Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 14

Deportation of Jews
I think I might add something about the deportation of Jews to Madagascar. A lot of German citizens and Jews themselves were believed by Hitler that the Jews were to be sent to Madagascar.

"Charismatic leadership" or "Charismatic authority"
User:64.12.116.201 is constantly changing "Under Hitler's leadership..." to "Under Hitler's charismatic leadership..." despite being reverted. This smells slightly of POV, but I also don't think "charismatic leadership" should have its own article. &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Having read charismatic authority, I retract the latter part of my comment, and stand solely by the POV comment. &mdash; J I P | Talk 12:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The article does not assert charismatic authority, which has a specialized, socio-political definition. The common dictionary definition holds for use of the term charismatic in the article. Wyss 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I notice that the adjective is wikified as charismatic leadership which redirs to charismatic authority. Re-reading that, I think the latter article may have some wording problems itself.


 * I'm neutral . AH was charismatic (he swayed the German establishment, then a nation into institutional crime and atrocity of almost perplexing scale, never mind at least two women committed suicide as a result of their relationships with him). I think some readers mistakenly interpret charismatic as a positive attribute or sympathetic commentary. AH as much as anyone suggests that charisma, like so many other human qualities, is in itself but a characteristic... what one does with one's talents is ultimately much more important. Wyss 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * After pondering this a bit I think it's helpful, historically supported and instructive to use the term charismatic in the context of that sentence. Wyss 15:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Totally agree. Charismatic seems appropriate here. DJ Clayworth 13:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP. I'm not sure why you keep reverting this simple edit -- it is not POV in ANY way, but the plain and glaringly obvious truth.  This man used his personal magnetism and charismatic authority to lead a nation (and Europe) to its doom.  Other Nazi leaders used propaganda to transform this Austrian racist in to a mythical, godlike figure -- and from personally reading dozens of personal accounts over the years, he really was by all means intensely charismatic, and this was the basis of his authority (hence the reverts to charismatic leadership).  Just ask any historian, sociologist, etc. -- WWII Nazis all called Hitler "The Saviour of Germany," like some modern-day Christ figure; or watch Triumph des Willens for yourself and find out; it isn't hard to spot there...everyday people need to be made fully aware that people like this exist and can naturally use their charisma to positively or negatively manipulate and sway the masses of "sheep."  And the above User:Wyss is correct; charisma isn't ALWAYS a positive character trait like you seem to think User:JIP...some who have it (Hitler) used it to exploit others, make tons of money, wield negative power, dominate/oppress, etc., while others used it for positive social change and other worthy causes (Gandhi).  Go and read the base article on Charisma and then let us know what you think here.  --152.163.100.5 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep...there's nothing POV about that pithy statement; he was a charismatic maniac! He chose to use a profound gift in a terrible, terrible way...shame on him.  Berlin Stark 20:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * According to Alan Bullock in his biography of both Stalin and Hitler, Stalin missed the charisma of Hitler, (page 404 if I remember it well). Andries 21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete...it is true that AH had charisma and his leadership can be described as charismatic, but in the context of this sentence I think it's out of the way and superfluous. We can still include it at another place. Str1977 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Put it somewhere else and explain that it is a theory. --Ezeu 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why would it be unsuperfluous somewhere else? Why is it a theory? Wyss 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP. The FACT that Hitler's leadership was very charismatic is VITALLY IMPORTANT to his ability to take over Germany, defy the Versailles Treaty and get away with it, and push anti-Semitism onto a people to such a degree that it is legally enforced, taught in schools, and millions of murders are commited for it. Mein Kampf is horribly written. It is dry, boring, asinine, and unreadable, but it says the SAME THING as his speeches. The difference was his charisma, which doesn't, of course, come out in print. It is in no way synonymous with "he was a good leader" or "what he did was right." If you still have problems with assigning any connotatively positive attitudes with H17LER DA KILL3R OF DA JOOz OMG then watch a video of one of his speeches on the internet. It doesn't matter what he says: the style is grand, he says what the people want to hear, and everyone cheers their head off. Hitler's subjects found him very charismatic. It is a FACT and not in any way anyone's point of view in any manner. 'Charismatic leadership' was the best way of saying it, makes the most sense, and is accurate, factual, and 100% related to Hitler as a dictator and to this article. Definitely keep the charisma in. I can agree that it might not be the best spot for it. But for the love of god the article is like 20 pages. The person who added it was too lazy to read the whole thing and I understand the sentiment. If you don't want the charisma there, read through the article and find a better spot if you want, or close your eyes and pick a place at random if you prefer, but it's definitely necessary somewhere. --68.148.168.84 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Referring to his charismatic authority should stay at the beginning of the article because it was so incredibly vital to his leadership and personality; that's where the most important stuff goes. 205.188.116.5 10:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP: there is film footage of Hitler speaking from a podium at a rally, which shows a crowd of screaming teenage girls bursting through a cordon to acclaim him - it predates the Beatles hype by 25 years. "Charismatic" is a keep, but should go along with "media manipulation" and "grow up!". I am grumpy, but not old.--shtove 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * And you are sure it isnt a Leni Riefenstahl Films Inc. production? --Ezeu 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I dunno. The footage is staged but compelling, and Leni (or whoever) gives a masterclass in how to sell a politician to a shrugging electorate. We could all do with much much more of the same, couldn't we? BTW: This article has the longest list of foreign language counterparts that I've seen on W'pedia. Why are we all so interested?--shtove 01:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why are we all so interested? Because Hitler masterminded and inspired the most destructive war and despicable genocide in the whole of human history, and ALL humans are fascinated (drawn towards yet also repulsed) by the ultra-dark side of humanity; this much is a fact.  War (especially on the scale of WWII) is about as dark as you can get.  Plus, it was relatively recently that the Holocaust and WWII happened, so the memories are still quite fresh in the wounded collective unconscious of the West, not to mention that many WWII-vets are still alive along with CC-camp survivors, ex-Nazis, etc.  I don't care how "cultured" or "refined" you are or claim to be...Hitler's power and darkness will really make you think and his destructive "charisma" still holds sway today around the globe.  WWII shaped the modern World as we know it today more than anything else that I can think of.  Just imagine the scars that the Germans still hold, the guilt and shame.  I’ve always believed that if a person wants to try and understand the 20th Century in the West he/she better try and understand German culture and Germany’s history.  Thus, Hitler and his twisted legacy unfortunately lives on and will for a VERY long time to come.  --Berlin Stark 07:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I have never claimed to be cultured or refined. Why aren't we as interested in Stalin, who (by body count/ideology) was more deadly/influential than Hitler? And I think European inventions of the last 200 years have had more influence on modern life than any war.--shtove 12:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In the long run Stalin was more deadly than Hitler.... But only in the long run... If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR, what was the destiny of the Slavs in Hitler's mind and how great was their courage during the war. There are some reasons to think that they found Stalin's dictatorship very mild in comparison... More serioulsly "Uncle Adolf" wasn't only the worse criminals of all times... He was was also self-destructive and worse of of all he wished to bring all Germany in his self-destructive project...


