Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2

Intro and conclusion
The article intro and conclusion have wording that is expressly designed, and liked, because it denigrates Hitler and his legacy. I refer specifically to the final sentence in the article: ''Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had last ed a little over 12 years. '' This sentence gives no new information, but clearly is there just to cast a judgement. That violates NPOV, and the sentence, like all attempts to make articles assert opinions, should be deleted outright. Same goes for a similar statement in the introduction. Bookending the article like this with statements of aspersion is clearly against NPOV. If someone wanted to bookend the article with statements that Hitler lived a long life and achieved fame, power, wealth, and his pick of women, would that be acceptable? Are we playing the "what we like as a POV isn't POV" game? ChessPlayer 07:26, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I fail to understand how this is a POV statement. Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had lasted a little over twelve years. This is true. To say that Hitler failed is not POV - Both Nazis and anti-Nazis would agree on that, I think, as, ultimately, did Hitler himself. john 23:43, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Factual statements, while true and factual, can be used in a POV way, and this is an example of it. The point to the statement is not to give the facts, they have already been given. The point is to give a judgement about Hitler, and that is POV. I can't prove that is the point...everyone must read the statements and ask themselves if the purpose is imparting facts, or making a value statement. One further point...if this was simply imparting facts, I doubt if anybody would much care wether I removed the statements, as the facts are already given elsewhere; it is because the intention here is to make a popular value statement about Hitler, that the article is bracketed with this material, and its removal is objected to. ChessPlayer 01:09, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree w chess player, it is factual, and is placed in such a way as to produce a slant. It only needs mentioned the once, prob in the 1st paragraph. On the other hand, NPOV is a goal, not an expectation, and an article about Hitler is prob going to be one of the leats NPOV of any, no matter how hard we try. That being said, its still good to try, approaching the curve and all that. Sam [Spade] 01:20, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

