Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 58

Criminal category
I've just reverted the addition of C20th criminal category to the article, my logic was that the description 'criminal' seems largely rhetorical rather than literal when applied to AH. Please undo me if my judgement was wrong. Pincrete (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC) … … ps I've been reverted again and would value other editors' opinions.

I've also discovered that the category itself is fairly 'random', yes many war criminals but other than that a seemingly random selection of people who at one time or another in the C20th have been convicted of a crime. Marcus Harvey is included (mail fraud?), Al Capone and a host of notorious hoodlums and fraudsters are not. By that logic, why not include Gandhi and Mandela and a host of people who fell foul of the law at some time?Pincrete (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I actually think it is somewhat appropriate to apply the category to Hitler, considering that not only is it factual, it is also notable because Mein Kampf was authored during his time in prison at Landsberg. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


 * My logic was certainly not any wish to defend AH, rather whether it is useful to include him among a fairly random selection, many of whom are not primarily notable for having committed crimes. Had AH lived he would almost certainly have been tried for war crimes and it is difficult to imagine him not being found guilty, but he didn't survive and wasn't charged or tried. Yes he was imprisoned briefly and wrote a book while imprisoned, but so did Oscar Wilde, who most people would not characterise as a criminal. If everyone who has committed a crime at some point were included, the category would be very large indeed. I'm just unsure of how helpful it is to include AH among a random list of rapists, fraudsters and bank robbers, in a very poorly defined category. The article tends to suffer from 'category bloat', an excess of categories, to the point of being unhelpful. Is this one helpful? Pincrete (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I understand your point, and I agree the category is somewhat of a mess (although his inclusion would seem in line with that of Pol Pot, Gaddafi, and Saddam, who are all included). I was just pointing out that his prison time was notable because Mein Kampf was written not only during his imprisonment but largely because of that imprisonment. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the category is particularly helpful, I was just offering my views on whether his literal status as a criminal (as opposed to his presumed status as a criminal following his inevitable prosecution at Nuremberg had he not committed suicide) was notable enough to include should others decide it was helpful to do so. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * While placing Hitler in "criminal" categories is accurate given he was convicted and imprisoned (with the consensus among historians being that he got off easy), I agree that the category here was too broad to be truly useful. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pincrete & Nick-D. The category is too broad and frankly vague in its criteria as to who is included and who is not. Further, he is already included in "Austrian criminals" and several Holocaust cats. Kierzek (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
"On 2 August 1934, Hindenburg died. The previous day, the cabinet had enacted the "Law Concerning the Highest State Office of the Reich". This law stated that upon Hindenburg's death, the office of president would be abolished and its powers merged with those of the chancellor. Hitler thus became head of state as well as head of government, and was formally named as Führer und Reichskanzler (leader and chancellor). This law violated the Enabling Act; although it allowed Hitler to deviate from the constitution, the Act explicitly barred him from passing any law tampering with the presidency."

From my reading of the law, there is no explicit bar to "tamper with the presidency". It is forbidden to restrict the President's rights ("Die Rechte des Reichspräsidenten bleiben unberührt.", The rights of the President shall remain intact.), but nothing is said about the way the President is elected (or otherwise determined).

Since the article claims something about the Ermächtigungsgesetz that is not true, it should be changed.-79.219.189.67 (talk) 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The source for this is Shirer page 229, which says "...the constitution specifically forbade him to tamper with the institution of the Presidency." We have to rely on secondary sources, not your own interpretation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So now I know that Shirer can't be trusted. Yes, I understand that this is a personal view, and that the article has to rely on sources. It should at least be added then, since again, the article plainly contradicts the text of the law.-79.219.191.133 (talk) 01:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a secondary source which supports that? Shirer obviously isn't the last word on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I checked in Evans 2005 and 2008 but this point wasn't covered. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing in Evans 2003 either. Found this in Kershaw: "The position and rights of the Reich President remained untouched." (Page 282) and "The Enabling Act had explicitly stipulated that the rights of the Reich President would be left untouched. But on 1 August, while Hindenburg was still alive, Hitler had all his ministers put their names to a law determining that, on Hindenburg's death, the office of the Reich President would be combined with that of the Reich Chancellor." (Page 317) — Diannaa (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This one is a bit esoteric for me, but is this a case of whether a law has been 'violated' or 'side-stepped'? The Kershaw quote does not explicitly state that the Enabling Act was violated, however it does imply that the Act's aims were circumvented. 79.219 etc may be technically correct, but how does one phrase this? By paraphrasing the Kershaw perhaps? Pincrete (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

In simple steps: So, can we please have a source added?-62.155.205.172 (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Shirer is wrong, the wide claim that "tamper[ing]" was forbidden is pure fiction. The Ermächtigungsgesetz only prevents restriction of the "Rechte", ie. rights or privileges of the Reichspräsident, and says nothing about the way the office is staffed.
 * I don't have a secondary source and frankly am not in the mood to do a secondary-source-battle with anyone. If Shirer says it, I understand that the article should reflect it, that's the way Wikipedia works.
 * However, since Shirer is so blatantly wrong, you should at least ADD THE FUCKING SOURCE. Someone? Bueller? It's rubbish, and it should at least be sourced rubbish.
 * If you don't know enough German to check my claims, then just believe me, and ADD THE FUCKING SOURCE, that all I'm asking.
 * Kershaw: "The position and rights of the Reich President remained untouched." (Page 282) - Compare with my translation above, "The rights of the President shall remain intact." Virtually identical, except that he added the purely fictional "position". Boy, seeing how all these giants fail that badly, this turns out to be awfully educating for me. Maybe I should stay with Fest.
 * I'm not a lawyer or legal historian, so while I could give an well-reasoned opinion about whether or not "the Act's aims were circumvented", that wouldn't matter. However, the law as written very clearly says NOTHING about the way the Reichspräsident is put into office. Nothing. Not a thing. Nada. I just went through the facsimile of the Reichsgesetzblatt again, the sentence quoted above is the only one that even mentions the President. Here is plain text version, look for yourself. I guess the stupid 86-year-old thought he was around forever, to keep an eye on Hitler.


 * The IP hasn't helped his case by his last post, but I think Diannaa's research shows that Kershaw's wording is more cautious and exact than Shirer's (it is fairly obvious anyway that 'tamper with' is not the language of legal acts, and is thus possibly an interpretation of intent, rather than of content). Is it worth a minor re-phrase based more on Kershaw? Pincrete (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Our article Enabling Act of 1933 translates Die Rechte des Reichspräsidenten bleiben unberührt as "The rights of the President remain unaffected." Google Translate says "The powers of the President shall not be affected." Kershaw implies but does not explicitly state that combining the posts of President and Chancellor violated the Enabling Act. "The rights of the President shall remain intact" does not explicitly preclude combining the post of President with that of Chancellor, as long as the rights of the post remain intact. I don't have any further sources that cover the intent of the Enabling Act, or what made Shirer think this action violated the Act. — Diannaa (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't find the Shirer wrong, so much as over-simplified. Within any democratic constitutional system, separation of powers is ordinarily part of 'checks and balances'. Merging two branches of government 'side-steps' the intent behind separate powers. If I don't alter the rights/powers of a high, independent office, but do so arrange things that no-one occupies that office, I have de facto nullified ALL the rights/powers of the office, except those which I have taken for myself.


