Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Night of the long knives

This extract is suspicious too: " To consolidate his regime, Hitler needed the neutrality of the Army and the industrial magnates. They were alarmed by the "socialist" component of National Socialism, which was represented by the mainly working-class Brownshirts of Ernst Röhm's SA. To remove this barrier to acceptance of his regime, Hitler unleashed his lieutenant Himmler to murder Röhm and dozens of other real and potential enemies during the night of June 29-June 30, 1934. The event is remembered as the Night of the Long Knives. "

Was the Night of the Long Knives a result from considerations about industrial magnates ? Himmler planned the whole thing didn't he ? What does Himmler care about the industrial magnate's views ?

He was interested in winning the power struggle inside the regime, that's what I think.

Is this again a sentence from one of the "Glasnost" readers, or does anyone have material to support it ? Otherwise we should cut it. --217.228.213.50 10:26, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A cursory read of any history of the SS (Reitlingers "Alibi of a nation" is highly recomended) will show that the Night of the Long Knives had little if anything in reality to do with any considerations about insustrial leaders as such - there were concerns about Political Issues and Rhoem's relationship with them but the act was nothing more than Himmler doing Hitlers bidding and clearing potentially embarassing people from the scene. The only reason that industrial magnates would have been a consideration is in terms of breaking their power and removing any threat to the leadership of the Party and the Reich.

It is well worth reading about the events of that Night as they give an interesting insight into the character of both Himmler and Hitler but also others who would go on to become powerful figures within the Nazi party and the government/miltary apparatus.

--monkeyc 06:34, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hitler and vegetarianism

I removed a sentence describing Hitler becoming a vegetarian. AFAIK this is an urban myth, just try googling with hitler vegetarian and see most results. --Farside 17:05, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

This needs to be pinned down. See List of vegetarians and Talk:List of vegetarians. I was under the impression that it was an urban myth and I found http://www.vegsource.com/berry/hitler.html to support this assertion, however the List of vegetarians article has now been changed to read "according to several sources who had close personal contact with him, including the architect Albert Speer, his personal secretary Traudl Junge, and both of his cooks, Constanze Manziarly and Marlene von Exner. All of the respected biographies of Hitler, including those by Joachim Fest and Ian Kershaw, state that Hitler became a steadfast vegetarian after the death of his niece Geli Raubal in 1931. There is an urban legend that he occasionally engaged in the consumption of pork, but no member of his personal circle has confirmed this." Mintguy (T) 17:14, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That could be true. I have no other sources for my claim than previous knowledge and googling, and both can be wrong. of course. --Farside 18:45, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I read the U.S. Govt. report on him which stated that he stopped eating meat after the death of his neice, saying it reminded him of a corpse. The evidence isn't overwhelming, but the official position is that he was a vegetarian. Sam [Spade] 18:58, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Anyone want to join me in roughing up some vegan "facists"? ;) Sam [Spade] 17:23, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

All of the respected biographers agree that he abstained from eating meat. Its not an urban legend.--GeneralPatton 13:59, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover and a Slate critic telling about Hitler's diet ("I want peace,... a peace of Prague ham!") and why it matters or not.

Lobster

I have read that Nazi propaganda tried to show Hitler as humane by telling that he researched ways to cook lobster without boiling them alive. The only thing I found online was:

http://www.artandentropy.com/articles/illgetby.htm Second, Hitler once passed a law requiring that people who boil lobsters do so quickly and at very high temperatures, therefore allowing the lobster to die quickly and painlessly.

Acccuracy dispute about mysticism in Nazi Germany article

Can somebody here who knows a lot about Hitler and Nazism please look at this article. I personally believe that about 80% of the article is nonsense. Mysticism_in_Nazi_Germany Thanks in advance. Andries 21:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intro

Here is a suggested opening paragraph by Danny:

Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889—April 30, 1945) was the führer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and state. A gifted orator with an intense personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe. His invasion of Poland in 1939 is generally given as the start of World War II. The brutal embrace of total war by the Axis and Allied powers in that war resulted in the savage destruction of Europe and the deaths of millions of people. The racial policy he enforced led to the Holocaust and the death and displacement of millions more. In the end he reportedly committed suicide in his bunker beneath Berlin, with Germany in ruins around him.

