Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 10

Sexuality
Is there a reason why the page does not mention the speculated unusual sexual life of AH? the defecation, etc.. I've seen that kinda stuff mentioned in other sources, so even if it's not correct, should there be an entry in this article mentioning the truth or falsehood of this? rakkar 20:37, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not mentioned because there is zero (as in no) evidence AH did any of that stuff. No serious historian or biographer that I'm aware of has ever treated these tales seriously. None. The widely discredited stories most often originated with raw OSS reports based on stuff submitted during the 1930s by various dis-affected Germans (including ex-Nazis) and others who often had outstanding motives to smear AH, ranging from hopes for political action by the US to the granting of visas and other assistance. Wyss 14:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've read various theories that he was asexual (or even homosexual) but these all seem to be opinions and not treated as being serious by historians either. chowells 14:56, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah, I did wonder if something so extreme could have been propaganda/smearing. My point is, given that it is such a widespread tale, should there be a paragraph on this page that mentions & dispells these rumours? rakkar 14:53, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * * But is it actually a widespread tail? I've never heard it before. At the moment my opinion is that adding it is not particulary encyclopaedic and runs the risk of giving and giving unnecesscary attention to those that make such things up. chowells 15:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. These rumours have their origins mostly in smears from the 1930s (AH had many embittered political enemies, especially in Germany), some of which wound up in raw OSS intelligence files. None have ever been substantiated in any way. Since Hitler is such a widely referenced topic even in casual conversation, lots of rumours persist but giving them attention in an encyclopedia article, even to debunk them, would convey further life to unsupported, tabloid quality smears from 70 years ago. However, if an article called Adolf Hitler's sexuality ever cropped up it would be ok to mention them there for what they are. Wyss 16:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

These statements come from the OSS psychological profiles of AH, which in 1943 predicted his eventual suicide. In what way have they been discredited?

Edr 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Satanic occult and suicide date
I have removed the following from the article:

Due to his occult interests, it has been speculated that Hitler chose April 30 because of its importance as a Satanic holiday.

In the edit summary I said I'd move it to the trivia section, put decided it was too weak. There are so many wildly speculative and conflated rumours about AH that some picking and choosing is inevitable. There is zero documented support that AH practiced any from of religion as an adult (incuding ritual satanism), much less chose his death date to coincide with a satanic holiday. The timing of his suicide had much more to due with Red Army shock troops being only dozens of metres away and were expected to be knocking on the bunker's doors (so to speak) within hours. Wyss 20:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The history channel says otherwise, and I trust them more than you. Lilath


 * I'm not so sure you haven't taken whatever you may have heard on the History Channel out of context and with all due respect, your notions of trust have nothing to do with it. Lots of nutty speculations have been made about AH, in print and on TV. This is unsupported and would require multiple secondary cites of primary sources for inclusion in this article. Wyss 00:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I suspect AH would have AVOIDED the april 30th date if he had known it was a satanic holiday. He was interested in the occult as a way to gain more power, not because he was a believer. There is no credible information I have ever seen that would support such a claim. I suspect he thought he was on God's side in WWII, and would have argued with you if you disagreed with him. I am no expert, but I am a serious amateur historian, so I hope my thoughts help. I also have a degree in Psychology, if that matters!

By the way, it still says in the article that "it has been speculated that Hitler chose April 30 because of its importance as a Satanic holiday." that phrase has not been removed yet.

Leto Atreides: some idiot has gone through and filled 'Early life' with swears.


 * I have seen said History Channel episode. The narrators themselves admit that this is just pure speculation. In reality, Hitler wanted to live until May 5 and die on the same day Napoleon did; he checked out on April 30 after he learned the Russians were too close. This is detailed in The Bunker and several other more reliable sources than sensationalistic tv documentaties. Also, Walpurgis Night - the holiday the History Channel refers by name to - is hardly a "Satanic holiday." --L. 16:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

History
As far as I can see, this article is full of bias against Hitler. The man did many bad things, but in my belief, his WW1 war record was good, and he was well respected in the International Community up to around 1938. I do have Encylopedias around 1935, written in Englsh which speak very highly of him. Their perspective of History then was more accurate than now! In particular, his WW1 War record as stated here is patently false, and is the statement that he was despised by his fellow troops and that he "sucked up" to officers. Hitler was popular with the troops, and this was patently obvious in WW2 in Germany. I'm sure that many American Soldiers, spoken of so highly in Wikipedia also sucked up to their officers. I have attempted to change parts of his WW1 War record. But any attempts are immediately reversed out.