 * You wrote << "If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR,..." >> Oh I know the cost as I have studied Operation Barbarossa with some intensity for quite a while. Estimates range as high as 30 million!  That's no joke!  But of course the flu-pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 50 million, which is the same amount that was said to die in all of WWII; it's all really hard to follow with all of these "estimates" floating about. 152.15.100.163 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What else ? It scares me to the bones. Beuark... Ericd 21:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * No doubting the courage of Russian resistance to Barbarossa, but why didn't the same people have the courage to see what Stalin was about? The people of western Ukraine know all about the long run, because at one point a large proportion found themselves dead at Stalin's command. If you say,"comparatively mild" then you must be mad. As for the interest in Hitler, I guess it is partly generated by the soap opera aspects of both his life and the rise of the National Socialist party. Ancient Greek drama and Christianity are far more instructive than history in fathoming human depravity.--shtove 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I may be mad.... Soap opera ? Soap ? Well wash your face and look in the mirror. Experiencing a modern firearm shot is far more instructive than anything else in understanding human nature... Ericd 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It may depend on which end of the gun you're looking at, but gunpowder explodes and that's it - no mystery. Apologies for the "mad" query. The "soap opera" description relates to aspects such as the Geli Raubel relationship, the bad art, vegeterianism, drug taking, the jolly sympathy with children, the fatal attraction over women, the marriage to Eva Braun, etc -the kind that inflame vulgar fantasies. The question stands: why the blanket interest in Hitler, when Stalin merits as much, if not more? Isn't it a pretence to insist that the Hitler obsession has anything to do with moral reflection and lesson-learning?--shtove 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete I think there should be part of the article or even a whole section devoted to whether or not Hitler was charismatic, I just don't think it should be added here, it seems inappropriate and although I don't think people here have malicious motives I do think it is possible to be construed as POV. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete agree in everything with Moshe. Andries 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, replace with mesmerizing. Charismatic would be tolerable if we were journalists reporting  him speaking, but charismatic in hindsight is poor use as it  retains a positive quality that the sane world does not accord. It is therefore a poor use of English (unless the intention is to so accord the positive) .EffK 10:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I will re-introduce the statement about Hitler's charisma or charismatic leadership somewhere in the article as an attributed opinion something like
 * "Several historians and psychologists have asserted that Hitler possessed charisma or that his leadership was charismatic. "
 * References, Ian Kershaw, Allan Bullock in Parallel lives, psychologist Len Oakes in Prophetic Charisma. Andries 11:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The "charisma" has a part in the article, but right now it is misplaced in the opening paragraph or rather phrased in too short a manner. In any case, the "charisma" deserves a sentence of its own, explaining that AH made use of his charisma in speeches etc. as part of his regime. Str1977 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: the problem isn't so much the meaning of the term itself, but its placement in the article and its connotation. If we want a reference in the introduction to Hitler's personal charisma, it would be clearer to say that he was a gifted orator (if that's specifically what we are referring to.) As it is, we have a poorly explained reference which links to an article on a theory by Weber, which just doesn't belong in the introduction. To boot, a good proportion of readers will take this as an endorsement of Hitler, again because the meaning is overly vague. It's a mess. Moshe is correct that this needs to be moved. Blowfish 20:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: All the DELETE votes betray an anxiety about describing Hitler for the man he was. Charisma was one of his clear qualities, and the use of the term in this article is accurate.--shtove 20:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: He was charismatic by all accounts.24.141.217.93 22:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Anyone who wants to eliminate the "charisma" lines either doesn't understand "charisma" or rightly wants clarified context- mention does need to be made that his power came from his charisma (if it isn't) and this needs to clearly lead into his "charismatic leadership". There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION as to whether or not his leadership came from his charisma- everyone in the world at the time saw his ability as an orator and propaganda centerpiece. Seperating Hitler from his charismatic powers would be like trying to cover (not trying to make any associations here) Mother Theresa or Ghandi without mentioning religion. It's not only signifigant, it's absolutely inseperable. [Eh, account probs. No vote if it's a prob.]

