Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 52

Grammatical error
There is a sentence in the "Legacy" section that reads as follows: ...the denial of the Holocaust along with the display of Nazi symbols such as swastikas, is prohibited by law in Germany and Austria. It should have a comma before "along." Currently, it suggests that it's all right to deny the Holocaust as long as you don't display a Nazi symbol. I can't make this change myself since the "Edit" button doesn't appear on the page. Hopefully someone literate will correct this error.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC))
 * I would not read it that way. But, I would agree that it may be read to suggest the two go together; where the prohibition can be both together or separate. I added the comma for that reason. Kierzek (talk) 14:26, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think adding a comma alone doesn't do it. I've rephrased the sentence to indicate that both Holocaust denial and displaying the Nazi flag are unlawful in Austria and Germany. Feel free to revert or amend in case this new wording obscures the legal situation. Malljaja (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is better. Kierzek (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler and Pan-Germanism in childhood
Why are people not happy with -

Hitler became obsessed with German nationalism from a young age as a way to rebel against his father, who proudly served the Austrian government. While many Austrians considered themselves "Germans" but still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany.[25][26][27] Hitler and his friends used the German greeting "Heil", and sang the German anthem "Deutschland Über Alles" instead of the Austrian Imperial anthem.[18][page needed]

It's fine and well cited, why do people keep reverting it back to 'culturally Germans' when they still considered themselves as just Germans back then not as culturally Germans, seems silly to keep reverting it.--14Adrian (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * First off, several editors have reverted your edits. So while one contributor may have been "silly", it's unlikely that all of them are. More to the point, it usually takes a while to get one's head around some of your edits. That's because they all have in common that they tend to convert simple sentences into more complex and occasionally intractable ones. The recent addition of adding "culturally" before "Germans", in my opinion, is a good one. It captures, in one word, Austrian identity well—they were neither "ethnic" Germans (there's no such thing) and many of them were loyal to the Austrian nation, while speaking German and following similar traditions, all of which are hallmarks of a common culture. Finally, this entry is not about Austria, it's about AH—therefore, if people wish to learn more about Austrian identity they can do so on that entry. This entry is already too heavy on extraneous content. Malljaja (talk) 18:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your reply contradicts itself you say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans? Erm it's common sense that Austrians are ethnically German...no it's not too heavy because 'culturally' before Germans is silly there is no difference between that and just Germans to be fair and no hardly anyone has 'reverted it back' beside a couple of persons and yes this is about Adolf Hitler but he was born Austrian but back in his day the vast majority of Austrians consider themselves as "Germans" and no they were loyal to Austria, a Austrian nation didn't exist (even see the cited sources on it, German Austria in 1918 as well and then the welcoming of the Anschluss, the Austrian nation is a post-1945 everybody in history knows that. Don't say there is no such thing as ethnic Germans when Hitler himself was an ethnic German, so if there is no such thing as ethnically German people...who were Germans before 1871? The way it is now is perfectly fine I don't see how it's wrong, he was Austrian but like many others in his day and age considered himself German but Hitler expressed loyalty to just the German Empire, he always considered Austria as part of Germany (Greater Germany/Pan-Germanism).--14Adrian (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Your writing makes for some tough reading. Consider using grammatical sentences and some punctuation—others will thank you and take you seriously. Suffice it to say Germans are not an ethnic group—people from, say, the Allgäu by and large look and speak differently from, e.g., people in the Havelland. Show me a credible source that says otherwise (i.e., that Germans as a group are all genetically closely related and follow very similar customs and beliefs), and I'm inclined to lend you my ear. Otherwise, I'd assume that you're just making things up. I have no quibbles with your assertion that Austrian people felt like Germans while being loyal to Austria. However, your edits tend to muddle this issue and are only tangential to the main topic of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 21:38, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing that I have a problem with is when you emphasize words with italics or quotation marks. Quotation marks should only be used for direct quotes and not to indicate to the reader what you think is important. You also seem to be using italics to present a certain point of view and in effect are telling the reader what to think. It is not our place to tell the reader what to think; out articles have to present the facts that we have located using reliable sources, and present them using a neutral point of view. We leave it to the reader to decide what to think. A recent edit which I changed: your wording was: "While many Austrians still considered themselves Germans, they remained loyal to Austria." The words "still" and "remained" imply that Austria was part of Germany in the past (ie, prior to the Anschluss). This is in fact not true: the Austrian Empire existed from 1804 to 1867, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire from 1867 till the end of WWI. The First Austrian Republic existed from 1919 to 1934. Here is a template that contains links to the various articles on this wiki that attest to the existence of Austria as far back as 1156. A third problem is your grammar and punctuation, which are lacking in some ways. Material added must be in grammatically complete sentences, must be gramatically correct, and must be correctly punctuated. Your recent edit: "While many Austrians considered themselves "Germans", they still remained loyal to Austria, Hitler expressed his loyalty only to Germany." This sentence is grammatically incorrect; it has the word Germans in quotation marks for emphasis; it implies through the word "still" that Austria did not exist at the time. The new source you have added is not suitable for our purposes, as it describes what the people of Austria have been thinking and feeling from 1956 to the present day. I am once again re-working the sentence to reflect the known facts and to make it neutral in point of view. --Dianna (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Austria was part of Germany before the Anschluss just not the nation-sate Germany, in fact up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany it was inside the Holy Roman Empire of the German nation until 1806 which the Habsburgs who were Austrian pretty much dominated and then the German Confederation and until Prussia defeated Austria well it was seen as not just part but the leader of Germany and if it wasn't for a political war with Prussia it would be Austria now who controlled all the German lands as "Greater Germany" the Austrian Empire was part of the German Confederation but not the German Empire, in 1918 "German Austria" wanted to join Germany this pretty much shows that Austrians certainly still felt and considered themselves Germans but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union between the German Republic (then in 1919) and German Austria and thus remained separate, and Germans are an ethnic group ethnic Germans not rocket science...so tell me if Austria had won Prussia in 1866 in the "German war" would you then be saying Prussians all of a sudden are not German? Up until 1945 there was no Austrian nation, no Austrian national identity but the people considered themselves part of the German nation and thrived a Greater Germany and the national identity of "Austrian not German" is just a post-1945 occurance.--14Adrian (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The ethnic German entry is in dire need of updating and repair. It is very poorly sourced, and mostly discusses German ethnicity has seen from the rear mirror—i.e., how Germans historically were an ethnic group. They no longer are. It's like saying that Americans or Chinese are an ethnic group. Like any large group they are a composite of different ethnicities, and they have been for a long time. Ergo Germany and Austria at the time in question (i.e., at the early 20th Century) were ethnically highly diverse groups, with strong cultural affiliations. That's all that needs to be said in this entry. I've reverted your recent edit accordingly. Malljaja (talk) 13:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Ethnicity doesn't all of a sudden just stop, do you genuinely have something wrong with you? Austrians will forever be ethnic Germans just not Germans by nationality.

Do you understand the difference between nationality and ethnicity?

Chinese are an ethnic group.

Americans is normally just nationality...but native Americans are ethnic group again.

Reverted for what, all the sources cited verify the text put in.--14Adrian (talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you mean when you say "do you genuinely have something wrong with you"; it sounds like a personal attack to me. Please do not make personal attacks, per WP:NPA. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 02:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

He is claiming one thing yet Wikipedia even contradicts the user Malljaja.--14Adrian (talk) 04:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The person can't answer me when claiming Austrians aren't Germans ethnically yet I asked "If Austria won Prussia in the German war in 1866 would you then be saying Prussians aren't Germans?" and I got no reply, the edit is not to heavy to say considered themselves Germans because around Hitler's time Austrians did describe themselves as Germans and this can be cited things are different post-1945 now of course but back then Pan-Germanism was high and although Austria (at his birth) was not part of Germany he still was an ethnic German I don't see why this should be changed to "culturally" when the Austrians back then considered themselves actually Germans not just as culturally Germans.--14Adrian (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * To paraphrase what I say on my user page, WP is both the worst and best encyclopaedia. It's written by people who know their stuff and know how to use sources, and it's also written by people who do not think things through and who wouldn't know a reliable, credible sources if it bit them in the rear. To apply the term ethnic to a group as large and culturally and genetically diverse as Germans is poppycock. There are ethnic groups of German origin (e.g., the Pennsylvania Dutch and Transylvania Saxons) who are traceable by dint of their traditions, including close relatedness due to very limited intermarriage with other groups. This, however, is not the case for Germany as a whole, which is a mosaic of different ethnicities. Berlin's population, at one point, was up to 20% French thanks to an influx of Huguenot refugees, and prior to WWII it also had a large Jewish population. The cultural and genetic legacy of all of these groups have shaped the language and genetic makeup of the region. Günter Grass is as German as bread, beer, and bratwurst, yet his mother was Polish, and Thomas Mann, yet another quintessential German had a Brazilian mother. I could go on, but suffice it to say, you would be hard pressed to find any country in Europe that consists of a single ethnic group. If people believe they are ethnically French, English, or German, they're very probably kidding themselves. Malljaja (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 14Adrian, I have to agree with the revisions made by Malljaja and Diannaa, as to the wording (and grammar) of these few sentences in question; in this section. The changing of the words (which started on 2 October) and length of the circling debate at this point is akin to beating a dead horse (WP:DEADHORSE). Further, as you are a new editor, I would point out that you do not have consensus (WP:Consensus) for further changes at this point. The fact is that Hitler's attitude was that of a minority (at the time) in Austria; his romantic notions and stated loyalty to Germany were also a way of getting back at his staunch Austrian civil servant father. Kierzek (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all these people you saying have ethnic Brazilians mothers and so forth well their are not German ethnically then just born in Germany so have German nationality...do you actually understand what an ethnic group is? *sighs*

Secondly, it was not at all a minority that people in Austria wanted to join Germany now stop with this rubbish because before Hitler was even in power the name of Austria in 1918 was German Austria and the vast majority of people wanted to be part of Germany and in parts 99% of them voted but the Treaty Of Versailles forbid the union and most Austrians did identify themselves as part of the German nation and as Austrian-Germans they are no different from say Prussian-Germans Hessian-Germans Bavarian-Germans they are all "German" ethnically, what don't you get about that? The Anschluss was hugely welcomed so stop listening to such rubbish, if history had turned out differently the Austrians would have been running Greater Germany now an inheriting the country Germany as the nation state unfortunately Prussia did instead, get your facts right. Do you have something wrong with stating that Austrians are ethnic Germans or something, does it boil you that the truth hurts? Check what the word Austria even means...I rest my case!--14Adrian (talk) 16:41, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The essential issue here is that wikipedia articles need to reflect what reliable sources say. Argumentation without reliable sources is pointless. Understand this before continuing. ( Hohum  @ ) 20:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hohum, I was adding cited sources into the references about everything I said hence why it's not getting reverted back now because back then it's true that Austrians were seen as Germans, a separate identity only occurred after WW2, and people further up are referring to "German" as a nationality and I don't think quite understand what an ethnicity is....--14Adrian (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Dianna do you accept you was in the wrong and not going to revert back then now? Without getting personal just know your stuff before saying it wasn't part etc, the Holy Roman Empire was seen as "Germany" and the Austrians literally dominated that and up until 1866 Austria was part of Germany, I think it's fine how it is placed now if need be I have a source you could put after the Germans bit if need be (if anyone wants to challenge how the Pan-Germanism paragraph is put now).--14Adrian (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing you write here makes much sense in English, but by all means feel free to write it out in German, and it may be clearer to editors.Nishidani (talk) 16:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this sort of vague generalization worth keeping?
"Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great.[47] Wilhelm Röpke concluded that 'without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful.'[48][49]Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)"

In 1197 pages of Fest's book, Luther is mentioned twice en passant, and not as an ideological infuence. Luther had a profound effect on German culture, antisemitism, but to treat him as a direct influence on Hitler, who had a Catholic upbringing, seems excessive. I know there was a controversy over this once, but one must distinguish between cultural milieu, and direct influence. Hitler's rhetoric certainly uses the voelkisch idiom of Luther's translation of the Bible to great effect. Unless sources say so, I doubt whether an Austrian in the intensely anti-semitic milieu of Vienna, needed to brush up on a specific text like 'On the Jews and their Lies' in order to hate Jews. Most of the antisemites I have encountered became so without any reading converting them.Nishidani (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with your analysis. Like most people with deep-seated prejudices, Hitler very likely exhibited strong confirmation bias, and ML was probably one of many influences on his antisemitic views. So ML's special mention here probably overstates his influence on AH. Malljaja (talk) 20:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I may be jumping the gun, but the passage is vague, generic, and not helpful since it singles out a couple of tidbits that may have influenced Hitler, when we know (the subject of Viennese anitsemitism is thoroughly studied, complex and cannot be reduced to one or two suggestions as to what he may have read) that dozens of intricately interconnected clubs, traditions, political positions, religious and secular associations militated over this issue, at the time Hitler took up living in Vienna. For example the 'heil' of the Nazis was taken directly from von Schoenerer's movement, as the Ostara we cite as an esoteric mag. actually comes from von Schoenerer's practice of having groups celebrate an Ostara holiday back in the 1880s, etc. For the convenience of editors who may prefer the earlier version, I will plunk it here.
 * "Martin Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies may have also shaped Hitler's views. In Mein Kampf, he refers to Martin Luther as a great warrior, a true statesman, and a great reformer, alongside Richard Wagner and Frederick the Great. Wilhelm Röpke concluded that 'without any question, Lutheranism influenced the political, spiritual and social history of Germany in a way that, after careful consideration of everything, can be described only as fateful.' Nishidani (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)"
 * I also agree with the change. Luther is still mentioned and there is no need to overstate it. Kierzek (talk) 12:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Painting
The included painting, "Courtyard of the Old Residency", does not seem to be typical of his art. It has unsually austere colours compared to almost any of his other paintings, and in that respect may give a skewed impression. If anyone wants to check this, there are some youtube videos which give an oversight of his artistic works. JMK (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Citation to Hamann
Someone—I think it was Nishidani—added some new material with citations to Hamann, including "Hamann 2010 pp. 347-359,350." We are going to need more information on this book, as it is not presently in the bibliography. We also need more details on the cited work Hamann, Hitler's Vienna. Perhaps they are the same book? Could we get full details such as full name of the book and isbn? Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 07:59, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be the template for the edition I used. Compare it with the one in the bibliography. The title is different, but they are the same work, with the diff that the 2010 has an intro by Hans Mommsen.

Citation | last = Hamann | first = Brigitte | authorlink = Brigitte Hamann | title = Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant as a Young Man | publisher = Tauris Parke Paperbacks | location = London, New York | year = 2010 | origyear = 1999 | others = Trans. Thomas Thornton | isbn = 978-1-848-85277--8 | ref = harv


 * It's the same book as the 1999 volume. I'm sorry that my edits appear to have disrupted the copywriters' guild review. Happening on the page, I saw a dozen things which could be fixed in a jiffy (good book sources for poor website citations: many page number requests quickly satisfiable; several minor fixes to inadequate, false, or misleading comments, etc.,) and did so for some hours, thinking this would help your important copyedit and review of the page to clear up outstanding problems of presentation. I thought of templating Hamann 2010, then saw the old edition was already there, and didn't think it wise to exchange the new edition for the old, something which might have destabilized citations (with perhaps different page numbers) from the earlier edition. I won't edit it anymore, until, if you do decide to reset that copy editing template, you have all finished your review. My general principle in coming to any article on a deeply studied topic is that all references should be to the highest quality academic RS available, and I substitute anything I see as vagrant googling results with books that cite the same information. I thought this would assist the clean up you are all engaged in. Regards Nishidani (talk) 08:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a big conflict between the copy-editing efforts and the cleaning up/expansion of citations — granted, it can be a little annoying to smooth out text after the addition of new info, but it's not a major deal in my opinion (unless it triggers a lengthy debate about the veracity of claims and sources). The recent efforts by both of you and that of some additional contributors have really improved this entry greatly in a relatively short period of time. I really would like to see this synergy continue. Thanks for what you've done so far. Malljaja (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind words. I will resume the copy edit part of the process once things settle down a bit again. The problem with different editions is that material will very likely appear on different pages. So it is necessary to cite each book as a different source. This may of course mean a specific book is listed more than once, but it allows better verifiability. You were correct not to remove the previous edition as a source. I will go ahead and add the newer edition to the bibliography. --Dianna (talk) 21:17, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Migrating references
I am thinking of moving all the citations out of the text and into a separate section at the bottom of the page. Please see Ted Bundy for an example of an article that has been converted to this style. If there are no objections or concerns, I will complete the change in the next few days. See WP:LDR for more information. --Dianna (talk) 18:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello Dianaa. This is a very good suggestion, as it would make editing of the entry much easier on the eyes. I know that it's a lot of work though, but perhaps you've come up with a less arduous work flow. Many thanks Malljaja (talk) 19:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its okay with me. Kierzek (talk) 00:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler had Asperger Syndrome according to an autism expert
Could this go in the entry?

