nazism be accused of being Nazi propaganda, since the reverse is usually the case.

Which political opponents do you believe Hitler had murdered during his rise to power, as opposed to after he came to power? Off hand, I can't think of any. Certainly, the SA killed numerous people during that time period, but mostly in street violence and clashes with the Communist and Socialist paramilitaries. That Hitler, for the most part, wanted the general impression of lawlessness and social chaos to prevail, so that it could be blamed on the Left, is undeniable, but I can't recall an instance of one of Hitler's political opponents being murdered, nor any that were specifically ordered to be killed by Hitler. Can you provide examples? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with BMK. Hitler certainly employed murder after obtaining power. What WP:RS cited examples were before, that are not coming to mind. Kierzek (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Change of title

The change of title from "Nazi seizure of power" to "Adolf Hitler's rise to power" is, I think, I mistake for two reasons. As has been noted earlier on this talk page, the It is not historically controversial to describe this as a "seizure of power" (Machtergreifung), and it was done by the Nazis collectively, not just Hitler. --Saforrest (talk) 09:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

"seizure of power" was the way the Nazis described it, to make it sound more bold. It was not a seizure of power in any sense of the phrase, they were let into the power structure by right-wing nationalists who thought they could control Hitler, and then handed their power on a silver platter by Hindenberg when he signed the Reichstag Fire and Enabling acts. All the Nazis seized was the opportunity to act once they had squirreled their way into power. 23:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I believe the title should remain as it is; for one, Hitler was the Nazi Party; there was no NSDAP without him, being the wheel hub of the party. It rose and fell with him. In addition, it was not just a "change of title". It was a merge of the article "Nazi seizure of power" into this one and frankly, this article covers the overall subject matter in much better detail and depth and is well WP:RS cited. "Nazi seizure of power" article was redundant, not well cited and un-needed. Kierzek (talk) 13:43, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

You're correct that it was a merge; sorry I didn't realize that when making the first comment. I agree that the article quality is better than the previous Nazi seizure of power was. I'm willing to concede on the title being "rise to power" for the reasons you cite, but I am not persuaded that this content should all belong in an article just about Hitler. --Saforrest (talk) 08:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Bullock's name is mentioned but only as a last name with no details.

I believe it's referring to Alan Bullock, a historian that wrote a book about Hitler and has a Wikipedia value on his name. some quotes are provided but there's no link to whomever is responsible for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.153.204 (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Weimar parties fail to halt Nazis

„The Social Democrats were essentially a conservative trade union party, with ineffectual leadership.“

That is nonsense. The Social Democrats were the main force standing between the Nazis and total power. While the communists were enemies of the republic and conservatives openly discussed an alliance with Hitler, the Social Democrats stood firm till the end. They were the only party voting against Hitler‘s dictatorial powers. The sentence above is disrespectful to all those Social Democrats who gave their life and their freedom to prevent the catastrophe. They were a power factor. ImoFlo (talk) 06:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I just checked: The 1925 party manifesto of the Social Democrats (“Heidelberger Programm”) demanded equality of men and women in marital affairs. They argued for women’s right to work. They argued for the abolition of capital punishment. They argued for equal legal status for children born inside and outside of marriage. That does indeed not sound like a conservative party to me.

Proposed merger with the main Hitler article

im pretty new but i dont see any reason why this should be an independent article R34p3r2006 (talk) 13:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

The main article is quite large, so we have multiple sub-articles. You can find a list of them at Template:Adolf Hitler.— Diannaa (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect section title.

In my opinion "Chancellor to dictator" should be changed to "From chancellor to dictator". 85.193.228.103 (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Hitler's Inauguration as Chancellor

Are there any articles about Hitler's sworn in as Chancellor on 30 January 1933? Mhatopzz (talk) 06:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

please may I change the part that says Adolf Hitler's rise to power began in Germany in September 1919 when Hitler joined the political party because it should be on September 1919 Alphawolf131 (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: If the sentence had given a specific day of the month then it should be "on", but as it currently just gives the month, "in" is correct Cannolis (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)