Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 57

Archive 50

←

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Personal life section?

I can't remember if I've suggested it before nor whether it has discussed in length, but this article could actually have a personal life section. Must biography articles have personal life sections. Sections like "Legacy", "Religious views", "Health" and "Family" could—with some work—all be merged into one "Personal life" section. Here's my starting-off suggestion—Imagine all of these reduced sub-sections in a single section.

Legacy

Public support for Hitler had collapsed by the time of his death. Hitler's actions and Nazi ideology are almost universally regarded as gravely immoral. His political programme orchestrated a world war in which large parts of Europe where impoverished; Germany itself suffered wholesale destruction. The Nazi regime is believed to responsible for the democidal of some 50 million people in the European Theatre of World War II. Many European countries have criminalised both the promotion of Nazism and Holocaust denial. Historian Sebastian Haffner avows that without Hitler, the modern nation state of Israel would not exist. Further, Haffner claims that other than Alexander the Great, Hitler had a more significant impact than any other comparable historical figure.

Religious views

Hitler was born to a practising Catholic mother and an anticlerical father. After leaving home, he never again attended religious ceremonies. Hitler made harsh pronouncements against the church and had no attachment to it. In public, however, Hitler often praised Christian heritage and German Christian culture, believing religion to be an, "important politically conservative influence on society". According to Speer, Hitler had a negative view of Himmler's and Alfred Rosenberg's mystical notions and Himmler's attempt to mythologise the SS.

Health

Hitler's health is believed to have been troubled by irritable bowel syndrome, skin lesions, irregular heartbeat, coronary sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, syphilis, and tinnitus. Historians consider that while Hitler suffered from a number of illnesses, he did not experience pathological delusions and was always fully aware of the decisions he was making.

Hitler followed a vegetarian diet and preferred fresh fruit and vegetables. He encouraged his closest associates to quite eating meat by showing graphic accounts of animal slaughter. Hitler occasionally consumed alcohol when a toast had to be made, but gave up drinking due to weight gain in 1943. He also tried to get his inner circle to stop drinking by offering a gold watch any who were able to break the habit. Although a heavy smoker in his youth, he quickly quit, calling the habit "a waste of money". Hitler began using amphetamine occasionally after 1937 and became addicted to it in the autumn of 1942. He took many pills each day for chronic stomach problems and other ailments. He suffered ruptured eardrums as a result of the 20 July plot bomb blast in 1944, and 200 wood splinters had to be removed from his legs.

Family

Hitler created a public image as a celibate man without a domestic life, dedicated entirely to his political mission and the nation. He met his mistress, Eva Braun, in 1929, and married her in April 1945. In September 1931, his half-niece, Geli Raubal, committed suicide with Hitler's gun in his Munich apartment. It was rumoured among contemporaries that Geli was in a romantic relationship with him, and her death was a source of deep, lasting pain. Paula Hitler, the last living member of his immediate family, died in 1960.

—

Basically I've tried to leave out individual opinions and unnecessary repetitions. What yall think? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What sources do you have at hand for sourcing those statements? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources already used in the sections. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why the views of Sebastian Haffner should be given such prominence given that many dozens of historians have written on this topic. Moreover, the material seems to endorse a 'great man of history'-type view: Hitler and his career were also a function of the period and German political and economic circumstances. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case, "Sebastian Haffner" could be replaced with "Historians"? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, the only point where I deliberately cited Haffner was with the Israel-would-not-exist-without-Hitler claim. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You've also noted his view that Hitler was the second most important individual in history. "Historians" doesn't work as this implies that there's a consensus on the topic, which isn't correct. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, removing all haffner opinions would only make the section shorter, so perhaps that should be done. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 00:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind I only reformulated information which is already implemented. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 17:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

So if I am understanding you correctly, the idea is to rearrange the existing content without any changes to the prose or citations? -- Diannaa (talk) 18:19, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that is what I suggest doing if a "Personal life" section is to be created. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

This seems a step too far, while some consolidation of personal life MIGHT be appropriate, I cannot see how 'legacy' is part of personal life. Religious views also seems as much about state matters (inc. function of religion in his ideology). Perhaps when someone has SUCH a wish to impose his views/will on society, there isn't much that is truly/wholly private. Pincrete (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I agree that "Legacy" might not fall under the personal life criteria, but religious views definitely would. Regarding the state matters, I believe it's examples mentioned to explain his religious views better. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 23:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

If the consensus is to make the changes to one "Personal life" section (to which I don't really see the need); I can say that I agree that the "Legacy" section should remain where it is and separate to whatever changes are made herein. Kierzek (talk) 03:14, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the need to make changes either. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not either an expert on the subject, nor previously involved with the article, so anything I say is very much an 'outsider's response'. Having said that, there is little info about his religious views, beyond general observations, there is more about how he appeared to see religion, as a function within society. There is also little about his 'romantic life', much of what does exist, is conjecture or supposition. Most public figures DO have a distinct 'private life', which is reasonably well documented, even if it does not 'come out' till after their deaths. Perhaps AH did not. Not only do I not see the need for this section, I don't see the advantage. Pincrete (talk) 10:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC) … … ps perhaps a pedantic point, however I suggest renaming 'Religious views' to 'Views on religion', as, apart from general observations about AH's apparent lack of religious beliefs or practice, the section deals much more with his attitudes to religions than actual beliefs. Pincrete (talk) 14:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

We have separate articles Religious views of Adolf Hitler and Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and so on that provide more details on these subtopics. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out I merely SUGGESTED we should make a "Personal life" section and wanted to see what other people thought. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, I appreciate there are also detailed articles ('Sexuality' btw is a bit of a mess). Jonas Vinther, don't feel downhearted, your suggestion has made people think !18:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Pincrete (talk)

A lot of the Hitler-related content is in a bad state. Jonas, I suggest you look at the articles on Template:Adolf Hitler and look for ways to improve the articles listed there. Perhaps that's a better use of your time than tinkering with the main article. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

What does "tinkering" mean? Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 19:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Diannaa may well have misread our names (as I pointed out the 'sexuality' mess). Pincrete (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I just looked it up (tinkering), and it does not mean what I thought it means :/ What I meant to say is that improvements are not needed here. While the article is not Featured article quality, there's places where work are a lot more desperately needed. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Diannaa; the sub-articles are what could use some ce work. Kierzek (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There are so many aspects to Hitler´s life - his rise to political power and the destruction the Nazi regime caused to the world - that I believe the current breakdown of his life into subsections is the best approach. Otherwise, we risk creating an overly long section that does not easily lead the reader into the various influences that shaped his political ideology and world view. WP should be both authoritative and an easy-to-use resource for the reader. Therefore, I believe keeping the current sections as they are is the best approach. Of course, this does not mean there is no room for improvement, but rather section by section. American In Brazil (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In the last paragraph of the section 'Legacy' I have changed ´avows´to ´avers´. This is a common error. ´Avow´means: to declare frankly or openly; own; acknowledge; confess; admit. ´Aver´ means: to assert or affirm with confidence; declare in a positive or peremptory manner. See: dictionary.com. The historian is making a statement of judgement (I happen to disagree with him) and therefore ´aver´is correct. Of course an ´s´is added because the verb is used in the present tense, third person singular. Also, I think keeping Haffner´s opinion in the section is correct, since this is a widely held view among some historians and many members of the public. As mentioned, I do not agree but it is relevant in a WP article. American In Brazil (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that these sections should be combined. Each section provides a different aspect of Hitler´s life and combining them would lead to confusion and a combined section that is overly long. But I do suggest that in the ´Early Life and Education´ section, a picture of Hitler´s father should be added, since there is a picture of Hitler´s mother. There is a picture in ´Alois Hitler´ but I do not know how to add it. Perhaps someone with more WP skills than I have can do so. American In Brazil (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

American In Brazil, I believe that the editors who worked on this article for a longer period of time regards the separate articles as being more important to improve rather than this main article. At least regarding this discussion. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 22:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@JonasVinther. I agree with you that the separate articles should remain separate. I was referring to the suggestion of combining the individual sections in this article on Hitler's personal life into one larger section. I believe that would result in an overly long, less focused and more confusing section. I think keeping the organization of the article as it is and improving it section by section is the best approach. That will provide the reader with an authoritative and easy-to-use resource. American In Brazil (talk) 01:01, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. I understand. :) Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 11:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2015

666 75.16.225.197 (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Please put your request in the form "Change X to Y" or "Add Z between P and Q", and provide reliable sources for the claim. Joseph2302 (talk) 01:09, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Quite interesting

I recently found an interesting statement from a source at BBC which, to a surprising degree, explains Hitler's stubbornness. It might be something to include in this article when talking about Hitler's leadership style. On 5 June 1935, a leading Nazi sent Hitler a report on youth issues, but received this reply from Hitler's adjutant:

"The Führer received it ... but gave it immediately back me to me unread! He intends to give a major speech about this issue at the next Party rally, and therefore does not want his thinking to be influenced by anybody in any way."

What's your opinion on this? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:11, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless someone else has drawn conclusions from the remark, I fear it would be OR to include it, or at least to draw conclusions from it.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I know that Laurence Rees and Ian Kershaw has. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 20:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

How many times do we need to discuss including quotes from primary sources about Hitler? Given the vast literature on the man, it's hard to think of a use for any of them. If reliable sources say that Hitler was stubborn and didn't take advice, we can reference them and don't need to rely on recollections from individuals who had contact with him (which may or may not be representative of his persona - other people seem to have been frequently successful in influencing Hitler, with Speer and Donitz being obvious examples). Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with Nick-D. With that said, I think his mindset and stubbornness is already covered in the article. Kierzek (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

hitlers kids

hitlers kids live in new jersey this should be in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.91.78 (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hitler did not have any children. Alois's son from his first marriage, William Patrick Hitler, Hitler's nephew, served in the U.S. Navy in World War II and lived in the U.S. He had four sons; that may be who you are thinking of herein. Kierzek (talk) 12:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Kierzek is correct. William Patrick Hitler changed his last name and none of his four sons had children. WP is an encyclopedia - let's keep it that way. Please see User:Ian.thomson for proper usage. American In Brazil (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

European Allies

At present the sentence "By the end of 1941 German forces and their European Allies occupied most of Europe and North Africa", this sentence links 'European Allies' to 'Axis powers'. Is there a better link article since not only did Japan occupy none of Europe or N.Africa, it is also true that by 1941 other 'European Allies', apart from Germany and Italy were actively allied to Germany? Pincrete (talk) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would refer here to the German forces and their Axis partners, or some other form that avoids calling them "Allies". As the Allied forces were on the other side I feel there is scope for confusion here. Britmax (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

As the number of 'pro-German' countries involved in Europe is relatively small, perhaps we could name them if there isn't an approriate 'blanket term' or article to link to. Or (as you say) 'Germany and her partners/allies'. I don't think many people would confuse 'Germany's allies' with 'the Allies'. Pincrete (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've amended it to read "European Axis powers". Perhaps there's a better solution, but this will do for now at least. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Axis powers is better and more appropriate. Kierzek (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm slighly guilty here, I tend to think of 'Axis powers' as meaning the 'big three' original signatories. The Axis powers article does (further down) also include the (more minor later) allies of Germany, Italy and Japan. I agree that Diannaa's edit is an improvement, since it clarifies which Axis powers. Pincrete (talk) 16:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Dictator

I recently made this edit:-[1], only because I thought we shouldn't imply that the term Fuhrer=dictator. Having thought about it, it does seem apt to use the word 'dictator' in the lede. I've therefore re-inserted the word. I thought it wasn't necessary to explain in what sense dictator, as that is already covered in the article. I'm happy for others to correct me if this logic is wrong or if a better term than 'effective' could be found (de facto?). Pincrete (talk) 01:22, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Reichs Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda

An article that needs some TLC is Reichs Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, older versions appear quite well written, but neither older nor current versions contain any refs. I don't have access to sources at present but am hoping some here does, and the time of course!

Hi Pincrete. I at least got what is there sourced, using a book I have at home. There's lots more that could be said about the ministry. Also, the unsourced material that was removed was taken from de.wiki without proper attribution. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some sources regarding the headquarters of the Ministry as well as the structure of the buildings, but I don't know how useful that would be. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 00:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2015

His middle name is Afuera AfueraDogeOut (talk) 11:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Newly declassified documents suggest Hitler survived the war

The documents -- available from the official FBI website suggest the FBI new about Adolf Hitlers whereabouts but did not act or do anything to kill/capture him.

http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view http://yournewswire.com/fbi-hitler-didnt-die-fled-to-argentina-stunning-admission/

From "yournewswire.com"; "Irrefutable Evidence that Hitler Escaped:

Perhaps the most damming evidence that Hitler did survive the fall of Germany lies in Russia. With the Soviet occupation of Germany, Hitler’s supposed remains were quickly hidden and sent off to Russia, never to be seen again. That is until 2009, when an archeologist from Connecticut State, Nicholas Bellatoni was allowed to perform DNA testing on one of the skull fragments recovered.

What he discovered set off a reaction through the intelligence and scholarly communities. Not only did the DNA not match any recorded samples thought to be Hitler’s, they did not match Eva Braun’s familiar DNA either. So the question is, what did the Soviets discover in the bunker, and where is Hitler?"

"Is it really possible that the Soviets have been lying all this time, and that history has purposely been rewritten?

No one thought so until the release of the FBI documents. It seems that it is possible that the most hated man in history escaped war torn Germany and lived a bucolic and peaceful life in the beautiful foothills of the Andes Mountains."

Hopper1010 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Other stories on Yournewswire.com include

• citing an anti-vaccer youtube channel,
• water-fluoridation conspiracy theories,
• retitling a legitimate science story into an ancient astronaut conspiracy theory,
• and a sensationalist re-titling of a biographical bit on Jack Parsons meant to give magic an argument from authority.

Yournewswire.com appears to be completely unreliable, and barely original. They take other stories (which may be legitimate or not), and retitle it into conspiracy-themed clickbait.

The FBI file (a primary source) explicitly states that they were "unable to verify" the claims and "Attempts to locate [Hitler] negative. No record of him in police or INS files." The information was traced to a reporter who claimed his source was just some guy named "Jack," who the FBI could not find any sign of existence for. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing "new" about the rumor and speculation in those FBI reports. Ian, is correct. Kierzek (talk) 19:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death -- Moxy (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

The FBI reports and rumors of survival are already discussed and cited in that article. Kierzek (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL Perhaps I should have been more clear as I dont want people to have to post for no reason or have to state the obvious....Should have said this junk is covered at Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death -- Moxy (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedians have to learn how to distinguish lousy sources from reliable sources before making too many changes to article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:39, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I stand corrected gentlemen. I just wanted to show this to y'all. I haven't made any edits to the page whatsoever. I apologize for the inconvenience. Hopper1010 (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Arminden, Diannaa, regarding HOW to describe 'Mein Kampf'. I took my description ('autobiographical manifesto') directly from the opening sentence of the main article, this seemed the most concise and accurate way to describe the work and I thought it inevitable (and desirable) on this main page that everything should be summarised concisely.

I agree with Arminden, that to simply describe it as a 'memoir', would be inadequate, it would probably not be so well-known still today it it were not also a 'statement of political belief/intent'. What I do not understand is why it is important to state that it is two-volume or what was is in each part. Yes it was initially published in two-volume format, later in single volume formats, but always seen as a single work.

Personally I prefer the description 'autobiographical' to 'memoir'. Recently 'memoir', has come to be used to describe 'creatively-novelistic' works which are 'quasi-autobiographical', but I will defer to the general opinion on that.