Michael Fitzgerald, an expert in autism spectrum disorders, concludes that Hitler suffered from, and met all the criteria of Asperger syndrome as documented by Hans Asperger. As evidence of possible Asperger's, Fitzgerald cites Hitler's poor sleep patterns, food fads, dislike of physical contact, inability to forge genuine friendships, and an emptiness in his human relations. His conversations in the Men’s Home in Vienna were really harangues and invited no reciprocity, for which he seemingly lacked capacity. In Munich, Hitler was distant, self-contained, withdrawn and without friends. His comrades noted that he had no humanitarian feelings, that he was single-minded and inflexible. He was obsessive and rarely made good or interesting company, except in the eyes of those who shared his obsessions or those in awe of, or dependent on him.

As far as hobbies or pastimes were concerned, Hitler spent a great deal of time examining architectural plans with Albert Speer, an activity that remained a major focus of his life throughout. His other major interest was in the music of Richard Wagner. His greatest interest, clearly, was in control of and power over people.

Fitzgerald further states that Hitler was an ideologue with unshakable convictions, and had a bed compulsion, which demands that the bed be made in a particular way with the quilt folded according to a prescribed pattern, and that a man must make the bed before he could go to sleep. He did not use language for the purpose of interaction with others, but only for the purpose of dominating others. He endlessly engaged in long-winded and pedantic speeches, with "illogical arguments full of crude comparisons and cheap allusions." He was unable to carry on a normal conversation or discussion with people. Even if only one other person was present, he had to do all the talking. His manner of speech soon lost any conversational qualities it might have had and took on all the characteristics of a lecture that easily developed into a tirade. He simply forgot his companions and behaved as though he were addressing a multitude, repeating the same stories over and over again in exactly the same form, almost as though he had memorised them. After the First World War, "his awkward mannerisms" were noted. At that time, he wore his gangster hat and trenchcoat over his dinner jacket, toting a pistol and carrying as usual his dog whip, he cut a bizarre figure in the salons of Munich’s upper-crust. But his very eccentricity of dress and exaggerated mannerism saw him lionized by condescending hosts and fellow guests. In his early days, he wore the Bavarian costume. His clothes were not clean; with his mouth full of brown, rotted teeth and his long fingernails, he presented a rather grotesque figure. His gait was a very lady-like walk; dainty little steps. Every few steps he ****** his right shoulder nervously, his left leg snapping up as he did so. He also had a tic in his face that caused the corner of his lips to curl upwards. People found his look "staring and dead." 58.170.59.250 (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is far too long to go into an article that is already 4000 words too long, and is likely copy-pasted from a copyright source. The article already mentions a possibility of Aspergers'. --Dianna (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I also feel this is too detailed. It is also too speculative and apparently based on only one source and would thus give undue weight to a single analysis by this individual. Malljaja (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You should look for a more reliable source, like the one about his Syphilis. DS Belgium (talk) 01:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

hitler as a war veteran
please cite your source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.229.203 (talk) 19:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just about any biography of Hitler will mention his time in the military during WWI, but here is one Shirer, William L. (1960). The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. -- Daniel 19:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

How Hitler died
According the the FBI records found at: http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler there was no evidence of Hitler having killed himself and his body was never found. Though they do have leads that suggest that he escaped to Argentina where he lived until the 60s.

The last line of the main article says, "In the final days of the war, during the Battle of Berlin in 1945, Hitler married his long-time mistress, Eva Braun. On 30 April 1945—less than two days later— the two committed suicide to avoid capture by the Red Army, and their corpses were burned.[5]"

That is obviously the propaganda that was released at the time. It should read:


 * "Papers on the 30th of April 1945, stated that Adolf and his wife committed suicide to avoid capture by the Red Army and that their corpses were burned.[5] This was believed by the masses and taught in history classes at school. The online "Vault" of FBI records however clearly state that there was no evidence to prove that theory and that they investigated claims that he had escaped to Argentina. The FBI reports go on to say that he may have lived there into as late as the 1960s.[338]"

"[338" FBI Records - The Vault - Adolf Hitler http://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trickyjeffries (talk • contribs) 19:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I see where you are going with this and you may have a valid argument in attempting to attribute the source to the FBI. However, although I haven't had a chance to review those pages yet, there are more sources than just the FBI to consider. What the FBI concluded cannot be the only viable and reliable source on the subject. Other sources confirm the deaths, including first hand accounts by witnesses.-- JOJ   Hutton  19:46, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If one reads the FBI site, it states: "At the time, it was feared that Hitler may have escaped in the closing days of the war, and searches were made to determine if he was still alive. FBI Files indicate that the Bureau investigated some of the rumors of Hitler’s survival." Clearly, they investigated "rumors". Contemporary historians have rejected these "rumors". And, in the end, "rumors" is not something to be included on Wikipedia. Between the eye-witness accounts and the confirmation as to Hitler's dential remains, the matter is really closed. See:
 * Eberle, Henrik and Uhl, Matthias (2005). The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin, New York: PublicAffairs, ISBN 1-58648-366-8
 * Kierzek (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kierzek (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Kierzek (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd also like to add and echo Kierzek's comments that as far as one can tell, these documents are just a sundry paper trail of FBI records consisting of letters by various individuals, suggesting that they saw AH alive and well in various locations (e.g., in Argentina or even NYC). Anyone with a pen or paper and a wild story to tell would have ended up in those files. Whether their observations or suggestions were indeed true or not, these documents do not reveal. So it's not a reliable source. What's more, even if it were true that Hitler had reached foreign shores to go on living an undetected life, unless this became accepted by a significant number of historians or other scholars, it does not belong into WP. Malljaja (talk) 21:02, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

"So-called" racial hygiene
The article reads:
 * One of Hitler's central and most controversial ideologies was the concept of so-called racial hygiene.

I removed the "so-called", but restored it, with the edit summary explaining that '"so-called" is appropriate—"racial hygiene" is not an accepted and it's also a highly controversial term'.

I think the first bit must be a typo (an accepted what?) so I'll await clarification on that. As to the second point, I think we make clear that doctrines of racial hygiene are controversial (then and now) when we say they are in the sentence I quoted. However, phrases like "so-called" introduce bias by leading the reader to the favored conclusion, as in this case, where it vaguely suggests deception and doubt without introducing new meaning. For these reasons, "so-called" is included in Wikipedia's words to avoid:
 * So-called can mean commonly named, falsely named, or contentiously named, and it can be difficult to tell these apart. Simply called is preferable for the first meaning; detailed and attributed explanations are preferable for the others.

causa sui (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm aware that "so-called" is word that should be avoided, but that doesn't mean its use is prohibited. And in this case, at least in my opinion, it is appropriate (it is deceptive to use "racial hygiene" without a qualifier, since it is a term that has never been accepted in the scientific community that studies human genetics). While c'editing this entry I came across several instances of what I would call "implicit (or indeed deceptive) bias" where terms like "racial hygiene" or "Aryan people" are used as if they are commonly accepted terms. They are not. I'd be happy to reword the sentence in question to exclude "so called"; for example, "One of Hitler's central and most controversial ideologies was the concept of what he and his followers termed racial hygiene". Malljaja (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a perfectly acceptable compromise revision, exactly as you have written it. I'll make the edit if you don't mind. causa sui (talk) 22:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Cite for translation
A contributor has recently tagged a translation of "FÜR FRIEDEN FREIHEIT UND DEMOKRATIE NIE WIEDER FASCHISMUS MILLIONEN TOTE MAHNEN" into "For peace, freedom // and democracy // never again fascism // millions of dead remind [us]" with. If this were a highly complex text, I'd concur that it may need a citation. However, this is an almost word-for-word translation that even a reader without the command of German can deduce the meaning. And for what it's worth, I can read German, and can confirm the accuracy of this translation. Any thoughts? Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 22:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right that the translation is simply and easily confirmed with a German-English dictionary. But as a matter of consistency, it would be best to have a citation. causa sui (talk) 22:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

unsourced material syphilis
Weird, some reason why it seems not possible to remove unsourced material? The BBC article contains none of the things written in the article. DS Belgium (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Any reason why the pending-changes protection is hidden? The lock links to semi-protection, and when scrolling down to the section on pcpp, that one suggests it's obsolete. For a trial period that began on June 15, 2010, articles could be protected by pending-changes protection. The trial is now over DS Belgium (talk) 04:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, DS Belgium. The article is semi-protected and move-protected. As far as I know all articles with pending-changes-protection had it removed some time ago. The unsourced material you removed is definitely gone. Perhaps you were looking at a cached version of the page? --Regards, --Dianna (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Doubtful, after submitting it, it was gone, checked a while later to make sure I hadn't screwed up anything, it was back. I installed another browser to be sure. Next day it was indeed gone. Considering this was the first time something like this happened, I was a bit suspicious (as I always am). DS Belgium (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Farrakhan quote
We quote Louis Farrakhan:
 * Louis Farrakhan has referred to Hitler as a "very great man".

The quote is situated in a section on Hitler's legacy, between quotes describing some influential contemporary figures expressing a positive attitude toward Hitler or suggesting that Hitler's public image following World War II, while overwhelmingly negative, has pockets of support and admiration. This quote, as quoted and placed in the article, clearly implies that Louis Farrakhan is among the notable contemporary political figures who do not share the consensus view of Hitler's legacy.

The full context given by the citation is in an article on Louis Farrakhan documenting his many public gaffes, giving short direct quotes that suggest racist or bigoted attitudes on the part of Mr. Farrakhan toward whites and minorities other than his own. It reads:
 * "The Jews don't like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man," Farrakhan said in a speech last year.

What little we do get to infer from the added context is that Farrakhan is responding to critics' comparisons between him and Hitler. As a technique for improving his personal public image, it is obviously not a success. But it is also not clearly an explicit attempt to rehabilitate Hitler's image as much as it is a rhetorical device for responding to criticism in the context of public speaking to what is probably a friendly audience.

Beyond that, we do not get to see what Farrakhan said before that, or what he said after. In what way did Farrakhan think Hitler was "great"? Does Farrakhan want us to respect and admire Hitler and wish for more leaders like him (implying that Farrakhan thinks of himself as such a leader)? Or is Farrakhan identifying with the way that Hitler was a terror to his enemies and admiring that solitary aspect of his political career? Or was Farrakhan merely suggesting that in comparing him to Hitler, his critics are acknowledging his own significance? Or was it _anything_ else? No matter: we make these judgments on behalf of the reader through presentation and the context in which we place it. causa sui (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your explanation. I agree with you that the Farrakhan quote does not tell the whole story about his position towards AH, and therefore is potentially misleading. So I've taken it out again. Malljaja (talk) 23:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. Thank you very much for working with me on this. causa sui (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Hitler's death date contested
Backing up what Jeff said here Talk:Adolf_Hitler i found a rather interesting article which corresponds with the FBI files (also take into account that the skull fragement they believed to be his, was actually that of a woman see here ) It was written by a chap who i believe has sadly passed away from cancer. However, he posted this remarkable thread claiming to of met hitler in South America (as many prominent nazis were proven to of fled to, including Dr Mengele and Eichmann) Has anyone got any opinions on this, im not paticulary a conspiracy thereoist but this find proves to be very extraordinary. Nothing is what it seems.... User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 23:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The skull fragment is irrelevant. The evidence comes from the detailed testimony of those who were in the bunker. Of course numerous people have claimed to have met Hitler, Bormann, Billy the Kid and Elvis. That's not worth much as evidence. Paul B (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Well not really, its been proven scientifically. Dont forget they killed someone who looked like Hitler (that was a proven fact) in the last days of the the war in europe. Besides what you said there was contradictary, afterall perhaps numerous people CLAIMED to of seen him commit suicide, but did they actually see it? And was it the real hitler? User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 09:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well yes really. The skull fragment is not and never has been evidence of his death. It's just a skull that someone said is Hitler's. If someone says a skull is Napoleon's, and it turns out not to be, that's not evidence that he didn't die is it? I've never heard of any evidence that "they" killed someone who looked like Hitler (who are "they" anyway?). No-one claimed to have seen him commit suicide, heard the gunshot, saw the body, helped to dispose of the body etc, and all their testimony is consistent. Paul B (talk) 12:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed "Well obviously you dont know your history, if you want ill try and dig up a picture for you and i read it up in an oxford book on 20th century history." Please do not insert inane comments into my posts. I do know my history, and you are talking through your hat. I think I know what you are referring to, but if you source what you supposedly "know", I can respond properly. Removed: "Thats my point , no living person could ever say they saw hitler shoot himself , it could of been anyone...hearing is different to actually viewing". No, it couldn't "of". Read up on the circumstances. The room was enlosed. Hitler and Eva went in. Their dead bodies were shortly thereafter removed by people who knew them intimately. Paul B (talk) 20:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this discussion if off tangent for this entry. There is plenty of very well-supported evidence that Hitler was in Berlin during the waning days of his power and that he committed suicide. There is no credible evidence that he fled to a foreign country. None. That there are some fireplace narratives that seem to tell a different story speaks more of human needs for titillating mystery rather than acceptance of banal truths. The "remarkable thread" you point to is on a website apparently devoted to urban myths and that story fits right in there—anyone with a computer and access to the internet can post such story. Malljaja (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Malljaja and Paul B's comments. Also see the books I cited above under the section topic: "How Hitler died"; especially the one by . It is an exhaustive investigative look into Hitler's death. Kierzek (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * They are many books that state the opposite. I believe i answered all your comments. User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to submit the many book sources you claim exist that state the opposite of what the literature dealing with Hitler's death that currently is in the entry says (if that's what you mean by "state the opposite") for discussion here. Malljaja (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Malljaja-I can tell you we went through this ad nauseam on the talk page for Death of Adolf Hitler in 2010. See: . Thereafter, I copy edited the info. with the cites (and cited text) to this article. WP:RS was met. Kierzek (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality
In the section on Hitler's sexuality, we write:

"He had a close bond with his half-niece Geli Raubal, which may have included sexual relations, though there is no evidence that conclusively supports such a relationship.[329] All three women attempted suicide, which has led to speculation that Hitler may have had sexual fetishes that affected the mental well-being of his close partners.[330]"

We would be appalled to find such unencyclopedic content in an article on any other person, living or dead. Imagine:

"Abraham Lincoln had a close bond with his half-niece, which may have included sexual relations, though there is no evidence that conclusively supports such a relationship.[329] All three women attempted suicide, which has led to speculation that Lincoln may have had sexual fetishes that affected the mental well-being of his close partners.[330]"

Lincoln had a "close bond" with a family member. Scandalous! Of course, since historians are unaware of there having been an attendant following him around 24 hours a day, that relationship "may have" included sexual relations.

