Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 20

CIA?
This is already in the archives but first, the CIA didn't even exist until after AH was dead. Second, the OSS collected all sorts of raw allegations and stories about AH for ten years, much of it provided by refugees who had much to gain by telling US intelligence spooks what they thought they wanted to hear. Over the past year, some journalists and authors, looking for fresh roadkill to sell in airport bookstores, have dredged up some of the old tall tales and published them without a hint of scholarship or academic context. There is no verifiable evidence AH was beaten into being a sociopath by Alois and the story about him having been beaten nearly to death has but one dodgy, unqualified source and has no basis in the documented record. Wyss 07:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd been puzzling about that section myself. The question of Hitler's "mental or physical illnesses" is a serious topic which should, and I think does, have its own article. At best, this could be included in there as one piece of speculation. But it reeked of outdated war-time propaganda. These days, it is very rare to hear psychoanalytic theoris about the brutalization of AH by his father, double-bind theories, etc.. --Lacatosias 08:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Most scholars are circumspect enough to acknowledge that diagnosing AH according to DSM standards from the historical record is impossible. On a talk page it's no problem to say most of us would consider him "crazy" or "lunatic" one way or another but it's best to let that emerge through his documented actions and effect on Europe (tens of millions of innocents dead etc etc). The term sociopath is generally supported, but getting into rambling, often fabricated tales about his childhood or sexual habits based only on hearsay picked up by the OSS from people who loathed him (and usually had something to gain) will only make the reader think it's easy to spot genocidal maniacs and it's not. I'm simplifying here but even his opposition didn't realize how nuts he was until it was too late, while by 1944 the majority of high ranking Germans and industrial leaders seem to have been privately acknowledging, one way or another, that he was "mad." Wyss 16:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Muslims during the Holocaust?
Were any muslims killed during the holocaust? Surely Hitler would have found them to be undesirable, just like he did the Jews, homosexuals, and communists. Yet I can't find any references to muslims during the holocaust. Davez621 09:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Very simplified answer: The Turks (who were major German allies during the Great War) and most Arab countries were nominally Axis allies or neutral throughout the 1939-45 war and the Turkish population of Germany was nominal. Moreover, the open anti-semitism of many (but not all) Arab leaders made diplomacy with Berlin somewhat easier. Wyss 15:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, someone has just published a book over here (Italy) called "Blacks in the Nazi camps". I don't know the name of the author, but as it's in Italian anyway....--Lacatosias 17:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Blacks is not a synonym for muslims.--Ezeu 17:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, no!!! Please don't do that. I wrote, "interstingly....etc,etc.. " since the topic of other persecuted groups, besides the most well-known cases, was brought up, the book that I refered to came to mind. I was not suggesting that the book was about blacks, thefore Muslims, etc.. Please, assume good faith.--Lacatosias 17:51, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Chill, no beefs--Ezeu 18:05, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hypersensitive on such issues. I'm surrounded by people (even here in social-democratic or socialist or whatvere you want to call it) Italy who still think that way.--Lacatosias 18:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome to one of the most hyper-sensitive talk pages on WP (understandably so)! Wyss 18:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There were a few, especially from France, but not many. In 1940 Europe didn't have the large populations of Muslims and Africans it has today. Wyss 17:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The Nazis of the 1930's can not be compared to the simple gutter racists of today. They didn't think that just because someone was not white that made him racially inferior. Himmler invited Muslim religious leaders to Berlin on several occasions and Arabs hoped Nazi Germany would thwart Jewish plans to return to what was then Palestine. Nazi racial theorists believed that Germans are racially related to Tibetans, Indians and the Japanese. To prove this the SS organised expeditions to Tibet and tried to suggest a link between runes and Japanese script. There were even purely Indian divisions in the Waffen-SS who believed they were helping to liberate their country from the hated British occupying forces. This dubious past has led Germans to be liked and even revered (almost against their will!) in parts of Northern Africa, the Middle East, India and Japan to this day. There was even a controversy in India 1-2 years ago when an Indian school book described Hitler as a great man who had done many good things for his country. There's plenty more to read up on bizarre Nazi racial theories...