I have a particular interest in this, as my own father was given the white feathers during WW2. Someone else pointed out that he was badly wounded in the War, and the young ladies concerned immediately took them back. They said they were upset as their brother was killed, and they though my Father did not go. It is particularly hurtful to see when any soldier who went through what Hitler did in WW1 has his record unfairly denigrated. The people who do this have usually never fought in action themselves, and the dead cannot defend themselves. Leistung 20:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I wholely agree with you; any good point about his past is countered with a cliche hidden motive (see WW1 record: "Research by Bernhard Horstmann indicates the blindness may have been the result of an hysterical reaction to Germany's defeat"). Research or not, how is it possible to know that? Very POV and it does not belong here. This only furthers the cartoonish view people have of him today. He could do no good, as far as those who edit anything I have edited in the past think. (granted, he did alot of bad..) -Karasu


 * The hysterical blindness was postulated at the time and can be cited in Toland. I've read it in several other sources too, this is a widely documented PoV/possibility and the article clearly states... may have been the result... It certainly does is not a "cliche hidden motive" to include it and it does not reduce AH to a cartoonish view. So far as "denigrating" his WWI record, the Iron Cross award is mentioned and the only negative stuff are, again, widely documented quotes having to do with his illness at Pacewalk. Wyss 01:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, fair enough. I had never read that, from what I heard before his WW1 service was excellent and something anyone would be proud of. I guess I feel that that section (WW1) should be expanded. The article is still too negative as a whole (not an apologist or revisionist BTW), but it has gotten better. -Karasu


 * His WWI service record, as a corporal, was by and large excellent. His dismal record as leader Germany tends to overshadow that and keep in mind, his service as a corporal during WWI was encyclopedic only so far as it relates to his biography in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how much exapnsion it needs... maybe a separate article, the main one is already quite long. Wyss 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Alright then, someone more well-versed in the subject than myself should start one. - Karasu


 * Hello Leistung. As I already told you on your talk page, you are welcome to edit the article and include the information from those encyclopaediae. In fact, if you have access to this sort of data, it would be great if you did! But you must remember to present the material in a neutral and factual way, without overstating things (see Neutral point of view), and to cite sources. This way you can help make Wikipedia an even better repository of knowledge. - ulayiti (talk)  13:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The more wonted PoV is that he should be portrayed as a perverted cartoon caracature of pure evil. The article, while flawed, does a reasonable job of NPoV given the incredibly controversial and misunderstood nature of this individual (who was, btw, a genocidal sociopath who left Germany in ruins). Please bear in mind that in addition, this article is one of the most frequently vandalized and otherwise attacked on WP. Wyss 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. No human being has been, nor can ever be, 'pure evil' or anything even remotely resembling that. Now, while there's no doubt that Hitler was a very bad man, I think it's necessary that he be represented as a human being (because anything else is POV). So, if Leistung has verifiable information he's willing to contribute, he should be given a chance to do so (as long as it stays NPOV). - ulayiti (talk)  14:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. If Hitler wasn't the führer he would have been no more than a casual racist, the likes of which are everywhere to be seen in this world. I'd even wager that if you gave a modern-day racist Hitler's power and influence, we'd have another holocaust on our hands. The fact that he was human shouldn't be lost sight of. --84.69.123.186 20:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep. Genocide is a constant danger in our technology based "global village." Wyss 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that... I guess I wasn't clear enough! I was trying to say exactly what you said, ulayiti, spot on. If he's not portrayed as human, the article becomes unhelpful since there is nothing to learn from. Owing to his charisma, charm and political skills, few Germans had any clue as to how destructive (and inept) his career would be until it was far too late. Wyss 14:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused. In this line it says Rather than have new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law combining the offices of president and chancellor, with Hitler holding both offices (including the president's decree powers) as leader and national chancellor, a consolidation approved by 90% of the electorate in mid-August 1934. And then in the next few lines it says Having secured supreme political power without an electoral mandate from the majority of Germans, Hitler went on to gain their support by persuading most Germans he was their saviour from the Depression, the Communists, the Versailles Treaty and the Jews.