STRONG KEEP: Blowfish - This has absolutely nothing to do with connotation. This is not a childrens book. The WikiCommunity should be interested only in denotation and as it has already been clearly stated the denotation of charismatic pinpoints AH's quality. Charisma is only subjective when there is doubt, however in this case there is none. AH could not have delivered so much destruction and that pace without convincing the public that it was justified. It was his presence and passionate oratory. That sold evil. Find me one academic historian who would not explain Hitler's charismatic nature as one of the top reasons he was near-universally accepted in Germany. Explaining it in any other way is concealing the truth. The truth that is accepted by all who value it.User:Mask 17:36 30 November 2005

MUST KEEP: W'pedia shouldn't be dumbing down things so they're palatable to the average person. "Charisma" has a very specific (not vague), value-nuetral definition that applies nowhere if it can't be applied to Hitler. Charisma isn't the ability to be popular-anyone can jump in front of a parade-its a leader's ability to make people want to changes their lives to live according to the leader's vision. George Washington, JFK and Reagan were popular. Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Marx, Gandi, and unfortunately Hitler where charismatic.66.189.168.107 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)BoomBox 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep : I personally hate Hitler more than any other person in history, but I don't think he could have succeeded if he wasn't "charismatic". Blowfish says it's better to say he was a "gifted orator" - this is much more "positive" than "charismatic" - Satan himself was charismatic - one of my heroes, Martin Luther King was charismatic - so this illustrates Boombox's point - "charismatic" is neither positive or negative. And anyway, who says Hitler was a "gifted orator"? Only if you think that mad ranting, lies and slander makes for "gifted" oratory. As for Andries "several historians and psychologists..." this sounds like weasel words (although you do give refs). The german people didn't need historians or psychologists to tell them that Hitler was "charismatic". If Satan was to arrive tomorrow, you can be sure that many people would be seduced by his charisma - except of course, there's no such thing as Satan...