This page truly reminds of a blog
Whatever happened to Str1977 and EffK anyway?? It's as of two or three people take over the page for a day or two onl to have everything reverted the next two days by another group (Simonides, Lacatosias, Golbez), then Wyss?? this is bizarre stuff. What the hell does ROHA stand for anyone? and why doesn't he/she have an account? It's almost on a par with AH himself, I begin to think--Lacatosias 17:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(Nota bene: have you ever noticed that ROHA is always an acronym for Hans Rosenthal ? And have you never noticed that whenever a contribution to this discussion page is signed with ROHA, then you simply have to read two letters forward to find out that you can directly address your questions regarding ROHA by sending an e-mail to Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ). Is this so difficult ?)


 * I don't know how new you are to Wikipedia, but it usually works this way. I almost left completely and wasn't an editor for over a year, because I can't stand the frequent, long drawn and sometimes very silly or very biased disputes over established facts, but I guess I couldn't help returning for the occasional edit here and there when I think it is important. -- Simonides 00:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm back from a long WIki break. Watching this article and thinking about its subject every day can be a depressing drag. Wyss 17:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Lacatosias, I have been involved in other issues therefore my "absence" from this article. EffK is banned or about to be banned. As for ROHA (Hans Rosenthal), he posts interventions once in a while, mainly to protest against the current photo of Hitler at the top of the article. I don't think it's against AGF to say that he doesn't register so that he cannot be blocked. Str1977 18:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Incarnation of evil
Ok, yeah, I guess he was for most folks who would express the notion in those terms. However, it's an op-ed, fuzzy sort of thing to say with quasi religious ramifications. If someone can come up with a citation from a major AH biographer or other qualified, peer-reviewed historian who makes a statement along the lines that AH "is considered by most to be an incarnation of evil" or something similar, I'd say it's ok to include it. Until then, without a solid, attributed cite, it's not encyclopedic, however true. Wyss 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the phrase "incarnation of evil" is a bit over the top, but I don't think cites are necessary for generally held opinions that it would be hard not to find a consensus for. Perhaps the wording can be changed to something like: "in popular discourse, figures like Hitler and Stalin are often cited as examples of evil". -- Simonides 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * If it's so generally held, finding a suitable citation in a secondary source by a peer-reviewed author shouldn't be much trouble. Wyss 00:50, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect, I'm not sure popular discourse is a helpful thing to cite here. Anyway the word evil is already used in the closing paragraph. By the bye, a Russian once said to me, "Hitler was horrible, but at least he thought he was saving the world. Stalin had no such illusions. He was evil." Wyss 00:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think much of the word "evil" as it's too connotative of specific religious beliefs, so I don't care whether it's included or not. My point is that not every phrase in an article requires "a suitable citation in a secondary source by a peer-reviewed author" - for instance, articles by (perhaps less conscientious) editors of pop music biographies frequently talk about popular judgements without citations which are in any case meaningless, given the subject. -- Simonides 01:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, we agree more or less about the word evil. However, we don't agree on citations. Anything in the article should be supportable, that's WP policy. If you assert something and can't back it up with a verifiable secondary source, it can be removed. WP's role is not to tell the world AH was evil. Most people can glark that on their own, by the bye and many are likely to interpret the article as biased and unreliable if it sums up the "Darth Vader" aspect of AH's legacy too neatly. AH was not a comic book character, which is one of the reasons he managed to cause so much damage. WP's role is to summarize his biography from peer-reviewed sources. Wyss 01:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Wyss, we do agree on citations, it's just that we don't agree on the interpretation of what requires a citation; all I'm saying is that not everything is citable according to stringent standards, but can be considered a fact of experience and therefore deserves mention. It's like calling a certain landscape beautiful, or to use an imagined quote, "Bavaria is widely considered one of the most beautiful regions in Germany" - where you are going to find a scholarly peer-reviewed source for that, not to mention that not everything that turns up in scholarly sources isn't worth equal weight due to innumerable questions of methodology, bias, etc? -- Simonides 01:25, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the hitch is that Hitler isn't Bavarian scenery. The header of this high traffic article about one of the world's most emotion provoking subjects must be written to the strictest possible, objective, scholarly and encyclopedic standards. I mean, sure, AH was fuckin' evil, but the moment the article asserts that, its scholarly credibility is chaveled and many readers will assume the rest of its content is equally moralizing and weak on supportable, specific history. The use of words like "brutal," "evil" and "violent" in an intro also imply strong emotion which in itself erodes credibility to nil among cautious and educated readers. Wyss 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As you like. No real disagreement with you here.-- Simonides 01:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet you restored the word "violent" to the intro. Hey, in truth we're not that far off in our takes on this. My concern is establishing a credible tone in the header. The article does a great job of representing the documented record, in which he rather starkly emerges as a murderous sociopath (he was responsible for the deaths of even more Germans than Jews by the way, which is not to in any way diminish the horrors and utter moral bankruptcy of the Holocaust). So far as his racial beliefs go, he did stir up the thugs with Jew baiting but most middle class Germans were far more afraid of communism, anarchy and hyper-inflation. Further, there's no evidence Hindenberg would have appointed him chancellor if he'd known the camps would be a result, never mind Germany in ruins by 1945. Wyss 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No, you did not understand the issue: I don't care much for the word "evil" and its connotations, only about citations in gray areas, and this is a gray area that isn't important. On the other hand, Hitler's anti-Semitism and his use of violence are NOT gray areas, they ARE significant aspects of Hitler's popularity (both within his party and among the public) and rule, they are VERY well documented, your own "sources" back this up, he was not responsible for the SYSTEMATIC deaths of more "ordinary" Germans than Jews/Communists, the use of violence went well beyond merely "Jew baiting", and all the scholarly works I cited above go into GREAT detail about both these aspects of Nazism, in fact you could say Nazi Germany and the Jews, which only covers the period from 1933-1939 by the way - ie BEFORE the war - is about this subject only. You're just wrong on this and if you look up the books I mention (which are just ones I own by the way, there must be several others), you'll understand. -- Simonides 02:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The words in caps (=shouting) indicate you're getting emotional about this. I've already said I don't think we're that far off in our takes on the topic so let's take a breather and talk about it again later, ok? Wyss 02:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Using capitals is also a way of emphasizing what people seem to keep missing in a message; I could just as well have used italics or bold. I'll be happy to revisit the discussion once you take the trouble of verifying what I'm talking about. -- Simonides 02:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, I'm mostly concerned about the encyclopedic tone of the intro. Wyss 02:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