This is fine. 172 01:44, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Adolf Hitler (April 20, 1889—April 30, 1945) was the führer of the National Socialist German Workers' Party and of of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945. In that capacity he was Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and state. A gifted orator with an intense personal presence, Hitler is regarded as one of the most significant leaders of world history. The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe.

His invasion of Poland in 1939 is generally given as the start of World War II. The brutal embrace of total war by the Axis and Allied powers in that war resulted in the savage destruction of Europe and the deaths of millions of people. The racial policy he demanded led to the Holocaust and the death and displacement of millions more. In the end he reportedly committed suicide in his bunker beneath Berlin, with Germany in ruins around him, and the Red army closing in.

I suggest this, but I'll take my time on putting it on for obvious reasons. 1) I think it was a bit of a long paragraph, 2) I think "enforced" is a bit of a stretch, since he hasn't been shown to have personally carried anything out, and 3) I think the Red army needs mention (and credit) for being where they were, when they were. Sam [Spade] 01:58, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

1. Agreed, but it covers a lot of necessary material.
2. I am too tired to argue this point right now, but essentially, nothing happened in Nazi Germany without Hitler's approval. He imposed the anti-Semitic measures (Nuremberg, etc., that led to the Holocaust. There is documentation that he knew.
3. While I agree, that would only add to the length of the paragraph. Danny 02:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd be very interested in documentation that he knew about the particulars of the holocaust. From what I have seen and read, he comes across as isolated and fed only information he wanted to hear. I always assumed that due to Führerprinzip, the higher ups expected independance and results from their subordinates, and saw question asking, or a need for micromanagement from below as a sign of gross incompentance. Therefore I wouldn't expect Hitler to be aquainted w the gory particulars of the "final solution". Sam [Spade] 05:59, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

to 149.225.54.108 Service record in WWI

I do not have my books (Ian Kershaw) from the library anymore but I read from the following source that he had a good state of duty. [1] Unless you can prove or at least indicate othwerise I think I have the right to revert your edits. I also read in The Meaning of Hitler (Not a scholarly reference but an analysis of Hitler’s life.) by Sebastian Haffner that I do have here that he received an Iron cross. Average rating of this book at amazon.com is five stars based on five reviews! Please create a userid to facilitate the discussion. Thanks Andries 20:51, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I think the article has a lot of problems currently. It seems more like a desperate search for positive wording than a serious encyclopedia article. Too frequently it seems like praise. You can verify what I wrote on the german wikipedia AH article btw. I don't want to make anymore edits since they'll likely be just reverted again. Just to exemplify, the very first sentence gets the facts very wrong. You'd have to say like he was leader of the party and 'leader and empire chancellor' from 1934 on. Führer means 'leader' in exactly the way native english speakers use the word, naively. Sentences like "he also spent a lot of time reading" or "reading the book is like hearing him speak" are utter crap. The article doesn't mention the guy didn't have any kind of school diploma and gets his failed artistic ambitions very wrong.

Thanks, fortunately, I can read German so I will check soon. But if I remember it well Kershaw wrote that he good service record in WWI (I can not check now). Andries 21:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hitler not dead?

I'm not claiming this is the case, nor am I suggesting the article give credit to the claims, but neither should the article accept without question the soviet account (which Stalin himself did not believe, and which contradicts itself, and common sense, btw). Anyways, here are some links [2][3][4]. All that I expect is for the article to remain neutral. Sam [Spade] 23:03, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

SMERSH (Soviet counterintelligence)

I appologise, I am unfamiliar w SMERSH, and assumed it to be a part of the red army. I do think a link to "red army" is needed in the intro however, as I said above, and seemed to achieve concensus. I'll see what I can do, but if you don't like how I mention "red army", please find another way. I think they are deserving of more credit than the article currently gives. Sam [Spade] 03:04, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have no problem with a mention of the Red Army (please capitalise), the reference in regards to reporting Hitler's suicide was just inaccurate. SMERSH wasn't part of the Red Army but of the NKVD, their job was to follow in the rear after the Red Army and mop up spies and saboteurs as well as basically police both the Red Army and the rest of the NKVD. AndyL 04:08, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Problem IP

219.89.80.123 is a problem IP. We should ban it. -Joseph 03:14, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

War casualty

i read that during WWI, some shell fell near him. He wasn't physically wounded, but he was (hysterically?) blind for days.