Camillus  talk | contribs 19:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: Satan is already amongst us and makes regular POV reverts.--shtove 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. Superfluous adjective, smelling of POV. Allowing more of and more of those adjectives in the introduction we would move backwards to having a de-NPOVed introduction and ultimately a bad article. I think we should refrain from using pejorative or complementary adjectives alike in the introduction. Ben T/C 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Move. Move to a different place in the article, but do not keep it here. Though I do agree that Hitler was a charismatic character, putting this at the start of the article gives a strong impression that this article is in support of Hitler; especially since the remainder of the paragraph has no strong emphasis on the horrific deeds that have been committed under his leadership.--Konstable 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: If the Churchill or FDR articles began by noting that they were "charismatic" would anyone object? I think not. One cannot allow one's personal opinion of a historical figure to construct a false objection to the truth. Hitler was, by all accounts, quite charismatic -- in fact, had he not been, it is unlikely that his party would ever have been anything but a fringe movement. Jim62sch 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP WITH A TWIST - his personal charisma was underwhelming. It may do well to point that out. In public, he was mesmerizing; his staff suffered for years from listening to the SAME rants and opinions at the dinner table, as well as from his severe halitosis. It was apparently not pleasant to be in the same room with him, and when his staff moved to Rastenburg, with the summer heat and the midges flying about, it was almost more than they could take. Publicly, very charismatic, but apparently someone exasperating to have to live with. Being a nightowl, he also stayed up to all hours engaging his staff in the same conversations over and over again. Having said all that, it should be a footnote somewhere - the article as is is fine - saying he was charismatic does not imply support for him. But perhaps change it to "publicly charismatic" - that is what leaders do, and implies less support for him on a personal level. Michael Dorosh 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: - There is no question that Adolf Hitler was a charismatic man, and his leadership was especially charismatic. To deny that... is to deny the course of history. Perhaps ones personal opinions should not interfere with the scholarly discussion of the article.


 * STRONG KEEP. - Ideal type of Weberian charismatic authority. Ksenon 22:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Is that the charismatic authority of Marianne Weber, sociologist and women's rights activist, or of Renê Weber, Brazilian soccer (futball) player and coach?--shtove 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Born with his name" ?
In the 10th bullet under the "Trivia" section, I think that phrase should be changed to "given his name at birth" to show that very few babies are actually born with name tags. StuRat 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia
'IMDb' in the first trivia entry should be a link to the article.

Bizarre trivia
I have a very conflicting piece of trivia I gained from various documentaries and books that I want to verify. On Hitler's desk there is a picture of:
 * only Mussolini
 * only Henry Ford
 * only his mother
 * none, he disliked having pictures in his office