For the sake of others, the diffs are [2], [3], [4],[5]. Pincrete (talk) 14:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the tweak by Pincrete and Diannaa covered the matter and it does not have the un-needed verbiage which has been re-inserted presently. It should be reverted back. Kierzek (talk) 14:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

---

User:Pincrete, Diannaa, Kierzek, I agree with (almost) all. Not with Kierzek's tone ("verbiage" etc.), it's not very civil. I came across the page when it just stated "memoir", which we all agree is insufficient, and I brought in motion a discussion which led to a good solution. So "autobiography and manifesto" or smth. similar it shall be - who's taking the honour to put it in? Dealing with Hitler shouldn't "inspire" the tone of the discussion, Herr Kierzek, wenn Sie mich verstehen. Anyway, I'm out of here. Diannaa and Pincrete, it was a pleasure.Arminden (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I don't agree that simply stating "memoir" is insufficient, and I don't think anyone else does, either. That's why you have multiple editors reverting your edit. It's too much detail for the lead, as the article is not about Mein Kampf. The lead needs to be kept brief and precise. I am restoring Pincrete's simple wording. Further discussion is welcome of course. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Memoir is enough in the lead, surely? Britmax (talk) 18:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, there might be a misunderstanding, it was ME that first said 'memoir is inadequate' (meaning at least that 'autobiographical manifesto' is preferable). However, we all seem agreed to keep things concise.Pincrete (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I think "memoir" is enough, but "autobiographical manifesto" is good too. On a different topic, I have just removed some details about the "Heil" greeting, just added by User:Arminden. There's two reasons I did this: the material is off-topic for an article about Hitler, and it was sourced to de.wiki. Wikis are not considered as reliable sources. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Arminden: nothing "uncivil"; "verbiage" only means what occurred herein; the use of too many words to describe the matter; I believe "autobiographical manifesto" is better but the matter now is moot as the revert has been already made to this wording. Kierzek (talk) 21:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Diannaa, here I am again. I'm less concise than others, true, but sometimes it's needed. I contested "Heil" is the "German salute" the Nazis claimed it to be. I added why. You took out the "why" and left in my reduction. Result: the context seems to hint that greeting with "Heil" was somehow very German and anti-Habsburg. Unless you give some explanation, any German-speaker will claim that's nonsense. WP being unquotable is weird. Besides, I appreciate editors replacing one reference with a better one, but removing bits w/o replacement can be counterproductive. In this case, Austrians, Swiss and South-Tyrolians have access to the German WP and they can state what their local greeting is. That's reality for them, no need for an academic quote. So they are indeed using "Heil" and related "Hoi" until today, fact, useful, and the only easy quote is the German WP. Also, in the 1920s the pan-German-minded Austrians replaced "Hoch" (long live, referring to the Habsburg Emperor) with "Heil". This time German WP is offering a reference, Cornelia Schmitz-Berning: Vokabular des Nationalsozialismus, De Gruyter, Berlin 2000, S. 300-301. It's in German - now what?
In short: leaving in the German reference allows to put things right. Google Translation makes languages much less of an obstacle. Now what you have is statements lacking substance. Reference is only taking space at the bottom, within the main text I had only added a FEW words. Quite concise, still.
Deutschlandlied vs. Habsburg anthem: SAME HAYDN TUNE! So they sang the same song, just - how loudly? - used different lyrics. I grew up under dictatorship. I know the difference between shouting out your protest or just mumbling your own thing with no-one who's unaware of an insider code noticing.
Diannaa, I see you're a WP veteran and admin. You're getting things done, while I mostly "only" bring amendments. Just mind that some topics require nuances, not just straightforward decisions. Topics like Hitler have so much literature written about them that being even slightly inaccurate is not a good choice. You might not get away with it as with, say, the Australian dugong. Many will notice.
Don't get me wrong, I very much appreciate it all. Keep up the good work, Arminden (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Arminden, what you say about "Heil" is true, it's etymologically related to English "Hail" and English/Swedish "Hey"/"Hej", but unsourced paragraphs based on unsourced local knowledge can't go in. In this case it would be better to remove it from that section, unless that's what the ref says. Valenciano (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This 'south German' thing is a claim that's sometimes made. I don't buy it, given the evidence of the German nationalistic use of the heil greeting long before Adolf donned his lederhosen. Paul B (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The word 'Heil' is German. So it is a German salute. OK, so the Nazis liked to called the whole Heil Hitler shebang the "Deutscher gruss", well bully for them. These endless ramblings about whether it was originally used in Austria more than the Rhineland are just irrelevant to this article. Listen to some German operas, you hear 'heil' all the time. Play the end of Fidelio ("heil heil der könig"), or of act one of Tristan und Isolde ("Cornwall heil") or almost any scene of Götterdämmerung. You are making something overly significant out of a term that was a commonplace at the time and, yes, it had a pan-German significance. Paul B (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Correction: I'm conflating "heil heil der tag" from Fidelio with "heil könig Heinrich" from Lohengrin. Still, more heils than anyone can ever need. Paul B (talk) 22:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Arminden, conciseness is desirable in any article, in this particular one it is VITAL, as is remaining 'on-topic', otherwise the article would sprawl out of control from the sheer amount of possible, available information and possible conjectures.

If it is RS that AH and his friends used a greeting that had 'pan-German significance' at the time, then the info is relevant as showing an early identification. Everything else about the greeting is irrelevant. If it isn't RS, then it should go, not be expanded.Pincrete (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Folks, you're right. I've been reading about these topics for ages, and I never understood why they called the raised arm "German salute", where the "Heil" came from (I'm fluent in German, know well the use of the word - Barock and Romantic opera is not fully relevant :) -, been to much of Germany, Austria, CH, but apparently not in the Heil-using regions). The anthem was also something that caught my eye - today it's hard to imagine a national anthem being recycled, moving from one country to another. But I guess it's not relevant for this article. Just keep things accurate, when smth. is not too clear to the person who writes the text and they try to use vague language to gloss it over, like with the "German salute", it shows and with such popular topics you'll find a pedantic dude like me to push for clarification. Good luck, I hope I'll manage to stay out & mind my own business now. Arminden (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

The description 'German greeting' has gone, removed by Diannaa. In context, I presume its meaning anyway was 'Germanic' (ie identifying with Germany).Pincrete (talk) 22:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

There was no reference to Baroque (that's how it is spelled) opera, which would indeed have been irrelevant. If you don't see the relevance of Romanticism, and Wagner in particular, you don't know much about Hitler! Paul B (talk) 18:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure who the last remark is addressed to.Pincrete (talk) 19:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It was intended for User talk:Arminden. Britmax (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

---

Paul B: Are you sure you should write on WP? Because you most certainly don't seem to find the right tone. Rude & arrogant isn't very much appreciated anywhere, here as little as any place else.
"There was no reference to Baroque (that's how it is spelled) opera, which would indeed have been irrelevant. If you don't see the relevance of Romanticism, and Wagner in particular, you don't know much about Hitler! "
Aha. You've read a couple of books & listened to a bunch of records and now feel like you need to put others in their place, Victorian school style.
If you would know a bit more about German and have a feeling for the language, you'd know that "heil Dir" and such pompous expressions were very much typical for the German Baroque. Check Handel's anthem for Hannover, "Heil dir, Hannover", which is the base of the current English and former Imperial German anthem. But that's for you to look up, while it's irrelevant to my point.
Imagine that I know quite a bit about German culture, Nazi period included, and I might be able to teach you some. Same concerning logical thinking. It takes a very small person to write what you did. I hope you'll grow up some day, blush retrospectively, and know better. But you'd better start now. Especially about logic. I mean reading AND UNDERSTANDING what you're reading. Symbols, specific lingo, emblems etc. always matter, in the 1920ss-30s at least as much as now. This said, Hitler's provincial Austrian upbringing drew from many sources, Wagner though might not have been the main one during his childhood. Dialect and Kakanien-fatigue possibly were. Bavarians have "servus", the dialects I mentioned have "heil" and "hoi", which probably has to do with Catholicism, like "Grüß Gott" ("Heil" as a noun has a strong religious connotation of "redemption"). In operas the "heil" is directed towards kings, heroes or the beloved (Minne), not a common way to say "hello". But that's too high for some WP buffs, to put it that way.
The "that's how it is spelled" bit is too low to answer to.
Go read & live some more, and when you've reached a basic level of knowledge and maturity, you'll realise how little you know. And what civility means among people of culture, and among people period.
I would strongly recommend that you hold back with any further comments, which I'll be happy to ignore.Arminden (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

I fail to see anything rude in my comment, in contrast to you rambling self-praising utterances. So I now feel unconstrained to comment in similar language about your evident embarrassing ignorance of cultural history. I've been contributing to this article and talk page for a long time. Your narcissistic assertions about how much you know (not very much in evidence from your pronouncements) are not helpful. The Baroque is indeed utterly irrelevant to the issue, nor was it mentioned by anyone, unless you think Beethoven is "Baroque"! Wagner and German Romanticism, in contrast is, for reasons that any history book will tell you. Hitler's childhood is rather beside the point. The greeting was not chosen to be used by the Nazi party in his childhood was it? The use of the "Heil" greeting is more closely associated with pan-German ideology than any parochial matters of local dialects and idioms. Bluster can't conceal that. In any case, these matters are appropriate for discussion at the Hitler salute article, not to this one. Paul B (talk) 20:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Bavarian dialect: supporting citations

• Keller 2010, page 15: "Er spielt viel mit den Nachbarskindern und eignet sich im Kontakt mit ihnen den Niederbayerischen Dialekt an, den er zeitlebens biebehält." (He played a lot with the neighborhood children, and through them came in contact with the Lower Bavarian dialect, which he retained for the rest of his life.)
• Hamann 2010, page 7-8: "Between 1892 and 1895 Alois went to work in Passau, on the German side of the border, during which time the three- to six-year-old boy acquired his peculiar Bavarian accent: The German of my youth was the dialect of Lower Bavaria; I could neither forget it nor learn the Viennese jargon."
• Kubizek 2006, p. 37: "He disliked dialect, in particular Viennese, the soft melodiousness of which was utterly repulsive to him. To be sure, Hitler did not speak Austrian in the true sense. It was rather that in his diction, especially in the rhythm of his speech, there was something Bavarian. Perhaps this was due to the fact that from his third to his sixth year, the real formative years for speech, he lived in Passau, where his father was then a customs official." -- Diannaa (talk) 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Dialect

You folks made me curious. I knew Salzburg has had a checkered history between Austria and Bavaria, and Passau has belonged to both. Now I've checked it closer. In short, Passau is right on the border. The political border is slightly different from the linguistic/dialectal one, says Wolfram Heinrich, a Bavarian psychologist, blogger and non-fiction book author. The river Inn is the actual border between the "Upper Austrian" (Oberösterreich) and Bavarian dialect zones, which makes sense, since rivers are more influential than border treaties when it comes to things like traditions and language. The Hitlers have lived on Kapuzinerstrasse, which is in Beiderwies, also known as Innstadt ("Town on the Inn"). That's been made a part of Passau only in 1923, so the Hitlers actually never did live in Passau! Before that it was an independent commune. And where? Across the Inn from Passau, so in terms of dialect on the Austrian side.[6] According to Wolfram Heinrich, all until today a Bavarian can tell the difference in accent/dialect when he speaks to an old Beiderwies resident, and even the types of coffee served there are typical Austrian, not known otherwise in Germany. Heinrich's posting is at [7]. He is the most eloquent commentator on the subject. The SPIEGEL has a perfectly quotable article on Hitler written by a professor of history and contemporary of Hitler [8], but the man is from Hamburg and can't tell Bavarian from Upper Austrian dialects if his life depended on it. What he and [9] write is that Hitler did, as expected, adapt his vocabulary to the context: soldiers' slang for his military or party pals, and Austro-Bavarian words from his youth when in "private circles". His "official" way to speak was neither, but an artificial "stage German" spoken by no-one in the street.
"Upper Austrian": just look at the map - Braunau and Linz are little over 90 km apart, Beiderwies and Leonding less than 70.
Since he lived in Beiderwies at an age where children pick up a lot of words, its influence was probably strong. Whoever has seen a child changing schools, let alone cities, knows though how fast they re-adapt.
In short: 1) Hitler never lived in Passau proper, but in Beiderwies, which became an administrative part of Passau only 29 years after he moved on and in any case was and still is until today on the Austrian side of the dialectal border. 2) Whoever wants to distinguish "Lower Bavarian" (Niederbayerisch) from Passau from "Upper Austrian" (Oberösterreichisch) from Beiderwies, must be a native speaker from that very area. The statement "distinctive lower Bavarian dialect, rather than Austrian German" from the article is a bit of a joke - the difference is there, but as "distinctive" as such close proximity can allow, and anyhow, Hitler spoke by all logic the slightly more Austrian version, NOT the Bavarian one. That's because Hitler never did live on the historically Bavarian side of the border as a child. As an adult, whatever he allowed to show of his "dialect" (which he managed to suppress to the largest degree possible), was Upper Austrian, not Bavarian, in all likeliness a mix mainly from Beiderwies (closer to Lower Bavarian) and Leonding/Lambach/Fischlham (Upper Austria, more remote from Bavaria), indeed with bits picked up from his time in Vienna and Munich. The sentence from the article is as fishy as I thought it to be. I won't touch it, people dealing with this Hitler topic seem terribly territorial and protective. Good luck with storming the castle, Arminden (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Diannaa, now I read your quotes. Thank you, I was quite curious about them. I don't know where Keller and Hamann come from, but Kubizek was Hitler's boyhood friend and the best witness for such fine-tuning issues. What he writes makes much more sense: "Hitler did not speak Austrian in the true sense. It was rather that in his diction, especially in the rhythm of his speech, there was something Bavarian." Very careful language used by a musician, hinting at the melody of the speech, diction, rhythm... "there was something Bavarian". So for a speaker of "clean" dialectal Austrian and musician, there was a some distinguishable difference. Nothing of the kind of "distinctive lower Bavarian dialect, rather than Austrian German". I'm not just being pedantic, I've lived for well over a decade in Bavaria and have spent many holidays across the border, which counts to me a bit more than this or that book.Arminden (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

(add to ancestory)

After the war Hitler's former lawyer, Hans Frank, claimed that Hitler told him in 1930 that one of his relatives was trying to blackmail him by threatening to reveal his alleged Jewish ancestry.[16] Hitler asked Frank to find out the facts. Frank says he determined that at the time Maria Schicklgruber gave birth to Alois she was working as a household cook in the town of Graz, her employers were a Jewish family named Frankenberger, and that her child might have been conceived out of wedlock with the family's 19-year-old son, Leopold Frankenberger.[17]

However, all Jews had been expelled from the province of Styria (which includes Graz) in the 15th century and were not allowed to return until the 1860s when Alois was around 30. Also, there is no evidence of a Frankenberger family living in Graz at that time. Scholars such as Ian Kershaw and Brigitte Hamann dismiss the Frankenberger hypothesis (which had only Frank's speculation to support it) as baseless.[18][19][20][21] (Kershaw cites several stories circulating in the 1920s about Hitler's Jewish ancestry including one about a "Baron Rothschild" in Vienna in whose household Maria Schicklgruber had worked for some time as a servant).[22] Frank's story contains several inaccuracies and contradictions, such as he said "The fact that Adolf Hitler had no Jewish blood in his veins, seems, from what has been his whole manner, so blatant to me that it needs no further word",[23] also the statement Frank had said that Maria Schicklgruber came from "Leonding near Linz", when in fact she came from the hamlet of Strones, near the village of Döllersheim.[24] Rosenbaum suggests that Frank, who though he had turned against Nazism after 1945 remained an anti-Semitic fanatic, made the claim that Hitler had Jewish ancestry as a way of proving that Hitler was a Jew and not an Aryan.[25]71.174.0.240 (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

References

 Not done: all of this content is already available at Alois Hitler, and there's no need to repeat it here. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Alfons Heck

He was a member of the Hitler Youth and wrote a couple of books on that period, it hardly qualifies him to be a historian. I have seen no evidence to even suggest he was a historian.