How was that jump made? When the article says electorate, does it mean the cabinet or the public? I think the second sentance is extraordinarily important that many people in North America don't quite realize. Hitler didn't get voted in, etc.

Try reading it again. The consolidation was approved by the electorate but subsequently the Enabling Act was authorized directly by an existing article in the constitution. Totalitarian power, already provided for under emergency clauses of the Weimar constitution, was assumed by AH without electoral approval because none was legally required under the circumstances. After the war this was pointed out as a huge docking flaw in the constitution and West Germany's post-war constitution closed the "loophole." Wyss 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me because it's still not exactly clear. How many people were in the electorate exactly? What were the dates the law consolidating power passed by his cabinet and then by the electorate?


 * Try reading Weimar Republic. The AH article isn't so biased. The challenge is showing him as human at all given the tens of millions he sent to their deaths (Jews, German civilians and military personnel, Allied civilians and military personnel... others). He tried to save the world by killing a significant proportion of the people in it and left the country he ruled in ruins. Even if you agree with his motives, he was so dockingly inept after 1939, an NPoV biography will make it plain one way or another. Wyss 01:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing the facts or whether the AH article is biased or not. I was just curious about making the semantics more clear and figures, numbers, etc. Thanks anyways, though!


 * Maybe it's ironic that the article gives that impression... What they did was rather clever, deeply threaded and tricky. AH had substantial help and support from the establishment, which was generally terrified of democracy (Weimar was Germany's first attempt at it). A backdoor "safety valve" had been built into the constitution in 1919 which allowed the government to approve sweeping, dictatorial "emergency powers." The consolidation made the subsequent high level application of the "Enabling Act" possible. Combined with AH's rather brilliant, multi-level marketing of fear (of jews, communists, "degenerates" etc) and a uniquely German form of cultural national-socialism, nudged along with the intimidating street tactics of the SA, he was able to legally slip into the role of absolute dictator. There was some corruption involved in "buying" loyalty along with his public charisma and image. He consolidated and re-armed Germany for six years, then set out to remake the world in his image. Wyss 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think this article is remarkably unbiased. If you want a biased article check out the article on Pinochet. Actually Pinochet appears worse than Hitler

Legacy
Is there an error with the quote by his sister?

Shouldn't it be became instead of become or did she just say it grammatically wrong?

"...if he'd [had] ...become..." not became. It's correct. Wyss 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

FK edits
Hi, I have just now included material. I agree with a lot you say Wyss, but I hope that that which you analyse will allow for the parallel involvement of the Church. I have tried not to over-step the historical mark, and very much hope you will support the inclusions. I do not in any way dispute your analysis of heavy industry-right wing connivance, as you know. I have simply not had the time to join further with you in that.

I am planning to include material elsewhere to show just how un-exceptional Hitler's anti-semitism was, as well as his sense of germanity and its special nature. Thanks Famekeeper 07:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure the anti-semitisim was unexpected- it was part of the culture already. What was not expected was the industrial genocide. Wyss 16:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Illegitimate Son
Late in World War One, while serving with the occupation forces in northern France, Hitler apparently begot a son on a young French woman. The son had an undistinguished life, working as a mail carrier, as I recall. He was fifty-seven years old when the world discovered who his father was. His wife left him. It may take some time for me to track down the published reports on the subject. Anyone else who wants to, feel free.J S Ayer

That's an old, untrue rumour. It's also been discussed previously on this talk page. Wyss 16:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I missed that the first time around. I may look into it further.J S Ayer 01:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know where it first popped up (likely during the 30s) but there is zero evidence AH had any kids. Wyss 11:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

A German Painter
This article is linked to the category "German painters" - I removed but it was restored. I will let it stand for now, but it's still odd:
 * Hitler numbered among Albrecht Dürer and Caspar David Friedrich etc. is quite odd - they are all famous for their paintings, while Hitler isn't
 * Hitler never was a real painter - he wanted to be one but was rejected at the academy twice - what he really painted, actually drew was picture postcards - is anyone fond of drawing a painter? I am fond of this too - am I a painter? I don't think so.
 * The issue of whether he was German: I don't want to draw distinct lines between Austria and Germany during that time, but it's cute that I had some time ago some dispute about whether to include Mozart in a listing of German composers. Why is it that no one disputes Hitler's Germanness here, especially since his post card drawing times were in his Vienna years.

