Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 13

Christianity Not Allowed?
I posted some things realted to Christianity, and they got deleted. I clearly said that anyone may ignore my posts, and that they were for Christians... am I doing something wrong, or is the author against Christianity? Jake 15:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for wanting to contribute, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place to publish your own thoughts and oppinions. Please read What Wikipedia is not. Shanes 17:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The authorS are neutral about about Christianity. Well, maybe they're not neutral... IMO most of them are human beings but I know that some of them are computer programs that we call bots. Considering the open nature of Wikipedia, we should not exclude the hypothesis of some extra terrestrial contributions or even some divine contributions to Wikipedia... However Wikipedia is a community that will evaluate the contributions to articles according to some generaly accepted rules... One of this rules is that we should try to reach a Neutral Point of View (NPOV). IMO this is simply out of reach of human beings but this is a path we should try to follow, not an aim we will reach... This doesn't contradict my own understanding of the Bible, but I may be wrong... Ericd 20:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Que pasa? Seems to me that the discussion of religion just has very little place with regard to this article. &mdash;Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 20:36, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I intended this to be a tongue-in-cheek comment.... Ericd 20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I see your point now. How should I post my thoughts on what could've made Hitler a better person? Jake 15:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * You cannot post your personal point of view. Articles should be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), and your own thoughts or opinions are probably not neutral. NPOV is the objective &mdash; its probably impossible to fully achieve &mdash; but at least try not to be obviously biased. And one way to seem obviously biased is to preach. Read here to find out more.--Ezeu 16:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, Jake, I'm afraid there's nowhere on Wikipedia where you can post your thoughts on what could have made Hitler a better person. To do so in an article would violate the no original research policy, which I recommend that you read. To do so on the talk pages would clog up Wikipedia server space with things that don't belong on it. We're supposed to limit our discussion here to things related to whether or not a particular piece of information – not the personal opinion of one of the editors – is relevant, or whether the wording is appropriate. Editors opinions on whether Hitler was a good man or a bad man, or how he could have been made better don't belong here. You can either get your own website or blog away from Wikipedia (and some of them are free), or find a published author who had ideas on how Hitler could have been made better. (E.g. Professor X. Y., in his article "Hidden Causes: How Hitler's Early Childhood led to World War II", argues that if Hitler's father had . . .) In fact, I recall that Alice Miller, in For Your Own Good: Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence, did claim that the frequent beatings Hitler received from his father turned him into someone with a need for revenge on the world. So I imagine that's the only way you could have that issue covered, but even in that case, I think you'd have to have consensus from the others – how relevant is it and are there other writers who disagree? Not everything related to Hitler belongs in the article about Hitler. Regards. Ann Heneghan (talk) 16:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * True. You are right. Thanks for helping me in my adventures to learn (which never seems to end). Jake 17:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * More on this, the article is already too long but a sub-article on AH's childhood with some reliable secondary cites would be helpful, interest in this article is very high. Wyss 11:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I've been reading this book for school. I don't know if I could write some of that stuff in. I know about the copyright stuff, but maybe I could put things in my own words? Jake 16:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Either way you want to add stuff (direct quote or paraphrase) is fine, as long as it's appropriately referenced, just like you'd reference a book in a paper at school.