I propose removing historian before his name in the article.--Hashi0707 (talk) 01:35, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Normally that would be a good reason to remove him. However, he is being cited for a first-hand account of what German perception of Hitler at the time. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I think removal of the word "historian" is a good idea though, and have gone ahead with that; I changed it to "author". -- Diannaa (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think his account of what it was like should be removed but just the "historian" bit because he was not a historian and just an author of two books about the Third Reich era.

Thanks Diannaa.--Hashi0707 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree; I think the quote is really telling, and nicely captures the flavour of the era. Best, -- Diannaa (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it is Diannaa.--Hashi0707 (talk) 06:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.130.4.182 (talk)

Changing "racially inferior" to Untermenschen ("sub-humans")

The term Untermenschen was also used against German criminals and Communists not necessarily racially inferior people such as the Jews.--Hashi0707 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good edit to me. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Category overkill?

I noticed that there seems to be 'category overkill' in listing AH as '20th-century Austrian Painter' '20th-century German Painter', 'Austrian writer' '20th-century German writer' and 'German political writer'. Since it is only the last (German political writer), for which AH is at all notable, do we need the others and are they helpful?Pincrete (talk) 11:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Hitler was certainly a mediocre painter, whose works would have zero notability were he not also one of history's most infamous figures. He never earned a living as a painter, and as far as I can see, was never celebrated as one either. It was a hobby, nothing more. I suggest removing these categories. -- The Anome (talk) 12:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This is analagous to categorising Harry S Truman or Condoleezza Rice as American pianists, or Einstein as a German classical violinist. These hobbies are well-known, but they contributed NOT ONE JOT of notability. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've just discovered Hitler briefly earned a living as a painter. Still not notable as one though. -- The Anome (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How about writer? (exception being 'German Political writer', which does seem noteworthy, though we are mainly talking about 1 book). I'm not sure what policy is on categories.Pincrete (talk) 13:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Although he only wrote one, odious, book, it is alas one of the most famous books ever written, and the "writer" category is appropriate. -- The Anome (talk) 13:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

But doesn't 'German Political writer' cover that adequately? Pincrete (talk) 13:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed 'artist' categories + 'historian of Fascism' category … … I leave others to judge 'writer' categories.Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Category:Austrian writers, as the article is already included in it automatically through its inclusion in Category:20th-century Austrian writers. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Mein Kampf" was originally two volumes and he wrote another book thereafter, the Zweites Buch, so "writer" is appropriate; but with that said, I agree there were too many cats and it is better now; good catch. Kierzek (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler - The Greatest Story NEVER Told

I have removed the link to the youtube page for this video as its has copyright restrictions applied to it. Is there another link that does not have this problem? I am also seeing that the reviews for the film are not all that good....anyone have a scholarly review of the film? I am going to watch this tonight. -- Moxy (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

From what I have read, looks like it has other problems as well; WP:OR and WP:NPOV. Kierzek (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Especially where it talks about the Nazi's "offering peace" to the defenders of Warsaw when they were actually demanding surrender. They never offered to recognize Polish sovereignty and withdraw from Polish territory. He completely glosses over the unprovoked invasions of several neutral nations. He doesn't even get to the Holocaust, but given the over all tone I'm sure it will be a complete denial and an attempt at justification all wrapped into one! John Alan Elson★ WF6I A.P.O.I. 23:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I also looked at reviews. The film is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, and it is not an appropriate external link for a Wikipedia article per WP:EL.

Second that! With so much high quality documentary material, how did this ever get in in the first place? Apart from the Copyvio issue.Pincrete (talk) 11:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I have watched Adolf Hitler: The Greatest Story Never Told and I can say for all those who's wondering that it's a useless peace of crap! It's made a convinced Nazi who properly used something like Windows Movie Maker to make it. It's essentially a combination of a bunch of World War II documentaries pitched together. The documentary contains extremely many historical errors, is filled with obvious Nazi-point of views and completely contradicts some of the most basic points in both Hitler's life and political reasons behind World War II. In short, it should never be considered a reliable source or used for anything on Wikipedia. Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Primary instigator"

In the sentence "[as the effective dictator of Nazi Germany Hitler was] at the centre of [WW II and the Holocaust]" in the lede, I've replace the words "at the centre of" with "was the primary instigator of". There is absolutely no doubt that Hitler was primarily responsible for the war, and, while there is no single "smoking gun" for his being in direct control of the Holocaust, he was directly responsible for promoting the idea of the extermination of the Jews, and there's undeniable evidence that he was aware that it was being put into action. -- The Anome (talk) 12:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've just seen that there has been previous discussion on this issue from the comment of this revert. How about the wording "primary instigator of WW II and at the centre of the Holocaust"? -- The Anome (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinion, I find the conciseness and slight understatement of the present wording adequate and apt.Pincrete (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I find the present wording to be adequate, otherwise it opens up the debate more as to the meaning and limits of the wording; and believe me it was not easy reaching consensus for what is there now; but with that said, I await further comments from other regular editors herein and am open to their thoughts. Kierzek (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that whenever mentioning his involvement in starting WWII, write something like "WWII in Europe" as he did not exactly cause the outbreak of the wars in Asia, which started before Hitler even came to power. Best, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 23:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Zero citations in the pretext."

What gives?

I presume that you're referring to the lead section? (the bit before the table of contents). They don't need to be referenced as their content is referenced in the body of the article - please see WP:CITELEAD Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Deaths or killing

There is currently a disagreement as to whether 'responsible for the deaths' or 'responsible for the killing' is the apt wording in the lede. I take the attitude that 'responsible for the deaths' is sufficiently clear as to where responsibility lay and that 'killing' (which implies something more active), is unnecessary. Opinions?

Note that 'killing' was changed to 'death' in an edit which stated: "killing implies deliberateness, most of the deaths were due to disease, neglect, starvation, Allied action etc. Deaths is accordingly a more appropriate term." That's classic denialist rhetoric. The source is clear that this was indeed deliberate. Indeed mass death by starvation was explicitly a part of Nazi strategy for the east. Paul B (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B, I certainly didn't give this as an edit reason and have tried to make it clear that I prefer 'responsible for the deaths' PRECISELY because it does NOT side-step the issue of responsibility. It does side-step the issue of whether these deaths were bullets in the head/gassings or simply the foreseeable and inevitable consequence of the conditions under which the victims were forced to live.

I am happy to defer to majority opinion, but tend to think that slight understatement is actually clearer and more effective. I cannot answer for the other editor who initially made the change, but I am certainly not peddling 'denialist rhetoric'. Pincrete (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am of course referring to the editor who initially changed it [10]. You must have seen from my edit summary that I was merely reverting to the established text. I might not have objected to 'deaths' had it not been for the absurd reasons given, since as you say 'responsible for' does imply guilt. Paul B (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hope no-one minds, I've moved some comments and seperated two strands (civilian deaths NUMBERS and whether civilian deaths or killings is apt). I've done this to make the two strands clearer to others.Pincrete (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Paul B, it's OK, I didn't take offence. Perhaps it would help if I clarified my logic, which was largely linguistic. I asked myself if it would be normal to speak of being 'killed by starvation/exhaustion/neglect' (I thought not) , of being 'killed by disease' (I thought possibly). I came to the conclusion that 'kill' requires an active agent (person, bomb, bullet etc.). Additionally I thought that even deaths caused by allied actions etc. (where the actual 'killer' was an allied pilot, soldier etc.), most historians would still place the ultimate responsibility (if not the immediate) on the Nazi regime. It was this line of logic that led me to think that 'deaths', was more appropriate than 'killings'. I'm sure that many historians use both words in various contexts (and in many contexts use 'murder'). I leave it to others to judge which is more apt here.Pincrete (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Civilian deaths

Towards the end of the lede we have "Hitler and the Nazi regime were also responsible for the deaths of an estimated 19.3 million civilians and prisoners of war. In addition, 29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European Theatre of World War II ... ".

There is an ambiguity here as HOW MANY civilians died (are the same civilians included in BOTH figures?) and what total deaths were (19.3 + 29 million?). Someone who knows the figures better than I might want to clarify the phrasing.Pincrete (talk) 12:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The figures come from Rummel's chart, which shows democidal deaths of 19.3 million people plus additional combat deaths of 28.7 million, some of whom were civilians (for example, people who starved in Leningrad and Stalingrad). The chart is tricky to read; the totals for each grouping are at the top of that group. The first category is "genocide"; he tallies 16.3 million people in this group. The second category is "institutional killings", 11.28 million (some of which are included in the "genocide" tally). The third group is "democide in occupied Europe"; this includes people in the first two categories (which overlap with each other). The fourth group is "European war dead" (European soldiers; does not include American/Canadian/Australian soldiers killed in European theatre); this group comprises 28.7 million people. There's extensive discussion of this topic at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 66#Adolf Hitler. Gotta go to work now, ttyl. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, thanks for full reply. The ambiguities are mainly as a result of how the figures are formulated, rather than in our rendering of them. Short of using different figures, there is no clearer phrasing.Pincrete (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Austrian-born?

It's true that he was born in Austria-Hungary at the time, but eventually declared and became a German. The citizenship is what counts, not the birthplace. (N0n3up (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

Stating both is good and precise. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that citizenship is what counts, and don't see any reason in the manual of style why this fact should not be included in the lead. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa, User:NeilN, I see that it might be fine according to Wikipedia to add "Austrian-born", but wouldn't it generally be incorrect to mix the place of birth with their citizenship? Hitler although born an Austrian, considered himself German and constantly disassociated himself from his Austrian roots. This can also be seen in various factors and details during his invasion of Austria. I did the same thing with the article of Arnold Schwarzenegger since I thought he didn't have Austrian citizenship, something I was wrong about. And besides there is the case where people often have strong sentiments in regards to nationality to the point that it becomes a personal issue to many individuals (which I think is stupid in my opinion). This might be the case of many, but Benedict Arnold is one example (in regards to the sentiment, not the citizenship since the US didn't exist during his time). (N0n3up (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

Hitler's own feelings about his Austrian ancestry are irrelevant to whether or not we should include it in the lead. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa I'm not talking about his feelings, I'm talking about the inaccuracy of adding "Austrian-born" in the sentence. It gives a wrong concept of who Hitler was. Take for example Ted Cruz who was born in Canada but is an American who's even a possible candidate for the American presidency. Another example is Henry Kissinger, former national security advisor and US secretary of state who was born in Germany but established himself and became associate to the United States, thus mentioning him as "German-born" would be inaccurate. Jean Reno who was born in Morocco is known as simply French because of his citizenship. Not to mention that Hitler wasn't very associated with Austria and invaded Austria as a German. (N0n3up (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

(1) Saying Kissinger was German-born is not inaccurate. (2) Hitler did not invade Austria. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Diannaa Kissinger is in no way associated with Germany anymore thus being inaccurate because he spent most of his life and associated himself to the United States. And even if Hitler didn't invade Austria (which he did) still doesn't justify to define him as Austrian-born. I thought the same thing once when I edited the article of Roberto Mangabeira Unger in here:[11] until I stood corrected by Archivingcontext, who was right about what he said. (N0n3up (talk) 23:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

Don't be silly. Saying where someone is born doesn't then cancel out/confuse subsequent changes in citizenship, and is significant information in biographies. Biographies of Hitler routinely note where he was born and raised, and there are a number of works discussing what impact this had on his political beliefs and career. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D It might be true in regards to biographies, but it still doesn't describe their status quo of their position or nature, or historical figure in this case. (N0n3up (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC))

Nick-DDiannaa, In case if this is a nationalistic reason, I understand his infamy but adding "Austrian-born" just misleads the information. May I suggest we just don't mention his birthplace or nationality? (N0n3up (talk) 01:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

Sorry, I don't think that would be a good edit. It's not misleading information at all; in fact it's useful information that the reader is looking for. We need to include the birthplace and the German citizenship that he eventually obtained. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Although his birthplace is already mentioned in the infobox, a fast access to the information as you said is actually a good reason to keep the sentence there. But are you sure it doesn't alter the information in regards to his nationality? (N0n3up (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

Diannaa And what about WP:OPENPARA, it doesn't say anything about birthplace. (N0n3up (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

Diannaa And what about Isaac Asimov? (N0n3up (talk) 02:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

Why do you want to compare Hitler to a science fiction writer? Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Nick-D I'm not, I'm just saying that Isaac Asimov was an American, even though he was born in Russia. (N0n3up (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC))

The fact that Hitler was born in Austria is factually correct, so whatever citizenship he gained later doesn't change his birthplace. Furthermore, the fact that he considered himself a German, stuck growing up separate from the Fatherland, was to have a profound influence on his life. Where he was born isn't just a simple fact for the infobox, but directly accounts for his strong desire to reunite all ethnic Germans into the Fatherland. Dworjan (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so you've managed to find some articles which don't mention birth-countries in the lede. There are also many that do. Shall we just exchange article-names? What would that prove? All we can say is that's there's no single rigid rule. Isaac Asimov's family left Russia when he was three. Hitler grew up in Austria, and the relation between Austria and Germany was a central concern of his throughout his career. It seems obvious that in this case it is better to have Austrian-born in the lede than to leave it out. Paul B (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the (brief mention) of his birthplace is relevant and notable.Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Also agree that a brief mention of his birthplace is correct. Kierzek (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

We now have User:Boeing720 trying to change Austrian to Austro-Hungarian, with the edit summary "Don't 'hide' the nation where he was born. Hitler found Austia-Hungary to be week due to its multi enthnical composition." For a start, the suggestion that there is an attempt to hide something is not helpful. In any case, I don't think changing to "Austro-Hungarian" is desirable for two reasons. First, it is too confusing to the reader for the first sentence. Second, Austria-Hungary was not a "country". It was a dual monarchy, which created a quasi-independent Hungary under the Habsburg crown (Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867). The Austrian empire was still a separate entity. Paul B (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be noted that while H did consider himself a German, he considered all Austrians Germans as well. He viewed Austrians as a regional identity of Germans (like Bavarians for example), so his personal views really don't do anything to negate his "Austrainness". It would be quite misleading to state "he considered himself German, and therefore was not Austrian". For him (and very many other Austrians at that time), those were not mutually-exclusive categories. -- Director (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree that a brief mention of his birthplace n lead is best...--Moxy (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The truth is Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary. Not much to discuss really. But it was within this nation he grew up and developed his antisemitism as well as his antipathy towards the slaves. He drew the conclutions that this multi-ethnical nation was week from within. Also in "Mein Kampf" he makes complaints how fast Budapest had grewn after the Hungarians got equal status with the German speakers. Further, The Habsburg monarchy had during centuries before been regarded as Europe's "safety" against the muslim Ottoman Empire. But as the Turks no longer was concidered a threat in the 20th Century, the fundaments of this nation was questioned by far more than Hitler. It's essential for the readers to understand where he grew up. Today's Austria is just a small German speaking country, but the Austro-Hungarian Empire was an entirely different nation. Let's give the readers the truth here ! Boeing720 (talk) 18:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It's the lead which is a summary for a much longer article. Leave it as it is. Britmax (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fully agree, but he still was born in Austria-Hungary, not current Austria.Boeing720 (talk) 18:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Further, this isn't a matter of "association", just pure facts. I fully agree with Diannaa. But I can't see any reason to avoid the nation he actually was born in. It's a simple principle. Austria didn't even exist until Hitler was almost 30 years old. I do though find it very positive, that the article differs between Hitler becomming chancellor in -33 and "Führer" first after Hindenburg's death -34. Boeing720 (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Anyone who follows the links will get to the fuller picture. Alex Salmond is described as 'a Scottish politician', because that is how he is generally identified, his passport is 'British', and in this case Britain still exists as a unified entity. AH's Austria-Hungarian-ness is not especially relevant, especially as they were not a single unified entity.Pincrete (talk) 19:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I dont really care one way or the other since the link is to the right page...BUT!! saying "Austria-Hungary (in present day Austria)" in the lead would solve some problems and is what "Wikipedia:WikiProject Austria" advice is for this time period.... that is a mentioning of both with links is best....but this is done in the body of the article if people want to learn more. I also think its is best not to over overwhelming readers with detailed info in the lead..but correct titles for the links we use is best. Yes the way its said in the article is perfect and simply to much for the lead.... but the lead is a bit off..but with the right link. Moxy (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Boeing720, I've already addressed the claim that Austria-Hungary was a "country" (17:03, 26 April post). You do not seem to have read it. Paul B (talk) 19:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