A statement is not POV if everyone would agree to it. Everyone would agree that Hitler failed, that his Reich failed to measure up to the expectations he and the Nazis had for it. Thus, it is not POV to point this out. It would be POV to say this was a good or bad thing, of course, but I don't see how the article does that. john 01:33, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no problem if the article states somewhere in the body that Hitler's accomplishments did not live up to his desires. But that is not what bookending the article with "Hitler's "Thousand Year Reich" had lasted a little over 12 years." does. Putting this in the conclusion and the introduction is POV, cause it is taking a stance by THE ARTICLE that Hitler failed. Articles cannot do this under Jimbo Wales law of NPOV, which is why I am objecting to it. It is a violation of NPOV to state facts in such a way as to lead the reader to conclusions about matters of opinion. We are supposed to be NEUTRAL, not crafting statements like this one, no matter how well-phrased or "appropriate" they seem to us. Why should we be neutral? So we don't have to argue about how to slant the article. Come on, John...arn't we trying to impart a message here by inserting the 12 year thing as bookends? ChessPlayer 02:01, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Once again, it is not POV to say that Hitler failed, or to say it in an indirect manner. Hitler did fail. john 02:43, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * IMO what is best for the article is somewhere between the two of you, and involves removing the duplicate mention, which I will now do. Sam [Spade] 03:32, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Important omissions: fighting till the bitter end and Hitlers as a statesman
I spotted two inaccuracies more i.e. declaration of war to the USA by Germany and the time when Hitler discovered that he had oratory talents was earlier, when he was still working for the army delivering motivational speeches. Please correct asap. I also spotted one important omission in the article, that is the irrational fighting to the bitter end. Any normal person would have surrendered just after or even before the battle of the bulge/battle of Ardennes. Why was this? Another omission is, I think, Hitler as a statesman. What did he do for the institutions of the government? How was his style of leadership? I have read about about these subjects but little time. Andries 09:34, 20 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree, particularly about the inability to surrender. He would have done Germany a tremendous service if he had done as you say, and yet he prefered to fight to the last. I would ask that you make needed corrections yourself, I'm not quite as knowledgable as might be needed for such speedy corrections. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 23:46, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Ad for the website www.third-reich-books.com
Get the facts on Hitler's background from the book ADDOLF HITLER'S FAMILY TREE by professional genealogist Alfred Kondor, available from http://www.third-reich-books.com
 * I no longer object to the link to www.third-reich-books.com on the article page, as instead of a bald promotion like it used to be, it now descreetly links to a book excerpt. I still feel that link is simply trying to get free traffic for a commercial site, and does not materially add to anything on the Hitler page, but I won't delete the link this time, as the new link shows an effort to at least pretend to be informative. So I sympathize with the webmaster in his struggle to get hits and traffic, even though he really shouldn't be using Wikipedia like this.ChessPlayer 00:46, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I actually think that site contains a lot of useful material. Namely, tons of interesting Nazi propaganda posters. But then, there's already a link to a site with Nazi posters at propaganda. Fredrik (talk) 01:15, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phrasing of introduction
I am new here at Wikipedia, so I don't intend to start a revert-and-flame-war on my first night, especially not on an article this controversial. However, as a (leftist) German, I feel that the introduction to the article is far too positive, and doesn't reflect at all the atrocities this man committed (think "Saddam times 10"). Using the sentences that were already there, and rephrasing / reshuffling these a bit, I would've formulated something like that: Adolf Hitler (20 April 1889 - 30 April 1945) was the dictator of Germany and leader of the Nazi Party. From 1933 to 1945 he was also Chancellor of Germany, head of government, and state. The brutal embrace of total war by Germany in World War II resulted in a savage destruction of large parts of Europe and the racial policy of the Nazi state (which included the Holocaust) resulted in the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more. In the end he died by suicide in a Berlin bunker with Germany in ruins around him and his enemies closing in. Today, with the benefit of historical distance, Hitler is regarded by many as a gifted orator with a profound personal presence. Also he is seen as one of the significant leaders of world history who helped to pull Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis and, at its height, controlled the greater part of Europe.  Don't know if you are happy with that, but could maybe someone with a bit more seniority than myself consider changing this - even only partly? --T-rence 22:44, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The current intro has come about as a result of a very long process of compromise and discussion. I'd be highly reluctant to change it - your version also reads oddly in English at parts. john k 23:29, 21 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I've erased my previous comment, as it has been pointed out to me on my talk page that the current guidelines for feature article do call for a summary statement at the beginning of the article. That being said, it is no excuse for the summary to be filled with biased statements that are simply the POV of the majority. NPOV requires that articles take no sides, hence Hitler cannot be blaimed for WWII by the article, as that is clearly an interpretation, not a fact. Further, its an overly broad assertion, as Hitler is hardly to blame for what the Japanese did, and they are a major part of WWII, some POV's saying the war started with them, not with the invasion of Poland. In any event, I propose a simple question for editors to ask themselves, before putting anything into the article introduction: Is what I am about to put in a hard fact, or an interpretation of a set of facts? If it is the latter, then it cannot be asserted by the article itself. ChessPlayer 20:14, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ponderous
I restored "ponderous" in describing Mein Kampf. Obviously Sam has never tried to read the book, or seen any of the criticism on it. It rambles. Even Nazis didnt read it. Danny 03:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Um... I have my copy on my computer desk actually. And it doesn't matter what we think (I find it an intruiging insight into this troubled mans psyche myself) Ponderous is POV. Sam [Spade] 03:23, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * As for "Nazi's didn't read it" I have personally witnessed an elderly German easilly quote from the book, due to having read and re-read it so extensively in his youth. Sam [Spade] 03:27, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Once again, Sam, you are dealing with a period you know nothing about. Having it on a desk is not the same as reading it. If the period interests you, start with some basics: Richard Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, pp. 196-197 is a good start. Danny 03:30, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Words like "ponderous" are always POV, if asserted by the ARTICLE. ARTICLEs can't assert opinions! Instead, say, "Scholar X says, "Scholars agree Mein Kampf is ponderous" if this is factual and can be verified. Then its a matter of making sure you don't stack the deck with factual statements designed to assert a POV, like the article does by pointing out in a POV way that Hitler failed. Now, is Mein Kampf ponderous? I can't read German, maybe it is ponderous in the original German. But translated, its quite readible, often better than history textbooks about Hitler that say that MK is written badly. ChessPlayer 03:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Hitler's sex life
The article mentions that Hitler may be gay. That is fine but then I also feel that I have to include to extensive evidence that Hitler was a heterosexual to balance it. That would make the article unwieldy and it would have to be done in a separate article. May be, Hitler's private life Andries 07:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * On second thoughts I can also make it succinct but it bothers me to read the view  that Hitler was gay here. Most other serious scholars consider this either irrelevant or believe that Hitler is a heterosexual. The view that Hitler was gay is the view of a smal minority of scholars that may not belong in the article. Andries 07:56, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I am unaware of any "scholors" w this view, unless you count "the pink swastika" . Sam [Spade] 08:10, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * There was an anti-gay demonstration in my mothers city about this, with religious leaders stating that gay people had guilt by association w Nazi's, and praising this book. Sam [Spade] 08:12, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The possibility of Hitler being homosexual was discussed in a psychoanalytic profile commissioned by the Office of Strategic Services in 1943. The pertinent pages can be found here and here. Defenestration 08:40, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Well there ya go! I'm satisfied w that being enough evidence to suggest that some suspected it. Sam [Spade] 08:48, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * It says he wanted to eat the girls excrement! This is ludicris. Sam [Spade] 09:03, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * About NPOV: "The aim is not to write articles from a single objective point of view — this is a common misunderstanding of the policy — but rather, to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way." I want to take special note of "attributed to their adherents". People seem especially resistent to doing this, and some have no idea what it even means. ChessPlayer 09:28, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree but then why not stating that the majority of serious historians hold the view that he was heterosexual?Andries 09:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