--chris.lawson 17:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I say to you Jake - follow wherever you can this your subject ,meaning find all reference to anyone who historically concerned themself to so advise Hitler in his life . He had many meetings with Churchmen , was reported -according to his housekeeper-which may of may not be true- to have received a bagful of cash from the hand of the papal Nuncio in c 1925 . So at any rate there is no denial that the papal Nuncio received him in his Palace, it was before the latter moved to Berlin  c 1925, down in Munich . At any rate Jake , there are a load of meetings with the same Nuncio's good friend one Ludwig Kaas who could very well have counselled him , but there are many more  , particularly a meeting Hitler had with two high ecclesiastics in 1933 , when Hitler asserted to them that he planned to do to the Jews simply that which the Catholic Church had poorly failed to achieve through millenia of trying . Jake  , these guys may have counselled him as  evil , anyway it was reported so I guess they were shocked. All in all there is considerable reference in cyberspace to meetings within the German Bishops , between the Bishops and the Nazis, even some openly Nazi Bishops . It is a very complex subject because the bishops were  well aware of Hitler's evil , and the Episcopate (them) had a clearly defined policy decrying all things Nazi until 1933 , circa 15 April , whereupon it seems the  Pope enforced through this same Nuncio, risen by then to No 2/3 , the Papal foreign minister os secretary at State, to allow and combine with and assent to the new Nazi Dictatorship(Hitlerism). So Jake -sorting out the resulting contradiction between christianity with small c which you and I, say, hold, with the christianity as an interest or a power is difficult . Your or my feelings about Hitler's self  are of course valid and best reflected as I say by devoting ourselves to rescuing the world from the consequences of what Hitler achieved and destroyed. We have to develope this christian or whatever sense we can feel- even as to supposedly separate and past history , in order to be free to have those very feelings. You are as important in this as the highest bishop . You may understand what is most important, but sadly , in the case of Hitler, it is too late . As to Wikipedia , as far as I know, which is how Hitler is dealt with here and not much else, well, Wikipedia  seems to consist of a couple of hundred individuals of apparently no-professional historian quality who are trying to build an encyclopedia interactively . This means that even if you could find that a bishop or Priest , very likely , counselled Hitler as you would imagine (and if you can't I possibly can), but   if you succeed, remember to note the title, author , page and publisher and then scout around in WP for say the Hitler and the church article and go to discussion there and present yourt thesis  when you can relate it to something someone or some book Hitler read, or something concrete you can use to justify it as having been a real factor in the  actual history . See  "Christian opposition to anti-semitism" ? etc.Good luck PS I can imagine what a christian should say , but as a person , I'd say that we are best to view at least the Christian nad Holy Roman Church as being so strong and durable through history, so influential and un-ignorable  that it is the equivalent not of a country  but as more, as the equivalent character of, say, a race, like the Chinese or the Arabs . And whatever you do ,keep it shorter than I do .EffK 23:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I say to you, EffK: keep it so short that it has no length. In your future contributions to English Wikipedia, please follow these steps: 1. study English 2. acquire logic 3. take a diet that forbids you from gorging on anti-Catholic propaganda.shtove 01:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:
 * "On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him." (60)from [] .EffK 08:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And, EffK, adding to Shtove's three points:
 * 4. Stop being so credulous to Nazi propaganda. Next time you will tell us that Hitler only wanted peace, because he said so. AH was clearly trying to win support from these two (who hardly make up "the Catholic leadership in Germany" - but that is Lewy's fault) - also, subsequent history shows that AH did not only do to the Jews what the church had done to them for 1500 years. Also, non-contradiction (of two men) is not agreement, especially when talking to a potentate. The quote clearly shows that Lewy is far from being amicable to the church, but still he doesn't support your conspiracy story. But I guess he's part of the big Vatican conspiracy too. Str1977 10:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