Most vandalized page?

Is this the most often vandalized page, or is there another? -Joseph 16:35, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)

I think Jew is probably the most vandalized page. Zh 22:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Go figure. Probably some of the same people, making assholes of themselves. -Joseph (Talk) 23:49, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)

"Personification of Evil"

I'm not defending Hitler here, but isn't labelling him "a personification of evil" an unnecessary POV remark? I think the "perhaps the most reviled man in history" is a better assesment of his legacy. --Feitclub 19:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Do you want to say he's not a personification of evil to the majority of worlds population? GeneralPatton 12:08, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hitler unpopular ?

What else maybe "a lot of people dislike him" ? Hitler was the worst serial killer in history that's a fact. Ericd 22:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just to be anal, but no, he is neither a serial killer, nor the worst. Ignoring that he's not a serial killer, other world leaders have higher body counts - Stalin in particular comes to mind. And as far as a percentage of population, Pol Pot certainly ranks high. --Golbez 22:22, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

NO ! Except if you deny his responsability for WW2. Ericd 06:56, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? "NO !" to which? I deny nothing. --Golbez 07:20, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

WW2 made around 54 millions casualities the holocaust 6 millions = 60 millions.

Even if we consider that not all the casualities in WW2 were Hitlers responsabilty he still has

a large advance on Stalin (around 10 millions victims for the worse serious estimation).

Ericd 10:20, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are you a Stalin apologist? You're low by about 40 million. -Joseph (Talk) 11:18, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)

How many people do you think Stalin and Mao kills, Ericd? And it's all moot - none of them were serial killers. :) --Golbez 16:32, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)

Stalin's Gulags, policies and purges killed around 15-35 million Soviet citizens, Mao's "reforms" killed from somewhere around 60 million, up to 100 million Chinese. Besides Holocaust, Nazi rule and policies killed around 20 million of Soviet and Polish civilians GeneralPatton 12:05, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jiminey christmas, Hitler didn't kill all those people who died in WWII... I'm not even sure if he killed anybody, ever, and if he did it was in WWI, when he won the Iron Cross. If your going to blame world leaders for the death they lead to, how about the death toll for Marx? Or Jesus? Or muhammed? Anyways Stalin was way worse a person than Hitler, at least Hitler liked somebody, at least in theory, (his Aryan ideal Germans), unlike Stalin who never did a good thing for anybody ever, and tormented his own family and associates mercilessly, while having his native russian and georgian people massacred (as well as anti-jewish pograms). Sam [Spade] 12:50, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jesus was wasn't a world leader, Marx wasn't idea, Muhammed was a secular leader. That why I feel insecure with Islam despite my respect for many Muslims. Idea will becoome what people do with.... But it's still difficult to me see where was the justification for the wars of religion in Europe in any Godspell... Seriously political leader in charge of some secular power aren't responsible ? Georges Bush didn't wan't the second Gulf War ? (good or bad isn't even the question), I think he did'nt kill any Iraquian or American soldier with his own hands.

At second though how regressive your idea is "at least Hitler killed somebody" it's simply tribal. You mean that it's more legitimate to kill on an ethnic basis ? Stalin achieved to manipulate a lot of people for a criminal project because they believed they were working the happyness whole humanity. Hitler did this for the superiority of German race... Basic animal instinct of domination IMO.

Just for your information I've read Alexander Soljenitsyne in the first French edition when the French Socialist party was mostly ignoring his books. I never had any doubt it was the truth. But "Hitler is unpopular" is so weak it isn't serious. Hilter is considered has an terrific criminal by anyone who has some brain ! Jean Pierre Raffarin is unpopular....

Ericd 21:03, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't necessarilly agree w your suggestion that a leader can be a criminal, and the subject of Pinochet comes to mind. I also question your evaluation of my point regarding Hitlers motivation. I am not saying it's ok to kill on an ethnic basis, but I am saying that is a more moral foundation to base ones abuses on than sheer ego and and intent to horrify. Hitler didn't want ordinary Germans terrified and cowering before his awfulness, but Stalin did want that from russians. Hitler wanted ethnic Germans to thrive at the expense of others, Stalin wanted himself to thrive, at the expense of his own Russian people. I see a moral distinction, but can accept that yoiu do not. Irregardless, I think the article articulates his unpopularity reasonably well in saying "His legacy is to have become among the most reviled men in world history."