First - I have most certainly NOT stated "Austria-Hungary (in present day Austria)" in the lead would solve some problems. Just Austria-Hungary and nothing else ! I'm very aware that the UK comprices four countries (and modern Germany 15 Bundesländer, where "länder" is countries, and USA has 50 its states etc - so what ?). But this is totally outside what we discuss, a brief but correct lead. Are there really anyone who think Hitler was born in Austria rather than Austria-Hungary ? If not so, then why complicate matters ? (Totally beside the point, Austria-Hungaria was after 1867 internally divided in a German speaking part and a Hungarian speaking part, (but all other nationalities had to learn German or Hungarian) yes. And by the outbreak of the First World War was Bosnia-Herzegovina a part of both parts. But when Hitler was born, he was "subordinated" to the Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz-Joseph.) Boeing720 (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

It is not beside the point. It is central to the point. Austria certainly 'existed', contrary to your false assertions, and it was central to Hitler's conception of his identity. Hitler was not in any meaningful sense "Austro-Hungarian", which just a little short of as meaningless as describing Bal Gangadhar Tilak as a "British Empireian" rather than an Indian. Paul B (talk) 20:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'Are (sic) there really anyone who think Hitler was born in Austria rather than Austria-Hungary?' Yes, a lot of people, an Austria admittedly which at the time was a component part of a larger Austria-Hungarian construct. Hence the Scottish analogy, some Scots identify and are identified as Scottish, some see themselves as British, all of them are part of the same larger political union. What I think Boeing720 has not established is why Austro-Hungarian is important, rather than simply misleadingly complicating.Pincrete (talk) 20:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Fact - see any map of the time (between 1867-1914)- Hitler was born in a minor village called Braunau am Inn. This settlement was at the time of his birth a part of the Austo-Hungarian Empire. How this empire was internally divided isn't of any importance for the lead. Place of Birth, National self-identification and citizenship are three very separate matters, atleast the might be - and is in the case of Hitler.

The birth phrase in the lead could best be something like

"Hitler was born in a German speaking part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire". (the German speaking areas of that Empire was several, although it's true that Braunau am Inn was located in the largest such area). If a Scotsman is born in Bristol, his Place of Birth isn't Scottish. Boeing720 (talk) 22:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

But if he's born in Edinburgh IT IS, despite it being part of Britain(reply inserted out of sequence by Pincrete).Pincrete (talk) 00:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Being rather well familiar with the complex politics of Austria-Hungary, I think it can be said, with no apology, both that "Hitler was born in Austria", and that "Hitler was Austrian". Not only was he born in what was considered the Archduchy of Austria (albeit unofficially at that time), but the actual official name of the province of his birth was Upper Austria (called such both then and now). In the former regard, bear in mind that while Cisleithania was indeed split apart into numerous small provinces for administration's sake, the title "Archduke of Austria" still very much remained in use by the Habsburgs.

As regards him being "Austrian", he simply is no matter how you slice it. In the modern sense - he's Austrian plain and simple (sorry Austria): you don't stop being Austrian if you go and live in Germany. Nor did he consider himself any less "Austrian" than very many Austrians did (quite likely the majority, in fact). In the prevailing contemporary sense, he was both "Austrian" and "German", as the terms were not mutually-exclusive, i.e. being "Austrian", you were a (type of) "German". Just as being, say, Scandinavian, doesn't mean you're not Swedish. Its hard to see what differentiates him from your contemporary "Austrian".

P.s. There really is no such thing as the "Austro-Hungarian Empire", that's a misnomer. The ruler was an Emperor-King, its both a kingdom and an empire at the same time, in equal measure. The proper name of the state is Austria-Hungary. Hungarians tend to get offended when its called an "Empire"... -- Director (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Director, I haven't stated Hitler being "Austrian", nor "Austro-Hungarian". This is only a question of Place of Birth "He was born in...".

Just like Julius Caesar who was (to my knowlidge at least) born in The Roman Republic which after him become The Roman Empire. Not Italy ! Likewise, in 1889, the location where Hitler was born was a part of Austria-Hungarian nation, which indeed had two capitals (after 1867) but still only one Emperor. It was the Archduke of this Empire who got shot in Sarajevo, which ignited the spark that started the war.

Again - I'm not talking of anything else but Place of Birth, nothing else. I can see German Wiki wrights he was born in the area or province of Oberösterreich ("Upper Austria"), but that's sliced in my oppinion.

I assume You have read, one result of WW1 was the downfall of three Empires; Tsar Russia, German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian or Habsburgian Empire (and together with the Ottoman Empire they were four). But nicknames like "The Donau Monarchy" or "The double Monarchy" has never implied the nation as not being an Empire. And here is one explination to why there is confusiuon about this Empire, Outside "The Donau Monarchy" "Austria" remained as one of its nicknames (nickname after 1867, that is). Boeing720 (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

No one cares about your personal views, especially as they're associated with tiresome edit warring. If you think that the article is mistaken and want to convince others, please provide an assessment of what different reliable sources say on this topic. However, this isn't likely to support your position given that both Kershaw and Richard E. Evans state that Hitler was born in "Austria". Hitler also wrote that he was born in "German-Austria" in Mein Kampf, with the translator noting that by this he meant what's generally considered Austria [12]. Nick-D (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

We could say he was born in Upper Austria, Austria-Hungary. Seems logical?

I won't go into the Julius Caesar thing... its FAR more complicated than that. Like ten times more. Should suffice to say the country never actually changed its name (anywhere near JC's lifetime), nor did it officially change its system of government. Even in terms of historical convention, it wasn't Caesar who established the Empire, but Octavian Augustus.. and neither he nor any of his (immediate) successors called themselves "emperors"... Also, whatever you may think, its more accurate to say "Austria-Hungary", than "Austro-Hungarian Empire". The former is the state's actual name, the latter is a misnomer that got established in general use. Its a bit confusing, I'll grant, because the state is technically an "empire" - but its also a kingdom. Everything about Austria-Hungary, you may find, is a bit more complex than at first it seems. Its not for no reason the term "kafkaesque" was coined.. -- Director (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As Nick-D says, if the majority of RS describe his place of birth as 'Austria', and him as 'Austrian' end of discussion. We link to the the more complex political history. This is the opening sentence of the Hitler page, it isn't necessary or useful to get bogged down in the complexities of AusHun history here.Pincrete (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

That's fine with me. However - I think Boeing as a point in that the exact contemporary context of his birth should be stated as well. Perhaps in the section below.. We have to state he was born in Austria-Hungary, right? -- Director (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

See the first sentence of Adolf Hitler#Childhood and education Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Right. We're done I think. -- Director (talk) 10:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, clear, concise. As long as someone doesn't say 'the lede contradicts the body', for that reason only, would it be better to phrase 'at that time part of AusHun' rather than 'part of present day Aus' ?Pincrete (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It occurs to me that we are getting three related ideas muddled. One is 'country' as geographical place (existing regardless of its political status). Two is 'nation' as identity and culture. Three is 'sovereign state' (the largest political unit in a constitutional arrangement). Some are also proposing that only the last is meaningful or accurate. Just to point out that the logical extension of that proposal would be that no-one would be 'Irish', 'Welsh' or 'Scottish', during the period that those countries are/were part of Britain.

Others clearly know Austria's history better than me, but I believe it is true that 'Austria' was always meaningful geographically, that German-Austrian existed as AH's identity and that Austria was a sufficently distinct component of Austria-Hungary for the term to be meaningful at that time. So long as we link to the 'fuller picture', I don't understand the problem.Pincrete (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't see why this part of the article needs changing. Hitler was born in Austria-Hungary and this is mentioned in the leading sentence which says "Austrian-born German" which links the former part to his birthplace country (Austria-Hungary) and the latter to Germans. Hitler's citizenship is mentioned in the article. Hitler considered himself both Austrian and German. Hitler like many others saw Austrians as Germans, the vast majority of the German-speaking Austrians in the multi-ethnic Austria-Hungary Empire considered themselves as Germans and advocated a Greater Germany. The national identity of Austria was a lot different in the early 20th century compared to now.

@N0n3up - Austria was not invaded in the 1938 Anschluss but that's irrelevant to this discussion anyways.--Hashi0707 (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hashi0707 I think we actually agree, though have chosen to say it differently.Pincrete (talk) 20:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Future Danger

The reason to why I feel already the first mention of Hitler's place of birth ought to be the "Austro-Hungarian Empire" (or possibly "Old Austria") is, by not stating the exact facts, we might give neo-nazists and similar people a point. They might say "look here - born in Austria, but actually the nation was Austria-Hungaria" (possibly enhanced by the fact that his father was a customs officer within that Empire) followed by something like "yet another myth proven wrong". By being so correct as we possible be (i.o.w. doing our best), no one can use our article for such purposes. And it's far from all who read the entire article.

Hitler's self-identification in this context (reg. place of birth) is of no significance at all, although his life in "the Dubble Donau Monarchy" affected him, especially during his time in Vienna. But that's another chapter. I also want to add that there is no reason to exaggerate, hide facts, using non verifiable rumours or to add pure lies through dubious sources, about Hitler. By simply stating the known truth (through sources as usual) Hitler's deeds are well enough horrific. But any step away from the known truth, might give "Hitler-supporters" and Holocaust deniers like David Irving unnecessary fuel for their cause(s). In my oppinion at least. Boeing720 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no case for putting everything in the lead just in case people don't read the whole article. If there was every article would just be a repeat of its lead. A summary will always leave something out, that is the definition of "a summary". Britmax (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Wholly agree with Britmax and this is simply extending the discussion above, therefore I've made this into a sub-section, hope nobody objects.Pincrete (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

We do state the known truth. Please do not sully your case with hyperbole about "non verifiable rumours", "pure lies" and "dubious sources". This is pure hysteria over a matter that has no relevance whatever to holocaust denial (!). Paul B (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Britmax) Agree in general, but I beg to differ about this perticular matter. Place of birth does belong in the lead. Couldn't we use "Hitler was born in Old Austria ? This would remove "Hungary" but still will differ between today's Austria and the former Empire. This discussion infact began with a user questioning "Austria" and wanted "Germany" instead, so obviously there is a call for some kind of change. If any one thinks it's not essential where he was born, read chapter 2-3 of his "Mein Kampf". It was indeed in Vienna where Hitler developed his rabiate and absurd anti-semitism. The city (which around 1900 was one of the largest in Europe) was full of anti-semitic papers, and Hitler even found some of the anti-semitism to be so silly that it got contra productive. Boeing720 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Place of birth is in the lead, as far as it needs to be. Leave it alone. Go and do something useful, like learning to spell. Britmax (talk) 18:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Unhelpful Fuhrer category

This edit [13], adds a 'Fuhrer of NG' category. Is this helpful since it inevitably will remain an AH category?Pincrete (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It covers him as a head of state of a former country, something no category yet did. Dimadick (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dimadick, I'm sorry I don't know guidelines on 'categories', but one minor problem we have on this page is 'category overkill'. IF AH is 'head of state of a former country' (is Nazi Germany a former country, or just a different regime?), why not place him in that category? As I say I don't know about category guidelines or operations, but a category with one member seems strange.Pincrete (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC) ps Nazi Ger IS in the 'former countries' category, so the answer to THAT question is 'yes'.

Balls

How many did he have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.193.170 (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

No-one knows: Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably two. Kierzek (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hm, I thought he lost one during WWI. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, but probably not, see NickD's link above.Pincrete (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You know someone is worthy of an article on Wikipedia when that persons balls or ball have an article for themselves! :) Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Does that constitute a new notability criterion?Pincrete (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015

Under early years in "Ancestry", Please add to the sentence Hitler's father, Alois Hitler, Sr. (1837–1903), was the illegitimate child of Maria Anna Schicklgruber,[2] "a servant girl from Strones in the Waldviertel region of Archduchy of Austria." Julian.Jalani (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please give your source for this information so that its reliability can be assessed. Britmax (talk) 06:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The family background of Alois Hitler is examined in the article on Alois. You need to make a case that his grandmother's maiden name should be mentioned here. It's not usual to provide such tangental information in biographical articles. In this case it's only relevance would be the old myth that Schicklgrubber was Hitler's 'real' name, but that's not addressed in the article, so I doubt that there is a good case. Paul B (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 12:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Paul Barlow, there is no need to add it to this article as "the family background of Alois Hitler is examined in the article on Alois" and also the Hitler family article, as well. Kierzek (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

adolf hitler health

For clarity, these edits are being discussed below: [14]& [15].Pincrete (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

psychiatrist such as Dr. Theodor Morell. claims that Hitler exhibited psychological disorders such as extreme paranoia i want this information to be appear on adolf hitler health section (unsigned comment by Krishnachaitan [16])

The source you've provided says that the book's argument is actually that "though Hitler exhibited many psychiatric symptoms, including extreme paranoia and defenses that "could fill a psychiatry textbook," he most likely was not truly mentally ill". As such, you're misrepresenting its argument (which, as I understand it, reflects the current consensus on this topic: eg, that while Hitler's physical and mental health wasn't great and deteriorated from about 1942, it didn't greatly influence his conduct). Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Nazis from outside Germany

I think we should add Hitler to the Nazis from outside Germany and Austrian Nazis categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.105.96.92 (talk) 02:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the page information: "This category is for people who were Nazis but were not German. It should not include those Nazis born outside Germany who nonetheless were based in Nazi Germany."

Hitler was an ethnic German and although born outside of Germany (in 1889) he was based in Nazi Germany.--Hashi0707 (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic canards?

I'm not sure about this edit[17]. Whilst much of the anti-Semetism might have exploited canards, can you have virulent canards? Also is it not clearer to link directly to anti-Semetism? I am posting here to gauge opinion.Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the prior wording was more appropriate for the sentence and reverted same. Kierzek (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hitler almost certainly only served in the army by an error

Should it not be mentioned that Hitler only managed to serve in the Bavarian army almost certainly by an error?