If there is no evidence confirming or even suggesting such a relationship, it is nothing above gossip and rumor. The same goes for the second sentence. We offer no hint to the reader that there is anything to the speculation except pure guesswork. causa sui (talk) 17:37, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * agree- This is the reason why wiki requires sources, even though Hitler did terrible things, adding that bull shit only discredits the article if unsourced.Beefcake6412 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to voice dissent here. If the two sources in question make the connection between Hitler's predilections (even if only alleged) and these womens' personal hardships, inclusion of this section maybe warranted. (Properly cited) scholarly speculation or reasoning that suggests that this topic (however unsavoury) received significant attention needs also be included. So if this is properly sourced (something that may need to be checked) it should remain in the entry. Malljaja (talk) 19:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know what the sources actually say, and get some indication from other secondary or tertiary sources that this line of research is regarded as historically interesting or significant. causa sui (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I do not have access to the sources in question, so perhaps editors who do can shed some light on this. As far as I know, the relationship between Hitler and his niece has received significant attention. Time permitting I'll look into this to see whether there are scholarly sources that could be helpful. Malljaja (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Good article
How close is this article to being a GA? I'm thinking it's important enough that we should move it up the quality scale towards FA, and it seems to be referenced pretty well, which is the hardest part. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very close, and I would be in a position to answer queries about several sources, as I have them here.We need more sources, especially to the information in the section "Rebuilding the NSDAP". The table with election results is unsourced. We need to try to trim the article size down a bit if possible, as it is over 13,000 words. This might be an acceptable size for such an important topic. --Dianna (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Given the topic, it would be very worthwhile to get the entry to GA or even FA. I also agree that there's still work to be done on the sources. I'd expect that some of the larger sections (especially those covering the period of WWII) could be pared down a little bit. Malljaja (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is looking much better. Probably, some of the info. could be moved to specific off-shoot articles, such as: Adolf Hitler's political views; Adolf Hitler's rise to power; and World War II. Kierzek (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Which book(s) is considered the definitive biography of Hitler? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Peregrine Fisher, I would put forth:
 * & Note: the 2008 biography of Hitler by Kershaw (ISBN 0-393-06757-2) is the same as the two books above, put together as one, but without some verbiage, quotations and the detailed chapter footnotes (at the end of the book). It is the one I have used the most for citing herein. Kierzek (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Kierzek that Kershaw is the top biography. Other good ones I have read are Fest ISBN 0-15-602754-2 and Tolland ISBN 0-385-03724-4. I have a copy of Bullock and Mein Kampf and Shirer (Rise and Fall of the Third Reich) and two of Speer's books available at home, and Kershaw at the library. --Dianna (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Strive for GA but work to FA levels. It's in pretty good shape, but a section here for a comprehensive list of things to do, refine, specific information required, better sourcing needed etc., would help general editors like myself who follow the page to chip in with greater alacrity. Nishidani (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The Appointment as Chancellor section is poor, from memory. It glosses over the essential details in a complex manoeuvre that tipped the scales when electorally H was in difficulty, and is confusing on the successive turnouts through 32 to 33, for example.Nishidani (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the NSDAP section now, because it was mentioned first above. I don't want to hack away at it just yet, but page 202 of Kershaw looks like a good place to start dealing with the "citation needed" note in the Adolf_Hitler section.  I'm thinking add cites to statements if possible, else replace statements with cited info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good, for that section, its only the last two paragraphs which need cites. I left off at page 172. Kierzek (talk) 02:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 31 October 2011
Many references are inaccurate. (Not slight in error but significant) a) Reference is just an idea by the author and not sufficient to make a point. b) Reference does NOT support point. c) Reference is circular in nature, not substantive in nature.

So frequent are the inaccuracies, the article for college level work would receive an "F". This is largely due the references are off.

Suggest - rework article so references support the work in a more "concrete style" rather than "hear say" or "opinion" that has no relevant support for the claim made.

This is a problem for wiki I know, but I can only say a wiki story could be accurate however if the references are off, it's basically "trash writing". Perhaps, Adolf is still to controversy after 65+ years after his death. Unfortunately; likely true. Thank you.

75.70.115.177 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to me more specific? Are you suggestion that all 337 refs are no good or just a percentage of them?

Adolf Hitler billy
Could anyone please state why the text above Hitler's picture is titled 'Adolf Hitler billy'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Broden (talk • contribs) 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Clumsy phrasing
"These gains were reversed in 1945..." implies Germany was in control of most of Europe and North Africa right up to some magic moment in 1945 - these gains were reversed much earlier, and Germany was finally conquered itself in 1945. Needs rewording by someone who can edit this (quite rightly highly restricted) page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.38.193.168 (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

May have been a school mate of Wittgenstein
I have removed the information that Hitler may have gone to school with Wittgenstein. I feel that we don't really have room for this addition. The sources are apparently not clear on whether or not they even knew each other, and even if they did, it would be a lot more significant for Wittgenstein than for Hitler. --Dianna (talk) 23:37, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that if they had known each other it would be worthy of a mention in this article, but since historians seem to have no information on it, it's far too tangential to include here.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether there might be any truth to them knowing each other, etc. is debated in the Wittgenstein article. It is inconclusive. Kershaw, for example, does not mention this man at all, in any fashion. I agree with exclusion, above. Kierzek (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless there is proof they knew each other, this is just trivia, and shouldn't be in the article. ( Hohum  @ ) 16:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Urolagnia
I've removed the following text from the article:

Hopefully my reasoning is self-explanatory. causa sui (talk) 17:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Not really. Checking the edit history might have been a good idea! I've restored it with the correct attribution. Paul B (talk) 17:41, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't, and still don't, see anything in the edit history that gives me a reason not to remove it. Maybe we should be more direct - I think our innuendo is getting lost in translation. causa sui (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The edit you removed correctly attributed the (admittedly implausible) claim to Otto Strasser, not John McCain. Perhaps you only have access to an old version of the page for some reason. The McCain/Obama version was just a bit of temporary vandalism. The sentence has been there for a long time. Paul B (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah got it. Sorry for the confusing approach. I was following my rhetorical style above where I argued that including the implausible and unsubstantiated speculative accusation that Hitler "may have" molested his young niece (for no other reason than that they had a "close relationship") should be removed. (I wonder why I didn't get rid of this while I was at it.) The names have been changed to illustrate how outrageously unencyclopedic the text is by inviting us to consider how we would react if an absurd allegation from a political opponent who has no knowledge of such intimate details of the subject's life were included in a biography of a person to whom we are more sympathetic. Here's another version. Suppose you found this in Abraham Lincoln:


 * Hopefully that makes my point a little clearer. :o) causa sui (talk) 18:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Humm, confusing indeed! I don't think you should say you deleted the "following text" when, in fact, you didn't. We should not IMO exclude material just because it was stated by a political opponent.(we wouldn't necesssary exclude "John MCcain [or whoever] said that Obama's policies would lead to economic disaster..."),. Yes, it's about a "scurrilous" issue rather than policy, but Strasser is claiming to have had this from Geli Raubel herself and he is one of the few sources on this topic. The "political opponent" bit is just there to add the context that Strasser was hardly unbiassed, what with Adolf having murdered his brother and all. Paul B (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In an article that is 190kb long (well over what is desirable) and has a split-off for "Sexuality", the question is not just "is the sourcing reliable?" but "is the material significant enough for inclusion in the head article?" The answer to that is surely "no" in this case. While my GA review hasn't reached this section of the article yet, I'd recommend its removal. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On those grounds I'd probably agree with you, though it's debatable, as the section is pretty short. The source is reliable - meaning Rosenbaum, not Strasser. It's the source for an allegation. Paul B (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Given Rosenbaum's discussion of the urolagnia and denial, wouldnt the following be a better parallel? I'm writing such a lousy sentence because I don't want to make up a fake footnote:
 * I certainly don't want to get in the way of your-all's good article drive, but just to point out that the sentence is more than a dredging up of claims by opponents.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for resolving the short section issue would be to merge "health", "sexuality" and "family", and cut down the size of each. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My suggestion for resolving the short section issue would be to merge "health", "sexuality" and "family", and cut down the size of each. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll argue for removing it at Sexuality of Adolf Hitler too, though that is a slightly harder argument to make since I can't make an appeal along the lines that Mkativerata took. In the main article, it's a headshot. If the article were Abraham Lincoln, whoever added this would be reverted and templated for vandalism. causa sui (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that the argument to remove from the sexuality article would be your original one here: that it's not reliable, having been made by a political opponent, so doesn't plausibly speak to Hitler's sexuality. I can see a better case for having it here than in the sexuality article.  The best case of all is for having it nowhere.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Causa suis' comment "If the article were Abraham Lincoln, whoever added this would be reverted and templated for vandalism" is, frankly, disgraceful. Adding material widely discussed in reliable sources could never be vandalism. Either causa sui does not understand policy or likes his rhetoric too much. This is simply because "urolagnia" is, I guess, considered scatalogical. But that's irrelevant. If there was speculation that he was gay, or liked threesomes or whatever else, it would be entirely relevant to the Sexuality article because thats what it is about. The sexuality section here summarises the larger article. What is included should be reliably sourced, of course, and we may exclude what seems relatively unimportant. But prudishness is not a valid argument for deletion. Paul B (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Um... I think you've taken this a bit too far. "Prudishness" is evidently not my concern here. Undue weight given to gossip is. Can we tone down the histrionics? This really isn't that big a deal, and civil discussion will eventually lead us to a resolution on this. causa sui (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well don't make hyperbolic claims then. He who lives by hyperbole shall die by hyperbole. BTW, perhaps you are unaware that there is a whole article on the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln, and that a book is shortly to be released alleging he engaged in various gay sexual practices. The discussion of these issues will no doubt be a legitimate issue at the main page and calling additions on the topic "vandalism" would certainly be wholly unacceptable and contrary to policy. Paul B (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The "urolagnia" section is probably too tangential for the main entry. But taking into consideration the attention that Hitler's mental and physical state have received by historians and other authors to try to explain his motivations, I do not see that a thorough discussion of his mental state, including his sexuality, would constitute undue weight. The article on Mao Zedong also contains a brief account of his habits that is less than flattering. Again, given that Mao, like Hitler, was a highly controversial historical figure it provides the sort of information that — while being inappropriate for rather "ordinary" politicians (such as Lincoln and Obama) — has received significant attention by historical scholars in search for clues for motivation. Malljaja (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Removals to tighten up article
I agree with the removal of the Hitler living in Liverpool part. I also believe this should be taken out as it is only trivia: "The garrison commander of the besieged Festung Breslau ("fortress Breslau"), General Hermann Niehoff, had chocolates distributed to his troops in honour of Hitler's birthday". Kierzek (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the things I'm looking for in the GA review is how to cut down the article's size: it is at least 50kb above what it should be. Excising little sentences and paragraphs like this is going to be the way to do it. I'm quite encouraged that only a short way into the GA review, the article has already lost over 4kb. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe this block quote should be taken out and moved to another article, if need be. See below:


 * On 23 April, Joseph Goebbels made the following proclamation to the people of Berlin:


 * {{Block quote | I call on you to fight for your city. Fight with everything you have got, for the sake of your wives and your children, your mothers and your parents. Your arms are defending everything we have ever held dear, and all the generations that will come after us. Be proud and courageous! Be inventive and cunning! Your Gauleiter is amongst you. He and his colleagues will remain in your midst. His wife and children are here as well. He, who once captured the city with 200 men, will now use every means to galvanise the defence of the capital. The Battle for Berlin must become the signal for the whole nation to rise up in battle ...Dollinger|1995|p=231. Kierzek (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Yah, I agree that this could be removed and replaced with a statement such as "Goebbels made a proclamation urging the citizens of Berlin to courageously defend the city." Quoting the speech doesn't add any context --Dianna (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Kierzek (talk) 15:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

May have taken a trip to Liverpool
Can we please have a discussion about the possibility that Hitler may have taken a trip to Liverpool? I removed it on the basis that such a trip, if it ever happened, is not significant enough an event to be included the article. The editor has now restored it, so could any interested editors please post their opinion as to whether or not this should remain in the article? Thank you. --Dianna (talk) 05:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be removed. This for tightening up the article to GA status; further due to WP:VERIFY problems. Kierzek (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As per my comments in the GA review, I agree with its removal. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I have to strongly disagree that the visit would not be significant enough for inclusion - it certainly would be to residents of England, especially Liverpool, many of whom, of course, later endured his blitz and threat of invasion; and this is borne out by the fact that there have been at least two books about it including a novel by a very respected author, Beryl Bainbridge.
 * Secondly, verifiability. This is not simply an urban myth from nowhere but is based on the published memoirs of Hitler's undoubted sister-in-law Bridget. It is not impossible that he visited his sister and nephew. I think it should be included (as per the other story that he had only one ball) but one should make it clear that there is only as yet one source for the story, and that it is disputed.Straw Cat (talk) 11:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * A novel? Seriously? He was in Britain in the 70s as "Mister Hilter" in Monty Python; we going with that, too? Alarbus (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm from Liverpool and I think it should be deleted. Also my house was damaged in the blitz (though I wasn't born then) and I still think it's irrelevant. It's generally considered to be totally made up by Bridget Hitler to sell copies of her book. There is no evidence that it ever happened. Paul B (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is, it's not just this one addition. He may have taken a trip to Liverpool; he may have gone to school with Wittgenstein; he may have been beaten by his father; he may have had only one testicle; it goes on and on. Next thing you know we have an unencyclopedic article full of speculations given undue weight. It's a disservice to our readers imho. --Dianna (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * His supposed monorchidism is comedic and not notable and can be ignored. But to many British people (I am English and live nearby) his visit to Liverpool, if provable, is certainly notable - particularly as he was (allegedly) there for 5 months, not a quick in-and-out like an ordinary holiday. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is 187kb long. A few days ago it was 193kb. The question isn't "would many British people think this notable?" but "in the context of this biography, is it a significant enough factoid?" The answer just has to be no. Sure, it might warrant inclusion in a hypothetical split article like Early life of Adolf Hitler, but not here. The article is trying to get the GA thingy and some editors are talkig about FA. It will never get that far at 187kb. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The queried text is:
 * There is evidence that in November 1912 Adolf Hitler left Austria to evade army conscription and moved to Toxteth in Liverpool in England where he stayed in a flat with Alois Hitler, Jr. for 5 months. In April 1913 he went to Germany. While Adolf Hitler was in Liverpool, Bridget Dowling wrote that Adolf had been on the run from the Austrian military authorities for the previous 18 months.
 * Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've just removed this; again, isn't it? There's little support here for it, and this article is undergoing a GA. Not good to be pushing this in. Alarbus (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Refs
and that the citations are clickable links down to the references section. If you intend to source a lot of material to Maser, the book should be added to the References section, thus: Then, each citation is wrapped in an {sfn} template, thus:

However, as a work published in 1973, material found therein may have been superceded by more recent sources such as Kershaw. In particular, Maser is a proponent of the theory that Hitler had a son named Jean-Marie Loret, and the decision was taken recently not to include this fringe theory in the article; see the section "May have had affair in June 1917 resulting in son born in France in 1918" above. Please be cautious when editing this article, as we are trying very hard to keep the size down; it is still some 1250 words over the recommended upper limit of 10000 words. Thank you for your interest in improving this article. -- Dianna (talk) 19:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I use the Zotero plugin for Firefox to collect references, it has a Wikipedia citation export function. It might help. --Diamonddavej (talk) 21:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm aware of the dubious nature of some of Maser's assertions, but trust him on the documentation of Hitler's early life. If the size of the article is problematical, I would suggest that numerous phrases throughout could be deleted. To give but one example, the "invasion of Poland" can stand alone; there's no need to add "by the Wehrmacht", but that kind of extra but unnecessary information appears throughout. Also, I wonder why one needs a paragraph on Hitler and occultism. I think that whole paragraph could be deleted without the article suffering any harm. There will always be people who attach crackpot ideas to Hitler, but I'm not sure they merit serious attention, except to point out that people enjoy doing this. I think it must be a fascination with the notion that another 'truth' must lurk somewhere behind surface appearances. I'd argue that pages dealing with the occult can mention Hitler all they want, but there's no reason why a page on him should mention it. Kim Traynor 13:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree that the paragraph on occultism could be deleted. -- Dianna (talk) 20:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm pleased you agree. It's a real 'Aunt Sally' paragraph, almost circular in feel. It sets up some propositions, then knocks them all down, making its inclusion a bit pointless in the first place. The Lanz von Liebenfels information really belongs on the page dealing with him. It's more relevant to explaining whence Hitler derived his racist beliefs than being a statement about whether he believed in the occult. Coincidentally, the BBC have just broadcast an extract from an interview with Hitler personal valet, Heinz Linge, in the mid-1950s, in which he was asked if Hitler was interested in Astrology (as per Allied wartime propaganda), to which Linge replied, "No, never (...) and he never bit the carpet!" Removing the paragraph will help shorten the article. Shall we wait and see if others concur with our view? Kim Traynor 23:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's wait a bit as there are several active editors at present. --Dianna (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I vote for its removal. Kierzek (talk) 14:34, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