Sam [Spade] 12:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sam, just FYI, the first people to go to concentration camps were Hitler's political opponents and Nazis party thugs terrorised the German population (or rather, political opponents) (with political assassinations, e.g. Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg) long before they even got into power. - pir 12:12, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

They fought with communists. Thats very different from "the german population". Sam [Spade] 12:23, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"They fought counter-revolutionaries. That's very different from "the russian population"." Just to paraphrase you, not that I'm a Stalin apologist. And no, it wasn't just communists they fought, it was everyone who was in their way. - pir 12:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but that wasn't the german population at large. Hitler tried to do good things for ethnic Germans, Stalin did things for himself alone. Thats the bottom line. Stalin never did anything for the benefit of the russian people, whereas Hitler did do some good things for the German people (and heck, he designed the volkswagon beatle too ;) Sam [Spade] 12:38, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I give up. - pir 12:50, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hitler really only started getting paranoid about fellow Germans after the July 20 plot, and even many of it's participants managed to survive and successfully defend themselves trough the trials and thrive after the war. People like General Hans Spidel. GeneralPatton 21:39, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how this discussion in any way would contribute to the article. Maybe we just ned to get back on track here. Slrubenstein

A leader can be a criminal, more than a common man as he knows more he should be more responsible. As far as I know Hitler didn't fought only with communists. All this discussion confirm what I feel writing "Hilter was unpopular" or blaming "the embrace of total war" is a way of denying Hitler responsability. - Ericd 21:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not that I'm a big fan of the man or anything, but isn't saying that Hitler is "one of the most reviled men in the world" a POV statement? The fact seems almost self-evident, of course, but to be NPOV there needs to be a source for this. --Ce garcon 09:01, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, because this is a statement in fact. There's a difference between saying "he is one of the most reviled men in the world [by most people]", versus "he should be reviled for all of the crazy shit he did." See the difference? Do we need a source for common knowledge? -Joseph (Talk) 11:21, 2004 Sep 20 (UTC)

Not unless somebody disputes it we don't. As far as blaming the embrace of total war on all sides resulting in denying Hitler responsibility for all the death and destruction of WWII, your darn right. Hitler was not single handedly responsible for every bad thing that went down during that war. The allied powers did plenty of bad stuff too, not to mention the Japanese. Even the glorious Americans did some shady things (bombing of dresden, anyone? Japanese internment camps? etc..). Nobody in this discussion is trying to say Hitler was a benevolant, easy going chap w an undeserved reputation. Quite the opposite, I for one was trying to force some perspective. Anyhow, I think "one of the most reviled men in history" is perfectly accurate and NPOV, since its an obvious fact, and in no way attempts to sway the reader that this is a fair or accurate sentiment, but rather only that it is a common one, and something important to know when learning the basics about the man who was Adolf. Sam [Spade] 11:41, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Does the fact it says "most reviled men" imply that there are some women even more reviled? --Zero 12:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Definately. Sam [Spade] 15:47, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In the US that would probably be Hilary Clinton ;) - pir 16:05, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am totally confused about hitler's death matter

i am really confused about hitler's death. is it truth that he admitted a sucite or he naturally die after big age.

• All the evidence points in the direction of him having committed suicide. There is little to suggest that this is anything but the case. Sjc 09:20, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • That is wildly innaccurate. See Talk:Adolf_Hitler#Hitler_not_dead.3F.

Sam [Spade] 10:52, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let's make this a featured article

I'm making some starts by making the article shorted (needs to be 32kb or below if this is going to be a featured articule). Some text will need to go to subsidiary pages. Jongarrettuk 11:31, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hoorah. Sam [Spade] 11:37, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm starting with some gentle pruning (by making discursive prose more precise and removing info already in clearly labelled subsidiary pages (or merging info where appropriate). For info, the interesting info on Alois Hitler taking the Hitler name is already in Alois Hitler and further details on Klara Hitler are already in Klara Hitler.