There is a debate within Christianity, and religion in general, as to whether religion should be used to ensure social justice or concentrate strictly on "saving souls". Some argue choosing political sides and especially opposing the current government will weaken the Church, which is then attacked by their opponents, at times violently, and that this will prevent their ultimate goal of saving as many souls as possible. This is particularly a debate in 3rd world nations right now, where their are Church factions on both side of the isssue, some "social activists" and some not. StuRat 06:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism template
How about we remove it, it's kind of unsightly? Keep the block, though.

Ksenon 16:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't mind it, or think it's unsightly, but that's just my opinion. If you want to do that, there really isn't any harm. Jake 17:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler is certainly not a "cult figure"
The entry "cult figure" in the "categories" section of this Wikipedia article does directly correspondent, in some meaningful respect, to the photograph of Hitler (Do you know who took this picture ? -- Do you know for what purpose it was taken ?) that is currently illustrating the introduction to the "Hitler" article. Both, the entry "cult figure" as well as the photograph (there are other and neutral pictures of Hitler available within the Wiki space), are not appropriate for a serious article in the Wikipedia. Hence, I will delete both of them as soon as the article is editable again. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (14112005)


 * I do not understand your argument. To me, a photograph of Hitler is appropriate on an article about Hitler, just as a photo of a Cheez-It is appropriate on an article about Cheez-Its. Can you perhaps rephrase or explain in more detail why you want to remove the image? For example, why is it relevant who took the photo or why? (Both being things that may be very difficult to find out!) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, if you wish to track the history of the photograph, this site will be the first step (scroll to the very bottom of the page). I suspect it will be practically impossible to track down the original photographer, and it looks like a simple publicity photo. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 23:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is Hitler not a cult figure? Another cult figure is David Beckman. Just because Beckham is more famous now, doesn't mean that Hitler also had some support in his time. Wallie 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good question. I forgot to mention: Hitler is certainly a "cult figure" for old and new nazis. But Wikipedia is not the right place for this kind of glorification. The current picture at the introduction is a propaganda photograph taken by Hitler's personal photographer. This is why I say: The wikipedia article about Hitler is part of an encyclopedia, not part of a fan site. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (16112005)


 * Hans, if you delete the image again, you will find yourself reported to Vandalism in progress, as you were once before. Hitler was certainly a monster, but having a photograph of him in the article does nothing to glorify what he was or what he stood for. It's simply a photograph. If you read additional meaning into it based on the photographer, that's your own personal problem. (NB: My grandfather fought in WWII, was captured by the Nazis, and spent over a year in Stalag Luft III. If I had the opportunity, I would kill Hitler myself, with my bare hands, for the suffering he inflicted on my family. But dammit, the photo stays.)--chris.lawson 22:55, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Two simple questions to you and to all readers of the Wikipedia:

1) Why do you cling to an ugly propaganda photograph while there are so many neutral ones available within the wiki space ? (Have a look at the German article.)

2) Why do you believe "a monster" (as you call it) like Hitler can be called a "Cult figures" ? (Have a look at the bottom of the article: Categories.)

As long as you cannot give any answer and good reasons for this, both of them will be deleted. Done. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (17112005) PS: You are trying to impress me with a thread called "exclusion" from the free Wikipedia. This shows clearly that you have not yet understood the principles of Wikipedia. I am _not_ impressed by statements like yours.


 * I can't say I am particularly keen on joining this discussion, but I feel I simply must vent my opinion here, since the last question was put to all readers of Wikipedia:


 * 1) The other suggested photograph of a younger Hitler is in my opinion worse, simply as it is not as easy to recognize him as on the other pic. Remember, all readers are not experts. Furthermore (and it is only my blunt opinion) I find the pic of the younger Hitler rather sleazy; he looks like a composer or even a "Dorian Gray".


 * 2) I certainly believe that Hitler can be referred to as a cult figure. According to Webster's a cult is "a group that devotes itself to or venerates a person, ideal, fad, etc.". Is this not a correct description of the Nazis, and was not Hitler their leader? There it is. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 03:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, as I understand it, Hans Rosenthal's objection to the photo is that it's a rather flattering one: it shows him in a stylish suit, with a nifty military hat, and Looking To The Future in the manner of a politician on an election-campaign sign. Hans is saying that, since Hitler was such evil filth, we shouldn't use a photo that was clearly intended to make him look appealing. Is that accurate, Hans?


 * Also the description of someone as a "cult figure" is not necessarily a positive statement. Few would disagree that - during the Reich - Hitler was widely venerated, by force of law if need be. DS 15:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the lessons of history is that unhelpful things often arrive in attractive packages. The inclusion of a "flattering" image of AH in an article about him helps readers understand why so many people found his propaganda attractive at the time (and remember, they weren't advertising that they'd attempt to send every Jew and other "undesireable" in Europe to a death camp). Moreover, AH was a cult figure and still is. Such a description, in English, is not considered positive or negative. Wyss 16:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What I am trying to do is keeping this Wikipedia article about "Adolf Hitler" free from contributions which serve a certain Hitler-fan-base, but have nothing do do with Wikipedia. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19112005) PS: Would you Hitler fans please withdraw from the Wikipedia article "Adolf Hitler" ! There are so many playgrounds for you to play in.