My vote would go to retaining this section, but it could be shortened. Looking more broadly, this entry is quite heavy on AH the agitator and politician and light on him as a person. This clearly accords with what others (such as Kershaw) have observed, namely that he hardly had a personal life to speak of. So I'd be careful to remove any traces of what could give potential clues to what may (or may not) have informed his private world view. It may be worthwhile looking into whether the content in the "occult" section could be merged with content elsewhere in the entry. Malljaja (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't have any axe to grind on this one, but I'd ask Malljala to consider the following. The paragraph starts off with a negative statement, rather than any positive evidence of occultist beliefs. Lanz von Liebenfels' ideas may have been partly mystical, but that's not what Hitler, as far as is known, was primarily interested in. We're then told historians are divided on the question and finally that Kershaw (why is his opinion treated as more authoritative than others?) doubts the influence. That's like inserting a paragraph entitled 'Hitler and UFOs' (why would one do that in the first place?), then stating, "There is no evidence that Hitler believed in extra-terrestrials and he made no mention of them in Mein Kampf. Historians are divided on the question, but one of his more recent biographers think it's unlikely he did." What would that add to our knowledge? I would argue that this article should stick to known facts about Hitler and his career. The statements on religion fall into a different category, as sources like the Table Talk reveal what he thought of conventional religion and we can study state policy towards churches in the Third Reich. It may be that Hitler had all sorts of weird and wonderful ideas about the occult buzzing around in his head, but until we have firm evidence of them, I suggest the topic should be ignored. Kim Traynor 11:05, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I was a little too vague when I suggested that some of the content in the "occult" section be merged with existing content. As you correctly note, there is no firm evidence for what was going on in Hitler's head about this (and many other) topics. Kershaw (I do not accord him the greatest authority on Hitler, but his work on AH is very deep, comprehensive, and recent) repeatedly makes a point that it is very difficult to know what motivated Hitler, but there is good evidence that he was very prone to confirmation bias and he clearly held views about "racial purity", "need for Lebensraum" that are in the realm of some form of invented mystical (i.e., occult) world, not one based on fact and reasoning and science. In my opinion this belongs into the entry properly sourced and cited. So I am voicing opposition to doing away with this section completely, while acknowledging the fact that its present version in less than perfect. Malljaja (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The idea that views about "racial purity" are "not based on fact and reasoning and science" was of course argued at the time they were being disseminated, but it's a modern mind-set that (apart from neo-Nazis) universally rejects Nazi racial ideology as a discredited "science", whereas the Nazis, and eugenicists elsewhere, tried to establish it as "the" science. They argued that its propositions were observable and statistically measurable. However ludicrous that might seem to us, it was not based on mysticism. And there's nothing mystical about "Lebensraum". It's just a straightforward old-fashioned land-grab. Kim Traynor 16:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I just came across this discussion on your Talk page. I think there is a reason for keeping this paragraph that hasn't been mentioned yet. History Channel, with a large worldwide audience, has broadcast "documentaries" on Nazis and occultism that skirted the edge of sensationalism and may paint a picture in the viewer's mind that is inaccurate. therefore, including this paragraph and mentioning the foremost scholars could be useful to steer readers in the right direction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.152.62.173 (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point that had occurred to me, but it can be dealt with in one dismissive sentence at the end of the section on attitudes to religion. I would argue that if someone browsing Wikipedia (or any other decent source) finds no mention of the occult, they might just realise it's mainly a staple of sensationalist tv documentaries on the likes of the History Channel. I still have sufficient faith in humanity to hope people wouldn't conclude that Wikipedia had missed out an important aspect of Hitler's thinking! You'll notice, too, that the page makes no mention of Lothar Machtan's contention that Hitler was homosexual (and that, if true, could be argued to be more important to understanding Hitler than occultist beliefs). Some things are best ignored in a serious article. Kim Traynor 16:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well said, Kim. One of the things we did in the GA review was locate and take out all these "may have beens". People coming to this Wikipedia article (at the rate of 250,000 per month, so it's super important that we get this right) are looking for facts, not kooky theories or speculation, and frankly we just don't have the space either. We are still some 1200 words away from the recommended maximum size of 10000 words. Here is a list of stuff that has been in and out of the article since I arrived on the scene in October:
 * May have been a classmate of Wittgenstein
 * May have lived for a period in Liverpool
 * May have had a son born in France in 1917
 * May have had Aspergers
 * Other material removed in the course of our GA review:
 * May have had syphilis
 * May have only had one testicle
 * May have been addicted to amphetamines
 * May have had urolagnia
 * And pretty much all of these were what Kim describes. "He may have had urolagnia, but Mimi Reiter disputed the claim." It makes for a wishy-washy article when all thse claims are included, which is pretty much the opposite of what we want. Himmler was totally into the occult, but Hitler? not so much. I think we could take it out. --Dianna (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was aware of all of these except the posthumously diagnosed Aspergers. He certainly wasn't the singalong type. Kim Traynor 19:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As regards shortening the article, I think the direct source extracts that appear on this page could go, because, interesting as they are, they are merely illustrative and not necessary to progressing the main text. Three appear in one section alone (Early adulthood). Kim Traynor 20:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I was digging around looking for sources; its kinda hard to prove a negative, but Bullock says Hitler found Himmler's "humourless pedantry" about the study of runes and other volkisch heritage to be "boring and irritating" (Bullock, 1999, p 729); Speer says Hitler did not agree with Himler's mythology; he quotes Hitler as saying "Here we have at last reached an age where that has left all mysticism behind it, and now he [Himmler] wants to start that all over again. We might just as well have stayed with the church." (Speer, 1971, p 171). How about we cut the paragraph and add a sentence such as "Although Himmler was interested in the occult, the interpretation of runes, and tracing the prehistoric roots of the Germanic people, Hitler was more pragmatic, and his ideology centred on more practical concerns." (Speer, pp 171, 174; Bullock, p 729). I would be in favour of removing the quote about his dreams to become an architect; it's already explained in the text. The ones about antisemitism are more to the point, though -- Dianna (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have taken out the quote about being an architect; that seems an uncontroversial edit, and it can be placed back in if anyone objects. What about the chart with election results? It was suggested by our GA reviewer that it could go, but I left it in. What does everyone think? The material is also available at Nazi Party. I have a krappy connection today; off to walk the dog. -- Dianna (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The anti-Semitism illustrated by the quotations could be explained by paraphrasing with a reference to Mein Kampf. I would say the chart is not essential if it appears elsewhere. It also could be paraphrased by stating that the Nazi vote declined with the return to more normal economic conditions in the Stresemann years, but surged again during the Depression. It could be reduced to the figures for Sept 1930 and March 1933 appearing within a sentence. I think it's a very illuminating chart, but a link could be provided to it on the Nazi Party page. In fact, to shorten the article as a whole, one should really examine it for passages where information can be readily found via links to other pages. (Connections are always lousy on a Saturday evening) Kim Traynor 21:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the Legacy section very sketchy and unsatisfying. i am not sure why it appears in its present position rather than at the end of the article. I would move the Meinecke quotation to first-sentence position, and replace the references to Sadat and others (not the only political leaders on record as admiring Hitler, e.g. Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein) with statements about (the albeit unintended legacy of) the division of Germany evolving into the Cold War division of Europe, ongoing post-war co-operation and political merging of European nation states to ensure avoidance of the catastrophe of war, together with their legislation emphasising human rights, e.g. abolition of death penalty, protection of social minorities such as homosexuals, Roma, increased social integration of disabled people etc. Also, condemnation of genocide enshrined in International Law. Kim Traynor 23:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe Diannaa, you have expressed it well and we should go with your sentence as to Himmler, Hitler and the occult. BTW, others within the SS, such as Heydrich, were also pragmatic and thought Himmler's attempts at following a "Germanic Occult" were silly. Also, the election results should be removed to the Nazi Germany article or Adolf Hitler's rise to power; it should be noted the article Nazi Party has the same chart, already. BTW-it should be remembered that some of the things removed from this article were because they had WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems; we certainly don't want them back in. Lastly, Kim Traynor please sign your comments/posts with four tiles. That will place your name, date, time and links (to your user page and talk page) on here. Kierzek (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. I sign my comments with four tildes. But now I see how my preferences affect the display. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Extreme Veggy
A short sentence should be inputted. Quote from Hitler Youth, 1922-45: An Illustrated History, by Jean-Denis LePage on p. 44 "The Führer’s aversion to meat, liquor and tobacco was firm and categorical. His dream was to convert the German people to a vegetarian diet." So something should be mentioned about his extreme veggyness. No?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.11.76.216 (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * We do have some information on this in the article already, in the "Health" section. -- Dianna (talk) 14:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was not a vegetarian. His personal chef will attest to him loving bavarian sausages and canary cream pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitler's siblings died in infancy?
This article states almost parenthetically that Hitler was the oldest surviving child: "He was the fourth of six children to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl (1860–1907). Adolf's older siblings – Gustav, Ida, and Otto – died in infancy.[10]"

The Wikipedia article on Hitler's family clearly indicates the contrary:

1890s Adolf was a sickly child, and his mother fretted over him. Alois was 51 when he was born, had little interest in child rearing and left it all to his wife. When not at work he was either in a tavern or busy with his hobby, keeping bees. In 1892, Hitler was transferred from Braunau to Passau. He was 55, Klara 32, Alois Jr. 10, Angela 9 and Adolf was three years old. In 1894, Hitler was reassigned to Linz. Klara gave birth to their fifth child, Edmund, on 24 March 1894, and so it was decided that she and the children would stay in Passau for the time being. In February 1895, Hitler purchased a house on a nine acre (36,000 m²) plot in Hafeld near Lambach, approximately 30 miles (48 km) southwest of Linz. The farm was called the Rauscher Gut. He moved his family to the farm and retired on 25 June 1895 at the age of 58 after 40 years in the customs service. He found farming difficult; he lost money, and the value of the property declined. On 21 January 1896, Paula was born. '''Alois was often home with his family. He had five children ranging in age from infancy to 14'''; Smith suggests he yelled at the children almost continually and made long visits to the local tavern. Robert G. L. Waite noted, "Even one of his closest friends admitted that Alois was 'awfully rough' with his wife [Klara] and 'hardly ever spoke a word to her at home.'" If Hitler was in a bad mood, he picked on the older children or Klara herself, in front of them. After Hitler and his oldest son Alois Jr had a climactic and violent argument, Alois Jr left home, and the elder Alois swore he would never give the boy a penny of inheritance beyond what the law required.

Alois Jr left home at 14 due to increasingly violent arguments with his father and apparently strained relations with his stepmother Klara. After working as an apprentice waiter in the Shelbourne Hotel in Dublin, Ireland, he was arrested for theft and served a five-month sentence in 1900, followed by an eight-month sentence in 1902.

This seems a fundamental biographical fact. Is there really this much ambiguity?

Lawrencewaugh (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hitler's father had children from a previous marriage. These include Alois Jr. and Angela. Adolf's older full siblings – Gustav, Ida, and Otto – all died in infancy. -- Dianna (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

about his views on the Christmas truce
I still think Hitler's view on the Christmas truce deserves mentioning, even though I was reverted, although the reason is hard to explain since it's twisty&fuzzy, (ie. even myself would have reverted the edit on the Christmas truce if I wasn't the guy who added it, but because I already had the twisty but true rationale in my mind, I decided to add it. If some1 else made the edit and I reverted, they would have a hard time explaining it to me too).

For a comparison, see why the article on Westboro_church mentions how the church's quotes about Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy, even though its quotes on those are not important to itself. Westboro church's reputation is dominated by its speeches and "protests" on homosexuality, so it has not affected itself by those speeches. Westboro church's talks of race and ethnicity are even less important to itself, but still nevertheless mentioned, why? Well, you know that articles on Wikipedia are meant to give information on the subject, and Westboro church's speeches give away hints and information on its beliefs and ideology, so they can be noteworthy for the article even if the speeches does not affect the subject, as long as the information explains the subject. Hitler's views on the Christmas truce do give the reader information about his beliefs, so I think that should mean they can be inserted to this article. Sorry about the long Paragraph, but I hope you can understand the reason I've invented. DontClickMeName talkcontributations 04:30, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

continued discussion from another page
(much of the text here is copied from elsewhere) DontClickMeName talkcontributions 01:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought it should be obvious why this is not important. Compared to the invasion of the Soviet Union or the murder of six million Jews, it is very small beer indeed. So it stays out. -- Dianna (talk) 02:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems very convincing, and indeed it would feel completely correct if I agreed (so again, I wouldn't think differently if I were you). However, I, with more time to think about it, say that none of what Hitler did (such as "his artwork, drawing cartoons and instructions for an army newspaper", having "a second bout of blindness" learning of defeat, etc.) during his time in the army is really worth mentioning compared to what he does as a dictator. I don't like sounding like this, but according to this reason (which I would feel completely correct agreeing with), the whole "early years" section should be removed. Are we going to do that? DontClickMeName talkcontributions 03:32, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of these things are mentioned by his primary biographers, and were important to his development as a person. You have a random incident mentioned in one newspaper article. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, true, but the source of the information is only checked to see whether or not the information is reliable or not, and does not have the final say about the information's importance. The center point all my reasons hover around is that how significant an event is does not solely determine its importance on an article. I didn't believe in this center point in the past the same way you don't, because it's not something that would be understood to be accepted easily. But look at everything on the article... for example when Hitler described the war as "the greatest of all experiences", does those words themselves have any significance coming from a low rank soldier? No, but the words tell a lot about how he thought about the war, and it's the reasoning that caused him to say that, not the words themselves that's significant, and information giving clues about something significant is important to the article even though it's not significant in itself. My edit does add clues to the dictator's views about concepts such as that of the Christmas truce. DontClickMeName talkcontributions 23:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So why, then would the quote where Hitler said WWI was "the greatest of all experiences" belong to this article while my edit does not? DontClickMeName talkcontributions 03:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Because that Hitler considered war as the greatest of all experiences is supported well by the available sources, whereas his view on the Christmas truce seems rather anecdotal. So you have a significant burden of proof that this snippet should be included in the entry, which is already very long. Malljaja (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Why I say my edit is important for the article is rather complicated. In fact, a typical look at my edit indeed appears so anecdotal, I used to revert edits that look like this. However, if you look at that quoted paragraph beginning with "Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City" in the "Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich" section, why does it belong to this article? The actual event of Hitler writing down his experience is not meaningful to his life, and does little to the outside world. Well, the reason that makes it belong is that, even though the quote is insignificant by itself, it does give information about the event where Hitler walked past a German Jew. Again, that event was also insignificant, and even more anecdotal than Hitler's opposition towards the Christmas truce. And again, the reason that makes it belong is that it give information about Hitler's thoughts and beliefs. Hitler's opposition towards the Christmas truce also gives information about Hitler's thoughts and beliefs, so that reason can also be applicable here.