 * I would have thought that a more cautious wording, more in line with Kershaw, was appropriate, but I can't quite see what it should be. Pincrete (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The wording may have been intended to provide checks and balances, but on the other hand, the Nazis wrote it themselves, and could word it any which way they saw fit. I don't know how we could re-word without it being OR, as we actually have no information from our sources (other than Shirer's statement) on what the intent of that clause was. — Diannaa (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi all. Back from a wikibreak. Needed. Does Bullock have anything worthwhile to say about this? I am sans a copy of A study in tyranny at the moment. Simon. Irondome (talk) 02:55, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Bullock quotes Hindenberg on page 266: "The Chancellor has given me his assurance that, even without being forcibly obliged by the Constitution, he will not use the power conferred on him by the Enabling Act without having first consulted me." Page 309 discusses combining the two offices, but does not describe it as violating the Enabling Act. There could be more; in my copy the index doesn't match the book for some reason, which makes it hard to find things. Toland mentions combining the two offices on page 487 but doesn't describe it as violating the Enabling Act. — Diannaa (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The balance of RS don't appear to support 'violating the act'. Pincrete (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the two sentences prior to footnote 163 (Shirer p.229). Let's wait a day or two to see if anyone objects to the removal. — Diannaa (talk) 23:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal, but is it worth brief mentions of a) Hitler's assurance to Hindenberg (Bullock, supplied by Diannaa above) b) the 'The rights of the President remain unaffected' clause in the act? … … Or do these both belong on the act's own page? Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (don't know how to make it official) False Information. Hitler kinda led WW2 not WW1
Under Hitlers battles and wars it says WW1. I believe that is quite wrong, please correct that.196.215.33.65 (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Adolph was a corporal in World War I. He was the German national leader in World War II.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not even good for goats?
This charming story has just popped up. The only previous discussion about Hitler's "third leg" seems to have been in Archive 1, where somebody recounts a claim that it was "bitten off by a goat". But it seems the claim is a bit of a bone of contention Martinevans123 (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. Adolf's Fleischgewehr surely deserves it's own article. Or better yet, we could attempt a comprehensive analysis of World War wangers. If only we had a handy cut-out-and-keep guide.. --Hillbillyholiday talk 21:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * It can be established with some certainty however, that ten leading members of the nazi military and political cadre were poorly hung. Irondome (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I would have said they were particularly well hung, and that it proved quite popular. But a rather busy line. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps for the Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism article? Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem fitting it in there, surely. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree, more "claims" and surmise which are not supported by any well regarded RS historians. This is a weak claim in a book by two "authors"; low grade source. Kierzek (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with Kierzek about using this here. I wouldn't have thought this was strong enough for 'related' articles. The monorchism is probably a myth, but at least it is a long-standing myth, whose history is interesting in itself. Pincrete (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Edit request: Release from prison
As far as I can tell, Hitler was NOT pardoned by the BSC but was paroled. With his treason conviction he became eligible for parole after 6 months. From: 1924 : The year that made Hitler / Peter Ross Range. New York, Little, Brown and Company, 2016. page 248: "On December 19, the Bavarian Supreme Court made a final ruling: Hitler was to receive parole immediately"

Would someone with editing privileges care to change "pardon" to "parole" and possibly cite source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.171.148.223 (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Entry into politics + Alfons Heck
The 'entry into politics' section legitimately goes outside its period to discuss AH's rhetorical style + effect, BUT some entries, such as that of Alfons Heck, are from someone not even born till 1928. At least it should be made clear that it is talking of a later period. Pincrete (talk) 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK  Rjensen (talk) 23:05, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rjensen, sorry, I'd have made the change myself, but didn't have access to the source. I've c.e.'d slightly, leaving it clear that he was talking about a later date. Pincrete (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016
Adolf Hitler's birth name is Adolf Schicklgruber.

173.165.233.165 (talk) 05:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't, his father Alois assumed the surname Hitler long before Adolf was born. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  07:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

"Start of World War II" section is wrong
Hitler ordered the Blitz on 7th September 1940, not late October. And it wasn't because the Luftwaffe had failed to win air superiority, it was because the British had bombed German cities since May 1940. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * I smell socky wockies...Irondome (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. Although it does remind me of the famous photograph of Joseph Goebbels, made right after Germany invaded Poland in 1939, wherein he stood before a map of Poland, with large arrows 'extending toward the heart of Germany.'  A Big lie in the making.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 16:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What? The section says the Blitz began in late October 1940 - it actually began on 7 September. And the British bombed Germany first, this is mentioned in most other Wikipedia articles on the subject. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * The article says nothing of the sort. It says this: "Hitler realised that air superiority for the invasion of Britain—in Operation Sea Lion—could not be achieved, and he ordered nightly air raids on British cities, including London, Plymouth, and Coventry.(Roberts 2006, pp. 58–60)." The article for The Blitz says ".. the Luftwaffe switched its main effort to night attacks in order to reduce losses. This became official policy on 7 October." This is wholly consistent with what this article states. Why do you think the exact date on which the British began bombing Germany is relevant in this article on Hitler? It can't be expected to include every event in the chronology of the war, can it? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler ordered the Blitz in response to the bombing of Germany, not because of the air superiority issue. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Did he tell you personally? Where are your sources from specialist historians? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Goring, Kesselring and Keitel all said during the Nuremberg Trials that the Blitz was ordered by Hitler in response to the bombing of German cities by the RAF. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Which source do you suggest for that? Were they regarded as reliable witnesses? Maybe you should be trying to shoe-horn your point of view into The Blitz article? Except that the chronology of British bombing is already there in the "Battle of Britain" section, without the aid of any claims made by Nazi war criminals. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since the British began civilian bombing I don't see how your point about "criminals" can be relevant. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 20:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * If this is, as you claim, an irrefutable fact, why do you bother offering their testimony in support? Martinevans123 (talk)
 * Nobody else is arguing about dates. I was the avowed causal connection that is questioned.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone should correct the dates in the section then. Hitler said in his famous speech that he was ordering the London Blitz because the RAF had already bombed German cities for nearly four months. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 17:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes I often sit down in a comfy chair with a nice cup of Tea and a Hob Nob to listen to it. Rightly infamous indeed. Please stop trolling. Irondome (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler's speech at the Sportspalast on 4 September 1940 was very famous as it is considered by some to have cost the Axis the war. Hitler declared: "And should the Royal Air Force drop two thousand, or three thousand [kilograms ...] then we will now drop [...] 300,000, 400,000, yes one million kilograms in a single night. And should they declare they will greatly increase their attacks on our cities, then we will erase their cities." Clearly he was arguing the Blitz was in response to the fact that the RAF had already bombed cities in Germany, including Berlin. (217.42.28.107 (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Perhaps a quote from that speech might illustrate Hitler's point of view. Or his demagoguery, or even the utter darkness of his evil mind. You might even suggest it as an addition. But I'm not sure it necessarily provides evidence to support a factual account of the war. He uses the word "should", a future conditional verb, not the word "because", doesn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2016
"Adolf Hitler was an Austrian who had risen to power in Germany,become leader of the National Socialist Party" w — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelina ameera kanam (talk • contribs) 11:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * These points are already covered, — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Citizenship and deportation
Should there not be some information regarding the possibility he was going to get deported back to Austria following his release from prison and why this never came about? The Bavarian government tried to get him deported but the Austrian federal chancellor refused this on the grounds his service in the German army in WW1 made his Austrian citizenship void, this legally was not correct but it sufficed and he never ended up getting deported. Also, before he did eventually become a German citizen there had been several attempts before hand which all failed,