Detailed inquires carried out by the Bavarian authorities in 1924 were unable to clarify precisely how, instead of being returned to Austria in August 1914 as should have happened, he came to serve in the Bavarian army. It was presumed that he was among the flood of volunteers who rushed to their nearest place of recruitment in the first days of August, leading, the report added, to not unnatural inconsistencies and breaches of the strict letter of the law. 'In all probability,# commented the report, 'the question of Hitler's nationality (Staatsangehörigkeit) was never even raised.' Hitler, it was concluded, almost certainly entered the Bavarian army by error.

Ian Kershaw, 1889-1936 Hubris, p.90

It was the war ministry who had the say on whether to accept foreigners (including Austrians or other ethnic Germans born outside of the German Reich) but Hitler's nationality was not checked when he volunteered to join the army, even though he was still an Austrian citizen.--Hashi0707 (talk) 08:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem very important - Kershaw only gives it a paragraph Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Best put in Military career of Adolf Hitler. There's already a brief mention of the issue there, but it could be expanded. Paul B (talk) 09:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@ User:Nick-D, the length is irrelevant, plus, Kershaw mentions Hitler's involvement in enlisting in the Bavarian army over a couple of pages in the book.

@ User:Paul Barlow, it's already on that article, I've just checked.

The problem is that currently the article only says: "At the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was living in Munich and volunteered to serve in the Bavarian Army as an Austrian citizen." but surely we should mention that this was actually an error on behalf of the war ministry for checking volunteers since they did not check his citizenship in 1914, if they did, he would not have been allowed to serve without permission and not just merely volunteering.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

"it's already on that article, I've just checked." I know, that's why I wrote "There's already a brief mention of the issue there, but it could be expanded." We don't know it was an "error" as such. Perhaps they did check. Perhaps Hitler told them and they said it didn't matter. Neither Kershaw nor the 1924 report express certainty. Paul B (talk) 13:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You just said for it to be best put in that article, I wasn't aware of it already being mentioned there. You are correct, Kershaw concludes that it's almost certainly the case though and that's obviously what can be put, it's not a fact but more than likely was the case.--Hashi0707 (talk) 13:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

No I said "There's already a brief mention of the issue there, but it could be expanded." But I won't harp further on this. Paul B (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I revert the addition, as there is no consensus to add it here. Further, it is not needed herein, that is for the sub-article to address. Kierzek (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek's revert, especially as 'probably an error", became 'was granted permission' [18]. A fairly minor bureaucratic anomaly (about which we know little) isn't that important. Pincrete (talk) 22:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, fine.--Hashi0707 (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Colbert

Stephen Colbert's latest video shows a fake quotation from this article stating that Hitler did not have the ability to fly. Watch for wags adding that factoid in. Powers ^T 21:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

And sure enough, it already happened. Favonian (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Flegelein". Kierzek (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Think about it!

Shouldn't we, like the article on Heinrich Himmler does, mention that Hitler failed to live up to his own racial and physical demands? Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 21:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This subject has been discussed in the past and given the length and bytes as this main article, no, not here. Kierzek (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The Holocaust

I added a see also, who has been reverted, the two links broaden the topic that talk this section and therefore I think that should be re-added. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Responsibility for the Holocaust#Hitler has a disclaimer that the factual accuracy of the content is disputed. I disagree with linking to this low-quality content. The other link, Criticism of Holocaust denial#Hitler's involvement, is a collection of quotations from Hitler's speeches. I don't see this as being a high-value link and disagree with its inclusion here. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Both should not be included here for reasons stated by Diannaa. Kierzek (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that it's a good reason, this article already is linked to other articles with disputed content or low quality, e.g. Consequences of Nazism. Besides the links could be improved and other good links could be getting worse. Diannaa Criticism of Holocaust denial#Hitler's involvement is not a collection of quotations, please read the entire section with its subsections and not only the first part. Rupert Loup (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Rupert Loup, I was the first reverter, my logic was twofold, firstly that it simply isn't possible to 'see also' every related topic without harming the article's coherence. Secondly, at this point, before even discussing AH's involvement in the holocaust, to link to his involvement in denial (in a rather intrusive manner), seems to be putting the 'cart before the horse'. 'Other bad article links' isn't a good reason for including this one, which I would characterise as 'not immediately relevant' at this point in the article.Pincrete (talk) 21:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I see it now, Pincrete thank you for your reply. Rupert Loup (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits by CatKaiser

CatKaiser seems to be in strong favor of replacing "See: Religious views of Adolf Hitler" with "Catholic" or "Catholicism" in the infobox under religion. As his edits has now been reverted twice, I suggest we establish a clear concensus on the matter.

• Oppose. There is no clear historical consensus on Hitler's exact religious views as thoroughly explained in Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose showing Hitler as Catholic in the info box or anywhere else in the article. Historians say he did not follow the Catholic religion. Speer for example covers this in Inside the Third Reich on pages 141-142 of the paperback edition, where he says that although Hitler never officially left the Catholic church, he had no real attachment to it and did not attend services. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:52, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point, plus - many people read the infobox for quick facts and they should not get the impression that Hitler was practicing Catholic. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. As well as the other arguments, Religious views of Adolf Hitler gives a fuller picture. Pincrete (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, per all comments listed above. The article, Religious views of Adolf Hitler, is the best source for the reader to review and read. Kierzek (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

"Primary Cause"

From the lead: "His aggressive foreign policy is considered to be the primary cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe". Isn't this rather weak? What other causes for war in Europe existed, apart from the fact that Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland and thus started the war? It's as if Alice flipped a light switch and this action was described as "Alice's desire to turn on the light is considered the primary cause of the lights turning on." Wouldn't we just say "Alice turned the lights on"? And in this case, wouldn't we just say "He initiated World War II in Europe by ordering the invasion of Poland"? The phrases "is considered" and "primary cause" imply excess complexity. Sonicsuns (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the lede wording was the subject of long, heated discussion you can find in the archives. Personally, I see no problem in just leaving the sentence as it is. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 17:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't party to prior discussion, but sympathise with Sonicsuns's point. I'm not an historian, but would this be clearer/fuller?

Hitler sought Lebensraum ("living space") for the German people. He directed large-scale rearmament and pursued an aggressive foreign policy throughout the late 1930's. On 1 September 1939 Germany invaded Poland, resulting in British and French declarations of war on Germany and marking/causing the outbreak of World War II in Europe. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It was not just "living space" which drove the path to war. I find the present wording to be adequate, otherwise it opens up the debate more as to the meaning and limits of the wording; and BELIEVE ME it was not easy reaching consensus for what is there presently; and yes, it is in the archives. Kierzek (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Sonicsuns's main point is that 'His aggressive foreign policy CAUSED the outbreak of World War II in Europe'. Does simplifying the existing phrasing in some way necessarily open old debates? Pincrete (talk) 21:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to Sonicsuns's suggested wording, "He initiated World War II in Europe by ordering the invasion of Poland". It's simple and clear; I like it for that reason. Whether this would re-open old debates or not I don't know! But there's no reason why we couldn't form a new consensus at this time. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I still don't believe it needs to be changed, but don't feel that strongly about it as long as it doesn't re-open that "can of worms" from the past. Kierzek (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Amended suggestion:

Hitler sought Lebensraum ("living space") for the German people. He pursued an aggressive foreign policy and directed large-scale rearmament from the mid 1930's. On 1 September 1939, he initiated World War II in Europe by ordering the invasion of Poland, resulting in Britian and France declaring war on Germany. … continues as is … In June 1941, Hitler ordered an invasion of the Soviet Union ….

'aggressive foreign policy' is I presume referring to Anschluss/Sudetenland etc. + rhetorical stance. The addition of 'from the mid/throughout the late 1930's' is intended to give a 'time line' to those unfamiliar with the subject, though I'm not sure which would be more accurate.Pincrete (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That's far too much detail for the lead, in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Do not agree to this proposed "amended" wording. Kierzek (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I thought all I had added was 'from the mid 1930's' (and removed primary cause), otherwise slight re-ordering. Are you both favouring 'jumping' from 'living space' to 'He initiated … '? I wouldn't object, previous was an attempt to 'stitch' all present text. Pincrete (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for misunderstanding. What you are proposing is removing "His aggressive foreign policy is considered to be the primary cause of the outbreak of World War II in Europe" and replacing "He directed large-scale rearmament" with "He directed large-scale rearmament and pursued an aggressive foreign policy from the mid/throughout the late 1930's." I don't think this proposal will garner much support, as extensive previous discussions have shown the consensus is that we should say in the lead that Hitler's foreign policies were the primary cause of the outbreak of WWII in Europe, and your edit removes that info from the lead. I personally am not in favour of removing this. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are any closer to understanding, my 'amended' above is intended to replace from the opening of the para. I've reversed aggressive fp and rearmament above to see if it 'holds water'. Though I'm happy to give in if it's better to let 'sleeping dogs lie'.Pincrete (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2015

MLG360GABEN (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This edit

Nick-D, it's not exactly what Wikipedia would define as a reliable source, but click here and fast-forward to 1:20 minutes, there you can hear the narrator say, "despite being the most written about and filmed individual in history". Also, in regard to your edit summary in reverting this addition, I think Hitler would indeed qualify as the most filmed person, regardless of times, in history; doesn't strike me as a thing that needs consideration. I'm sure others will agree. Anyhow, I suggest we re-add the sentence and perhaps several editors, not just me, could look for a source to properly back up the claim as I don't have accesses to a whole lot of books. Best, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 12:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hmmmm? most filmed? I doubt it simply because of the omni-presence of news cameras in modern life (unless we mean 'reel/real' film). Most written about? Hard to assess. Most infamous or most often referred to in films and documentaries? Very possibly, but the main point is that VERY clear + strong sources would be needed to justify the inclusion of any such claim.Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

A good RS source would be needed before it being re-added to this GA article. Kierzek (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Worth mentioning?

Hitler was Time magazines "Person of the Year" in 1938. How come this isn't mentioned? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Try searching for "time magazine" in the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Lul, I thought I had already done that... must have made a typo somewhere. Anyways, cheers for the notice. :) Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 23:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Bolshevism

The current text in the article:

"Hitler frequently denounced international capitalism and communism as being part of a Jewish conspiracy."

The problem is that there is no mention of what the conspiracy was called and that it was only Jewish. Hitler regularly spoke of destroying Jewish Bolshevism and viewed the Jews as being behind Bolshevism, communism and Marxism.

Which is why I suggest changing it to:

"Hitler frequently proclaimed his belief in Jewish Bolshevism, a conspiracy theory that the Jews were behind communism and Marxism."--Mr. K. Kowalski (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with changing it. The new version is longer, but actually imparts less information, because Hitler also believed capitalism was part of a Jewish conspiracy, and you've left that out. Perhaps we can find somewhere else to add the wikilink. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree with the change either; in fact, I was in the process of undoing it, when another just beat me to it. It is frankly, not as well written and does not improve the sentence as far as the information conveyed for the WP:Lead (which is a summary of the text in the body). Kierzek (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Would it not be worth while linking Jewish conspiracy with Jewish Bolshevism? Here are some excerpts from Ian Kershaw, Hitler 1889-1936:

<copyright material redacted> --Mr. K. Kowalski (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we can find somewhere else to add the wikilink, somewhere in the body of the article. I don't think it fits in well in the lead. Perhaps where it says " The group, financed with funds channelled from wealthy industrialists, introduced Hitler to the idea of a Jewish conspiracy, linking international finance with Bolshevism" we could add "Hitler came to view the Jews as being behind Bolshevism, communism and Marxism, and later regularly spoke of destroying Jewish Bolshevism." We need a page number from Kershaw. Please don't paste such large excerpts of copyright works onto this wiki, not even on talk pages. It's sketchy from a copyright point of view, and unnecessary, as most of the people monitoring this article have already read their Kershaw. --Diannaa (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

The page numbers from Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris are 257, 259, 303. It could also be worth noting that Hitler's intention of destroying Jewish Bolshevism played a huge part in the invasion of the Soviet Union.--Mr. K. Kowalski (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Whereas the intention to destroy Jewish Capitalism, was the motive for invading everywhere else? (rhetorical question), I agree with Diannaa and Kierzek that present lead is better. I have insufficient knowledge to judge whether later inclusion is worthwhile/necessary.Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

The Blitz

Closing discussion initiated by sockpuppet of banned User:HarveyCarter. Binksternet (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Shouldn't the article mention that the RAF began bombing German cities and towns in May 1940? When Hitler ordered the London Blitz in September 1940 it was partly in response to the RAF having already bombed Germany for four months. (DieterAnders (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)) DieterAnders, do you have a reliable source for the claim that it was a response? ... ps I notice you did some edits to BofBr and Chamberlain, I'll think you'll find that most sources describe the early RAF raids on Germany as symbolic rather than effective, and WC's reference to the raids an attempt at 'morale boosting. Pincrete (talk) 11:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC) The answer to your question is probably 'no', since the blitz only features in a single sentence here, it would not be appropriate to include such detail HERE and it would need good sources to be included in The blitz. Pincrete (talk) 11:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC) The RAF began bombing German cities on 11 May 1940. Hitler himself said in his famous Reichstag speech that the Blitz was in response to the bombing of Germany. (DieterAnders (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)) DieterAnders, if used, it would belong on the Blitz page, but it would need a historian's (or other RS's) assessment to be put as a FACT (rather than AH's 'excuse'). In wartime, leaders (inc WC), say all kinds of things 'for effect'.Pincrete (talk) 12:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC) It may have been an excuse, but there's no reason why the article couldn't mention the fact that Hitler said his launching of the Blitz was in response to the bombing of Germany by the RAF. (DieterAnders (talk) 12:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)) Let's see what other editors think, my reaction is that when only one sentence deals with all bombing of UK:(By the end of October, Hitler realised that air superiority for the invasion of Britain—in Operation Sea Lion—could not be achieved, and he ordered nightly air raids on British cities, including London, Plymouth, and Coventry), giving his 'reasons' HERE is not justified. nb edit conflict with 'hatting'. Pincrete (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Recent addition

I'm not sure about the recent addition by User:LittleJerry cited to Robert Gellately's book Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe:

Hitler's rule has been called a "consensus dictatorship" in that he appealed to the masses to legitimise his power. Hitler frequently relented on certain policies in response to public outcry and aside from Jews, political opponents and other "outside groups", most Germans could avoid being targeted by secret police

As I understand it, recent historians generally note that the Nazis terrorised the entire German population during their rise to power and subsequent rule. While obviously "only" a minority were at direct risk of arrest or murder, the entire population was repressed by the threat of violence and imprisonment if they opposed the Nazi government. The list of groups the Nazis went after also made up a large chunk of the German population, which the wording of this material inadvertently minimises. During the last months of the war the violence became widespread, with the entire population at risk of being dragged in front of kangaroo courts or simply being summarily executed if they were considered to be defeatist. What are other editors' thoughts? Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it should come out as well. Nick, you make a good point about the end of the war -- Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree it should come out. Certainly before coming to national power, the Nazis terrorised segments and groups; then after coming to national power, before the war and through the fall of France the Nazi Party had wide support, but thereafter, after the invasion of the USSR and then later after the 20 July Plot, the Nazis terrorised the entire German population. And during the whole time certain groups were terrorised thought out. The addition is an oversimplification. And as Nick-D stated, the "material inadvertently minimises" these facts. Kierzek (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm persuaded by Kierzek, that this statement is an over-simplification. Though the material might belong in other articles.Pincrete (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not directly related, but Robert Gellately is a wholly unref'd BLP.Pincrete (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

:This is related, I'm not sure, obviously we have to go with what balance of sources say, but I don't think 'end of the war' behaviour negates the normal 'modus operandi'. His power did rest on a critical mass of the German people supporting him and being willing to ignore matters that did not affect them, or to which they were prepared to give acquiescence, or to 'turn a blind eye' to (albeit some knowing the price of doing otherwise). I believe only this historian refers to "consensus dictatorship", if that term is taken out, is the thought generally RSed? What is being said is that the Nazi party was a mass populist party that knew not to offend its 'base support'. Pincrete (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I made some changes. Pincrete's crossed out statement is correct. From Gellately's book:

The murderousness of Hitler’s regime came in its final years. Nazi terror was used mainly during the war and then outside the borders of the “old” Reich. In Hitler’s first six years in power, state-sponsored killing was highest in 1933, when in camps like Dachau there were fifty or fewer deaths and in most others there were fewer than ten. A maximum of “several hundred” were killed in all the early camps. The terror of these early years was real enough, but it was primarily aimed against Jews, specific social outsiders like criminals, and certain political opponents, above all the Communists. As a recent study puts it, apart from those groups “the average German’s chances of avoiding secret-police harassment were high.”