But there is certainly a difference between GLORIFICATION and DOCUMENTATION.
Blocking a Wikipedia article since you have gotten out of arguments is bad style. This means, if you cannot give any good reason, why the currently (by you yourself) displayed pic of Adolf Hitler should remain the leading one, then you should not change (block) this Wikipedia article. Since blocking without having good arguments is like singing without having a voice. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) PS: While singing without having a voice is a privilege of really important people like Bob Dylan...


 * I have reverted ROHA's image change, with Raul654's blessing. He protected as he noticed some edit warring going on here, but has now unprotected. I did not revert to Wyss's version: I simply changed the picture. (I have no particular interest in editing this article, but have been keeping a lookout for vandalism, and am prepared to revert ROHA's trolling, taunting, and disregard for consensus.) Since Raul has agreed to unprotect, perhaps we should be extra careful to avoid edit warring. AnnH (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA, until you agree to abide by Wikipedia's conduct regulations, I will revert every single edit that you make here regardless of content. Until you learn to respect others, don't expect anyone to afford you any respect. --Nlu (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Nlu, until you agree that this Wikipedia is not the right place to publish pictures of Adolf Hitler, which without any problem could be replaced by any other picture of Adolf Hitler, and which latter ones serve the same purpose, id est, let the readers see the face of Adolf Hitler, as long you and the ones like you should not replace a neutral Adolf Hitler picture by a propaganda Adolf Hitler picture. My question here is: Why do you like the picture that is currently in the heading? And why do you not like the picture | colspan="2" align="center" | ?