I did try and add some information about this but it's been reverted, the current article simply states when Hitler terminated his Austrian citizenship but not why this came about.--Scholesly (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree this is interesting and was surprised at the revert, the details may be pruned slightly though. Pincrete (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact is, I don't see where that added to the end result; we don't need in the main article an excessive amount of intricate detail; the article is already over the recommended word count and it could be added to several sub-articles if need be; such as Adolf Hitler's rise to power. Kierzek (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps not have so much detail such as the amount it cost Hitler to terminate his Austrian citizenship but there definitely should be something about the possibility of deportation following his release from prison and the fact the Austrian federal chancellor rejected numerous attempts from the Bavarian government to have him deported back to Austria.--Scholesly (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for trimming it and keeping it in the article Diannaa.--Scholesly (talk) 16:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please don't add any more content without posting on the talk page first. The article is already over the 10,000-word limit by quite a bit. — Diannaa (talk) 20:30, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Hitler entered the Bavarian army almost certainly by an error
The Bavarian authorities in 1924 when he was in prison following the Beer Hall Putsch carried out a report about how he came about serving in the Bavarian army. The report concluded that they could not explain why he wasn't deported back to Austria after he failed his physical exam for the Austrian army, that his citizenship simply was never raised and that he almost certainly entered the Bavarian army by error.

Source is Kershaw's Hitler 1889-1936 Hubris, pp 89-90.--Scholesly (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Adolf Hitler. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://org.law.rutgers.edu/publications/law-religion/nurinst1.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I have found an alternate way to acccess this document. — Diannaa (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Austrian-born German politician vs German politician of Austrian origin
Was it really necessary to change the former to the latter?

It seems to be an unnecessary change. The article already clearly shows that Hitler was born and raised in Austria and later changed his citizenship.--Scholesly (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Per WP:OPENPARA, "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability". Where Hitler was born is not in itself relevant to why he is a notable person; however his early life in Austria is fairly important and he was indeed still a citizen of Austria when he started his rise to public notoriety with the Nazis in the 1920s. Furthermore the wording "Austrian-born German" seems to me to summarise his connection to Austria simply as having been born there—perhaps born there already a German citizen, which is potentially misleading. We could just lose this descriptor entirely, frankly, and open the article "Hitler was the leader of the Nazi Party (NSDAP), Chancellor of Germany from 1933 to 1945, and Führer ("leader") of Nazi Germany from 1934 to 1945.", leaving the Austrian aspect to be dealt with further down. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this Austrian-born corporal should have his birthplace prominently displayed. It is an essential antidote to his remade persona.  7&amp;6=thirteen (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * And prominently displayed it is, in the infobox and at the top of the second paragraph, where we say he was born and raised in Austria. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:54, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The lead does say "German born politician of Austrian origin" which suffices. Which is probably good enough. Gilding lilies is a waste of print ... er, I mean space.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 22:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I slightly prefer leaving "of Austrian origin" (or "Austrian-born") out of the lead sentence. He regarded himself as ethnically German well before the time he entered politics and his German-ness (if that's a word) was a fundamental part of his self-identity from a young age. Also the second paragraph begins "Born and raised in Austria..." so it reads a little oddly to mention two times so closely together that he was Austrian-born. This isn't a huge deal either way though. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The previous "Austrian" was linked to Austria-Hungary and the "German" was linked to the ethnic group Germans. Hitler's origins are mentioned throughout the whole article, including "being born and raised in Austria" which quite clearly tells the reader he wasn't just simply born in Austria.

The article is already way over the recommended size and adding this adds no more value to the article than what was previously used. --Scholesly (talk) 00:10, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Too many notes <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 01:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll take "of Austrian origin" out then. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  06:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Scholesly, Austria was part of 'Austria-Hungary' at the time of course, hence the link. There has previously been discussion about this with 'Austrian' being preferred to 'Austria-Hungarian', since that did not really exist as a citizenship or identity. I think it misleading to simply state 'German' in the opening sentence, especially since his adoption of German citizenship is not dealt with till much later in the article. John McCain was born in Panama, that doesn't mean he has ever been Panamanian, so simply saying 'born in', is incomplete. A better one to remove would be the second 'born in' (ie leaving 'raised in Austria'). Yes he saw his identity as 'Germanic' from an early age, but was not a citizen until after WWI. User:Cliftonian I've reversed the 'born' removals, since an 'Austrian-born' implies nationality more than 'born in Austria' does, also the link reminds readers that 'Austria' did not exist in its present form. Pincrete (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting a link to "Austria-Hungary" under "Austrian" is an WP:EASTEREGG link. The comparison to McCain is extremely misleading as McCain was born to an American military family, in a US military hospital indeed if I recall correctly. I will put "of Austrian origin" back. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've this time put "Born an Austrian citizen and raised near the border with Germany" at the start of the second par to try to clarify things. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  06:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the term "Austrian" being linked to Austria-Hungary is because it clarifies to the reader where Hitler was born. It's splitting hairs to try and argue that Hitler was not German because he wasn't born in Germany (then the German Empire), look at any map of Austria-Hungary that shows the ethnic groups and you'll see that Germans (Austrian Germans) were the largest group in the Austrian part of the empire, back then the identity of an Austrian was German. Any late 19th century and early 20th century German nationalist would have included Austrians as Germans. Hitler was born and raised in Austria but identified himself as a German and to him his Austrian citizenship meant nothing to him. The idea of Austria and Germany being one country to form a Greater Germany predates the Nazis. After Austria lost to Prussia in 1866 which excluded Austria from joining the newly formed German Empire, the majority of Austrians still considered themselves as Germans. Ordinary Austrian citizens who weren't even Nazis considered themselves as Germans during 1933-45 (they were considered as German citizens between 1938-45) as well.

Now this isn't about arguing "are Austrians Germans?" But rather pointing out that it's misleading to the reader to imply that he was a German politician of Austrian origin and was thus not German himself when anybody who has studied the history of Germany knows this to be incorrect. Any major biography of Hitler mentions that he was an ethnic German born and raised in Austria who considered himself a German from a very young age and despised the Austria-Hungary empire.

The identity of Austrians today is not what is being discussed, their identity was very different during Hitler's era and it's very easy to see why a German-speaking Austrian (ethnic German) considered himself a German even though he wasn't born in Germany. If history had turned out differently and Hitler's birthplace had remained under Bavarian rule then he would have actually been born in Germany! In fact, Hitler used his Austrian "origin" to his advantage to advocate his pan-German ideas and reinforce the Anschluss in 1938.

It was only after the atrocities committed by the Nazis that the Austrians began to distance themselves from being identified as Germans (understandable of course).

This isn't about hiding the fact Hitler was Austrian-born and was raised in Austria but to make it clear to the reader that an Austrian-German identity was very different from today and as the article currently stands it's emphasising Hitler being Austrian in a way to make it appear that he wasn't German, when it's just simply not as black and white as that. Hitler was both an Austrian and German, he was an Austrian citizen and raised in Austria but he was an ethnic German and considered himself as such which is why the "Austrian-born German politician" appears much more accurate as it tells the reader he was born an Austrian citizen and was a politician to the Germans ethnic group.--Scholesly (talk) 12:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Your argument has a lot of merit, Scholesly, but to me "Austrian-born German" is, though apparently clear, actually a very vague phrase that could describe several very different situations. First of all it does not, in my view, necessarily tell the reader he was born an Austrian citizen; it could very easily be inferred to mean he was always a German citizen but just happened to be born in Austria. In any case the wording does not make clear when he left Austria and became German—"Austrian-born" puts the divide at birth and could mean he left Austria for Germany as an infant (which in fact he did at the age of three, but the family then moved back to Austria when he was five).