I hope this will put things in prospective. LittleJerry (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

There are still some problems. I discovered that (in the version available on Google Books) there's no content about Hitler on page 31-32. Those pages are in a chapter about Lenin and the First World War. I can't see page 585 in Google. I think the data on avoiding the secret police should be removed for sure, as it's off-topic for this article, and we don't have the space. If we decide to keep it, it will have to be moved, as it has nothing to do with Hitler's leadership style. Hence the necessity to match up the data with the correct citations. I think the stuff about him being a populist ruler could stay, assuming the sourcing issue is sorted out. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I own the whole google book. Hitler is on those pages. I don't know whats wrong with the preview. It has the content on page 15. LittleJerry (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oops your right. Its on page 15. LittleJerry (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I see the content about being a populist leader on page 15 and material about him occasionally backing off on page 16. On which page did you find material about people being able to avoid the secret police? The snippet I can see in Google indicates it's on page 585. Now we need some more interested editors to comment on the two sentences (remove, keep, move to a different part of the article). -- Diannaa (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Its on page 585, but I removed the info on your suggestion. I also added in infomation on party purges. LittleJerry (talk) 19:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the part about him not being like Stalin. We are already 2,000 words over the 10,000-word recommended upper limit for page size, and Hitler was unlike a lot of people. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

After reading a bit more of the source material, I am not entirely convinced that the sections cited and the way in which they are being presented are entirely representative of the thesis of the work, even after recent attempts on my part and others to make it so. When Gellately describes the average German's chances of avoiding harassment by the secret police, he is referring to direct harassment by the secret police based solely on evidence they collected via independent investigation. He is not attempting to say that the average German could live life free of the fear of harassment and persecution, but rather that they were harassed largely based on evidence provided by other non-gestapo citizens in the form of denunciations, which other historians and authors (Such as Kershaw and Larson) have also stated comprised the bulk of the persecution of average (e.g. non-jewish, non-communist) Germans. However, a better source could be found for this information than a book that is largely devoted to comparing Stalin and Hitler with the purpose of proving the thesis that Stalin was a much more brutal leader (A thesis with questionable bias revealed at times, such as when he refers to the Night of the Long Knives as "one (relatively small) purge in 1934" (p. 16), an event which few, if any, other prominent historians would refer to as relatively small). As stated, this is an article about Hitler, not about the differences between Hitler and other contemporary leaders. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 04:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this too. DYK some 4,980 were executed after the 20 July plot? Hardly sounds minimal to me. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

btw, I struck through because both "consensus dictatorship", and "Germans were afraid of the regime", seem over-simplifications. One is almost attempting to assess the psychology of a nation over a 10+ year period and reduce it to a single sentence formula. Definitely agree that there is no good reason to compare with Stalin. Pincrete (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To me it still implies mere conclusion's and should be removed; I would not say he "often reshaped policy"; he was steadfast in this core policies and beliefs which he formed after the First World War and it also gives undue weight to one historian's opinion. Kierzek (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons with Stalin are not trivial, there is a mountain of literature comparing and contrasting the two. Yes this article is about Hitler, but there's nothing wrong with including a line about how he differed from a contemptuous regime, particularly one as brutal as his. The Night of the Long Knives certainly was small compared to Stalin's great purge (hence the use of "relatively"). Its unfair to state that Gellately's purpose is to prove "the thesis that Stalin was a much more brutal leader." Can anybody honestly state that Hitler's killings pre-1939 where on the scale of Stalin's? LittleJerry (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, but the sentence does not say "Relative TO STALIN it was a rather small purge", it just says "relatively". Relative to the purges carried out in America, France, Britain, etc. it downright enormous, and trivializing it simply because there may have been worse purges elsewhere does service to no one, and would be misleading to readers. Thus, the use of the term "relatively small" is ONLY relevant/accurate within the context of a book comparing Hitler and Stalin, not in a more general sense. Also, I disagree that it is unfair to say that his book contends that Stalin has the more brutal and repressive leadership style, as evidenced by phrases such as "Both dictatorships used terror, but in somewhat contrasting ways. The Communist variety was inflicted overwhelmingly against patently innocent people." (p.583) (The corollary to this statement is that the people targeted by the Nazis were primarily NOT innocent) and "Surely a more wasteful, immoral, and inhumane approach cannot possibly be imagined than the one adopted by Soviet leaders. No rulers could be more profligate with the lives of their own citizens." I infer from these passages that he is unequivocally stating that Stalin was the more "immoral" and "inhumane" leader as one of the main theses of his work, and the fact that this is the central arc of the work means it is probably not the best source for non-comparative information exclusively about Hitler. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, to touch on what Nick-D said, I agree. This particular source puts heavy emphasis on the behavior of the Nazi regime prior to 1939, repeatedly using phrases such as "until 1939" when referring to statistics about arrests and executions. As a matter of fact, on closer inspection, is becomes clear that he is indeed only referring to the first 6 years of Nazi rule when discussing the differences in repression and terror pertaining to average citizens, as evidenced by phrases such as "The murderousness of Hitler's regime came in its final years"(p.584) and "This is by no means the full story of 'legalized' terror, for during the war - particularly in its last phase - many people were killed without trial" (p.585). As a matter of fact, the quote provided above saying the average German's chances of avoiding harassment by the secret police are high explicitly states that this is in reference to the period of 1933-1939, and excludes the last 6 years of the regime, as evidenced by "In Hitler’s first six years in power.... The terror of these early years was real enough, but...." (emphasis added) within that very quote. I think that the discrepancy between his focus on the first 6 years and the "Leadership Style" section needing to cover all 12 years makes this book perhaps not the best source of information in this particular case UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking this source - I agree with that. This kind of argument also runs against those put forward by historians such as Richard J. Evans and Ian Kershaw who make a strong case for the Nazi state's widely repressive nature. Museums in Germany also tend to note the extent to which the Nazis ruled through terror. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I still have a problem with the added sentence, "The historian Robert Gellately describes Hitler as a 'model example of a charismatic leader' who often reshaped policy to conform with public opinion"; I don't believe that the wording is accurate, nor even conforms to the cited source above: "Hitler's rule has been called a "consensus dictatorship" in that he appealed to the masses to legitimise his power. Hitler frequently relented on certain policies..." If the added sentence in the article refers to something else as a source, what does it say specifically. Kierzek (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the new material. I too think it gives undue weight to one historian's opinion, and there's others who have spoken here who are uncomfortable with it as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 13:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)q

I agree with its removal. And to answer Kierzek's question, what you refer to as "the cited source above" is not a quote from the source material, but rather the original line that appeared in the article that was followed by a citation to Gellately's book, but there was debate as to whether or not that was an accurate summation of the source. It was re-worded to include a direct quote from the source and to more accurately represent view presented in the source material. However, as further investigation elucidated, the source itself is perhaps not the best example of a contemporary consensus view on the subject. So, in summation I fully agree with its removal as per the reasons stated by Diannaa and Nick-D. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

New photo

The infobox photo has changed, I think I prefer the old one, better face shot. Thoughts?Pincrete (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

In the old one, he is facing to the right (not recommended for info box), and this one is straight on, which has advantages. However, the old one shows him in uniform, which is good imo. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S62600, Adolf Hitler.jpg might also be worth considering. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Present choices are

A

B

C

A or C gets my vote.Pincrete (talk) 14:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind putting "C" up for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cropped version of "B"

I say B because Hitler is facing towards the camera without smiling or making faces; best way to show how he commonly looked. Should also be noted there is a cropped version of that photo. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 15:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The cropped version comes across as being a little blurry, in my opinion. -- Diannaa (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The un-cropped B gets my vote. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I have been involved with these discussions before; on here and other articles. What has been agreed to for other articles, such as Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Kennedy is to rotate a few different photos so it does not get stale and all the readers only get to see is the same photo, year after year. With that said, I vote of a change for a time to B then C. Kierzek (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And Kierzek, are you referring to the un-cropped or cropped version of B? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 22:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the image to "B".--Mr. K. Kowalski (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it as I don't think that consensus has been reached. Re: the options, I agree with Kierzek in swapping to B for now, and C in the future. From memory of previous discussions, the desire was to avoid photos which glamorise Hitler, and I think that these options achieve that: he looks like a puffed up fool in B (and A) and a rather underwhelming figure in C. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree no consensus was reached and the discussion is still ongoing. That being said, I think choosing photos for the infobox should not be made on the grounds that "he looks like a puffed up fool". In truth, it's nothing more than individual opinion. One might even say it's a violation of WP:NPOV. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 13:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I presume that when referring to 'B', people mean 'cropped B', which is more 'portrait like'? I personally like B less because it looks 'stilted', which perhaps is synonomous with 'puffed up fool'.Pincrete (talk) 15:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

By "B" I mean the standard length one; the cropped version comes across as being a little blurry, as Diannaa stated above. And yes, he does look like a "posing peacock". Kierzek (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do we need a new photo anyway? Has Hitler's appearance changed recently? Britmax (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Very much indeed. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 19:26, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Does anybody care to discuss the photo change any more? I think we were getting to the point where the consensus was to go with photo #2 for a while. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I believe enough time has passed. Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015

I wold like to edit this page because i ave interesting facts to e edited over there

i wold ike to e answered too very soon Philipfolta (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Philipfolta, can you be more specific about the material you wish to include? Pincrete (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request. - Arjayay (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

i want t edit the life and death, and film portrayals of him in film. What is the reason why you own this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philipfolta (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Philipfolta, film portrayal would anyway belong in Adolf Hitler in popular culture. This is strictly about the man.Pincrete (talk) 17:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"... spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines"

In the World War I section, the present revision says Hitler "served as a dispatch runner on the Western Front in France and Belgium,[55] spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines.[56][57] He was present at the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele, and was wounded at the Somme.[58]" I was reading the article earlier today and I was struck by our use of the clause "spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines". If he spent "nearly half his time well behind the front lines", I thought, surely that actually means he was in or near the front lines for the majority of the time? Yes, it's Hitler, but it still seemed to me somewhat unfair to stress a minority of time spent "well behind" the front over a majority of time spent in or near it, especially since immediately after stressing his time in the rear echelons we name a succession of famous battles he was at.

I altered this clause to say "spending at least half of his time in or near the front lines." The user UnequivocalAmbivalence reverted this on the grounds that both of the cited sources stress the positioning behind the front. Fair enough. I attempted a second rewording: "where he spent periods in or near the front lines, but was well behind them for nearly half of his time." The user Pincrete reverted me with the edit summary "this is what the cited sources say, not what we think is 'fair' to AH". I've not been able to find previews of the appropriate book pages online. If somebody could confirm the exact wording of the cited passages I would appreciate it. Thanks, —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

As is so often the case with Google preview, the very pages we need to see are the ones that are not available. I can see parts of an e-book of Weber, the page following the omitted page says "Hitler was thus removed from the realities of the trenches and the camaraderie of front-line soldiers". On an earlier page I can see "The sector of the front occupied by the List regiment was, in fact, so quiet and manned by such poor troops compared to the rest of the British sector of the Western Front that the Australian contingents... used it as a 'nursery' to introduce new units to trench warfare." They had a vegetable garden and were able to get regular haircuts and shaves. Sorry, there are no page numbers provided. I can have a look at Kershaw tomorrow when I get to work. -- Diannaa (talk) 16:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this Diannaa. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict, Cliftonian, I don't accept the premise of this edit, very few soldiers in WWII, spent all or nearly all their time at the front, so I don't read it as negative, merely factual. However more important is that that's how the sources wrote it. The logic of 'surely that actually means he was in or near the front lines for the majority of the time?', is probably true, but not necessarily true. But why is it necessary to make the change if most RS do not record it that way? I think the overall impression you gained is probably right, that AH had an honourable but not especially notable WWI. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Pincrete. As somebody with military experience myself I know that most military personnel spend the majority of their time away from the front. As you yourself say here, cases of soldiers spending "all or nearly all their time at the front" are rare—therefore the periods most worth remarking on in a given soldier's service history are those when he actually was somewhere near the action. As so much stress is being put on the wording of the source material here I think we should have a look at this. What is the actual wording? Do both sources say simply that he "spen[t] nearly half his time well behind the front lines", without clarifying where he was for a little over half of the time? —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot add to the ones Diannaa has offered at this moment.Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Pincrete. —  Cliftonian (talk)  18:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I can help a little bit with the text from the sources. Here is an excerpt from the Weber source: "'...The front experience of Private Hitler consisted more in the consumption of artificial honey and tea than of the participation in any combat. He was separated from the actual combat zone by a zone some 10 kilometers deep.'" and "Josef Stettner reminds us that as a dispatch runner for regimental HQ, rather than for a battalion or a company, Hitler rarely had to cross the line of fire: '....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....All the duties of a regimental dispatch runner lay outside the dangerous zone of machine-gun fire.'" (Both on p.100 as cited) and from the Kershaw source: "Strikingly, in his Mein Kampf account, Hitler omitted to mention that he was a dispatch runner, implying that he actually spent the war in the trenches.... When, as was not uncommon, the front was relatively quiet, there were certainly times when the dispatch runners could laze around at staff headquarters, where conditions were greatly better than in the trenches. it was in such conditions at regimental headquarters in Fournes en Weppes, near Fromelles in northern France, where Hitler spent nearly half of his wartime service, that he could find the time to paint pictures and read (if his own account can be believed) the works of Schopenhauer that he claimed he carried around with him"(p.54). UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 21:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you very much for this UnequivocalAmbivalence, this clears up matters considerably. I see the "nearly half" snippet in the Kershaw passage. Note that our article's present wording, that Hitler "spen[t] nearly half his time well behind the front lines", does not seem to match Kershaw's wording. This is where the confusion arose. I had presumed that "nearly half ... well behind the front lines" meant that Hitler was in or near the front lines for the rest of the time (i.e. a slight majority of the time), but now I see Kershaw's actual wording is that Hitler spent "nearly half of his wartime service" at a specific place—the regimental HQ in Fournes en Weppes. The remainder of the time thus probably includes time spent in other rear-echelon places, or indeed back in Germany if Kershaw is including time spent in training, leave etc. In view of this I would like to strike my proposal above and instead propose that we change "spending nearly half his time well behind the front lines" to "spending nearly half his time at the regimental headquarters in Fournes-en-Weppes, well behind the front lines". This is in my view more in line with what the source says and less likely to lead the reader to think the rest of the service was in the front lines. —  Cliftonian (talk)  04:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good suggestion, Cliftonian. -- Diannaa (talk) 05:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, I think that phrasing's increased specificity could definitely be advantageous in providing clarity and brings it more closely in line with the sources. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, then I will implement this new wording now. Thanks for your help, everyone, and I apologise if I seemed a bit blunt earlier. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cliftonian, you weren't blunt, I agree this is more exact. Although I didn't know this was the actual wording, it does show how we shouldn't infer things from what we do know. Pincrete (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

German invasion of Badoglio's Italy

"Following the allied invasion of Sicily in 1943, Mussolini was removed from power by Victor Emmanuel III after a vote of no confidence of the Grand Council. Marshal Pietro Badoglio, placed in charge of the government, soon surrendered to the Allies"

Shouldn't we mention Hitler ordered an invasion of Italy in response? And what about Mussolini's rescue from his mountain prison? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:06, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Added content in religious views section

I have twice now removed additional content from the Religious Views section, the material in this diff. This article needs to remain a brief summary only (as of right now we are at 11,889 words, which is 1,889 words over the suggested limit) and I think adding it here gives undue weight to this one researcher's opinion. The material is already present in Religious views of Adolf Hitler. Opening a discussion here to see what others think. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. It is not needed herein in the main article and it does give undue weight to one opinion. It is already in the sub-article with further related text on the one subject. That is why we have sub-articles. Kierzek (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The issue I find is that removing this element causes there to be be undue bias towards the opinion of the historian in the previous paragraph, seen here:

"Historian John S. Conway states that Hitler was fundamentally opposed to the Christian churches. According to Bullock, Hitler did not believe in God, was anticlerical, and held Christian ethics in contempt because they contravened his preferred view of "survival of the fittest". He favoured aspects of Protestantism that suited his own views, and adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organisation, liturgy, and phraseology in his politics."