After pruning, the next bit will be to consider whether it needs any restructuring/rewriting. Jongarrettuk 11:54, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we make it featured, we will need to consider vandalism, which will only increase in that step. Perhaps locking it down during that time period? -Joseph (Talk) 14:14, 2004 Oct 2 (UTC)

I've now finished my pruning and reordering. It's now the right size. So a note for future editors: Only add something if you also take something away (either deleting it or moving to a new page). Otherwise it will get longer than 32kb again.

I have created a number of new pages where some of the deleted info has gone. Many of these need tidying up! Please help. These articles are: Members of Hitler's cabinet, Hitler in popular culture, Hitler’s political beliefs and Images of Hitler. Other info was either input or already duplicated into existing articles, or of such peripheral interest (if it could be said to be of any interest) that I deleted it.

The article is now all in British English. Previously it was about half US and half UK. I had to get rid of this inconsisency, and on the grounds that Hitler was European, and on the grounds that as I'm British, British English comes more naturally to me, that's the form of English I've gone for. Future editors: Please stick to using British English so that the article is consistent.

Finally, if I've made a mistake and deleted your favourite bit or nugget of information, I apologise. Feel free to reinsert it (as long as you also delete sentences of a similar length to those you add). Jongarrettuk 17:59, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hitler disambiguation

Someone recently made Hitler a disambiguation page. I thought it silly so I changed it back to a redirect, but moved the other bit to Hitler (disambiguation), which is now an orphan (except for the above link). Should anything be done with that disambig page? All the names on it (except for Adolf Lu Hitler Marak, which probably doesn't belong anyway) are at the bottom of this article under Family. Should we keep it as an orphan, delete it, or link to it? -R. fiend 18:35, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV, recent edits

1st, I have no clue how the page got blanked, I think it was a wiki bug, cuz I didn't do that, afaik. second, eastern opinion on Hitler and Nazi's is very different, and some historians (you can call them apologists if you want) have a more favorable opinion. Not everybody in the world has the same opinion about everything. And saying "reviled" that many times in a paragraph is severely POV ;) Sam [Spade] 23:04, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Point taken about different views of Hitler in the East, I think we can work out some way to phrase this so that everyone is satisfied...but why did you restore Nayra's edits on Hitler's expansionist policies? The current version reeks of revisionism and shifting the blame from innocent Hitler to the evil western powers. -- Ferkelparade π 23:08, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know I did, thats why ;) Let me go look at it. Sam [Spade] 23:38, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is that OK? We need to express in some way that many felt at the time those early expansions of borders were necessary, so as to unite german speakers, etc... Sam [Spade] 00:37, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, the current version reads okay...glad we could resolve this without starting an edit war :p -- Ferkelparade π 06:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Saying Hitler's policies were "expansionist" is factually misleading, historical revisionism and shows ignorance of history. The fact of that matter is that most of the territories were actually formerly part of Germany before WWI and heavily populated by Germans but were clearly stolen from Germany. Trying to recover stolen lands is not "expansionist". User:Nayra:Nayra

OK Austria and Poland were part of Germany before WW1 ? What else maybe France and USSR ?

Ericd 07:11, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely disagree. Whta you're saying is a half-truth at best, and grossly misleading at worst. If you seriously think your story is the whole truth, you should read some more history books (hint: start with looking up Lebensraum and think about why WW2 started with an invasion of Poland) -- Ferkelparade π 06:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Hitler was born before sunset" reverts

I couldn't help but notice that there were numerous edits and reverts over the words "born before sunset". Why is this so controversial? Is there a need to go sparring over this detail? Rickyrab 23:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it should stay myself. I think its being opposed on principal, because I assume it is only nazi mystics or oddball astrologers who would care? Whats the deal? Sam [Spade] 23:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it's irrelevant. Go to any other page about a person and it will have the person's date of birth, but not a reference to whether it was daylight when they were born. It just seems silly and unencyclopaedic. Also, it's long enough an article anyway, this is hardly a big issue that makes it worth saying in a short (32kb) article. That's why it gets removed, anyway. You'll have to ask those who add it why they keep adding it.jguk 04:27, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In addition to being irrelevant and non-encyclopedic, it's also vague, as it could mean just about any daylight hour, and I'm not even sure it's accurate. Jayjg 06:19, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)