 * About that point how Hitler's opposition to the Christmas truce is not backed by many sources, I may have explained about this already, but I didn't expect you to read the whole dialog (which's a huge wall of text so I wouldn't complain of having to explain again): I think I talked about how the source of the information is only checked to see whether or not the information is reliable or not, and does not have the final say about the information's importance. You know reliability is not measured relative to other sources on an article: something would be wrong if the same information by the same source is considered somewhere and not elsewhere. Well you see, what I added is reliable in the Christmas truce article, so I think that should mean it's reliable here. Thank you for reading all of this... DontClickMeName talkcontributions 04:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you try to find a good source that supports Hitler's views on the Christmas truce. It is not helpful to justify inclusion of a new section by pointing out sections that may be equally deficient. The goal is to work to make the entry better, not to strive for mediocrity. Malljaja (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The incident / opinion of Hitler as to the "Christmas Truce" is really not important enough to include herein. We can't include everything. It is really only a reported minor anecdote, in the end. Kierzek (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good points. @ Malljaja, well I guess since you say the claim of Hitler's Christmas truce views is not reliable, you would support removing the information in the Christmas truce article too... (if you don't actually, say why) I just want to be clear about this though, so please just reassure me that that's what you're saying, in case I comment on that article, saying you want to remove the claim, without your permission, thanks. That's all I'm asking, so I would be pleased if you answer.
 * @ Kierzek, please clarify your reasons. Generally, when you expect what you say to be taken into account by others, it can always be helpful to state your chain of thought leading to your stance. For example, you can say your opinion as a conditional proof argument, ie. "because of this, that is true". I mean, if I commented when you're having a conversation and said "That statement is incorrect, and we can't agree with every statement like that" you would be a little confused too. I know you had a clear idea about why you think so, but things happen when any thought is translated into text on a computer: the logic to it can slip away without words to represent it. DontClickMeName talkcontributions 02:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * DontClickMeName: The thing speaks for itself. There is no hidden meaning in my reply nor always a need to expand on ones statement. The addition is an insignificant anecdote (a short story about a real incident which is minor in Hitler's life). These articles are best kept at a certain length. We want them to convey the important areas of the persons life, in a encyopedia fashion with good WP:RS cites. At this point, I believe this topic discussion has become a WP:DEADHORSE. Kierzek (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

DontClickMeName, The vast majority of statements of fact in the entry are supported by book references from very reputable historians. Your reference for the Christmas truce anecdote is an article in the NYT, which, therefore, jars with the rest of the sources. This along with the fact that we're striving to compact this long entry is enough reason to leave this minor episode out of it. Like Kierzek, I too think that this discussion has run its course — we're not discussing the finer points of a major debate among historians, which would justify such lengthy discussion. Malljaja (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

=

 * Quite simply, this is not a dead horse. Why this has stretched to this ridiculous length, if you can figure it out, is because: Whenever my reason for why the source is reliable enough is my last comment, someone else (who didn't bother to read the whole wall of text above my last comment) comments that it is not important. Whenever my reason for why the information is important enough is my last comment, someone else comments that my source is unreliable. Apparently, I can't blame anyone for not reading the wall of text, but if no one else new come, we can talk about importance and reliability one at a time. First, let's talk about importance, and completely ignore reliability of my source and we wont talk about the verifiability and source at all until we get the importance straightened out.


 * Here is my argument about importance. This has absolutely nothing to do with verifiability, reliability, and thus nothing to do with the sources, as we can talk about that later.


 * The argument is simple: why should the below quote belong to the article while my edit does not?

"Once, as I was strolling through the Inner City, I suddenly encountered an apparition in a black caftan and black hair locks. Is this a Jew? was my first thought. For, to be sure, they had not looked like that in Linz. I observed the man furtively and cautiously, but the longer I stared at this foreign face, scrutinizing feature for feature, the more my first question assumed a new form: Is this a German?"


 * If the event of the Christmas truce mattered little to Hitler, there is no reason this event of walking past a German Jew would matter more to Hitler, so this quote should be removed as well if my edit should be removed if they are equally reliable w/ equal sources. Correct? (If not why?) DontClickMeName talkcontributions 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not talk about verifiability, reliability, and sources until we straighten this importance problem out, as there is no hurry. If you ever expect this discussion to end, it can be a good idea to talk about one aspect at a time. Thanks. DontClickMeName talkcontributions 03:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that I want to become involved in this discussion, but I would react to the Christmas Truce info as follows. Hitler's view of the Great War as the greatest experience of his life is relevant to understanding his 'world-view' and personal reaction to a cataclysmic event of European, or even world proportions. As much Nazi ideology (called 'Hitlerism' by some contemporaries) glorified war as a life-enhancing force, and tried to create a militarised and regimented society, that seems relevant to understanding both the man and the period. Hitler's view of the Christmas Truce, on the other hand, is just one more German soldier's opinion and reaction to a very ephemeral event of no magnitude in terms of long-term consequences; an opinion that was entirely predictable, given his extreme patriotism, and is of minimal value to our understanding of Hitler as a political leader and his political programme. Hitler's first encounter with a Jew in Vienna is, on the other hand, relevant to understanding his long-term anti-Semitism. Kim Traynor (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That you very much for you opinion, especially because it is about importance, which is what I want to clear up first. However, I kind of think the last part in your comment did not quite interpret my analogy in the intended sense. You are correct on how his views on the Christmas truce had no effect on his later views and didn't have any long term consequences, but my point was actually that the encounter with the German Jew did not significantly effect his later views either, but merely showed his views at that time, and so did his opposition towards the Christmas truce. That view definitely would be predictable at a later time, but it was not actually predictable at that time because we wouldn't be surprised if it instead said he supported the truce despite his patriotism. The knowledge of it more easily helps us understand when his preference for violence began, while his long quote describing a German Jew would require a lot of psychology reasoning to show anything about when his preference for antisemitic horror programs began. You can't find out that surely if he thought about planning a Holocaust or not at that time by reading that quote, but you can find out pretty surely that he had a pro-war mindset by noting his opposition to the Christmas truce. Furthermore, that quoted paragraph describing his passing by a German Jew takes up much more space in this article. So considering the consensus that that paragraph belongs, shouldn't we shift the consensus of my edit, assuming the only aspect is importance, and that reliability is to be discussed later? DontClickMeName talkcontributions 04:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd point out that the 'first encounter with a Jew' source is conventionally used as the starting point of Hitler's anti-Semitism, as far as the generally accepted historical record is concerned. The source is regarded as reliable because it's Hitler own words on the subject. Whether it is the starting point is, of course, open to conjecture (and it has no bearing on the practical planning of the Holocaust). Your information is new (I can't comment on the reliability of the source without seeing it for myself). If I was a historian engaged in research and came across your Christmas Truce information, and decided to mention it at all, I'd probably just reduce it to "he was horrified by the Christmas Truce" and insert it somewhere in a paragraph about his war experience. It's already well established that he had "a pro-war mindset". I'm being truthful here. There are so many things one can add to the article about Hitler, but it is already overlong according to Wikipedia guidelines, so I think the default position is not to add any extra information unless there's a compelling argument for its inclusion. I honestly don't think Hitler's reaction to the Christmas Truce falls into that category. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While it was the trip to Vienna when his antisemitism began, that specific encounter did not start it, from the way the quote's worded you can see he didn't become antisemitic from that one event: it also fails to show the origin of the of his antisemitism, and can even appear ambiguous of whether or not he was antisemitic at that time. It does, however, allow readers to deduct his views on Judaism at that time, albeit not much of his feelings towards them, which is still useful information, making it belong on this article. A question, however, is why my edit doesn't allow readers to deduct anything. DontClickMeName talkcontributions 04:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Jewish ancestry?
As loth as I am to improve the Hitler page, I must note that the Ancestry section is conspicuously missing mention of Hitler's mother, just his father is mentioned. The news today mentioned moving the parents headstone and that the site was available for re-rental, I was curious why the bodies weren't buried there (but even the Alois and Klara pages don't answer that). Lost interest now. DavesPlanet (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing intrinsically interesting about Hitler's mother, though it is perhaps an omission not to mention how large she loomed in his consciousness (as a counterweight to his domineering father's influence?), and how emotionally affected he was by her death. However, that would have to link meaningfully to his later development to justify its inclusion on the page. Studies in psychopathology are always intriguing but ultimately unrewarding as there is no convincing way of objectively measuring emotional states with their possible behavioural consequences. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Another reason why there has been so much focus on the paternal side of his family is because it was rumoured that he had Jewish ancestry on that side. So there's a lot more information available in our sources on the father, and that's reflected in the content of the article. -- Dianna (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleased, that question is correct: "Jewish ancestry" and not "Is he a jew?", like about some other famous persons with jewish grandfather. Jews are scared of rumours about his jewish heritage. But actually, persons who have only jewish grandfather are non-jews — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrom1234 (talk • contribs) 09:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

John Rabe: Hitler's complicity in the Nanking Massacre
Seems odd that such an article makes no mention of the relationship between Nazi Germany and Tojo's Japan? In 1937, when the Reichstag received word from Rabe regarding the atrocities being committed by the Imperial Army in China, ordered the NSDAP member and businessman to return to Berlin immediately. Rather than do anything to stop what happening, Hitler's "comeback" order withdrew one of the only people who was protecting thousands of of Chinese civilians in the Nanking Safety Zone from the mass raping and killing.

Hitler's action helped seal the fate of those trapped in the safety zone because after February 1938, when Rabe left, Japanese troops moved in and forcibly closed it down. Most of the male civilians were then shot as Chinese soldiers, young women were systematically raped and killed and the remaining others were sent to work camps. It's not nice and just another string to Hitler's bow. But something that der fuhrer had a hand in because he knew what was happening but preferred to ignore it because of the Third Reich. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.218.41 (talk) 08:51, 7 April 2012 (UTC) i was born in 200 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopy123456 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting, of course, in terms of foreign affairs, but irrelevant to an article focused on Hitler's career as the leader of Nazi Germany in Europe. He was not the instigator of the massacre, and his action as you describe it, even if interpreted as approval, belongs on a page dealing with the Third Reich and its allies. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The IP is stating that Hitler did know what was happeneing as Rabe had personnaly written to him stating unequivocally what was happening in Nanking. And what Rabe was doing to prevent further attrocities. As a member of the Nazi Party, Rabe expected Hitler to intercede and ask the Japanese to stop (as allies). The buck stopped with Hitler in the Third Reich, he might not have carried out the massacre but he allowed it to continue by ordering Rabe back to Germany! Hitler had a hand in the Rape of Nanking like Pontius pilote had in the death of Jesus. They both washed their hands of the situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.4.157 (talk) 07:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * May I ask out of curiosity why you would expect Hitler to have any interest in preventing a massacre of Chinese by Japanese? Kim Traynor (talk) 21:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am glad that this point has provoked some discussion. The point that is being made is not whether Hitler could have stopped the Nanking massacres. Who knows? That is a conjecture for history. But the fact that he had been presented with first-hand accounts about them and did nothing is notable enough to be included in this article. Hitler was the only Western leader who was an ally of the Japanese, he was therefore the only international voice that might have had any influence in Tokyo. Hitler knew about the massacres because rabe had told him. But when the German businessman was ordered back to Germany he repeatedly tried to personally meet Hitler. However for his troubles, he was arrested on the orders of Himmler, interrogated by the Gestapo and suspended from the NSDAP for a while.
 * Therefore what has "stopping the massacres" got to do with the above point? What the issue is: Hitler had first-hand accounts of what the Japanese Imperial Army was doing in China. Rather than do anything to upset Tojo's government he did nothing because he was their ally. However other Western powers like Britain, France and the USA kicked up a right storm. However by 1937 the Japanese had stopped listening to anything the League of Nations said and, for the most part, the international body could do little anyway. So to recap, the only leader outside Japan who was powerful enough to stop the killings in Nanking because of his influence with the Japanese government was Hitler. but the Fuhrer chose to do nothing, ignored the facts and had his source withdrawn from Nanking and arrested in Germany. These were the actions of an embarrassed right-wing dictator. Information that should be in the article about this horrible man. 109.151.218.79 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's anachronistic to think nation states and power blocs of the time under discussion had interrelationships of the kind that have evolved since the Second World War. We talk less nowadays about 'spheres of influence'. In my opinion, Hitler wouldn't have cared less what Japanese imperialists got up to in their own backyard, and in any case the Japanese wouldn't have cared two hoots what he thought. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

A Writer?!
I don't think we could says He was an writer. Yes, I know, he published Mein Kampft, but it wasn't a book for me. For example, Thomas Mann was an writer, Kipling was one. But not Hitler. I don't know why he wrote a book. --Bobybarman34 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think wikipedia goes by what you think is a book. He wrote a book, got it published and made money ont it. He is a writer. That the book is not excactly well written or if You, Me or anyone else agrees with the views of the book have nothing to do with it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has outdated material that has since been challenged or disproved
Recent research on Hitler's activities immediately after World War I have challenged previous assumptions made about Hitler. Recent research shows that Hitler was not immediately an anti-Semite nor an anti-communist at the end of World War I in November 1918, in fact Hitler served in his communist-led battalion of the Bavarian Soviet Republic where he served with distinction - serving as a liason with the communist government's Department of Propaganda, and stayed in it until the Bavarian Soviet Republic collapsed. There were many Soviet Republic soldiers who frequently and easily defected to the counter-revolutionary and pro-monarchist Freikorps, but Hitler never did - because he was not yet an anti-communist and in fact at that time believed in the ideal of a classless society and he was an anti-monarchist at the time. Furthermore there is film evidence of Hitler attending the funeral procession of Bavarian communist leader Kurt Eisner - who also was Jewish - with Hitler wearing both a black mourning armband and a red communist armband at the funeral. It was neither November 1918 when he became an anti-Semite, nor his claim in Mein Kampf that he became an anti-Semite in 1913, it is now known that Hitler became an anti-Semitic German nationalist in response to the news that Germany's social democratic government signed the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 that placed war guilt on Germany, ceded German territories, and demanded reparation payments. The Treaty of Versailles had a massive political impact in Germany - enraging ex-soldiers like Hitler with the German government that then drew them into adhering to the "Stab in the Back" legend of the so-called "November Criminals".

Prior to the Treaty of Versailles and after the fall of the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Hitler's battalion returned to German army control - and many of the leadership figures in his battalion were at that point social democrats and not yet anti-Semitic nationalists. However after the Treaty of Versailles, anti-Semitic nationalism soared, and a number of Hitler's soldier friends and himself then became anti-Semitic nationalists.

The current article has outdated sources - like William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - that my university history teacher who taught on the topic of totalitarianism, described Shirer's account as very outdated due to the new discoveries in historical research. There are other outdated sources that do not match up with present-day evidence that is now known about Hitler and the German military in World War I.--R-41 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In accordance with what I have said above, I have removed outdated material that inaccurately claims that Hitler became an anti-Semitic nationalist in November 1918 and added material that mentions the actual period of time that he became an anti-Semitic nationalist - in response to the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.--R-41 (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, R41. I have reverted your changes for now. The level of quality of prose is not of a standard expected in a Good Article, and the citations need to be formatted into the existing citation style of short-form Harvard citations using and  templates. You have added a lengthy paragraph about the Bavarian Socialist Republic, which may be undue weight. This will have to be discussed. Please provide ISBNs for any texts you used. Please don't worry that your work was in vain; the material is still there in the article history for us to draw on in updating and revising the article. Thanks, -- Dianna (talk) 14:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Dianna's comments. You have made very substantial changes that are both controversial and do not read well. For example, you dismiss Shirer, yet you provide only two sources by researchers who appear to be relative novices or reside at the fringe of the field of historical research (such as Thomas Weber). Just because they give different accounts of historical events does not "disprove" previously existing ones. For example, Ian Kershaw, widely considered an authority on Hitler, discusses Hitler's alleged sympathies or even involvement in the Räterepublik in post-WWI Bavaria. Kershaw comes to the conclusion that Hitler more than likely was neutral to opposed to the revolutionary radical left and only aligned himself with left-leaning groups within the army out of opportunism and not political conviction (see Hitler 1889–1936: Hubris, p. 120). This is not to say that Kershaw's account speaks the absolute truth about what happened during that time, but his research is well regarded and so it carries significant weight that is entirely missing in your recent additions. Malljaja (talk) 14:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hitler's service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic should be described, excluding it is inadvertently promoting what I would call the "Hitler legend" promoted by Hitler himself in Mein Kampf where he made no mention of his service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic and claimed that he was destined to become a Nazi because of his claim that he always had Nazi characteristics. It is now known that Hitler did serve in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, there is film evidence that has been studied and confirms that Hitler attended the funeral of Bavarian SR leader Kurt Eisner in February 1919 and there is evidence of Hitler being promoted in his communist-led battalion in the Bavarian SR. My point was that the new material provided by these authors has done detailed investigation into the months of Hitler's life following the end of the war. Hitler may have been an opportunist serving the Bavarian SR as Kershaw suggests and that deserves attention - but not complete exclusion of material on Hitler's service in the Bavarian SR. Furthermore reliable sources such as Thomas Weber's source that challenge the claims that Hitler was merely an opportunist in the Bavarian SR but that he was not yet fully politically developed then, should be included as well. Thomas Weber notes that many soldiers who were conscripted into the Bavarian SR's battalions frequently and easily defected to the anti-communist Freikorps - Hitler did not, he remained in service of the Bavarian SR until the final bitter end with its collapse and Weber notes that he was elected Deputy Battalion Representative of his communist-led battalion serving liason duties with the Bavarian SR's Department of Propaganda - his first entry into politics. Thomas Weber's source is an indepth detailed investigation into Hitler's early life and it reveals with substantial evidence that Hitler became an anti-Semitic nationalist after the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Now, as for Shirer's source - as I have said, my history professor who taught on the subject of totalitarianism in Europe told me when I was going to use Shirer's source, that Shirer's source is outdated and is becoming more and more outdated with new resarch, it was made in the 1960s. If material from Shirer's source is still verifiable by newer sources then it can be used, but claims by Shirer have become outdated with new research, those should not be included.--R-41 (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