^ This paragraph gives the impression that Hitler held no internal religious conviction, when in fact other historians believe he did. The entire section seems in favor of the view that Hitler held no religious beliefs and provides no alternative perspectives. This was my reasoning behind the addition. Harpsichord246 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Since this page is primarily concerned with his 'career', I think it inevitable that it should constitute a summary, concentrating on the certainties and political use of religion. The edit you wish to insert isn't very concrete, conflating God and nature to the extent that they became one and the same thing … … For this reason, some recent works have argued Hitler was a Deist. 'some recent works have argued'? And how is 'conflating God and nature' different from 'his preferred view of "survival of the fittest"'? Pincrete (talk) 22:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a way to more concretely input this competing opinion so as to not present a false picture. Here is a possible example: "Others such as Samuel Koehne of Deakin University believe that Hitler's views were not necessarily Atheistic but possibly Deistic, due to his invocation of a deity who created nature and natural laws in his writings." Harpsichord246 (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that User:Harpsichord246 has brought up an interesting point. While keeping this article brief is of concern, it should not come at the cost of inaccuracy. I am drawn to a particularly well sourced sentence from the Religious views of Adolf Hitler page that states "Although he was skeptical of religion, he did not present himself to the public as an atheist, and spoke of belief in an "almighty creator"."(emphasis added). This seems to me to be a much better sourced statement than the one that appears here stating "Hitler did not believe in God", which to me seems to give undue weight to Bullock's assessment, as his is the only one given. This could easily lead the reader to believe that Hitler professed disbelief in God, which seems to be clearly contradicted by multiple reliable sources. I definitely think this sentence could be changed to better reflect (a) the views of more historians and/or (b) what Hitler himself professed to believe. I think it would only be appropriate to include Bullocks assessment if it comes in juxtaposition to the other views, i.e. "Bullock argues that he did not believe in God, though Hitler himself spoke of belief in an "almighty creator", although this would seem to violate WP:SYNTH and possibly still give Bullock's view undue weight. I would support a change that brought it more in line with how it appears on the Religious views of Hitler page, which do not support a flat out disbelief in God. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

UnequivocalAmbivalence, how could In public, Hitler often praised Christian heritage and German Christian culture, though professing a belief in an "Aryan Jesus" lead anyone to think he was a 'public atheist'? Harpsichord246, from your quote, Koehne says SOME historians have argued he may etc, the quote doesn't tell us what he thinks, and is very tenuous.Pincrete (talk) 07:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, it makes no mention of whether or not he believes that this "Aryan Jesus" was actually divine. With the preceding text describing his disbelief in God, it could easily be taken to mean that he believed in and spoke of a non-divine historical Jesus who was a human man of Aryan descent who fought against the Jews. There are many ways to read things, what seems clear to one person may not seem clear to everyone. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

There must be an appropriate way to accurately portray his beliefs in a succinct manner without removing critical details...so I agree with UnequivocalAmbivalence. Pincrete, Bullocks opinion that Hitler did not believe in a god strongly implies an atheistic attitude by definition, and therefore, a clarification of his possible supernatural beliefs (such as the ones being proposed) would clear up any confusion that may arise in regard to what his beliefs actually were. Harpsichord246 (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Having a whole paragraph on the views of a little-known academic is clearly WP:UNDUE. He has credentials in this field, but he's hardly a great authority who needs to be quoted at length. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

That, along with the relative controversy surrounding Hitler's religious beliefs, obligates us to create a more nuanced summary (of the same succinctness, of course) and eliminate the apparent bias towards one scholar's view on the matter. Addendum: Bullock's authority is not reason enough in my view to only provide his opinion on the matter. Harpsichord246 (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately the article quotes several sources in this section. This section can certainly be improved a lot (I'd get rid of the reference to the wartime US intelligence report and Speer's self-serving memoirs, for starters), but let's be honest about it. Nick-D (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

nb edit conflict. I think speculation about how to classify his beliefs belongs on the 'religion page', we don't know what he privately believed because he didn't tell us, and may not have had fully-formulated beliefs. Not believing in God is not the same thing as having formulated an atheist belief, (I don't believe in God, but I would not describe myself as an atheist). I don't understand the substantive point here. We know he 'had no (personal) attachment to Christianity', we know he was happy to pay lip-service to 'Christian tradition' in public. This and more is communicated clearly. Apart from the weight being credited to a historian's tenuously phrased 'maybes', what is missing ? - apart from the possibility that he may have had some privately-constructed, pot-pourri, belief system which COULD BE called 'Deist'. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

By definition, one who lacks beliefs in any gods is an atheist, regardless of whether he/she identifies that way publicly. The purpose of the proposed inclusion of his supernatural beliefs would be to remove any confusion stemming from the stated opinion of Bullock. There seems to be no good reason to not clarify that paragraph in a manner that maintains its succinctness. Harpsichord246 (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

By definition, one who lacks beliefs in any gods is an atheist … Or indifferent, or agnostic, or of a religion without a God (Buddhism, some Quakers), or one of countless 'spirituality' beliefs, or far too busy with this world to ask such questions … … … besides, Bullock/the article doesn't say 'any gods' he says 'God', which, in context, means a mono-theistic creator. I know the literal root of the word atheist, but it is usually reserved for those with a clearly formulated conviction that there is/are no God/gods.

How do we succintly state what AH did believe, without straying into conjecture about what he might have believed? Which is mainly what the quote does. I would agree with you if I thought that the text said that AH was a clear atheist, but it doesn't. Nazism itself had a quasi-mystical worship of strength and power (and of AH himself) but I don't know how to communicate that succinctly within the context of this article. Pincrete (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My issue is on the assertion, in definite terms, that Hitler "Did not believe in God". This seems to be a belief held mainly by Bullock and a very small group of historians, and is in conflict with Hitler's personal writings in which he, in no uncertain terms, expresses his belief in an "almighty creator". You are right, this page is not the best one for speculation on his beliefs, and Bullock's opinion is just that. We are presented with basically "Hitler says he believes in God" and "Bullock says he doesn't". I think that on this page we should go with what Hitler said he thought, and save Bullock's opinion for the Religious views of Hitler page where it can be presented alongside all the other scholarly opinions, not presented here as the sole authoritative position. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 22:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll let others, who know all the sources better, answer that one. Something we should remember, is that this section isn't called 'Religious views/beliefs OF AH', it's called 'Views ON religion', it's primarily dealing with how, politically, he dealt with/responded to/used religion, his private religious convictions are only background to that. Pincrete (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

By that rational we should remove the phrase about his belief in God entirely. Personally, I think that's just semantics, and not really applicable to the situation. His beliefs ARE being stated, and if they are being stated then they should be stated accurately. Just because this section isn't TECHNICALLY about his beliefs, it doesn't give carte blanche to portray them inaccurately, and asserting that Bullock's view is the only view worthy of note IS inaccurate. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely, the sole inclusion of Bullock's opinion gives it undue weight. Harpsichord246 (talk) 06:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between incomplete and misleading or inaccurate? Your proposal is? To remove the assessment of several notable biographer's and replace it with what? A conjecture from a relatively unknown writer? An assessment based on a quote from his private writings?. I have no fixed attachment to the current wording, but I haven't yet heard an improvement. Pincrete (talk) 08:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not just based on "a quote" from his private writings, it's based on a TON of quotes from his writings. For instance, a few quotes from Mein Kampf; "And so, internally armed with faith in the goodness of God and the impenetrable stupidity of the electorate, the struggle for what is called 'the reconstruction of the REICH' can now begin."(p.310) and "Whoever would dare to raise a profane hand against that highest image of God among His creatures would sin against the bountiful Creator of this marvel and would collaborate in the expulsion from Paradise."(p.317) and " The fact that the churches join in committing this sin against the image of God, even though they continue to emphasize the dignity of that image, is quite in keeping with their present activities. They talk about the Spirit, but they allow man, as the embodiment of the Spirit, to degenerate to the proletarian level."(p.333), and "For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties."(p.458) and I could keep going for a long time because it's a subject he covers heavily, and with clarity. This is why I think the sentence that appears on the Religious Views of Hitler page, indicating that he had skepticism towards religion but professed a personal belief in God, is a superior summation than the one appearing on this page. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's see what others think. I personally wouldn't have any objection to a 'though in his writings he spoke of a 'supreme creator'.', type of clarifier. What we can't obviously do is take Mein K. as the factual authority on the subject, it has a propagandist purpose after all.Pincrete (talk) 11:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

References

Supreme creator?

This discussion seems to have died, I think everyone agreed that detailed speculation about AH's religious beliefs belongs in 'the other article', also that characterising him as 'deist' as the thread initially wanted, is undue weight and unduly speculative. However I ended the thread above thus: I personally wouldn't have any objection to a 'though in his writings he spoke of a 'supreme creator'.', type of clarifier. I already argue above that 'not believing in God' is not synonomous with atheism, but many might read it that way. I also argue above that 'Views on religion' is not synonomous with 'Religious beliefs' (the first being partly political, the second largely personal). My suggestion is inserting 'though in his writings he spoke of a 'supreme creator/similar wording' 'somewhere in para 2 (not believe in God). Thoughts? Pincrete (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your citation? -- Diannaa (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm in a sense speaking on behalf of UnequivocalAmbivalence above, but Mein Kampf seems to be the obvious, though others may know his writings better.Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Other than the Mein K. quotes, I have citations from Kershaw about Hitler's publicly professed belief in God (And I feel that, for this section, his publicly stated beliefs are more important than a single historian's opinion about what his personal feelings may have been, and Kershaw is widely recognized as a current authority on Hitler). "After a three-hour meeting with him at the Berghof in early November 1936, the influential Catholic Archbishop of Munich-Freising, Cardinal Faulhaber - a man of sharp acumen, who had often courageously criticized the Nazi attacks on the Catholic Church - went away convinced that Hitler was deeply religious. 'The Reich Chancellor undoubtedly lives in belief in God,' he noted in a confidential report. 'He recognizes Christianity as the builder of Western culture.'" (Kershaw, "Hitler: A Biography", p.373), and "[Hitler] undoubtedly had some success in cultivating the image of one who, while not devout in a conventional church-going sense, entertained a belief in God or 'providence' and would transcend denominational divides in working for moral and ethical renewal in Germany. Once he had become Chancellor, Hitler's language became pronouncedly 'messianic' in tone, and his public addresses were frequently replete with religious symbolism."...."A few weeks [after his first public speech as Chancellor], he closed his speech on 1 May, the first 'Day of National Labor", with a direct entreaty to the Almighty: 'Lord, you see, we have changed. The German people is no longer the people without honor, of disgrace, tearing itself apart, faint-hearted, and weak in faith. No, Lord, the German people is strong in its will, strong in its steadfastness, strong in its endurance of all sacrifice. Lord, we do not desert you. Now bless our fight for our freedom, and thereby our German people and Fatherland'. A third example of Hitler's 'messianic' rhetoric, his speech to the Political Leaders of the Party assembled at the Nuremberg Rally of 1936, has been described as 'an astonishing montage of biblical texts', as allusions to the Gospels of John and Matthew as well as to other passages of the Bible abounded." (Kershaw, "The 'Hitler Myth': Image and Reality in the Third Reich", p.107). UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 10:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree about 'more important than' and don't think that should be the issue. I do though think 'worthy of (brief) inclusion', as part of the picture. Chamberlain went away from Munich convinced that Hitler intended to keep his word, so Faulhaber's comments are valid observations, not proofs of anything. Anyone, but especially any public figure, we have to take their words with a 'pinch of salt' as possibly being merely expedient, in AH's case it's a fairly large 'pinch'. Pincrete (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

While I agree in principal, I think the line is blurry. There is a difference between a promise made to a leader of a rival nation and view consistently repeated in their thesis works and speeches over many years. For instance, the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital can, taken together, be considered fairly valid sources for sussing out Karl Marx's views on capitalism. If a historian argued that Marx actually privately was in support of capitalism, to simply say "Historian X says that Marx supported capitalism" without mentioning that he wrote a self termed manifesto that was strongly and definitively critical of capitalism would seem disingenuous to me. Personally, I think that speculation as to what AH actually believed is best left for the main article on such things (Where it is indeed covered, accurately, with much more ambiguity than here where it is stated rather definitively), so I would not really support a "Hitler believed in God because he said so in Mein K. and various speeches", but I definitely think that "Hitler's writing and speeches often professed a belief in God" is just a factual statement, with no OR type analysis, and deserves mention because it was a main thread in many of his largest public addresses. Also, on the "Pinch of salt" issue, I would take more issue with the extensive direct sourcing in this section to Albert Speer's memoir, since it is a work with many known factual issues and intentional omissions. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 14:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I come to a similar conclusion re 'simple factual statement' about the content of his writings and speeches. Where it would become problematic is to infer belief (or lack of), from those words, which as you say, would be OR. Others have questioned 'Speer's self-serving' above, I am not competent to reply either way, beyond saying that he IS a witness, reliable or not. Pincrete (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, I think it might be worth noting that the statement about his disbelief in God seems, as far as I can tell, to come exclusively from the two following sentences in "Hitler: A Study in Tyranny" by Alan Bullock (1952): "He was a man without roots or loyalties, and he felt respect for neither God nor man." and "It was in this sense of mission that Hitler, a man who believed neither in God nor in conscience ('a Jewish invention, a blemish like circumcision'), found both justification and absolution." I could find no more extrapolation on it than this, it is not discussed why or how this conclusion has been reached, and it just seems odd to state something so definitively from such a passing statement, especially considering that much more recent and extensive and currently authoritative works on Hitler (e.g. Kershaw and Toland) make no such claims. Under the circumstances, I would actually give more credence to Samuel Koehne's analysis of Hitler's beliefs because he is a contemporary scholar who specializes in this specific area and his work addresses it directly. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Only point I can agree on is 'in God or conscience' would be better/more accurately representative of orig., I'll leave the arguing over details to others who know the sources better than me. Pincrete (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:20th-century Austrian painters

As Hitler was, unarguably, an Austrian painter of the 20th Century, I would think he should have this category added at the bottom. While obviously not his primary claim to fame(rather infamy), his early ambitions as an artist and ultimate rejection as one are surely an important part of his biography. Trilobright (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

His early ambitions as an artist may make these pursuits notable for him, his artwork is not notable on its own as it pertains to a list of notable Austrian painters of the 20th Century. It is not a list of every Austrian who painted in the 20th Century, it is a list of notable painters who are notable because of their painting. As evidenced by said "ultimate rejection", his artwork has never been notable to the art world, and therefore he does not merit inclusion in a list of notable artists. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 04:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

He's famous for NOT having become a painter. Churchill painted more than AH did, but as a hobby. Pincrete (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree, the category should not be added as it would give undue weight to this pursuit which frankly, amounted to very little. Kierzek (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Frivolous category ?