 * It is also not clear in the juxtaposition of demonyms "Austrian-born German" if we are referring to ethnic groups or citizenships. As you rightly point out, he was always an ethnic German though not always a German citizen, and always considered himself a German. For that reason I think it would actually be best just to put "German" in the first sentence. The "of Austrian origin" addition was an attempt on my part to shoehorn into the opening sentence some reference to the fact that he officially remained an Austrian when he first became WP:NOTABLE in the early years of his political career, in preference to putting his birthplace in the opening sentence (which per WP:OPENPARA is discouraged). I would actually prefer to just put "German" there. We have "born an Austrian citizen" at the start of the second paragraph now anyway, so I don't think another mention in the first sentence is necessary.


 * Linking the word "Austrian" to "Austria-Hungary" in the opening as was done previously does not help; as described at WP:EASTEREGG, it is an "easter egg" link that requires the reader to open it to understand what is going on, and of course those who print the article out won't even get that opportunity to see the hidden inference.


 * Thanks for engaging and I hope this is helpful. Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  13:51, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly happy with the new wording, I thought it important early to be clear that his birth-nationality was not German. It is not my area of expertise, but I believe 'Austrian citizen' is an impossibility, given that the country did not exist, however one of the regular editors is more expert, and I'm sure a simple fix is possible. Pincrete (talk) 21:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pincrete. The point re: Austria's existence is easily remedied by changing the first mention to Austria-Hungary. I will also take out "of Austrian origin" from the first par. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  22:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Cliftonian Ooops. I know this is complicated but the Aust-Hung page says The division between Austria and Hungary was so marked that there was no common citizenship: one was either an Austrian citizen or a Hungarian citizen, never both. This also meant that there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one. So it seems you were more right first time, one WAS an Aust citizen, but of a 'dual monarchy' one half of which was the Austrian Empire. Perhaps we just forget the 'Aust-Hung' dimension. I know there has been discussion on this before and I'm not the resident 'Aust-Hung' expert. Pincrete (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * OK that's fine, I'll fix it. Cheers —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:01, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with keeping out both "Austrian-born" and "of Austrian origin" to just "a German politician" since you rightly point out the second paragraph mentions he was born an Austrian citizen.

I mean if we were to go down this road with notable figures then you would be adding for Napoleon "of Corsican origin" or for Stalin "of Georgian origin" and so on, which is just tedious and unnecessary.

Thanks for fixing it.--Scholesly (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Scholesly, nothing to do with AH, but on the contrary I think Stalin & Napolean's origins are interesting. Even with T.S. Eliot and Hitchcock, (neither of whom ended up as national leaders of their adopted countries!), the original citizenships are noted in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks both, I think this discussion has been worthwhile and improved the article. Cheers and well done. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  23:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I mentioned Napoleon and Stalin because a case could also be made for both of these. Napoleon was ethnically Italian and Corsica only became under French rule shortly before his birth and Stalin was ethnically Georgian (and part Ossetian) and born in Georgia which was then part of the Russian empire. Hitler was ethnically German and born in Austia which is an ethnically German country that only never became part of the German empire because it lost a war with Prussia; that didn't stop the population from being German or considering themselves as such.--Scholesly (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Scholesly, sure, understood. I think the 'original nationality' is interesting to the reader, even if it is only forces him/her to re-assess their own assumptions about national identity. Clearly it did not matter much to him, or the German people, that he wasn't a 'real' German. Pincrete (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Nationality can be defined by both citizenship or ethnicity so from the latter point of view he was a 'real' German and the German people back then certainly considered him a German just like a Bavarian or Prussian, back then Austrians were seen as just another 'type' of German. It was only after the war ended and Nazi atrocities became well known that Austrians rejected a German national identity and the idea of Austria and Germany being one country as a "Greater Germany" and why you find people these days claiming "he wasn't German, he was Austrian", even though it's not as black and white as that as Austrians are ethnic Germans..--Scholesly (talk) 00:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Footnote for Austrian citizen?
Since the issue of what to call where AH was born and what its/his status was at that time is a recurring issue (a good faith edit today linked 'Austria', prev. links have piped 'Austria' but linked 'Austria-Hungary'). Would it be a good idea to leave present text as is, but 'footnote' what Austria-Hungary's status was at that time? Pincrete (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That seems to me a good idea. We could do the same in the infobox too. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  12:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Article is misleading
Hitler only ordered bombing raids against RAF fighter bases in August 1940, three months after the RAF began bombing Germany. (86.137.48.2 (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC))


 * That's right - by the time the Blitz started, the British had already bombed Germany for four months. (217.35.237.104 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC))

POV?
It is POV to state Hitler's "aggressive" foreign policy was the main cause of World War II. The main causes were the unfair Treaty of Versailles, the Great Depression, and the fact that Britain and France were trying to maintain their global empires. Also the Soviet Union invaded eastern Europe and the Baltic States in 1939-41. (217.35.237.104 (talk) 15:51, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
 * No. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The Versailles Treaty ensured there would be a second world war. (217.35.237.104 (talk) 16:18, 15 April 2016 (UTC))


 * User:217.35.237.104, the short answer to your first question is 'no', since this is the view of most historians. The longer answer is that a) the article actually says 'primary cause of the outbreak', which is slightly different, (the breaking of treaty promises by invading Poland being a bit difficult to ignore!) and b) the main body of the article goes into some of the deeper underlying reasons for his rise to power (inc. Versailles, and economic and political chaos and sense of injustice in Germany). Pincrete (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * But the British and French completely ignored the simultaneous Soviet invasion of Poland. (217.35.237.104 (talk) 16:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
 * No it was not simultaneous. USSR invaded Sept 17 after the war had been decided ("On 11 September, foreign minister Józef Beck asked France to grant asylum to the Polish government and Romania to allow the transfer of the government members through its territory. On 12 September, the Allied war council deliberating in Abbeville, France concluded that the Polish military campaign had already been resolved and that there was no point in launching an anti-German relief expedition." History of Poland (1939–45)). Rjensen (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Previous discussions on this wording are located at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 55 and Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 57. — Diannaa (talk) 17:04, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree that the short answer is "no" and as Diannaa notes this wording was greatly discussed and hammered out in the past. Kierzek (talk) 17:55, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Everyone knew the joint German-Soviet invasion of Poland was agreed in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August 1939. Britain and France chose to declare war on Germany to preserve their empires. (217.35.237.104 (talk) 17:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC))