A simple question, I hope to get a not so simple answer from YOU, Nlu. (You have turned out to be a blocker without a cause, so if you will continue with your private rules, I will certainly not be as patient as I have used to be. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01022006)


 * You've refused to abide by WP:3RR, WP:NPA, or any other reasonable Wikipedia regulation. This makes you a vandal in my book.  Vandals don't deserve to be respected.  --Nlu (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you promise to abide by reasonable Wikipedia regulations, I will assume good faith; until then, since you're not showing a gram of good faith, you don't deserve any consideration. --Nlu (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And ... silence. I guess the silence speaks for itself.  --Nlu (talk) 03:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA, das ist eine Uniform der Grausigkeit, nicht Ruhm. Wyss 03:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss said: "ROHA, das ist eine Uniform der Grausigkeit, nicht Ruhm." And I answer: Did you mean that the uniform that Hitler wears in the current leading picture is a "Uniform der Grausigkeit" or did you mean that the current Hitler pic is a "grausiges Beispiel für einen schlechten Wikipedia-Artikel zum Thema Adolf Hitler" ? You will certainly find an answer, may it be in German, may it be in English, may it be in any other language. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01022006)

ROHA,
 * first of all it was you who went against all consensus and unilaterally kept on inserting what you thougt a better picture. That is wrong regardless of whether you were right or wrong in your argument.
 * the current picture is, IMO, better since it tells us more about Hitler's self-image then your picture does.
 * your picture is no less a propaganda photo.

Str1977 09:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Str1977, so lets find a compromise: If both of the candidate photographs are propaganda photos, so why should we not chose the one that looks a little bit less propagandistically ? The other candidate could be placed somewhere else in the article. (Please do not come back with the pixels and the quality of the pics, since this does not have the slightest meaning in the context of this discussion, and everybody is aware of this fact.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01022006) &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.148.75.181 (talk &bull; contribs).


 * Do you agree to abide by WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and other reasonable Wikipedia regulations, yes or no? --Nlu (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

ROHA, IMO the "uniform" photo is better as it also contains information about how Hitler saw himself and how he was seen most of the time. There is no "less propagandistically", as your photo probably was meant to convey a different propagandistic message at a different occasion. You picture can also be placed somewhere else. I don't care about the pixels very much. Str1977 10:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 84.148.75.181 (ROHA?), on a side note, it would be helpful if you would actually create a user account and sign your posts with a registered username. Doing so doesn't compromise your anonymity, but does make it easier to address you, and avoids confusing you with someone else who might happen to post with the same IP at some point. Wesley 17:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of some certain readers and contributors
There was a contributor named "Lacatosias" who said the following:

"(No, that's backward. You do not put the German term in parens unless you are addressing a German audience. Parens are used to clarify. If anything, it should be the other way 'round.") I could not answer at the appropriate place, since it was blocked. But I am glad to answer here: You, Lacatosias, claim that "You do not put the German term in parens unless you are addressing a German audience". And I simply answer: What I added was to explain to an English-speaking audiance what the acronym "NSDAP" means. (Since this acronym NSDAP of a German name: "National..." and so on is still in the introduction of this article, I think my intention was a good one.) Not so ? Now, if not so, then please delete the useless "(NSDAP)", since it will not give any additional information. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01022006)


 * And, do you have any problems understanding the acronym 3RR and NPA? --Nlu (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Roha, don't be too hard ton Lacatosias. He deleted it all and I restored the acronym, as it might be useful to use that acronym in the article. The full German name (whose inclusion here I neither propose nor oppose) is explained in the wikilinked article on the party). Str1977 09:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible!!
This page is impossible. Trying to keep track of this page would be something of a full-time obsession. I don't know how seomone can help out here.--Lacatosias 09:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

POV tag
I'm going to put here a POV tag, and this is not just about the intro. Look at the entery about Hitler on Columbia encyclopedia and learn how the write an article clean of points of view. The "six million myth" does not appear there and this is all of text related to the holocaust appears there:

" As the tide of war turned against Hitler, his mass extermination of the Jews, overseen by Adolf Eichmann, was accelerated, and he gave increasing power to Heinrich Himmler and the dread secret police, the Gestapo and SS (Schutzstaffel)."

I think we should write more than this here but not to present him as an anti-hero from children's cartoon. --Haham hanuka 14:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is entertaining though, you have to admit. And I'm being provided with a whole bunch of different sources and different perspectives on these extraordianrily comlpex matters of the nature of society European society in 1920 and 30's, all kinds of organzitions which Iìve never even heard of but which only tangentially have to do with Adolf Hitler the man as far as I can tell!! Fascinating.--Lacatosias 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So another encyclopedia provides less details and this is reason enough to mark the article NPOV? Please provide a better reason. --Yooden


 * We don't need the POV tag. None of the other editors want it there. -- Simonides 17:36, 2 February 2006 (UTC)