To say that Shirer is outdated may or may not be true. He's done a lot of research, so are you saying that all of it is out of date, or some of it? In addition, is Thomas Weber a recognised eminent expert on the events in question? The half-life of his claims may be shorter than those of Shirer (who documented events as they were occurring). Hitler's whereabouts and temporary political allegiance in post-war Munich is well documented by Kershaw (and probably others) and this could be included. Just for general perspective and considering the length of this entry, that Hitler was serving in a "red" army unit during the chaotic days of post-war Bavaria is probably less newsworthy than his equally opportunistic pact with Stalin in 1939. So I do not think that the Munich episode deserves much space here. Malljaja (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I am saying that those claims by Shirer that are outdated are no longer valid. Thomas Weber's work that I have included was published by the prestigious Oxford University Press. Oxford University Press describes Weber as an award-winning historian and calls the book "groundbreaking", challenging previous conceptions about Hitler's early life - such as challenging Hitler's claims about his personal life in Mein Kampf. . Weber's work and claims are important and it should be included alongside Kershaw's claims that Hitler joined the Bavarian Soviet Republic out of opportunism. It is important to include Weber's work, particularly his analysis on Hitler's service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic, because it is an alternate argument to those that claim that Hitler was inevitably heading down the path towards anti-Semitic German nationalism.--R-41 (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What are Shirer's specific claims that are outdated? That Weber's publisher is gushing over him is hardly surprising — they want to sell his book! What are his credentials besides that? His insights maybe very deep and well researched, but you have not yet built a strong case for this, and the reviews of his book I have come across thus far have not either. That said, I rest mine until others have voiced their views on the current discussion. Malljaja (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Just because they give different accounts of historical events does not 'disprove' previously existing ones." Malljaja, I would agree with this statement for the most part; there are times where the cumulative evidence on a matter can cause the weight given to a statement/story of an event to change over time; R-41, rarely is something proven to be totally wrong. As to Shirer, I agree that his book is dated overall; but that does not mean it should be thrown out completely, even as to this matter. Usually, what I have found is there is a change to parts of a given event, or some changes of opinion without the whole event being completely wrong. Kershaw, for example, cannot state all is fact as to certain things; but draws conclusions at times; Weber has to do the same but from what I have read about him, there are complaints of bias and his total accepting of certain things as fact; such as the funeral film in question and Hitler's motivations. One cannot say with certainty what was going on in Hitler's head at the time. Almost nothing Hitler wrote before 1919-1920 has survived. As for Weber, the "puffing" by a book publisher means little; nor does the POV of a college professor. What can be written in the article is general accepted fact and conclusions which are not of undue weight from RS sources. Kierzek (talk) 18:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a review by a prominent historian on Nazi Germany and Hitler, Richard J. Evans, who supports Weber's book.. In the review, Evans says: "In this readable and well-researched new book, young German historian Thomas Weber, who teaches at the University of Aberdeen in Scotland, sets about clearing up these and other mysteries about Hitler’s war service. He does so on the basis of research so obvious that one wonders, as with many brilliant research ideas, why nobody has done it before: He tracked down and worked his way through the wartime records of the List Regiment, in which Hitler served throughout the war. Pitching these critically against the memories of the regiment’s soldiers and indeed the memories of Hitler himself, Weber strips away many myths." Another review from historian Norman Stone supports Weber's book, commending Weber's book, and noting Weber's confirmation that Hitler was not an anti-Semite during World War I but became an anti-Semite after the war.  Norman Stone notes that Weber's analysis adds onto existing literature that have determined that Hitler was not yet an anti-Semite during World War I - such as historian Brigitte Hamann's book Hitler's Vienna (1999), and Stone says that it is now confirmed as a fact that Hitler associated with Jews immediately prior to World War I - contrary to Hitler's claims that he didn't.--R-41 (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, the Evans review, while following convention not to openly knock a fellow scholar, is not exactly glowing if not stealthily eviscerating. For example, he takes issue with Weber's apparent heavy handedness in analysing the political situation and trajectory of the Weimar Republic and only lauds him for dusting off old military records and clearing up some myths regarding Hitler's rank. Hardly the stuff that a scholar would like to see in a review of his work. He ends on rather bland high note that suggests that while it's an engaging read one needs to crunch the salt.

I'm not sure if Norman Stone formed his opinion on having personally observed Hitler pre- and post-WWI, in which case I'm inclined to belief him, or whether he gives this account on the basis of having studied what little is known about Hitler's early views, in which case I'm sceptical. Malljaja (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You are being highly dismissive of Weber's work with little evidence to justify it. You claim that Evans is being dismissive, but he is not being dismissive of Weber's analysis of Hitler's service in the battalion, which Evans says has swept away old myths about Hitler. Evans describes the book as "well-researched" and for "clearing up" many mysteries involving Hitler's life. And Evans finishes the review after his criticism over Weber's interpretation of the Weimar Republic era by saying: "Nevertheless, he has written an intelligent, informative and absorbing book that has to be required reading for anyone seriously interested in the history of modern Germany, or in the effects of war on politics in general." --R-41 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I admit to being a little pithy in my criticism of Dr Weber's work, and I apologise for that. However, please understand that a lot of others' work has gone into this entry, and although it's good at times to be bold, your recent changes lacked sufficient respect for that, at least in my opinion. I've got no axe to grind with any of the authors you have suggested, rather I want to do a good pat down of the new sources in the hope that they could be used well for this entry. I'm sure we can work towards a version with newly improved content. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the contributions of others work, but if material is inaccurate then it needs to be replaced by accurate material. Recent research has revealed strong evidence that Hitler was not an anti-Semite in Vienna as Hitler claimed in Mein Kampf, nor that he was an anti-Semite in World War I. The consensus that is building is that it was the event of the Treaty of Versailles that resulted in Hitler and others being drawn towards anti-Semitic German nationalism in the wave of anger by Germans at the German government for allegedly betraying Germans by signing the punitive peace treaty. I will seek to maintain the general structure and flow of the article as contributed by other users, but the information on Hitler's service in World War I currently in the article does not utilize the most up-to-date research, and his service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic is not addressed at all in the article and needs to be described.--R-41 (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute over whether Hitler was anti-Semitic whilst living in Vienna

 * What exactly is the evidence that Hitler was not an anti-Semite pre-1914? It can't be the fact that he was still in an army unit at the time of the Räterepublik and had to participate in the procession at Eisner's funeral. Also, it can't be his pre-war acquaintance with Jews like Reinhold Hanisch, with whom he fell out. Is there any record in print or reported oral testimony from before 1914 which demonstrates that he was not anti-Semitic? As 1. a Church-educated Austrian Catholic and 2. a young pan-German nationalist (or did he fib about that too in Mein Kampf?), he ought to have been! Kim Traynor (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of confirmed evidence available that he was not an anti-Semite before 1914 and there is no confirmed evidence that he was one before 1914. Secondly, your statement on Reinhold Hanisch is completely wrong and the reverse, Reinhold Hanisch was not a Jew, he was in fact a rabid anti-Semite. Existing claims that Hitler was an anti-Semite before 1914 were based on what Hitler said in Mein Kampf. Mein Kampf is filled with deliberate distortions and a number of presumably unintentional memory errors. Brigitte Hamann's acclaimed book Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant As a Young Man has completely debunked the myth that Hitler was an anti-Semite as a youth in Vienna. First of all Hamann has stated that no anti-Semitic remark has been documented to have been said by Hitler when he was a youth. And second of all Hamann notes that Hitler in the 1910s was friends with multiple Jews. Hamann states that Hitler's Jewish family doctor Dr. Eduard Bloch noted that when Hitler's mother died in 1907, Hitler expressed gratitude to Bloch for having taken care of his mother in her ill health, and years later Bloch says that Hitler was not an anti-Semite when he lived in Linz.--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When Hitler was living in Vienna he had multiple Jewish friends. In his hostel in Vienna, Hitler became close friends with several Jews, including Josef Neumann and Siefried Löffner that enraged his friend Reinhold Hanisch who was a fierce anti-Semite, and Hitler later in a confrontation with Hanisch abandoned his friendship with Hanisch while remaining close friends with Neumann and Löffner. When one of the Jewish hostel members was being berated by an anti-Semitic attack from another hostel member, Hitler interrupted by noting the achievements of great Jewish music composers Mendelssohn and Offenbach. Hitler was a close friend with a Jewish brandy store owner in Vienna named Jacob Wasserberg, Hitler frequently visited his shop and had breakfast with Wasserberg. Also Hamann has found an anonymous letter dated from 1912 that states the following: "Hitler got along extremely well with Jews. He once said they were an intelligent people that stuck together more than the Germans.". All these notes and more are available in Brigitte Hamann's Hitler's Vienna: A Portrait of the Tyrant As a Young Man, that can be found here at Google Books: Hamann's research confirms that Hitler was not an anti-Semite before 1914 contrary to Hitler's claims in Mein Kampf. Thomas Weber's indepth study into Hitler's battalion during World War I has found no evidence that Hitler was an anti-Semite during World War I, nor that he became fiercely anti-Semitic upon discovering that Germany signed the armistice of November 11, 1918. In fact, Weber's research notes that unlike rabid nationalist soldiers who joined the Freikorps in late 1918 to attack communist revolutionaries, that Hitler is known to have had no desire to join the Freikorps. That plus his known service in the Bavarian Soviet Republic has left Weber to conclude that the real time period that Hitler became an anti-Semitic German nationalist was in response to the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 in which a wave of uproar arose against the German government for signing it, resulting in a surge of anti-Semitic nationalism that Hitler joined in on.--R-41 (talk) 01:18, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please remember this article is intended for the general reader, who is unlikely to be interested in scholarly debates or what the latest buzz is at the university. The Wikipedia reader is looking for basic facts, clearly presented. It is likely not possible to determine definitively at what point Hitler became an antisemite, and we should not pretend that Weber has done so. Hitler was not an important person prior to the start of his political career, so definitive evidence either way will likely not exist. We say in the article that Hitler said he became an antisemite upon his arrival in Vienna, and that much is true. He says that in Mein Kampf. Whether that is the truth or whether he became an antisemite at some earlier or later point is not likely determinable; we are looking at the past through a distant mirror. My own opinion aligns with Kim; I think he was an antisemite as early as Vienna, and quite likely earlier. -- Dianna (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies R-41 for the mistake I made regarding Hanisch. If Hitler wasn't an anti-Semite in the Vienna period, what was he doing by buying and reading the magazine 'Ostara' and, if it isn't another invented story, seeking out Lanz von Liebenfels personally in order to obtain back copies? Kim Traynor (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Having re-visited the historical period in question as discussed by Kershaw in "Hubris", I've come to the conclusion that Weber is attacking a straw man. In the chapter "Drop-out" of said book Kershaw very carefully dissects the (scant) available evidence for the origin and genesis of Hitler's antisemitism. He finds some evidence for as well as against the assertion that he became an antisemite in Vienna; one strong argument is that antisemitism was so rampant in Vienna at the time that any of his comments would not have received much attention. That he was good friends with a number of Jewish people is not good evidence alone — he was an eternal opportunist who sought friendships to gain personal (and political) advantage, not because of deeply held convictions (his political and personal relationship with the openly homosexual Ernst Röhm is also a good example for that). His service briefly in a "red" army unit fits right along with this — he wanted to stay in the army, because it gave him his first real job, because he did not know what else to do with himself. That Hitler used the Versailles Treaty for popular advantage is hardly any news. I'm not opposed to using the Weber source, but I do not think that it provides the earth-shaking new evidence R-41 suggests that it does. Malljaja (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To Diannaa, this is NOT about a so-called "buzz" in universities, this is about serious research, and research has demonstrated with direct evidence that Hitler had multiple Jewish friends in Vienna and that there is no evidence that confirms that Hitler was anti-Semitic then - by careful research we know the names of Hitler's Jewish friends in Vienna. Also, Diannaa, it doesn't matter what your opinion is on the matter - Wikipedia is not interested in user's opinions, it requests reliable sources. To Kim Traynor, Hamann notes that Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels made this claim in 1951, and that there is no evidence confirming whether Hitler liked Liebenfels, Elsa Schmidt-Falk - an eyewitness of Hitler's one statement about Liebenfels, says that Hitler only once spoke of Liebenfels and his supporters then, calling them "Lanz and his homosexual clique", and that there is no evidence that Liebenfels and Hitler ever met in Vienna. The only thing that Hamann says is known is that Liebenfels' 'Ostara' was prolificly published in Vienna and placed alongside the common Pan-German newspapers in the city, so it is likely that Hitler was at least aware of 'Ostara'. Hamann notes that Liebenfels made this statement in 1951 about allegedly giving Hitler Ostara copies in Vienna in order for him to be able to claim that he influenced Hitler, and Hamann notes that Liebenfels also made claims that he influenced Vladimir Lenin - that is completely unverifiable. To Malljaja, the earth-shaking evidence comes from Hamann's research that I've described above, Hamann and Weber have noted that no existing research has been able to produce clear and verifiable evidence of Hitler being anti-Semitic in Vienna nor during World War I and that such claims commonly rely on Mein Kampf as a source. For instance, Kershaw's noting of rampant anti-Semitism in Austria is circumstantial evidence - it does not demonstrate that Hitler was personally anti-Semitic. Secondly, Malljaja, your rebukes of Hitler's early friendships with Jews are based entirely on your opinion of them - you have presented no evidence to demonstrate that Hitler's friendship with these Jews was opportunist.--R-41 (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And as I said above, neither you, R-41, nor Weber can state uncontroverted facts on these matters discussed but must draws conclusions in the end. As an atty. I can tell you it would not meet evidence that proves that something is factual without inference or assumption. The best way to handle this is to say historian (name) has drawn the conclusion that .... and add the cite. Kierzek (talk) 14:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hamann has produced multiple verifiable sources that verify that Hitler had multiple Jewish friends in Vienna - she even found their names and described their relationships - and has noted that multiple claims about Hitler's alleged anti-Semitism when living in Vienna are either not verifiable or false. Hamann's work has been praised and other authors have built upon her research. Weber is one of such authors, who has investigated Hitler's service in World War I and has found no verifiable evidence that confirms that Hitler was an anti-Semite during World War I. Weber concludes that the only evidence that is available of when Hitler became an anti-Semite was after the signing of the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.--R-41 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I note that you are silent on Kershaw, who has written recent and extensive bios of Hitler, and can be considered a foremost authority on the subject. That Hitler was an opportunist is not my opinion, Kershaw states this repeatedly (see, for example, in "Hubris", page 310), and this behavioural pattern is also demonstrated by his aforementioned friendship with Röhm, whose sexual preference was reason for others to be killed or sent to concentration camps (that Hitler had him killed was solely for political reasons). In summary, Hitler was rarely principled about anything, other than about satisfying his own ambitions, a fact that has already been established prior to the work of Weber (which you now you conflate with Hamann's). I support Dianna's, Kierzek's, and Kim's statements on this matter that converge on the point that we cannot, nor should we, absolutely ascertain what the exact sequence of events in the development of Hitler's views was — we should merely present the views of historians, including points on which they diverge. Malljaja (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There have been many authorities who have had parts of their work challenged. A prominent historian on Hitler and Nazi Germany, Richard Evans who reviewed Weber's work on Hitler's service in World War I noted that Weber's investigation of Hitler's battalion records was so obviously needed in history writing about Hitler that he was surprised that he and others had never thought about it. I have read Kershaw's work, much of it is well done and accurate, however research by Hamann and Weber have demonstrated that claims of Hitler being an anti-Semite in Vienna and World War I are not verifiable and that there is verifiable evidence that Hitler was friends with multiple Jews in his hostel in Vienna and that he defended one of the Jewish hostel members from an anti-Semitic attack by noting the genius of the Jewish music composers Felix Mendelssohn and Jacques Offenbach. Our job here is to present reliable sources with verifiable evidence, there is no verifiable evidence of Hitler being an anti-Semite during his years in Vienna nor in World War I, the claims that he was an anti-Semite in Vienna have come from Mein Kampf (where Hitler created a legend about himself that has many deliberate distortions and errors), or unreliable sources such as Liebenfels claims in 1951 that have been refuted. Unreliable material on Wikipedia can be challenged if there is evidence to demonstrate its unreliable nature. Where is Kershaw's evidence that Hitler was specifically opportunist in his friendship with the Jews he knew? Does Kershaw present verifiable evidence that Hitler was opportunist with his Jewish friends in his hostel in Vienna or the Viennese Jewish brandy shop owner whom Hitler regularly met to have a breakfast of tea and biscuits with?--R-41 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also here is what prominent historian on Hitler and Nazi Germany, Richard J. Evans said in his review of Thomas Weber's work, about the time when Hitler developed his anti-Semitism:

"Moreover, historians now generally agree that his notorious, murderous anti-Semitism emerged well after Germany’s defeat, as a product of the paranoid "stab-in-the-back" explanation for the catastrophe. His first political activities for the army during the Revolution of 1918 even involved propagandizing in the ranks for the revolutionary government in Munich. It was only later, when he was sent to observe far-right political groups, that his political convictions became clear and firm. What effect service in the war had on his political views is shrouded in mystery."