ChessPlayer makes a good point, we should cite our sources. But it is perverse to fill this article up w bizarre slander about Hitler, who is probably the least popular man in history. I am beginning to think andries was right about creating a spin off article about crackpot "historical" sexology on the man. Sam [Spade] 09:44, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Here's an entertaining article about Hitler's sex life: Hitler: History's aryan potty mouth. Although it's not necessarily a srious source, it goes through most of the known evidence, and could be used to find links to serious sources. It states that he was a mostly a sublimator of his sexuality but engaged in coprophilia and urolagnia. From what I've read, everybody who knew Hitler, like for example Lady Mosley, Hitler friend and darling of British aristocratic conservatives, dismissed the idea that Hitler was gay. pir 10:51, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Removed from article for lack of sources:

'''Some historians have wildly and variously speculated on Hitler's personal life, sometimes suggesting that he was impotent, or otherwise sexually abnormal, physically or mentally. One popular suggestion has been that he was possessed of a singular teste, and injected a combination of Bull semen and Jelly into himself daily to encourage virility. There is of course little documentation of this claim.'''

and

Some have written about Hitler's sexual orientation. It has been suggested that Hitler was bisexual, gay or even a coprophagiac.


 * If you are going to put stuff into the article that is controversial, attribute it to a source, make it factual, "X said Y". Weasel words for a source are to be avoided, depending on the statement, they can be a way of violating NPOV too. Also, don't equate sexual orientation, whether someone is gay or not, with things like sexual disorders. They don't belong in the same paragraph, much less the same sentence, pyschology and psychiatry stopped lumping them together a long time ago. Today, the only people who knowingly do that are anti-gay people, and its a form of hate speech today.ChessPlayer 21:35, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Reply to Andries, who was concerned that the article " mentions that Hitler may be gay". The article right now, at least until someone changes it again, does not in any way assert the idea that Hitler may have been gay, but simply in a NPOV way gives the reader the fact that a historian has written a book that claims he was gay. If you feel that simply mentioning this POV is biased without mentioning other POV's on the issue, then add them, please find a historian who argues that Hitler was NOT gay, and mention him as I did for Machtan. Please do not have the article itself assert a viewpoint, nor use weasel words and unverifiable statements about what "historians" think. If the majority view is as you claim, and I am not disputing you, then finding a prominient historian who gives the majority view should be very easy. Lest you think I am being eccentric about this, founder Jimbo Wales has said: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." ChessPlayer 23:53, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Chessplayer, I don't think you are eccentric or unreasonable. I just need time and effort to check it in Ian Kershaw's books. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * What Ian Kershaw has to say on the topic is his POV. Machtan is also a historian, and his POV is rightfully stated in the article as being his. Do you understand how NPOV works? Its about all POV's being presented in the article, not one POV being picked as the "right" one?