 * 217.35.237.104, can you cite a serious historian who thinks the main cause of the outbreak of WWII was UK and France's desire to preserve their empires?Pincrete (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Pat Buchanan argued that case in his book. I think most people would agree that the UK and France would not have declared war had they not been imperial powers occupying half the world by force. (217.35.237.104 (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC))
 * I sure don't agree with that statement, and I am strongly opposed to making a change to the lead to make it look like Britain and France started WWII. — Diannaa (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Pat Buchanan obviously isn't a reliable source, and this is pro-Nazi historical revisionism. Nick-D (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Claiming the British and the French ensured that WWII happened is a very nefarious appraisal of specific facts. They both wanted to continue their empires, this is a fact. Germany wanted all the Germanic speaking parts of Eastern Europe back under it's control, to put it in simple terms, IE Prussian territory returned to its 'former' status. The Treaty of Versailles is MOST DEFINITELY considered by Military and Political Historians as the ROOT cause for the underlying Key Factors in how the German people allowed the NSDAP to take over. The Reich's Chancellery capitulated to the NSDAP in the end also. Hitler then 'groomed' various European Politicians, especially the British. The 1939 'secret' Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement was not know to the Allied forces for years. Soviet forces invaded the Eastern part of Poland after the NSDAP had falsified the Polish Border Incursion, with German Soldiers in Polish Uniforms, and started the European theatre of what later became called World War II (the eastern Asian theatres had been at war for 7 years prior to NSDAP Germany's invasion of Poland). I will state for the record that the original editors comments are not shared by me. I am a Military Historian and have been mainly working on my other passion, music, but have also been finding my feet here on WP before tackling such emotive articles of interest to me. I shall consider if any contribution by me is required to this article but as far I can read so far, knowledgeable person are already doing so. Sorry I forgot to sign. Nürö Drägönflÿ,  G'däÿ Mätë!  02:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2016
Died: he aint dead

Ellestepho (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please cite a professionally published mainstream academic source. Actually, please cite a few hundred.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:38, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He must be hanging out with Elvis and Jim Morrison. Kierzek (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, they're hanging out with Tupac Shakur. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually living in Detroit, Michigan. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, n-n-no he's outside looking in. Pincrete (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Takes you trips around the Baeyer? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Really? Nürö   G'däÿ  14:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Running a chairlift installation company with his good lady. Last seen shopping in Tattershall. Irondome (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Reg source W.L.Shirer
William L Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is a good source. But rust wright "Shirer p.27" is in-sufficient, in my oppinion. Title may be used earlier, but simply "page 27" in a brickstone like this, is not good enough since the book is divided in four parts with re-numbering of the pages in each part. Also are two of the parts divided into two sub-parts each. On top of all that, have we the chapters. And within some of them (the chapters) exists headlines equal to the chapters, but which are not numbered as chapters. And in a work like Shirer's, may the lenght (of the chapters, parts and the entire book) differ between languages and printings. I'm just trying to say, please give as good information of where in the book the reference is found. It's clearly not adapted for Wikipedia use :), but is a still a good source and eye witness. (Negative criticism came during the 1950's for not being popular nor scientific, but both. But The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is used by many of today's historical authors as well. I think it's the best overall book about Hitler and other unfamous Nazists, the Third Reich as such, the life in that Reich, and Hitler's reactions to success and defeat. For WW2 as such exists better and more detailed works about operations and such stuff. But Shirer's work includes several thoughts behind the German war conduct. Especially Moscow 1941 and Walther von Brauschitch's heart attack and resignation, which made Hitler himslf Supreme Commander, is interesting to read. Much thanks to Shirer's access to Franz Halders diary. Boeing720 (talk) 01:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Those citations are perfectly fine. I've owned a couple of different editions of Shirer's book, and both had normal page numbering. Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a copy here of the 1960 edition (to be honest I have two copies, one to use and one to keep as a more pristine spare copy), and the page numbers are sequential, with foreword on pages ix to xii and content on pages 3 through 1143. Notes and index start on page 1145 and run to the end of the book at page 1245. Spot checks of footnotes 169, 314, and 248 confirm the content is backed up by the specified pages. I am pretty sure I checked all the citations when I did the GA prep back in 2011. — Diannaa (talk) 02:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is fine the way it is. Kierzek (talk) 03:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Austrian citizenship by 1889 ? No Austro-Hungarian !
I cannot understand why we appeare to have a kind of tabu on mention Austria-Hungary as a nation when appropriate. The old Austria (old in opposite to modern day Austria) or the Habsburg Monarchy existed for 6 or 7 centuries, in central Europe and at the Balkan. Its many different people had a common purpose - to stop the Ottoman Empire - which in 1495 had stolen Konstantinopel with the Christian cathedral Hagia Sofia, built in the tenth century. But as the Ottoman Empire became less threatful, and partly with Tsar-Russian support to the South Slavonic countries and people inside the gigantic Habsburgian Empire, to countries like Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria and to peoples inside such as Croats, Czechs, Slovens, Slovaks etc. Very much unlike any Russian support to the largest of the Slavonic peoples, the Poles. As most Poles lived inside Russia (but also in Habsburg and Prussia). And the Magyars like the Greek and Romanian nation wasn't given any Slavonic support by Russia of any kind. But it was through the revolutionary years 1830 and 1848 as nationality became of more vital interest than prevent the Turks from beginning new wars. And from 1867 was "old Austria" transformed into Austria-Hungar~y. And whithin that empire were German speaking people and Magyars the two largest ethnic groups, but still not quite a majority together. But although the Empire (by time) was divided in one German speaking part, one Hungarian speaking part and later a joint part for Bosnia-Hercegovina was added to the Empire. And Austria-Hungary was still one nation and had just one Emperor and a common Foreign policy - and to the best of my knowledge didn't specific "Austrian" and specific "Magyar" citizenships and passports exist ! And am I not totally wrong, can't we just make a "Austrian citizen" up, for the time of Hitler's birth in 1889. The fact that his dad, Alois Hitler, was a customs officer, employed by the Austro-Hungarian authorithies makes it even more importaint to not make thing which didn't existed up. Boeing720 (talk) 23:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There have been several discussions about this, according to the Austria-Hungary article, seperate citizenships DID exist. Also most sources refer to 'Austrian'. I suggested recently, though didn't follow-up, that a footnote should clarify the status of AH at the time of AH's birth!Pincrete (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The mystery of the missing astrologer
Hello. I'm back for a brief while. I was looking into learning more about Karl Ossietz, Hitler's shadowy astrologer (the "Rasputin of Nazi Germany", as an anonymous maid at Hitler's Berchtesgaden retreat put it). It seems that there had been an article on Ossietz on Wikipedia, but that the odd decision was made to delete it. If Ossietz had never existed, then there should have been something on the article to say this. Instead, I've found this (and a warning, it's got pornographic garbage strewn over it):

http://reportingpoint.net/5e98d4e680c407c2.html

What was that all about and why shouldn't it be reinserted?

I wanted to ask at the village pump, and went there only to find a maze of dead ends. So I came here. I'm aware that this has been asked about before in 2004 on a now archived talk page (#5, to be exact), and that's why I came here.

Arno (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The original discussion can be found at Articles for deletion/Karl Ossietz, there is no need to link to an ad-filled site (my ads are about student papers, but I'm a teacher, so...).
 * From what I can see in that discussion, there appears to have only been a couple of mentions of him in suspicious sources. Looking on Google Books and ignoring any sources that were created after that article (and a lot of works of historical fiction), I'm finding very scant mentions -- enough to say that he might have existed, but not enough to start an article on him.  There needs to be reliable sources specifically about the subject, and more than a couple of them.  Same goes for the non-existence of a topic.
 * Per this later source, most of the lore of Karl Ossietz comes from Pauline Kohler, who claims to have been Hitler's maid even though the people we know worked for Hitler had no memory of her. Per note 22 for chapter 2, the name "Ossietz" appears to have come from a German language newspaper published in an attempt to discredit Rudolf Hess (who did believe in astrology).  However, there would need to be a few more sources to make the myth of Karl Ossietz noteworthy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not meet WP:RS and is WP:Fringe, to say the least. Kierzek (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

HarveyCarter
As a note to everyone watching this talk page, please keep in mind that posts made by IP accounts here arguing about the facts of World War II and/or trolling are, based on recent history, quite likely to be the banned editor User:HarveyCarter. Please ignore or remove them. Please also note that this person has been making similar posts on the talk pages of related articles as well. Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Born a German-speaking" is wrong
Nobody is born knowing a language, you are taught language(s), normally as a child when growing up. The sentence at the moment reads like he was born knowing the German language, has nobody else noticed this?