Please consider this. Str1977 22:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. I find it odd to have him in that category, listed among all the "real" painters. He would never have been in that category (or mentioned at all in wikipedia, for that matter), had he not turned to politics. I feel that the painters category should be reserved for people who have an article here based on their painting merits. Shanes 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I'll remove it. Wyss 22:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * That said, he painted thousands of items and sold many in the form of small paintings and postcards, some of which were produced in Munich before he enlisted in the Bavarian army. He also did some painting during the great war. His strength was architectural subjects (although I personally agree with those who say he had real trouble with human figures). I've been told by a number of painters (privately, sometimes rather adamantly) that he did have talent. I've likely seen photographs of a few hundred of his paintings, plus a few in life.  I'd say that on balance I don't personally care at all for his work, but he did some paintings which, if I didn't know who the artist was, I guess I wouldn't mind looking at. A couple of still lifes of flowers and a few paintings of buildings come to mind. On the other hand, my great grandmother once did a rather amazing still life of apples with a landscape in the background which I would vastly prefer over anything AH ever did and she isn't mentioned in WP. Wyss 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's a borderline case of who to include in a category and who not. Since he did make a living as a painter for a (short) while (and is famous), it could be argued that he should be included. But that he never became even remotely notable as a painter I feel is a stronger argument for leaving him out of the category. There have been many people selling paintings in the city streets through history. Most of them, I bet, have received compliments for being talented. But a very small part of them will ever make it big enough to get a wikipedia-entry that passes VFD. Making it as a painter is hard. As Hitler himself found out. And I feel that the category should be reserved for those who did make it (before or after they died). But I'm not at all fanatic about it. Maybe it could be left for the people on Visual arts project to decide, or something. If we care enough to make a big deal out of this. Shanes 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Only people who are notable as painters should be in a painter category. Winston Churchill also painted, as I recall - should he be in Category:British painters? john k 00:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it, likewise Paul McCartney. Wyss 12:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that to include Hitler amongst the ranks of individuals notable solely as painters might seem unwise, it should be considered that Hitler's initial popularity would have had the same kind of effect upon his paintings as it did upon Mein Kampf. Therefore, he could be considered a notable German painter, at least within Germany and for that period of time. 84.69.40.222 17:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, 84 ..., it doesn't work out.

First of all, Mein Kampf was a political work and not some volume of literature. And many bought it (or frequently got it as a present after 1933) but few read it ... unfortunately.

And Hitler's paintings? They don't exist. Hitler wanted to be a painter. He was rejected twice at the Academy in Vienna. Apart from this he painted postcards of the notable sights of Vienna. That's hardly enough to be counted as a painter.

Str1977 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Str1977 is mistaken, AH's paintings do exist, they numbered in the 2-3 thousand range, many were postcards (which he sold), many were canvases. He was a painter, and a professional one for almost a decade, before he joined the Bavarian army. The only question here is whether or not he would qualify as a "notable" German painter on the merits of his work. He was a competent talent but no, I don't think he really qualifies as notable in that field. Wyss 20:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was not that they do not (or did not) exist physically, but that they don't constitute an "ouevre" as with Van Gogh or Picasso or C.D. Friedrich. Yes, in a way he was a "professional" but that's only because he had nothing else to do. Also, I'm not doubting a certain artistic talent. Naive drawings have their value too and I'm not sure whether I like some "abstract" stuff better. Anyway, the main thing is that we agree that it doesn't merit his inclusion into the category. Str1977 20:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

He had other stuff to do, he wanted to paint, that's all. Later his wartime experience and nationalistic passions took him elsewhere. Anyway first you say his paintings don't exist, then you say he had nothing else to do. Then you remark his paintings were "naive" but I think perhaps less naive than flippant comments like "they didn't exist"... or "he had nothing else to do."