 * Well, on the wall he had the famous portrait of the Frederick the Great. O'Donnell mentions the picture of his mother, but he also mentioned the Führer's personal standard was yellow instead of red, so take with grains of salt.Michael Dorosh 15:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Excommunication
My thoughts about the papacy, the popes and the history of the Roman Catholic Church aside: As Pope Benedict XVI has made public good will gestures towards the Jewish People (among other faiths) would it be a sign of ultimate atonement for him to excommunicate Hitler from the Catholic Church? Is it possible for him to excommunicate a dead person? --RPlunk 17:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RPlunk, no one can be excommunicated post mortem. However, the Church can declare that someone dead had incurred excommunication while alive (there are action that will get oneself automatically excommunicated). In regard to living persons, excommunication is pronounced primarily for the benefit of the excommunicated, to indicate to him the wrongness of his ways and make him repent and turn back. (Of course this only works, if the person in question is touched by such a move - in regard to earthly rulers it worked with Emperor Henry IV, but not with Elizabeth of England or Napoleon. It would have worked less with Hitler.) The secondary reason is the benefit of other people, to warn them not to take someone as an example or to head his teaching (the latter in regard to theologians). In the case of someone dead, the primary reason falls away, since a dead person cannot repent and turn back. The secondary reason is still valid, but the question is whether this should be done - is anyone seriously in doubt about the relation between Hitler and Christianity. If so, education is needed and such a declaration of excommunication might play a role in that. But I doubt that this is the case. A mere symbolic excommunication (which I guess you mean by atonement) I don't right. Str1977 21:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Excommunication does not need to be declared by the church. AFAICS Hitler fell to a [| excommunicatio latae sententiae] by acting in an apostatic way. This can be discussed, but anyhow, as Str1977 wrote: since Hitler is dead, there is no neccesity (and no possibility) to excommunicate him, because he can not change his acting anymore. And even Pope Benedict can not excommunicate a dead person. --mmg 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Mmg, thanks for your further clarification. That's what I meant by "the Church can declare that someone dead had incurred excommunication while alive (there are action that will get oneself automatically excommunicated)" and I guess apostasy is only the tip of the ice-berg of things that will automatically excommunicate someone - but I agree that Hitler is guilty of that (and many other things - he surely scores 7 out of 7). Str1977 18:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In any case, excommunication is not an act of ultimate condemnation, as seems to commonly be believed, rather it is simply the formal exclusion of someone from the community of the Catholic Church for theologically-oriented offenses such as desecrating the Eucharist, propagating anti-Catholic theological beliefs, violating the sanctity of the Vatican, and so on. It is not leveled against someone merely for not following the dictates of the Church, no matter how radically the person deviates (unless the person assaults the Church directly, although I suppose that was the case insofar as many priests, especially Polish ones, died in the Holocaust [but it would *not*, as far as I can tell, apply to the killing of the Jews, which often seems to be rationale given]).--Critic9328 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A neutral photograph of Hitler's face
Why not include a photograph of Hitler like the following into the Wikipedia introduction ? http://www.2worldwar2.com/adolf-hitler.htm The picture is free and shows Hitler's face as it looked during his dictatorship. No uniform is seen, no heroic gesture or expression is presented. So we just look into the face of Adolf Hitler. And since Hitler looked into the camera, we can look into his eyes. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (21112005) PS: As soon as the current version of the Wikipedia article on Hitler is editable, I will do two things: 1st) Remove the current Hitler propaganda picture; 2nd) Delete the entry "Cult figures" from the categories section.

Dear Hans, I think the current photo, the one you call propaganda, is better. Yes, it is an official photo and yes, it is aimed at portraying AH in a certain way, but this photo can also help to include into this article this way of "self-potrayal" or self-image. I don't think it's right to insist on AH looking bad on photos. There are other photos included to counter this and the article's text also should be more than enough to dispell any admiration for the man, except for those already lost. As for the "cult figure" category, I agree - the problem is not, that AH is not a cult figure for some people (not only Nazis), but I think the category is nonsensical - when properly applied it'd make a very big category. Str1977 20:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that long it will not serve for propaganda. What you say is just this: "I think the current photo, the one you call propaganda, is better." -- Can you give only one reason for your claim that: A propaganda foto is better than a foto of neutral origigin and purpose (Zweck) ? So: Why do you not think is my above suggestion not an appropriate one ? To present a picture (a photograph) of Adolf Hitler that is neutral ? Do you Str1977 have any problem with this ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (21112005)


 * The photo might be first taken for the purpose of propaganda, but that doesn't make any less neutral. I preferred it since it is a) of a better quality and b) giving more information than just how he looked. BTW, what about the propaganda photo over at Stalin? Don't read anything into my comments. Also, it would have been better if you had sought consensus for your pic before changing it. Str1977 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hans, I think the photo you found here could be a suitable replacement if you can find a version of it that is high resolution (at least 600x600 pixels) and is not so poorly cropped (his head does not fit in the frame properly). &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-22 00:19:05Z


 * I think the photo we have (and have had for a long time) is fine. I don't find it non-neutral or anything. Keep it. Shanes 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is what makes you wonder about Hitler photographs -- (I mean: that some picture has not a high resolution -- Well, then you are still playing in your sandbox. And you are a Hitler fan. So easy to say, so easy to prove. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )


 * Your constant attempts at condescension and vandalism, Hans, have convinced me that you do not have good intentions with respect to this article, and so I see no point in continuing to debate it with you. I welcome further discussion if you decide at some point that you are capable of conversing constructively. Sorry to have wasted your time. &mdash; HorsePunchKid &rarr;&#x9F9C; 2005-10-22 01:41:32Z

Mr Rosenthal, may I ask you Good night, Str1977 01:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * to desist from personal attack on any editor of this page.
 * to desist from reverting and reverting before having a consensus.
 * not to treat other people's arguments some dismissively. Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself. Take others seriously, if you want to be taken seriously.
 * to assume good faith.
 * to finally register and get a user name. I know you are free to remain on an IP-basis but this would help your position around here considerably.