The facts are (1) Hitler was born in a town on the Austrian-German border just inside of Austria which was then under the rule of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire. (2) Hitler was a German-speaking Austrian who always considered himself as German, despite being born in Austria. (3) The Austrian-Hungarian empire did not see any contradiction between one feeling both an Austrian and a German.--92.11.170.244 (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I think many people would see that as splitting hairs, although technically you are quite right. Would it be better to say "Born a citizen of Austria, into a German-speaking family, .. "? Or are you looking for more radical changes? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC


 * Yeah. Even worse (I'm meeting them everyday) they don't give an inch about being such or such nationality. All they go by is: there is The Authority. Are you not resting under you'll be damned. Probable reason why old Adolph concluded he'd as well beat the Devil his game, no ? --Askedonty (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, not The Authority, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not under that spell, no. Pure Authoritarianism, whatever the invokation makes you the king crossing other ugly passers-by on the pavement... --Askedonty (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought we might be in Pullman land Pincrete (talk) 23:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend to come across as trying to split hairs but I just felt it read completely wrong to the reader. Hitler never hid the fact he was born in Austria. He was simply an ethnic German born in Austria; German-speaking Austrians were known as 'Austrian Germans' or 'German Austrians' until the end of WW2. A great source on Hitler's Austrian-German identity is Hitler's Vienna by Brigitte Hamann. --92.11.170.244 (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That they were known as such at the time may well be true, but current wording conveys the situation better to the reader. 'Hybrid' nationality terms can mean so many different things (German mother/Austrian father?/German of Austrian ancestry?). As the full story is included, I think present wording is clear and efficient. Pincrete (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Re:Deportation of Hitler
I removed the adjective specious from a description of the Austrian federal chancellor rejecting the proposed deportation of Hitler from Germany to Austria. The sentence reads "The Austrian federal chancellor rejected the request on the specious grounds that his service in the German Army made his Austrian citizenship void." Cliftonian reverted it because he said Kershaw called the argument specious, meaning without legal reason. So this is just one man's opinion of the legal argument. In removing the adjective, I was seeking to present an NPOV perspective, just the facts without somebody interjecting their opinion of the facts. I still think it should simply read The Austrian federal chancellor rejected the request on the grounds that his service in the German Army made his Austrian citizenship void." Just suggesting that opinion should be kept out of an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. Cheers.NapoleonX (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you may be asking the wrong question, since all historical analysis is ultimately 'opinion'. I saw the edit(s) and the reason "this reflects what Kershaw writes in the source on the matter: "It was not legally a sound argument. But it sufficed". Personally I think 'specious' is too strong, 'questionable'? I think the point is worth making, but wouldn't get upset either way. Pincrete (talk) 09:52, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Pincrete phrases it well. Given Kershaw is making the historical analysis, is carries much greater weight. Kierzek (talk) 11:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Having checked the meaning of 'specious', having a false look of truth or genuineness, I don't think it is too strong, but remain neutral about using it or an alternative. Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Well okay. I'm not going to demand it. My purpose was to make the page more encyclopedic. I understand that a historian's analysis is kind of his opinion. I just would much rather the statement stated the argument made by the Austrian federal chancellor without the editorializing with such weasel words added such as specious. I'm not saying the argument was valid, I'm just saying that the argument should be stated and left at that. I've said my piece. I'll let it stand rather than fight a battle.NapoleonX (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Death Discrepency?
It appears that an article has arisen http://anonhq.com/adolf-hitler-argentina/ claiming Hitler didn't commit suicide. Does this change anything, or is it an unreliable source? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it does not change anything. The "Argentina" connection makes for good fiction reading or WP:fringe, at very best. Kierzek (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I did think it was dubious, but then who is the picture of? Is it photoshopped, or is it his father? - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a forum for discussing improvements to the article, and not conspiracy theories which have been discredited since 1945 or photos. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering whether anyone knew who the photos were of in order to put the whole article to rest, still trying to make sure it didn't belong in the article just in case. It couldn't have been discredited since 1945, because this anonhq thing was just posted a week ago, but it does make you say "if he wasn't dead then who's in the cemetery!"- CharlieBrown25 (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alois Hitler died in 1903? And you think went to Argentina? But I refuse to join in this conspiracy-fest, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. I hate conspiracy theories too, I was just curious who was in the picture. Probably some unidentified cousin or something. - CharlieBrown25 (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The redacted FBI document is legitimate, but if you look at the source - https://vault.fbi.gov/adolf-hitler/adolf-hitler-part-01-of-04/view - it's clear right off that the FBI isn't reporting on something they believe to be true but rather following up on a "tip" from some individual. The one on the website you linked to (with claims of the submarine and Argentina) is from a guy who was looking to not be deported back to a Argentina and in exchange for immunity and to stay in the US he was going to give information about how he saw Hitler and can name government officials who are helping Hilter, presumably.  That same file also has letters from people saying they saw Hitler in New York City or was hiding in London, etc.  As for the pictures, given the clarity of the image and the complete lack of any context as to where the individual is and when the picture was taken, it's extremely unconvincing.  The one on the left, in color, vaguely kinda looks like him, not that you could really tell from that resolution.  Heck if you told me that was a picture of Gerald McRaney in a suit I'd believe it. The black and white picture on the right, I fail to see even a hint of resemblance outside of him being scowling white dude with a similar face shape.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdlund (talk • contribs) 19:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Depending on dates on those pictures, they could be Elvis. Just kidding.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hitler's older brother was in fact younger and died early, historian says
See --07:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeoUrfahraner (talk • contribs)
 * One historian states this; not the consensus of the majority of the main-line historians at this point. Kierzek (talk) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What do these historians say about the birth date of Otto? It seems that their information is based on the (wrong) memories of Hitler's sister Paula without checking the church documents in Braunau. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 17:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Shirer (1960) lists five children on page 9, Gustav (born 1885; died in infancy); Ida (born 1886; died in infancy); Adolf (born 1889); Edmund (born 1894; died at age 6) and Paula (born 1896 and outlived her brother). Otto is not mentioned. Toland (page 6 of the 1976 paperback edition) says Hitler was Klara's fourth child. Bullock (1999 reprint) has a chart on page 28-29 that does not include Otto. Dates for the other children match Shirer. None of the siblings are mentioned in the prose. Kershaw says Otto was the third child and died within days of his birth. I can get you a page number tomorrow if you like (the online version has unnumbered pages). — Diannaa (talk) 20:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The page number is not needed. The question is dispute is: where did these historians get their information? According to the church documents in Braunau, Otto was born on June 17, 1892 and died on June 23, 1892 of Hydrocephalus. Paula Hitler was not yet born at that time. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A copy of the church document is here: http://www.nachrichten.at/nachrichten/thema/Der-Fehler-in-Adolf-Hitlers-Biografie;art180211,2246423,B::cme199442,1496525?_FRAME=33 --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 04:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just remember we are not here for WP:OR, NeoUrfahraner. Kierzek (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources I have checked so far did not list a source for their information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is no WP:OR; it is already published on many places. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My point is we are not here to judge, surmise and guess; only report the RS facts given. What the RS historians and authors have written is what they have written; there is not enough here to say - x is 100% correct and everyone prior is wrong. Kierzek (talk) 14:27, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no need to state which version is correct or wrong. One should present the traditional version (based on the memories of Paula Hitler) and the alternative version based on church documents. The reader can decide which source is more reliable. --NeoUrfahraner (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The birth order doesn't really matter to Hitler's story, so I suggest we change the wording to "He was one of six children born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl (1860–1907). Three of Hitler's siblings—Gustav, Ida, and Otto—died in infancy." — Diannaa (talk) 21:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd support that. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too, though the 'family' page might have bigger problems.Pincrete (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I support that as well. Kierzek (talk) 22:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Intro: Austrian not German
It states in the first line Hitler was a German politician. No he was not. He was Austrian. He was born in Austria. And he lived there until his 20s. He was Austrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.17.155 (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * He was a politician of Germany, not of Austria, surely? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We have been through all this. Certainly, 213.114.17.155, he was a German politician; he never campaigned for, nor held any office in Austrian where he was born. Kierzek (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:213.114.17.155, as the others say, his notability (which is usually the opening sentence), is as a German citizen (by then), leading Germany, so in both senses, a 'German politician'. Para 2 states his place of birth and early life. It would certainly be misleading to say 'Austrian politician', though we have had in the past 'Austrian-born German politician'. Pincrete (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2016
Many things are incorrect on this page