- Richard J. Evans, The Globe and Mail, June 22, 2011.


 * So as you can see, historians accept that Hitler became the anti-Semite that he is known for, after World War I.--R-41 (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems that the way out of this apparent impasse is to add a statement after the MK quotation to the effect that, "Some historians have claimed on the basis of their researches that Hitler's anti-Semitism first developed in reaction to the new German government's signing of the Versailles Treaty in 1919 and that his statements in Mein Kampf were intended to create the legend that he had been an anti-Semite ever since his residence in Vienna." (refs = Hamann and Weber) There, in one sentence, you are giving the reader the choice as to which of the two explanations they think is the more plausible in accounting for his anti-Semitism. There's no need to go into details such as how many Jews he was acquainted with or whether he gave a spirited defence of Mendelssohn and Offenbach (very surprising for a convinced Wagnerite, of whom Kubizek said it had all started with a performance of Rienzi back in Linz). Kim Traynor (talk) 19:22, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But what is the verifiable evidence from those who say that he was anti-Semitic in Vienna and World War I? Also, a lot of people liked Wagner's music - Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries to this day remains popular, even I think it is a musical masterpiece - that doesn't mean that people who like Wagner's music are all anti-Semitic like Wagner was.--R-41 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're surely missing the point here. I have tried to indicate the existence of evidence that Hitler's anti-Semitism pre-dated Vienna. If you rubbish every instance of that - Liebenfels was a liar, Kubizek was a liar, Hitler was a liar - you are not recognising that sources like these have nevertheless informed the accepted historical view. Why do you turn a blind-eye to everything that contradicts your belief in new research? While all contemporary witnesses to history are suspect and should be subjected to scrutiny by historians, I am more inclined to accept what Hitler's flatmate in Linz wrote (because I don't know that he had an agenda in reporting the Rienzi occurrence - Hitler's first public speech!) than Brigitte Hamann who was less close to the action (I don't know Thomas Weber's work). It is after all too easy to maintain that anything from the mouths of Napoleon, Wellington or any other historical personage is untrue and merely served to create a legend about themselves. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not me who is saying it. I am referring to Hamann's work, she says that Liebenfels made all sorts of claims - he claimed that he inspired Vladimir Lenin as well, and that a person who definately knew Hitler in Vienna says that Hitler in Vienna only once spoke of Liebensfels, referring to him and his followers pejoratively as "Lanz and his homosexual clique". I am not turning a "blind-eye" to anything, in fact I have investigated it further and have sought to find the place and time where these claims about Hitler's anti-Semitism were made. Professional historians who record evidence, such as war stories from veterans, listen to their evidence, compare it with other evidence by other accounts, compare it to the situation in the time, place, and context and then determine its validity. Many war stories have been disproven because of (1) memory errors that have been demonstrated by others or by evidence, (2) bias - a person may exaggerate certain aspects of a story, and (3) deliberate distortion - a person may lie to defend themselves or others or to promote their interests. Historians do not and should not take anything at face value without investigating it, and Brigitte Hamann has done so and demonstrated severe errors with previous accounts of Hitler's life.--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hamann has demonstrated Liebenfels' statement is not verifiable and that it contradicts with what a person who knew Hitler in Vienna said about Hitler's opinion of Liebenfels, which was negative. Hamann notes that Kubizek made his statements in a book published after the time period in question in which he made severely inaccurate statements about himself and Hitler - for instance Hamann notes that Kubizek claims that Hitler joined Austria's Anti-Semitic League in Vienna in the early 1910s, but in fact the Anti-Semitic League didn't exist in Austria then - it was formed in 1919 when Hitler was no longer living in Austria. Hamann also notes that there were other people who knew Hitler who were astonished when they heard that Hitler became an anti-Semite, they never believed that he would become an anti-Semite - including the anti-Semitic Reinhold Hanisch who upon hearing of it, did not believe that Hitler had really become anti-Semitic and believed that Hitler was lying and was only using it for political purposes. This is Hamann's review of Liebenfels and Kubizek - not my personal review. It is in fact quite possible that people who wrote early books about Hitler would lie or exaggerate so that they could gain a market for the book to make money, this is done frequently by people who did or claim to have known a famous person. The Hitler of Vienna that reliable and respected historians currently present with verifiable evidence that has not been contradicted, was neither a monster then nor innocent - his relations with Jews then were modest, though other aspects do relate to Hitler's later behaviour - Hamann notes that Hitler in Vienna made homophobic and anti-Catholic remarks and that he had interest in pan-Germanism, but says that there is no verifiable evidence from that time that demonstrates that he was an anti-Semite then. The way that Wikipedia works is that reliable sources are sought - sources can be investigated for their reliability and if there is evidence they have unreliable material, that material can be challenged. All you need to do is seek out sources that claim that Hitler was anti-Semitic in Vienna and compare those claims by examining other reliable sources' analysis of such claims. If they are known by historians and not disputed by evidence that goes against those claims, then they are reliable.--R-41 (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are making perfectly sensible points about the unreliability of the traditional sources for Hitler’s anti-Semitism. I don't deny that sources like Kubizek or Mein Kampf have to be discussed in term of their truthfulness and historical reliability; but the place for that is in a historical journal, not on Wikipedia which is trying to encapsulate consensus evidence for the reader. Remember that history is an interpretative reconstruction of the past based on the "facts" that historians choose as being reliable (and often define as "the facts") at the expense of those they reject as unreliable. That's all that Hamann and Weber are doing when attempting to overturn orthodox interpretations. You can't dismiss what you call circumstantial evidence merely because new research suggests an alternative interpretation. This is the tendency of all new research - if it wasn't, nothing would get published. If the new research to which you refer is as convincing as you maintain, there will be a period of adjustment as it become slowly synthesised with the older understanding to produce a balanced view of ALL the evidence. Just because someone discovers Hitler had Jewish acquaintances in Vienna (I hesitate to use the term "friends"), I am not going to assume that he was not an anti-Semite until 1919, even though the evidence for him being so is not in your opinion 'verifiable'. There's enough of it to suggest to me that it is likely he was. There is no point, as you suggest, in seeking out sources for Hitler’s anti-Semitism in Vienna, because you have expressed yourself very dogmatically in rejecting any such possibility. I hope Brigitte Hamann makes the point somewhere in her work that if Hitler was an anonymous and obscure, non-political nobody at the time we shouldn’t really expect to find any. I'm inclined to agree with Maser that, despite many of his customers and patrons being Jews (Picker), "When Hitler moved to Munich in May 1913 at the age of twenty four his Weltanschauung was already firmly entrenched". Meantime, I should like to direct you to a very sensible statement about how one should react on finding oneself arguing against a brick wall. Take a look at R-41 for some excellent advice on what to do. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You cannot verify something by claiming that those that reject such claims are false. You have criticized Hamann's and Weber's work based on zero reliable evidence, and are assuming that they are "disregarding evidence" - when in fact they have investigated it and have noted that there are problems with its continuity and accuracy. You have to be able to present verifiable evidence to prove that something happened - in this case, verifiable evidence that Hitler made anti-Semitic remarks, etc. at that time. I have not dogmatically rejected anything, I investigated what you said through Hamann's source - because Hamann's work has been widely praised as doing a thorough investigation into Hitler's life in Vienna. We do know that Hitler had Jewish friends in Vienna - Hamann meticulously studied his relations with Jews, we even know the names of his Jewish friends in Vienna such as Josef Neumann - a copper polisher whom Hitler was friends with and discussed both issues of Zionism and anti-Semitism with - Neumann and Hitler admired each other, Siefried Löffner - who personally helped Hitler when Reinhold Hanisch defrauded Hitler - by dragging Hanisch into a Viennese police station, Jacob Wasserberg - the brandy shop owner whom Hitler regularly visited in the morning to have a breakfast of tea and cookies with him. Kim Traynor, you need to present verifiable evidence that clearly dismisses these specific known friendships that Hamann has discovered, your opinions on Hitler's relationships with Jews do not prove anything.--R-41 (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't 'prove' anything. I'm a too much of an historian for that. This is getting silly. I haven't criticised Hamann and Weber's work. Read over the comments again. The reason I put "friends" in inverted commas is because you are flying in the face of an overwhelming body of opinion to the effect that Hitler (post-Kubizek) never had close relationships with anyone he knew. Röhm is often named as the exception and Speer is often described as the only person whom Hitler appears to have treated as a friend, and not a close one at that. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And where is this uncontested evidence that Hitler always, through his entire life never had close relationships? Are you saying that this is uncontested? Hitler is recorded to have been highly emotional upon his mother dying and during his visits to his mother's grave. Hitler was also reported to have been close with Heinrich Himmler, affectionately calling him "true Heinrich" and eyewitnesses report that Hitler was deeply upset and flew into a wild rage when he was informed that Himmler without Hitler's authority was attempting to negotiate peace with the Allies in April 1945 - Hitler saw this as betrayal. Hitler's secretary Traudl Junge has said that Hitler was friends with people - she says that he was a friend of Albert Speer even though Speer himself in his memoirs has sought to distance himself from Hitler by claiming he was not a real friend of Hitler. Hitler's distant relationships with people does not do not necessarily indicate that they were all empty - it seems to indicate nervousness about trusting others - and such behaviour is not surprising from evidence that Hitler faced child abuse from his father Alois Hitler who was an alcoholic who abused both Adolf Hitler and his mother, Klara Hitler when Alois was under the influence. The connection of Hitler's inability to trust others has been connected to his known child abuse according to the book Wounded monster: Hitler's path from trauma to malevolence (2002) by Theodore L. Dorpat.--R-41 (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

More reasons why Shirer's book from 1960 is outdated and should be replaced be newer sources where possible
I keep encountering Shirer's 1960 book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich being used that is presented inaccurate and since disproven material. It has not been updated in fifty years and has fallen badly behind recent research. For material that remains unchallenged it is acceptable, but for material that has been challenged or disproven, it needs to be removed or replaced with a modern up-to-date source. For instance, one sentence in this article that uses Shirer as a reference claims that Hitler "experienced major combat, including the First Battle of Ypres, the Battle of the Somme, the Battle of Arras, and the Battle of Passchendaele". More recent research has uncovered that Hitler spent most of his time serving regimental headquarters that was typically 10 kilometres behind the frontline, Thomas Weber notes that this created a confrontational division between the frontline soldiers versus soldiers who served behind the frontline - so associating Hitler in common with frontline soldiers as Shirer does is extremely inaccurate and misleading.--R-41 (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the wording on that sentence. Kershaw (2008, p 54) says that dispatch runners were in a lot of danger, same as the other soldiers, when asked to carry messages to and from the front lines during combat. Three of the eight runners assigned to the regimental staff were killed on 15 November 1914, and another was wounded. Two days later a shell hit the command post minutes after Hitler had left, killing almost everyone present. The correct format for your citation needed tags is {{citation needed|date=April 2012} -- Dianna (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have added a {quantify} tag to the statement that "Many Germans[quantify] perceived the treaty—especially Article 231, which declared Germany responsible for the war—as a humiliation". This is sourced to Kershaw (2008, p96), which states "The outrage felt throughout Germany at the punitive sum ..." so I am not sure how this information could be "quantified" with any precision (there were no public opinion polls in those days to give us more precise statistics). Are you looking for more precise numbers, or a re-wording of the text, or what? -- Dianna (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * R-41, before you send other editors on a wild goose chase for references, please be more rigorous with the analysis of the sources that are there. Shirer may have done research that is outdated, but this does not mean that the whole body of his work is. You need to be more specific (e.g., whether or not he participated in the battles you mention). Besides the events that Dianna already mentioned, Hitler was injured at least once and also suffered the effects of poison gas, which along with the fact that according to Kershaw his regiment was severely decimated during the early stages of WWI strongly suggests that he saw some major combat. As already noted by Kershaw, there were periods during the four years he served during which he was assigned to quieter quarters, but that does not negate the fact that he put himself into harms way more than once. Malljaja (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've visited a trench near Ypres which was occupied by Hitler at one point during the war. Judging by the number of British bullets embedded in the trees ahead of the trench, I'd say Hitler was definitely a front-line soldier. One of the photographs of him that has survived from the period shows him in a trench. Also, I don't think Kershaw was the first to note that runners had a statistically much higher chance of being wounded or killed in action than soldiers serving in trenches. So that's still a front-line experience. The list of battles merely indicates where he was on the Front. As with any soldier, it can't tell you much about his level of participation in military actions. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what a German frontline soldier veteran named Josef Stettner said that disputes claims by Hitler and his supporters that he faced regular danger as a dispatch runner:
 * "Some worshippers of Hitler have pointed out now that the job of a dispatch runner was more dangerous than that of a soldier in the trenches. While the troops in the first line could calmly lie under cover, it is said in Hitler’s defence, the dispatch runners would have been much more exposed to enemy fire while on duty. However, I can accept that only for the dispatch runners of companies or maybe also of battalions. In the worst-case scenario, the regimental dispatch runner had to go to the dugout of a battalion which still lay far behind the first line. And even in those cases, it was for the most part the dispatch runners of the battalion themselves who had to pick up the messages at the regimental headquarters, particularly when things were getting dangerous. All the duties of a regimental dispatch runner lay outside the dangerous zone of machine-gun fire."