 * I think I understand how NPOV guidelines works. It is a lot of work to compile the long list of biographers of Hitler who hold the view that he was a heterosexual. Andries 19:53, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Psychology of Hitler
I think it would be interesting to add a section on the psychology of Hitler, to discuss more what he believed, his self-image, what he believed was his destiny, his motivation, all that sort of stuff. I know a lot of it is sprinkled through the text, but it might be a good idea to also bring it all together in one place. Maybe also talk about philosophical influences on him, like Nietzsche. Cerebral 10:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Feel free, but we may want to start spinning articles off from large sections if it gets too much longer. Sam [Spade] 10:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. If I add anything about the psychology of Hitler, I'll make it a separate page.  Cerebral 10:54, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What I think is important and insufficiently covered in the current article is the relationship between Hitler's character, his world view and his political and military decisions. Andries 20:22, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It's fascinating to try to get into the mind of Hitler.  He is probably the most hated person in history, and we all grew up being told that he was an evil terrible person.   But this is clearly a one-sided view of things!  Surely Hitler had a different perspective.  Surely Hitler thought his actions were perfectly reasonable.  So, the question is, what was Hitler's perspective and how did his mind work?  What were his motives?   I think Schopenhauer (World as Will and Idea) and his notion of blind will overcoming all comes into play here, and surely, Schopenhauer forms the core of Nietzsche's philosophy (though, as Nietzsche points out, the difference between him and Schopenhauer is that the latter didn't know how to deify the will).  It's a fascinating topic, the psychology of Hitler, and I hope I find the time to put the page together or at least motivate others to get it started.  Cerebral 02:26, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I hope so as well. Morality aside, I have been astounded since I first heard about WWII (maybe age 5 or so?) at how a man who had accomplished so much in such a short period of time could behave so shockingly strategically foolishly after aprox. 1940, and esp. considering having attacked Russia. He said in Mein Kampf that one could ally w Russia and defeat Britain, or ally w Britain and defeat Russia. But he said himself that you couldn't defeat both! Ad on top of that declaring war on the US (I agree w Andries that he prob grossly underestimated US military strength, and perhaps rightly so, but still...) and mismanagement of military operations (Rommel comes to mind...) and you have Hitler personally ensuring failure, in my estimation. As valiant and strategically sound as the allies were, I think Hitler lost WWII more so than he was defeated. No one attacked him after France and Britain, and in my estimation he was winning the war w Britain (and clearly had already defeated France). Why would someone who was so obviously capable of success turn towards certain failure? I would say there is some truth to historical psychology in his case, and that he likely was the classic genius/madman. The moral element of his policies comes back into play here with resounding significance. Sam [Spade] 16:15, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

Hitler as Uebermensch
According to the article, Hitler presented himself as Uebermensch. Can somebody provide a reference for this? Thanks in advance. Andries 21:50, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I added that part. I found it at .  Admittedly, I have not read his entire Mein Kampf, though I have read parts of it (you can find the fulltext pdf through file-sharing programs like BearShare), and I have read in many places that Hitler was strongly influenced by Nietzsche and even gave copies of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" to everyone in the SS to read.   I am very familiar with Nietzsche's writings, particularly his "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", and so when I look at Hitler and read his biographies, I do so within the context of Nietzsche's overman.   The question you're asking is for references about Hitler believing he was the overman.  The link above is one of them, though it's a questionable source.   Nonetheless, if Hitler did read Nietzsche (and I have read that this is so in many places), then Hitler's associating himself with the overman seems a given.   I had always taken it for a given, and when I found that article online (the one in the link above), I went ahead and added the relevant info to the Hitler article.  Cerebral 02:19, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I read that he gave the book to (general?) Kesselring but certainly not to everyone in the SS. The SS had millions of members. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Helmut Hirsch/Stauffenberg
I removed the assissnation attempt by Helmut Hirsch because he was arrested before he tried and because it is not mentioned in Ian Kershaw's extensive biography and because there were many attempts, some of which like Georg Elser were more important. Andries 08:12, 23 May 2004 (UTC)


 * What should be mentioned is that Tresckow/Stauffenberg's group's motivation was not only the approaching defeat of Germany but also moral outrage about the killings in Poland. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mayr and Ludendorff
This site claims that according to Karl Mayr's auto-biography, it was Ludendorff himself who had "come to [Mayr] and personally suggested that Hitler should be allowed to join the party and build it up." This of course makes sense in the bigger picture - Hitler was at the time a small cog in the machinery of the Reichswehr; Ludendorff was an enemy of the republic who would have liked nothing more than to install a military dictatorship and get ready for the next war. Building up a political and paramilitary party with a skilled "drummer", as Hitler called himself, at the top only made sense to achieve this goal. Indeed, we know that the NSDAP later directly received funds from the Reichswehr through Röhm (although the article, with its many present deficiencies, neglects to mention this and indeed contains virtually no information on funding).

However, I hesitate to include this claim without a direct source. I have not been able to track down a citation for this alleged auto-biography. This would be interesting for other reasons as well, of course, as this chapter of Hitler's personal history is largely ignored by most biographies and Hitler is instead portrayed as an outsider who acted alone. So, if anyone can find a citation for this alleged book, that would be very helpful.--Eloquence*


 * Please don't include until there is a direct source. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ministers of Armamament
I miss Albert Speer who was the minister of armament in the list of changes in Hitler's cabinet. He succeeded Fritz Todt. Andries 21:44, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


 * done. Andries 18:41, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)