Archiedavies24 (talk) 16:10, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 16:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Alan Clarke quotes
There's been some too and fro (involving me, and others) regarding this material quoting British politician and sometime historian Alan Clark's views of Hitler's demise. My view is that this material is of little value: its sourced from Clarke's now outdated book on the German-Soviet war rather than any kind of detailed assessment of Hitler, and presents a fairly eccentric view of Hitler - modern historians tend to view Hitler's demise as being a disgrace rather than honourable conduct given that he deliberately extended what was clearly a lost war, leading to huge numbers of deaths and the destruction of entire cities. A quote from an expert on Hitler might be of some value, especially if they're discussing the different views of his death rather than just their own opinions, but I don't see any reason to privilege this source in this way. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't state my opinion on Clarke's book, but to say it would make a good door stop these days. The first quote is really just opinion which if included would carry undue weight. And the second really does not add anything either. Kierzek (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First quote is taking up a lot of space for a fairly controversial opinion (would most sources see AH's behaviour as courage or self-delusional megalomania?), second quote doesn't add a significant distinct opinion imo. Pincrete (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of stuff. We have to be choosy what to include, especially in articles like this one that are already over the suggested 10,000 word limit. My opinion is that the quotes should stay out, as they are not very enlightening. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I must say, I don't really see any value in keeping the quotes in. I don't see the need to include a discussion on whether Hitler was either courageous or insane. GABgab 14:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The views of genuine experts are worthy of inclusion, and discussion of Hitler's sanity is certainly not a forbidden topic, but these are the fringe views of a highly eccentric politician/historian with a noted habit of winding people up in a manner which we might almost call "trolling" today. He was not a psychologist and no expert on sanity. Anybody can have an opinion on these things (as I suspect most of us do) but his is not of any significance when evaluating Hitler from a NPOV. These quotes might be usable in the article about Clark himself, to show his views, but they tell us nothing about Hitler. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to make it clear that I wasn't arguing that there should be any coverage of heroismVinsanity, merely making the point that giving prominence to 'hero' was unbalanced. Pincrete (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Legacy section
Adolf Hitler

I think we should remove the first paragraph of the Legacy section. There were a lot of suicides and even mass suicides as the regime collapsed. At least some of these were in response to the suicide of Hitler. Comments? — Diannaa (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure I agree, the para is brief and documents the immediate effect, leading into the 'historical evaluation'. I think it makes the section more readable. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I will go with consensus as I don't feel that strongly about it and I know this article is still over the ideal number for article size; with that said, it does state the "immediate effect" as Pincrete states. I do think the sentence cited to John Toland can be removed as redundant in point (edit for concision). Kierzek (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We could take out the Toland quote and add a snippet about suicides using this as a source. How about adding to the beginning of the second sentence. "While suicide rates in Germany increased as the war drew to a close, particularly in areas where the Red Army was advancing, public support for Hitler had collapsed by the time of his death and few Germans mourned his passing." Attribution: copied from Nazi Germany. That way we add a little balance without increasing the length overly. — Diannaa (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay with above. Kierzek (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does the reference to suicide rates need to be here at all? The current second sentence of the para works very well in my view, and it's appropriate to note Kershaw's views given that he's a leading expert on the topics covered and is describing what's essentially the current consensus of historians. I agree that the first and last sentences of the para should go, as they reflect outdated views. Modern historians tend to note that while Hitler's death was important, the German government had collapsed well before it occurred. Nick-D (talk) 23:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2016
The text says: Hitler rebelled against this decision, and in Mein Kampf revealed that he intentionally did poorly in school, hoping that once his father saw "what little progress I was making at the technical school he would let me devote myself to my dream".[27]

This is buying in to Hitlers attempt to explain why he was a failure at school.

It should read:

Hitler rebelled against this decision, and in Mein Kampf claimed that he intentionally did poorly in school, hoping that once his father saw "what little progress I was making at the technical school he would let me devote myself to my dream".[27]

Thrasymakos (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree. Any second opinion? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both 'revealed' and 'claimed' are loaded, though in opposite ways. Pincrete (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Could the sentence be reworked to avoid both, into a "He said ..." construction, maybe also extending the quote? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC) I guess that word "dream" might need an explanatory footnote, too.
 * e/c - I believe "stated" is better, see what you think. Kierzek (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  17:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

See also link to Mein Kampf online
Two editors have told me to bring this discussion here. So, I removed the See also link that takes you directly to the "online versions" section in the Mein Kampf article. While wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, I don't think it is appropriate to put a link that takes you directly to various online versions of the book, as if you are so anxious to show the book to the entire world. If you want to read that crap, go look it up yourself.

But if you want another reason why the link shouldn't be there, the MOS:SEEALSO page clearly indicates that as a general rule, a wikilink that already is in the body of the article should not be put in the See also section; and the link to Mein Kampf appears right in the lead of the article. So there you go.