I've just reverted this edit, initially assuming it was vandalism. In fact 'Hitler' IS a character in Indiana Jones. Still an inappropriate category? I think so. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that this category should only include the fictional characters from the series. In consequence, I have removed T. E. Lawrence from it. Favonian (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree; it should not be included herein. Kierzek (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hitler's ancestry - missing an important point

I feel that the article in a way deceives the reader that only Hans Franks made the claim that Hitler had Jewish ancestry when really this rumour had been going around since the 1920s when he started to become a known figure from his opponents, should this not be included in the article? I'm not suggesting removing the paragraph about Frank but rather mention something before hand.

Any thoughts?--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

You actually make a good point. Firstly, mention of rumors about Hitler's potential Jewish ancestry dating back to the 20's is mentioned in one of the cited sources, yet left out of the article. Namely in Kershaw, page 7: "The third possibility is that Adolf Hitler's grandfather was Jewish. Rumours to that effect circulated the Munich Cafe's in the early 1920s, and fostered by sensationalist journalism of the foreign press during the 1930s. It was suggested that the name 'Hüttler' was Jewish, 'revealed' that he could be traced to a Jewish family called Hitler in Bucharest, and even claimed that his father had been sired by Baron Rothschild, in whose house in Vienna his grandmother had allegedly spent some time as a servant." (Kershaw, p.7) The bit about Hans Frank, which is referenced in the article, is discussed next. Secondly, the following sentence which appears in the article here "No Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period, and no record has been produced of Leopold Frankenberger's existence,[8] so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish.[9][10]" (Citations 9 and 10 are to Toland and Kershaw, respectively) is not accurately representative of the sources being cited. The sources do NOT dismiss the claim that Alois's father was Jewish, they specifically dismiss the validity of Hans Frank's claim that Alois's father was a Jew named Frankenberger or Frankenreiter. The Kershaw source mentions the other claims as I quoted before, and offers the same evidence against Frank's claim, and the Toland source only goes so far as to say "The chance that Adolf Hitler was part Jewish was minimal.* The important point was that he feared so and he would instigate at least two subsequent investigations to reassure himself."(Toland, p.247) and the footnote explains "The research of Nikolaus Preradovic, University of Graz, casts some doubt on Frank's evidence." again countering only Frank's specific claim. Both sources also mention and place great emphasis on the fact that Hitler did indeed fear that he had Jewish ancestry, even if it wasn't true. If the sentence in the article said " so historians dismiss the claim that Alois's father was a Jew named Frankenberger" then it would be correct, but the way it is currently written does not accurately represent the sources being cited, and does make it seem, incorrectly, as though rumors about potential Jewish ancestry were limited to what was said by Hans Frank. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 11:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Provide more citations and sources for his earlier life to show where the information was found.JVClass1 (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Ever since becoming a political figure in the 1920s there has been various different allegations of Jewish ancestry. After allegations over his ancestry appeared in the press, Hitler ordered the genealogist Karl Friedrich von Frank to report his family tree. An error in the family tree that was published with the alleged Jewish sounding surname Salomon which caused uproar in the press and more began to spread rumours of Hitler's alleged Jewish ancestry. Reporters were constantly searching for Hitler's Jewish origins. The findings reported Jewish families in Poland bearing the surname "Hitler" and Hitler having an alleged Jewish grandmother. Konrad Heiden wrote of this Jewish grandmother in his biography in 1936. To cast away any doubts of Jewish ancestry in 1937 Hitler changed his genealogist to Rudolf Koppensteiner who reported Hitler as having an Aryan pedigree heritage. Rumours also spread his godparents were Jewish, his nephew denied this and there is no evidence either were Jewish. (Brigitte Hamann, Hitler's Vienna, pp-45-51)

The point isn't about mentioning every single allegation of Jewish ancestry as there is so many but rather mentioning that such accusations did exist before the Hans Frank claim.--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 22:52, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Great find on that source! I agree, I think it is important to mention both the fact that there was a long history of such accusations and that it was a matter about which Hitler himself worried deeply. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The genealogists who carried out the reports on his family tree both noted that there was nothing unusual with a child being born illegitimate in a rural area and both had no reason to doubt Johann Georg Hielder being the father of Alois. There isn't any evidence that Hitler himself thought that he had any Jewish ancestry but rather he had his ancestry researched and reported so opponents of him could not use the rumour against him anymore.

But I think it's definitely worth adding (any suggestions?) that such rumours had existed since the 1920s and not make it appear that there was only one incident after the war by Hans Frank.--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

How does this appear:

Since the 1920s, opponents of Hitler began to spread various rumors of his alleged Jewish ancestry. In the 1930s Hitler had two genealogists report his family tree and confirm his "Aryan" ancestry. After the war, Nazi official Hans Frank suggested that Alois's mother had been employed as a housekeeper for a Jewish family in Graz, and that the family's 19-year-old son Leopold Frankenberger had fathered Alois. Historians dismiss Frank's claim as baseless on the basis that that no Frankenberger was registered in Graz during that period and Jews were barred from Graz until the 1860s well after Alois's birth.

--Mahia Zatrung (talk) 00:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

While there is little doubt that Hitler had no actual Jewish ancestry, at least one of the sources currently being cited that I referenced earlier (Toland) asserts that he did indeed fear that he had Jewish ancestry, and that his thorough investigation of the issue was at least as much to reassure himself as it was to counter his accusers. The extended passage I quoted earlier "More important was the admission that his grandmother had received money from a Jew, for this allowed the terrible possibility that his own blood might be tainted. The chance that Adolf Hitler was part Jewish was minimal.* The important point was that he feared so and he would instigate at least two subsequent investigations to reassure himself. A physician named Schuh, who had known Hitler since 1917, recalled he 'suffered all his life from painful doubts: did he or did he not have Jewish blood? And he often told us this.'"(Toland, p.247) UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does it show he had a son?

This is clearly false and should be removed from his page. It's misleading and not accurate

In 2008 the Belgian journalist Jean-Paul Mulders travelled to Germany, Austria, France and the United States to collect DNA of the Lorets and of the last living relatives of Hitler in Austria and on Long Island. By comparing the DNA, Mulders claimed proof that Jean-Marie Loret was not the son of Adolf Hitler. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.182.193.217 (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Where on the page are you seeing this information? I can't seem to find it anywhere, and I couldn't find any history of it having been there any time recently. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It's mentioned at Sexuality of Adolf Hitler and, obviously, at Jean-Marie Loret. But not on this page. Nothing to remove. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Synonym for "effective"?

Hello all. In the lead paragraph, there's the sentence "As effective dictator of Nazi Germany, Hitler was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust." I understand that "effective" here means something like "in all but name" or "functionally", not "efficient" or "adequate". But, there is a possibility that someone else may misinterpret it, especially if they are not a native speaker of English. Is there a synonym for "effective" that would work here? Perhaps "virtual" or "de facto"? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 20:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with 'effective', but maybe that sense is more common in UK. 'Virtual' would be awful, that makes him sound like a video-game. I wouldn't object to 'de facto', but wonder whether it would be any clearer to non-native speakers (though it would be linkable). Pincrete (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Effective→effectively; makes it clear that it's an adverb rather than an adjective. "He was effectively dictator of Nazi Germany, and was at the centre of World War II in Europe and the Holocaust."
• de facto is good, and linkable, but then we would have two linked words in a row, which is not ideal.
• Perhaps it could be omitted? "As dictator of Nazi Germany, Hitler was..." -- Diannaa (talk) 22:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I like "effectively". I think the reason for including it is because he never officially held a "dictator" title? Howicus (Did I mess up?) 22:44, 21 October 2015

• I agree that "effectively" would be a better term, as it's harder to misinterpret as him being an effective leader. Ftrhi (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay people, I will go ahead and implement this now. -- Diannaa (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Suicide

Hitler's suicide is not a hoax because it is proven by drawings of his dentist Hugo Johanness Blaschke. All drawings are shown at http://www.nl-aid.org/suicide-hitler-proven-the-seduction — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joopver (talk • contribs) 08:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2015

to Kershaw the corpses of Braun and Hitler were fully burned when the Red Army found them, and only a lower jaw with dental work could be identified as Hitler's remains- Yet some do believe that Hitler took a Nazi submarine to Argentina after his claimed death, and evidence shows that the remains of Hitler we actually a woman's. in 2014 700 files were released that do say that Hitler could be living in a large underground facility. "Hitler’s supposed remains were quickly hidden and sent off to Russia, never to be seen again. That is until 2009, when an archeologist from Connecticut State, Nicholas Bellatoni was allowed to perform DNA testing on one of the skull fragments recovered." "What he discovered set off a reaction through the intelligence and scholarly communities. Not only did the DNA not match any recorded samples thought to be Hitler’s, they did not match Eva Braun’s familiar DNA either." YourNewsWire.com. Sean Adl-Tabatabai. Yesh The Conductor (talk) 02:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

We're not going to add ridiculous conspiracy theories to the article. Nick-D (talk) 02:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Nick-D, what you want to add is speculation and conjecture. It does not belong in a well RS cited GA article. It is "alleged" (at best); anything can be "alleged". It has serious WP: fringe problems, to say the least. And the "skull" testing makes no difference to the matter in the end. Kierzek (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Foul ball?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Hitlers testicles that editors here may be interested in...or not.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I have commented therein. Kierzek (talk) 14:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

RE: Holocaust quote

I'd like to re-visit an old discussion about a Holocaust quote made by Henriette von Schirach. It's from the Jones 1989 source used in the article. The quote goes like this:

So I told him what I had seen ... his reply was, "You are sentimental". He stood up, I stood up, [and] I said, "Herr Hitler, you ought not to be doing that." I thought I could allow myself to say such a thing because I had known him [for] so long. I have hurt him deeply, what's more in front of other men who were there. Then Hitler said, "Every day 10,000 of my best soldiers die on the battlefield, while the others carry on living in the camps. That means the biological balance in Europe is not right anymore."

I would like to revisit this because of a comment made by an IP address I didn't notice until recently, who stated "As the article is about Adolf Hitler, an anecdote giving his own explanation and justification for the persecution of Jewish people seems to me to be extremely relevant and of great historical value". The whole quote doesn't have to be included, but I think Hitler's reply should. What's everybody's take on this? Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree for the same reasons stated last time this came up. It is a claimed quote, which if true, gives undue weight to one statement and mis-represents Hitler's motivations for the Holocaust. Kierzek (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

All I'm saying is if I was interested in the Holocaust or Hitler, and was asked if I wanted to hear what Hitler said when asked about the killings, I would definitely want to know what he said -- I therefore presume our readers will as well. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 21:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The coverage of the Holocaust is itself very minimal. I'm not sure anyhow that this represents his view of the holocaust, rather than an evasive answer to a 'sentimental woman' who had seen rounding up in the ghettoes. Kierzek implies that there is anyhow some doubt about the reliability of the quote. Taking all these into account, I would not think there is any justification for including the quote on this page. Pincrete (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Pincrete. More generally, a significant issue in scholarship on the Holocaust is that the evidence for Hitler's key role in ordering and directing the Holocaust and his motivations for doing this comprises relatively scattered material as he was careful to avoid formal records of his decisions being kept. As such, we'd be much better off quoting historians discussing Hitler's motivations than including a quote from Hitler directly. Nick-D (talk) 20:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I would like to add my agreement with Kierzek, Pincrete, and Nick. As to what Jonas said about our readers wanting to know what Hitler said when asked about the killings, that is precisely why I feel we should not include this quote, particularly a truncated version that only includes his response. The problem is that the quote does not tell us what Hitler said when asked about the killings, it tells us only what Henriette von Schirach claimed that Hitler said when asked about them. To conflate these two things, and then present his response, as if it were somehow validated or confirmed that he both said that and felt that, would be to do a great disservice to our readers, in my opinion. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Traudle Junge mentioned the incident in her autobiography. She was not present but was informed of it by her husband Hans Unge who was one of Hitler's valets. According to her account there was only a "painful silence" and no mention is made of any reply from Hitler to Frau von Schirach's question. Traudl's account only relates that after the "painful silence" Hitler "rose to his feet, said goodnight and withdrew."

Until the Final Hour: Hitler's Last Secretary, page 88, Arcade Publishing 2002.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2015

there was never any proof that hitler killed himself it is believed not sure if proven the bone dna were female

216.104.117.213 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

This has been covered before in depth both here and on the Death of Adolf Hitler talk page; WP:Fringe arguments will not be added and the "skull" fragment is a non-issue. Kierzek (talk) 12:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Having done much research on World War II and Adolf Hitler/the Nazis and Fascism, I believe there's an error in the paragraph about his trial and prison sentence. According to my research, Hitler was tried in front of a five-judge panel. Just before the five judges were about to announce their decision, four of the judges went to the other, the "lead" judge, and said that they were willing to find Hitler guilty but that, if he insisted on a prison term longer than nine months, they'd rule him not guilty. The lead judge had no choice and agreed to the nine-month sentence. I'm sure the reason or reasons behind the feelings of those four judges can be debated until the end of time. But, the fact is that he served out his full sentence...he was NOT sentenced to five years and released early over the objections of the state prosecutor, as stated in the article. 50.141.103.59 (talk) 50.141.103.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Please provide us with the sources as to where you got this information. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Likewise --- I am curious where this information was extracted since I cannot recall this specious claim appearing in the seminal biographies on der Führer by the likes of Ian Kershaw, John Toland, Konrad Heiden, J.P. Stern, Alan Bullock, or Joachim Fest, to name a few.--Obenritter (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Outdated Info

In fact, Hitler didn't die in Berlin.

DNA testing has shown that the skull of "Hitler", has a gender of a female. These are the steps of his travels: 1. Berlin to Denmark 2. Denmark to Spain 3. Spain to Canary Islands 4. Submarine from Canary Islands to Necochea, 300 miles south of Buenos Aires

He also traveled with his wife, Eva Braun. It is also said that: 1. He lived to the age of 73 2. He had 2 daughters — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobstewart581 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

That's not true at all. Everyone knows that Hitler is alive and well in a secret ice cave in Antarctica. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Spain to the Canary Islands? But the Canary Islands are part of Spain, and have been Spanish for centuries. Dimadick (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Stateless

What is the reason he is categorized as "Stateless people"??? JSoos (talk) 08:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. However, the article contains this text, which may be an explanation:

Hitler had formally renounced his Austrian citizenship on 7 April 1925, but at the time did not acquire German citizenship. For almost seven years he was stateless, unable to run for public office, and facing the risk of deportation. On 25 February 1932, the interior minister of Brunswick, Dietrich Klagges, who was a member of the NSDAP, appointed Hitler as administrator for the state's delegation to the Reichsrat in Berlin, making Hitler a citizen of Brunswick, and thus of Germany. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)