 * What I (and apparently several others) do not understand, Hans, is how unbiased, factual information about Hitler serves a Hitler fan base. I am not a fan of Hitler—quite the opposite, in fact!—yet this article has not given me a more positive opinion of him. I believe it is more or less policy at Wikipedia to not judge historical figures, but rather to document their deeds (and misdeeds) and let the reader draw their own conclusions. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-19 06:27:54Z


 * You say "in fact!—yet this article has not given me a more positive opinion of him.". I ask you: Why then do you accept a propaganda photograph of Hitler within a Wikipedia article ? A photograph taken from Hitler's personal photographer for Hitler's purpose ? Either you are serious, or you are not. But if you are serious, you would never accept a propaganda photograph within the Wikipedia. So can I now take you for serious ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19112005)


 * I think others have already addressed this issue sufficiently, but here are my thoughts on the current photo:
 * The photo presents Hitler in a form (clothing, pose, lighting, etc.) that is immediately identifiable. A photo of him much younger or not dressed in his military garb would surely be less recognizable to the average reader, and thus less appropriate.
 * The photo does not glorify Hitler in any way. I do not think the photo makes him look any more imperious or attractive or charismatic than the text of the article suggests.
 * I have looked at the photos in the German article and do not believe that any of them are in any way better than the current photo. For example, the "young Hitler" photo is far less recognizable and of significantly inferior resolution.
 * Whether or not it was created for propaganda is irrelevant to me, as long as the picture serves its purpose. I ask that you do take me seriously and let me know what you think of the specific issues above. Could you perhaps find some alternative photos that we all might consider? &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-19 08:09:09Z


 * Once in a while I have to resume to a natural language: What the previous contributor says is no more than: (The following statement is reducible by logical procedures.): "Could you perhaps find some alternative photos" -- Yes, I could find an photograph of Hitler. But whenever I would try to submit such a pictute, the kids like yours would _"revert"_ it. And why would the kids do it ? Well, they do it following their Baby principle. (I am tired to describe this into more detail, sorry.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19112005)

I believe finding an alternate photo that is agreeable to everyone is the only way to move this discussion forward, so it does boil down to that one way or another. The one alternative that you have proposed (as far as I'm aware) is not appropriate, for reasons that have already been put forth here; hence it has been consistently reverted. The phrase "Baby principle" does not mean anything to me; please get some rest and explain! :) &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-19 22:42:28Z

Potsdam Picture
I have changed this before, but since it got reverted and the page is protected, I'll explain this here:

There's a picture with the caption "Hindenburg appoints Hitler as Chancellor". This is incorrect. I don't think there are pictures of his appointment. And if there are, it would not be in the open air. This picture is from the Day of Potsdam, the opening ceremony of the 1933 Reichstag. It is the famous handshake between Hindenburg und Hitler, symbolizing the reconciliation between old Prussian values and new Nazi movement.

Oops, I just found out I was mistaken. I corrected this over at 2Hindenburg" and not here. Anyway, it needs to be corrected. Over there the caption now reads: "Hindenburg greats Chancellor Hitler at Reichstag opening ceremony". Str1977 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I have unprotected it. Go ahead and edit. Shanes 00:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Shanes, I have done it. Str1977 00:27, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Shanes likes to say: c -- But what does such a statement mean ? It does mean: "I am of some importance." -- But have no idea at all of what the term "I am of some importance." might fit into. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- ersetze AT durch @ ) (11142005)

Wolf
I rolled back an edit by which I thought had a misleading edit summary, but the diff I was looking at was misleading because it covered two edits by that user, and the first gave references. Could someone check out the accuracy of the information. I'll put back their edits.-Mr Adequate 07:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, it's true. IIRC, Kershaw does mention this in his book, but I'll check just to be sure. --Viriditas 10:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Reconstruction of the bunker(s)
Hi wikipedians!