Reducing Mr Hitler to the level of a cartoon character bum is unhelpful to folks who need to have sufficient background and information to spot the next charismatic, politically talented and ruthless sociopath who comes along to sweep a nation off its feet and into the arms of armageddon. Wyss 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I have explained what I meant be "don't exist". I don't want to pick a fight on this. As for your "concern": start by reading someone's political programme. It would have helped in AH's case. Str1977 18:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't use the word concern. Why did you say I have a "concern"? Why did you put it in quotes? Wyss 19:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been clearer. With Concern I meant your passage "is unhelpful to folks who need to have sufficient background and information". I called it concern because it showed concern about another "sociopath" coming along. Because you didn't actually say concern I put it into inverted commas, but didn't think about that it could be taken as indicating a quote. Sorry. Str1977 20:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

bisexual Hitler loved the circus
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/hitleross1.html

Be careful about taking these old OSS reports too seriously, they were the rawest sort of intelligence, replete with misinformation from sundry AH enemies (this one's even written in the first person)... like going to the circus almost every day during the summer of 1933? Wyss 05:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Schleicher-Papen coup
Wyss, you reverted my edit, saying

"The road to power - Schleicher asked for lawful emergency powers, not a coup"

What is meant by coup is that parliament should be disbanded again but this time without calling new elections (at least temporarily). This would have been against the constitution which said that after the disolution there would be elections within soandsomany days. This is commonly referred to as the planned coup d'etat (Staatsstreich in German). The term is used in historiography and it was used back in the days (the Centre Party always accused Papen of such plans and they were right)

Papen proposed this coup after the second election in 32 brough no majority and plans of Nazi inclusion failed. Schleicher was with him on this, but just before the presentation of the plans how to implement this in the military field (a civil war was feared, and the Reichswehr were only 100,000 men vs. 3 million SA and I don't know how many Communist paramilitary - hence there was a conference involving military and police leaders), immediately before this Schleicher turned on Papen and opposed the plan. The military leaders followed him in this and Schleicher convinced Hindenburg to appoint him Chancellor instead of Papen. Hindenburg initially was won over for the coup but now he followed Schleicher. Schleicher tried his Querfront policy but failed. After this made proposals for the same coup himself (January 33), but Hindenburg now adamantely opposed the plans (I mean, it really does look like fooling around) and dismissed Schleicher. And the rest is history (too).

Consider this. What dost thou say now? Str1977 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I tend to be sort of wary about using terms like that, since they frequently originate in opposition polemics meant to polarize the issues and it seems to me the Centre party was using the phrase in that way. Besides, Schleicher asked for emergency powers, not a coup d'etat, so calling it a coup would be PoV (although a logical one). We all know those people didn't trust (or were ambivalent about) democratic processes, but I think it's helpful to separate the rhetoric they used from what they in truth did. Wyss 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the term is used in historiography. But maybe we could just state what he wanted (or, if that has already been done under Papen, just state that he wanted the same). I have not heard he wanted emergency powers (apart from doing away with parliament) - and what he asked for was objectively a coup d'etat, even if the claim by Papen that it was only temporarily were true (we don't know). Emergency powers of permament dismissal I would not consider to be part of the "democratic process": Str1977 22:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted again and clarified Papen's plans. You wrote:

"Schleicher asked for lawful emergency powers, not a coup"

There are only two forms of lawful (or constitutional) emergency powers: either the one of the President under § 48, with which he can back his chancellor, or an Enabling Act voted for by parliament. The second was impossible, since Schleicher's Querfront failed. You are probably referring to the first one, but that is simply Hindenburg's refusal to back Schleicher anymore. Without presidential decree he could do nothing, as he had parliament against him. Str1977 22:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


 * That's the ambiguity I'm referring to. What Schleicher asked Hindenburg for was emergency powers . He also wanted to dissolve parliament (legal) and delay elections (legal) indefinitely (not legal). Whether or not some historians have used the term, I think it's rather a stretch and don't really see a need to add the interpretive spin. Wyss 22:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I still feel uneasy about the "authorized by the constitution" bit. Do you insist on including it? Had Schl. prevailed it would have been a carte blanche from Hindenburg but not any legal transfer of powers. Just the red folder, I think. Str1977 23:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I took it out then, since a) they were trying to undermine the constitution and b) the article doesn't need that level of granularity (it's too long already). Wyss 00:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)