 * When I, a lecturer of political science in germany, recently saw the Hitler photo on top of this page, I immediately thought that it looked like a propaganda photo - and it WAS a propaganda photo during the Third Reich for sure-, so why don't you choose a photo more, say, neutral ? [Mei]
 * It looks great. Leave it alone. --Phroziac . o ºO (mmmmm chocolate!) 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I suspect that Phroziac also found it looking great to watch the WTC jumpers falling down to the ground on 11 September 2001. Not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)


 * ROHA, yo sure's a polititian. Where's you standing for office? The way you put down anyone who opposes you, pure talent. I guess next you'll call us nazis who do not agree with you. Wish I had your genius --Ezeu 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * All I do is to call those big kids, who do not understand or accept that the current photograph of Adolf Hitler served in the past and serves today as simple nazi propaganda. No more and no less. But Wikipedia is not the right place for propaganda, neither now nor in the future, is it ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005) PS: I admit that many of the younger contributors do not have an idea of what nazi propaganda meant in history, so they may have problems to understand what it means today.


 * I hope you don't seriously think that a simple photograph will portray Hitler in a "propaganda" light? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 06:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this picture is better than a plain straight shot of his face since it gives you a feeling of just how (for lack of a better term) creepy this guy was, and how he manipulated his image to achieve his goals. That said, I think this picture may show that too subtly, there could be a better picture out there to use that shows more of his propaganda talents (say a poster or leaflette or something) and would make the point more forcefully.BoomBox 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"...many of the younger contributors do not have an idea of what nazi propaganda meant in history, so they may have problems to understand what it means today." I should hope that anyone contributing to any article on Wikipedia would be aware of the subject matter. It is therefore safe to say that anyone participating in this discussion in particular, has an idea as to the uses and impact of Nazi propaganda, regardless of their age. --Grim13


 * In the end, the picture for Hitler is the perfect ones (IMHO). When someone thinks of Hitler, they think of the man in the uniform (and his atrocities, but that gets into NPOV). If you wanted a shot of Michael Jordan, you'd get the one famous shot of him dunking the ball with his tongue sticking out- it's the most iconic representation of him that's ever been made. You don't look for a picture of him in casual clothing posing for a family photo- that's not "him". For nearly all major dictators, the shot that most people associate with the person is the classic military shot of them in full uniform. The only other shot that matches the one in place would be one of Hitler opening the Olympic games- and I think most people would take even more offense to that one. And in case it hasn't been said, looking for a photo "to show how creepy he was" is completely NPOV, and that doesn't belong here.

The first photo in Polish Wikipedia may be acceptable: it's a civilian pose from his twenties. Curiously, their article on Stalin seems to be longer than the one on Hitler. I wonder why?--shtove 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m just a reader of this article but my suggestion to the editors is:
 * why not 1: keep the propaganda picture of AH in his uniform, which is both a stereotypical way of AH being presented to the public as well as a prototypical way of presenting dictators (as has been mentioned above by someone else). 2: disambiguate your intentions etc by making a note that explains that this is actually a propaganda  pic aiming at portraying Hitler as such and such… Andry

Clarification on Schicklgruber name
From "Early Years":


 * Alois Hitler was born out of wedlock and used his mother's surname, Schicklgruber, until he was 40. In 1876, he began using the name of his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler, after visiting a priest responsible for birth registries and declaring that Georg was his father...

This doesn't make sense to me. He was born in 1889, used Schicklgruber until he was 40, but began using "Hiedler" in 1876? These numbers don't add up. Can someone clarify? 71.139.49.248 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Alois Hitler was born in 1837, not 1889. Shanes 04:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)