Finally I have added the reconstructions I made in 2004 of the two bunkers (Führerbunker & Vorbunker) and their location to wikimedia. I am not sure if any of these maps earn a place in this article, so therefore I have not added any (they have been added to the article Führerbunker, Hitler's death and Reich Chancellory). Nevertheless, I wanted to inform you of their existence, since I believe they are of interest to some of you. Instead of repeating the information about my reconstruction here, I refer the descriptions I have made on the actual image pages:


 * 1) Fuehrerbunker.jpg
 * 2) Vorbunker.jpg
 * 3) BunkerLocations.jpg

I hope you enjoy the maps. Regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 13:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * These maps do not contain any information about the topic of this Wikipedia article. So why do you present them here, why not on your personal homepage ? (I do know the reason, but am too polite to tell it in public.) My request: Please keep your bunkers within your sandbox, and come back whenever you have to contribute something to this Wiki article about "Hitler". Thanks. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (17112005)

No, that reply is uncivil and mistaken. However, the maps, while interesting, if you built them yourself, are original research and therefore inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. If you ever get them published in a reliable secondary source, they might be suitable for the article Fuhrerbunker. Wyss 16:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

The Rise of Hitler:Forking from The Road to Power
There is confusion, probably brought on by me, elsewhere  but I suggest all relevant material to the subject of The Rise of Hitler be under the name of the certain criminal individual who benefited : Adolf Hitler or Hitler.

I suggest that the strands of the problem out-standing be noted under Road to Power where it is that now ,  and then subdivided /forked into the necessary strands which are at least those below. Due to length I suggest as with theology of Pope Benedict XVI that a fork exit ,called The Rise of Hitler.

That, sections sub-divide from these general  interlocking areas


 * The German Philosphical contribution.


 * The Reichswehr in Weimar Germany contribution.


 * The Industrialists The Rhenish-Westphalian Magnates' contribution.


 * The landed classes-Junker aristocracy- contribution.


 * The evangelical Protestant Churches' contribution.


 * The Roman Catholic Church policy and its contribution.


 * The International finance contribution.

Links should then exit towards later subject such as the history of the Third Reich, Appeasement , Second World War .User:Robert McClenon is good at this thinking. It may take another while, but as presented on Holocaust that Hitler ascended to power following elections , does not cut the mustard.

Equal treatment must also be accorded the German Widerstand and all knowledge which would be  as to this, possibly as in the exception that proves the rule , or more ,or however it truly was.

This suggestion I post elsewhere. EffK 21:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I have visited the articles, and Holocaust's 'Jews' links the plainly ill description of accession to power (elections gladly removed-by me?) , links to the "machtergreifung" or however the German expression goes. The article there no more deals with the why and wherefore than does 'Hitler' here deal with it. I know what is missing, and only some sense of civil duty brings me to constsnatly raise the omission.

The road to power here indeed describes the bones, leaving out the well documented set up with the Industrialists , actual bank-rolling. The Catholic connection is un-analysed, nor is it understandable from any links in Wikipedia to Hitler and the church whcich should say at least Chruches with a capital , as church refers to the people therein. No, the "Machtergreifung" describes the seizure not accession. The German at least is honest whereas this use of English is entirely hazy and misleading. The "Machtergreifung" refers to the Nazi portrayal of events and to the actual process of the events, but seeks in no way to explain the events or analyse them or seek the differing pseudo-nazi or non-nazi players who combined in the preceding months and years. I enumerate from memory the above divisions of the real "Rise to power" of Hitler, but assure editors that I have a previous source that refers to them as the beneficiaries of the terms like 'Machertgreifung', indeed they even exist on articles so proved. A note: I object on simple comprehensibility grounds all use of German language descriptions invading English expression. It should be reversed on WP asap.EffK 23:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

This might be a warning
Read slowly and clearly and simply the above claims. They seem to talk more than I can say. (Kids have their place in the playground = Kindegrarten, where they can play with every grain of sand, and nothing more.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19112005)

What are you talking about? --Yooden

It appears to be a characterisation of my interference. There are many who have sensitivities relating to the clarity I seek above. From the edit tag, it seems like a threat. Odd 'n' all .EffK 10:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)