- Josef Stettner, quoted in Hitler's First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War by Thomas Weber, p. 100


 * Stettner also said that frontline soldiers were envious of regimental dispatch runners because and any frontline soldier would have preferred being a dispatch runner rather than a frontline soldier - because it was safer and they had better living conditions. Historian Thomas Weber notes that the command posts of the battalions were Hitler would have to send his dispatch letters to, were well behind the frontline - noting the account by regiment member Fridolen Soleder in the files of Hitler's regiment that confirms this.--R-41 (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And the fact is, Hitler did not sit on his ass there the whole time, only half the time (Kershaw, p 54). On the same page: "The losses among dispatch runners were relatively high. Three of eight runners attached to the regimental staff were killed and another wounded...on 15 Nov." (1914). Other infomation follows, enough to say that yes, he was not a trench infantryman, but clearly was in harm's way and was in combat through his duties. See: pp 54-59. Kierzek (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What statistics or evidence is Kershaw using as a source? Plus if he referring to statistics of dispatch runners as a whole a problem arises there. Stettner in the quote I provided above clearly states that there were different levels of dispatch runners - some he says did face serious danger, these were the battalion dispatch runners, but Stettner says that the regimental dispatch runners did not face as much danger. Regimental dispatch runners did not go to the first line, nor within range of machine-gun fire. Hitler was not a battalion dispatch runner, he was a regimental dispatch runner, plus Stetnner notes that the battalion dispatch runners took over the responsibilities of the regimental ones when there was serious danger.--R-41 (talk) 19:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

R-41, again be more careful and precise with your language. To say "that disputes claims by Hitler and his supporters that he faced regular danger as a dispatch runner" (emphasis mine) entirely misses the point. One need not be a "supporter" of Hitler to acknowledge that there are several historians whose work give good evidence for Hitler having had combat experience. In addition, the entry does not say that Hitler faced "regular danger". Lastly, as I've pointed out to you earlier, Hitler was wounded and suffered serious gas poisoning — so, although he likely was not the war hero he made himself out to be and irrespective of what Weber's Stettner claims (i.e., one source of many), he did not have a cushy time either. Malljaja (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just gave you a quote that describes that Hitler was a regimental dispatch runner, not a battalion dispatch runner who would face more danger. Weber notes that the locations of where Hitler had to deliver his dispatch letters were typically well behind the first line. Weber used Stetnner's account - so what is the problem with Stetnner's account? He describes in detail the role of the different levels of dispatch runners and their duties. Kershaw was speaking of dispatch runners' casualties as a whole - when in fact as Stetnner notes, they were divided into company dispatch runners who could face serious danger, battalion dispatch runners who could face some significant danger, and the regimental dispatch runners (like Hitler) who served behind the frontlines and whom battalion dispatch runners would take their letters for them should the situation become too dangerous. If there are other accounts describe in detail the role of a regimental dispatch runner please describe them. The issue of gas blowing across the lines could affect many - but it is likely that Hitler received relatively minor effects of the more-dissipated gas (i.e. burning eyes, temporary blindness) that could happen some distance away rather than the severe injuries that occurred on the frontline where the concentrated gas would cause massive blisters and damage similar to third-degree burns. The article says that Hitler got his Black Wound Badge (for a minor combat injury) as a result of debris from a shell explosion - shells can shoot far distances well beyond the frontline - so the injury is not evidence that Hitler was near the frontlines witnessing "major combat" as Shirer claims.--R-41 (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The losses that Kershaw (2008) mentions on pages 54 and 55 are not general statistics for dispatch runners as a whole—these are specific incidents that happened to Hitler and his unit. He goes on to say that the regimental commander Oberstleutnant Philipp Engelhardt had been about to recommend him for the Iron Cross for an incident a few days earlier where he had protected the commander's life. Hitler was one of four dispatch runners to receive the Iron Cross. The article makes no claims that the dispatch runner's job was any safer or any more dangerous than other soldiering activities, and it does not say that Hitler was engaged in "major combat". The article also does not touch on how the Nazis made Hitler's military career the subject of hagiography. Presently it simply gives a quick factual overview of his activities and awards during WWI. Here is some specific information about how Hitler got wounded: The regiment was moved south on 2 October 1916 and was engaged at the Somme. Hitler was wounded in the left thigh when the dispatch runners dugout was hit by a shell. Several people were killed and wounded. He was treated at a field hospital and spent almost two months recovering in a Red Cross hospital at Beelitz. This is all in Kershaw (2008, p. 57). Kershaw is considered one of the top Hitler biographers, as you are probably aware. -- Dianna (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You claim that Kershaw's source shows that regimental dispatch runners had a dangerous job. What about the source that Weber uses - Stetnner - a German frontline veteran who describes the internal division of dispatch runners - he says that regimental dispatch runners served well behind the frontlines, and Weber notes this. Shells fly over enormous distances - so yes, anyone is in danger of a shell explosion - but neither Shirer's source nor Kershaw's clarifies the level of danger in different circumstances. Kershaw uses one incident of severe casualties on one day to make a claim about dispatch commanders' danger overall throughout the entire war, that is bad statistical analysis because is like picking the day of a mass car crash on a highway and saying "the destruction of 27 cars on the highway on such-and-such-date reveals that this highway is especially dangerous". Good statistical analysis requires study of circumstances and conditions and seeks to find a pattern - and not exceptional anomalies. If you can find from Kershaw's book, multiple examples of such incidents that demonstrate a pattern of consistent high danger for regimental dispatch runners the matter will be different.--R-41 (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what difference it makes, as the question of how dangerous his job was is not discussed in this article. -- Dianna (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the example: If 27 cars have a pile-up crash on a highway on one day out of years of almost no crashes and only the day of the pile-up crash is used in the analysis it makes it appear that that highway is highly dangerous when in fact it was an anomaly out of a pattern of generally low occurance. The point being: you cannot make an assumption about a pattern based on one single example. Kershaw has provided one single example of significant casualties in one battle only a few days apart out of the years of service by Hitler in the war. This may reflect that that battle was particularly dangerous to the regimental dispatch runners, but it does not reflect on the entire experience of Hitler nor the entire experience of regimental dispatch runners throughout the war. Does Kershaw provide multiple examples of casualties of regimental dispatch runners in different battles that demonstrate a pattern of danger to the regimental dispatch runners in the war? That one example alone of several casualties in one battle in a few days does not demonstrate a pattern of consistent danger to regimental dispatch runners throughout the war - it is making an assumption based on one incident from one battle that could be an anomaly from the norm. The sentence that uses Shirer as a source says that Hitler "experienced" "major combat" - what is Shirer meaning? If he is meaning that Hitler served in the frontlines in combat that is not accurate.--R-41 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Your analysis is original research. It is not our task to question how the casualties in Kershaw's example were clustered or to conduct a detailed exegesis of Shirer's work. If reputable scholars have called them on the respective points you made, then it would be our task to consider including such criticism into the article. Malljaja (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Original research? Nonsense! Weber's book utilized Hitler's regiment records that no historian had done before and through investigation discovered that Hitler did not serve near the front lines as previous historians had said, and previous claims that have said so have been disproven by Weber's work. Major scholars' work is challenged all the time with new studies that find new material. I mean are you seriously saying that we should rely on any scholar at any point in time who has written a work? - like Edward Gibbon's now hopelessly outdated The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire? There are portions Shirer's work that have been disproven with new discoveries. Why should we rely on Kershaw's book that was originally published in 1999 - at a time when neither Kershaw nor any historian had yet opened or investigated Hitler's regiment's files? Thomas Weber did investigate Hitler's regiment files - in which Weber has uncovered that much of Hitler's service was well behind the frontlines, that is in accordance to what Stettner described the role of regimental dispatch runners as being - behind the front lines, unlike the company dispatch runners or battalion dispatch runners who were at or close to the front lines. Thomas Weber's book is one of the newest, most up-to-date, and highly-praised books on Hitler's service in World War I. In contrast, Shirer's account of Hitler's service in World War I has not been updated since the 1960s.--R-41 (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you kept your comments civil. It would also be helpful if you spend some time trying to understand the views of other contributors whose knowledge and insight likely exceed yours (this may not include me); that way, you could avoid having to repeat yourself most of the time. I stand by my earlier comment — you are trying to build a case for your preferred version by using original research, which violates a central pillar of WP. Malljaja (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be more able to be civil if you would stop falsely accusing me of original research. I gave you the most recent, up-to-date source on Hitler's WWI service by Thomas Weber who investigated the files of Hitler's regiment that no other historian did before. His work was praised by major historian on Nazi Germany, Richard J. Evans. And Weber's evidence that he has diligently compiled from the regiment's records and evidence from veterans says that regimental dispatch runners served behind the front line, they were not in consistent serious danger like the company dispatch runners or battalion dispatch runners. The last source by Shirer that the article is using is from the 1960s and Kershaw's latest source in this article is a 2008 edition of his 1999 book on Hitler, it is before Weber's major investigation of the regimental records that has challenged many assumptions about Hitler. If an up-to-date source is available that has been written about Hitler's service in WWI since Weber's major discoveries in the regimental files and accounts for these discoveries, then it is an up-to-date reliable source.--R-41 (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When people get too involved in an argument, they tend to lose perspective. All this talk about different types of runners in the German Army and the different levels of danger they faced is taking the argument a step too far. (How many angels can stand on the head of a pin?). R-41, you are again rubbishing conventionally accepted knowledge to suit your argument. You weren't there and I wasn't there to see how much danger Hitler was in at any particular time on the Western Front, but we do know he wasn't chauffeuring a general around, unloading supplies at a railway station nor manning a field kitchen. He was engaged in activity at the Front, however much time he spent behind the lines, so by any reasonable measure he was a frontline soldier. Kim Traynor (talk)

R-41 is right to ask that Weber's research be included in this article. A brief mention of Hitler's staying with the Bavarian Soviet Republic's military while others were defecting to the Freikorps, and mention of the view that his rabid antisemitism did not emerge until after the Treaty of Versailles, are surely not excessive. Kershaw may be the "gold standard" for Hitler scholarship but this does not mean that one has to wait until he publishes a revised edition of his works incorporating more recent research of Hamann and Weber (and Hamann, at least, may well be considered the foremost auhtority on Hitler's early years).82.113.98.5 (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That Hitler chose to stay in the military and not defect to the Freikorps had a very simple reason: "Approaching thirty years of age, without education, career or prospects, his only plans were to stay in the army [...] as long as possible." (Kershaw, Hitler 1889–1936:Hubris, p 109.) This is both plausible and maximally parsimonious. That there was some time during which his army unit had allegiance Munich Soviet Republic is thus immaterial, and explicitly mentioning this may even be misleading. On a related note, what is the evidence that more recent historical research is more reliable? The further you move away in time, the fuzzier the accuracy of past events becomes (and the fewer are the direct witnesses who may contradict new renderings). Malljaja (talk) 00:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To Kim Traynor: I have been saying that the most up-to-date research should be used, Weber's research is the first to have investigated the actual files of the regiment under which Hitler served. From Weber's research, that includes testimony of frontline soldiers who were there such as Josef Stettner that Weber includes as a source, Hitler's position as a regimental dispatch runner placed him well behind the front line, it was the company dispatch runners and sometimes battalion dispatch runners sent messages to the front line. Stettner completely rejects the idea that you had stated that regimental dispatch runners were front line soldiers, and says that front line soldiers envied the far-greater level of safety of regimental dispatch runners. Stettner's testimony that Weber noted, as well as Weber's other findings from Hitler's regiment's files should not be ignored nor dismissed without very clear reasons that disprove such findings.--R-41 (talk) 02:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Malljaja asks: "what is the evidence that more recent historical research is more reliable?" That is a very good question. Ideally, research conducted in accordance with recognized principles of good scholarship progresses towards more and better-secured knowledge. Even a dwarf can see far if he is standing on the shoulders of giants. Eyewitness testimony gets supplemented by newly discovered eyewitness testimony, by physical evidence and by examination of the records, and the outcome should be greater and greater accuracy. Who determines whether someone "new" is producing reliable work? For Hamann, the many awards she has received from her peers confirm that she is in the top rank of historians. For Weber, an endorsement from someone as eminent as Evans should carry some weight.89.204.130.11 (talk) 12:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The answer to Malljaja's question in the case of Weber is simple: Weber opened up the files of Hitler's regiment that had never been opened up to that point. Weber's research has been praised as being groundbreaking by Richard J. Evans, a prominent historian on Nazi Germany. No historian prior to Weber investigated Hitler's regiment's files. Weber did and he has been praised for doing so. Weber's investigation has disproven a number of previous assumptions about Hitler's service in World War I. In particular Weber's discoveries have disproven Hitler's claims in Mein Kampf that he was a front line soldier and that Hitler as a regimental dispatch runner served a substantial distance away from the front lines unlike the company dispatch runners who served on the front lines according to front line veteran Stetnner's evidence that Weber states is confirmed by other sources produced during and after World War I. Brigitte Hamann's work Hitler's Vienna has been praised by Lutz Musner - the Associate Director of IFK, an international research center for cultural studies in Vienna. Historian Hans Mommsen has praised Hamann's work. Historian and political scientist Stanley Hoffmann writing for the journal Foreign Affairs of the Council on Foreign Relations has praised Hamann's work.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As for Malljaja's question in general, the distance of time does not necessarily reduce eyewitness testimony since much eyewitness testimony has been recorded shortly after events. Secondly the distance of time tends to reduce existing biases in controversial issues, for instance, there used to be a strong body of U.S. southerner historians who claimed that slavery was not as bad as northerners claimed it was, and claimed instead that it was a benevolent institution with only a few bad apple slave owners - this continued right into the 1960s. This was the continuation of the old Confederate South versus Unionist North divide in American history that remained extremely strong even up to the 1960s. Recent research has completely disproven that slavery was "benevolent", with multiple examples of slaves being beaten to death by their owners over trifle issues, it notes that there were indeed modest slave owners who treated their slaves favourably, but research demonstrates that the slavery system was clearly and inherently oppressive. With time there are now southerner historians who accept that slavery of African Americans was highly abusive, forty to fifty years ago few if any historians from the south would have dared to write this for fear of harassment.--R-41 (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Accounts of deceased eyewitnesses are static and thus no longer respond to interactive enquiry. They become subject to considerable interpretation and speculation (for example, if an eyewitness had a favourable or negative opinion about a person or subject or was even present as they had claimed). This was the point I was trying to make. That there are many, many biases in the interpretation of historical events is without question—befitting the subject of this entry, the Historikerstreit is another good example of that. Your response did not address my question. Malljaja (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that eyewitness interviews decrease over time, but typically for important topics in history, their accounts are well-recorded. Not all eyewitness are accurate - they can have memory errors, confusion of time and place, exaggerations, and at worst deliberate distortions - that is why historians review multiple eyewitness accounts to compare and contrast; compare the accounts with what was known about the time, place, and context; and through combining these discern what is the most accurate depiction of an historical event. And this interpretation improves over time - for instance, the development of improved understanding of psychology has vastly improved interpretations of psychological trauma associated with soldiers in wars. Prior to the aftermath of World War I, it was believed that otherwise exemplary soldiers who suddenly in the midst of battle refused orders by responding to their commanders "I cannot do it" in the midst of battle had either become cowards or were suffering from a panic attack - now we know that this is often the sign of experiencing severe psychological trauma that often develops into posttraumatic stress disorder. Your claim that interpretation of history events decreases in accuracy over time is completely inaccurate and out of step with historiography's review. Errors and uninvestigated information are recognized over time, new perspectives arise that were not reviewed before, and the level of accuracy of historical analysis increases. All I can say is that your dismissal of modern research is completely out of step of the practice of historians' approach and indeed scientific method - that is to review, critique, dispel inaccurate views, test hypotheses, and update with new research. --R-41 (talk) 10:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not dismissing modern research. I happen to be a researcher (though not of history, but in biomedical research), and so I've learnt to approach new findings and claims with a healthy dose of scepticism. Most people engaged in serious research do — it's an integral part of the process. For every bit of valuable new information, there are at least ten that are not. You are dissing Shirer who is an eyewitness source to many of the events relevant to this entry while applauding Weber, who's pored over old military records, a method that has serious flaws for the reasons I point out above and to which you respond with a raft of rather muddled and meandering prose. I'm afraid I find your line of reasoning for the most part unconvincing. Malljaja (talk) 14:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Historians in 2012 have 50 to 100x more primary sources than Shirer had access to-- including tens of thousands of pages of top secret documents and many thousands of letters and reports that were never published but are now in archives open to researchers. Plus for every topic there are dozens fo hundreds of scholars with some expertise in it who will be very quick to point out errors that a historian makes. This goes on in hundreds of scholarly journals -- i just now checked one major abstract service ("Historical Abstracts") which lists over 7000 scholarly articles on Hitler since 1960. 1800 articles were in German, 520 in French, 560 in Russian, and 2963 in English. This does not count books. Not to mention hundreds of academic history conferences every year and graduate seminars which produce many tens of thousands of unpublished papers a year on historical topics.. That means that misreadings on major issues will be exposed to a lot of scrutiny. Rjensen (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am not objecting to the use of more recent sources than Shirer. What I am objecting to are blanket statements about the quality of the work of one researcher to push for its elimination in favour of insertion of other sources whose main merit is that they are newer. I have questioned this merit on the basis of the argument that direct accounts by scholars who have lived during the time in question and even been in the same room as the subject of this entry have a greater value than static accounts by dead witnesses. Do you understand this difference? Malljaja (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)