But if you think it really should be there for some ideological reason of yours, then there is nothing I can do. Honestly, having that link there just isn't important anyway. The see also section is not all that important. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 02:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It is useful to provide the reader with this background material, though the revulsion is understandable. It doesn't mean that we are sympathetic to Hitler or Nazism in any way whatsover. "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:SEEALSO, there's no need to add a see also link to Mein Kampf given that it is linked in the body of the article, including the second paragraph of the lead. The external links provided in the Mein Kampf article all look to be to reputable repositories of historic texts, and are unproblematic in and of themselves. I'm pretty much 100% sure that this link wasn't included here for "some ideological reason", and I think that this accusation is really ill-judged. Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * That's right. I'm sorry. EeeveeeFrost (talk) 08:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * This 'see also' is actually to a sub-section of the main MK page Mein Kampf (online versions), which includes various online versions + immediately above, crits etc. Whether it is sufficiently important to link to that sub-section from AH, is a slightly different question to whether it is 'correct'. I think probably not important enough to warrant inclusion here. Pincrete (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe its inclusion in the "See also" is not needed given that it is linked in the main body of the article. Kierzek (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think one link (or once in the lead and once in the body, which is what we now have) is sufficient. As to finding the material online, we don't need to provide assistance for that, it's easy enough for people to Google it. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed this 'see also' since nobody seems to think it is necessary here. EeeveeeFrost, probably made the right edit initially, therefore my apologies to him for my reverting him. Pincrete (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it, Pincrete. It did not hurt to discuss it first. Kierzek (talk) 15:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

No worries. Be happy. It all worked out. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Good :) EeeveeeFrost (talk) 20:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Silly sentence
"Hitler was born into a German-speaking Austrian family and raised near Linz"

A German-speaking Austrian family? As opposed to Austrian families that doesn't speak German?

Austrians are Germans, like the Swiss are Germans, Prussians are Germans, Saxons are Germans, Bavarians are Germans, etc etc, ofc Austrians are then German-speaking. With this I mean ofc the Germanic people rather than any specific state. There is a reason Anschluss didn't meet more resistance...

My suspicion is that this sentence was constructed to support the whole "Hitler wasn't German" narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronicler87 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My suspicion is that you are pushing a Pan German POV. Irondome (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Pan-Germanism is an ideology to gather all Germans in one state, which is quite different from a German ethnic group. I mean, traditionally there were all kinds of groups spread around Europe, Baltic Germans, Caucasus Germans etc etc. Chronicler87 (talk) 05:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, possibly Chronicler87 presented the facts in the worse possible way, hence Irondome's legitimate comment . Said that, I think he/she got a point. Writing "German-speaking Austrian family" is somehow awkward. "German-speaking Austrian family near Linz" is not like "German-speaking Italian family near Bolzano" or "French-speaking Swiss family near Lausanne". Most (all?) Austrian speak (and spoke by the time) German. I think the words "German-speaking" should be removed. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Austria was part of Austro-Hungary, in which many languages were spoken. The Hitler's were culturally & linguistically, German. The sentence is no sillier than English-speaking Canadian, the majority, but not everyone. How do you say all this in a few words to people who may not know that this part of Austria was predominantly Germanic? German-speaking is intended to convey they weren't 'German'. Pincrete (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pincrete, to my knowledge Hungary was still a separate kingdom at the time of the personal union and had it's own separate parliament. However even if this wasn't the case it doesn't change the fact that Hitler was Austrian, and Austrians are ethnically German and also culturally German (and therefore speak German). The Austro-Hungarian union also ended after ww1, and after that Austria was pretty much German speaking only, except for some small minorities. I repeat my suspicion that the sentence was constructed by someone who wants to give Hitler another kick by pretending Austrians are not ethnically or culturally German. The sentence doesn't make sense in the light of that the Kingdom of Austria has historically been extreme majority German, both ethnically and culturally (as stated separate kingdoms were never included in the Austrian definition). Also, can someone please tell me how to respond to someone directly? I can't find it anywhere. Chronicler87 (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * @Pincrete, the fact is that in the beginning of the XX century in Austria there were more German speaking people than in Germany. Yes, you read well. Between 1871 and 1918, Austria was from a pure ethnic perspective more German than the German Reich itself. Or if you prefer, non-German minorities in Austria accounted for a smaller share than in the German Reich. I insist, "German speaking" should be removed. Chronicler, may I humbly suggest not to make any reference to any personal suspicion? I genuinely believe we have a strong point here, we do not have the need to suspect of anything. Silvio1973 (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed I am so convinced about this that in full good faith I am boldly going to modify the article. At least this will have the effect to make the discussion moving on. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * nb edit conflict, nb 'ping' not formatted, therefore did not work.Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The description of AH's origins has gone round in circles over two years. We need to express it succintly and it is complex. I don't doubt your facts, but does every reader know that Austria was Germanic ethnically, culturally and linguistically at that time? An older description was to simply describe him as born 'Austrian', or 'German-Austrian' and link to Aust-Hung, I personally prefer that. Can we wait a few days to see what other editors think? I don't have a 'dog in this fight', but am aware of the long term disagreements as to how best to render his origins succintly, accurately and informatively. Your suspicions are unfounded, there is no such agenda I assure you, but we cannot tell the whole history of Germans in Austria in a few words. Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are right, users are not meant to know which was the ethnic structure of Austria around the end of the XIX century. My concern is that the current wording is really contentious, because insists - in my humble opinion unnecessarily - on the ethnicity of AH's origins. Can we find any better than this? Silvio1973 (talk) 10:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In the meantime I think your edit is the best compromise and I actually welcome it. I think the discussion about AH's origins is not a matter which should be approached on the 5th line of the lead. Silvio1973 (talk) 10:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

At that point in time, Austrians considered themselves Germans, this Wikipedia article gives a good basic summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrians "Historically, Austrians were considered to be Germans and viewed themselves as such.[12][13][14] Austria had been a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, and was a member of the German Confederation, but after the Austro-Prussian war of 1866, Austria was effectively expelled from the Confederation by Prussia.[13] Thus, when the German Empire was founded in 1871, Austria was not a part of it.[13] The Third Reich annexed Austria (Anschluss) in 1938, but since the events of World War II, Austrians have developed their own distinct national identity and mostly do not consider themselves to be Germans.". I do agree that constructing proper sentences is hard, but I don't think encyclopedias should change history to make it more "easily understood", personally I think the most proper sentence would be "German family in Austria", but with the "German" being a link to that Wikipedia page on Austrians, or just "Austrian family near Linz", same sentence with "Austrian" being a link to the Wikipedia page on Austrians. Personally however I think the latter sentence would not describe the past properly, however I do realize that there probably are many articles right now that describes the ancestors of todays Austrian as "Austrian", I took a quick look on some of the most famous Austrian people, and they mostly seem to have "Austrian" with the link to "Austrians" as I gave an example of above, though if you look at many of the even older people, like Mozart, it doesn't say that he was either German or Austrian, just that he was born in Salzburg and that his father was a native of Augsburg. It gets confusing though, should then a person of the past born in the part of Tyrol that now belongs to Italy be an "Italian"? Chronicler87 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Chronicler87, I start answering from the end of your post. There is no standard answer to your question. For people born and died before 1918 (such as Joseph Freinademetz) the most appropriate approach would say they are Austrians. For people born before 1918 and died after It would really depend on the ethnicity of the person (indeed Wolfgang Gröbner should indeed be considered Austrian, conversely Friedrich Tessmann Italian). Finally, people born after 1918 such as Reinhold Messner should be considered Italian. The same approach should apply to someone from Transylvania born before the Treaty of Trianon. Concerning AH, I don't think the matter can be briefly explained in the limited space available in the lead of the article. For the aforementioned reason, Pincrete's edit is IMHO a good compromise. Silvio1973 (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Chronicler87, basic rule of thumb is citizenship (of the state that existed then). Sometimes it is impossible to say, (perhaps Mozart), and we have to link to other articles, where hopefully the political position is given. There is also the question of how the person is generally described, which means for example that in the UK, some people are described as 'Scottish' even though they may have been born in England, and even though Scotland is not a state. Re:Tyrol, it would be anomalous to describe someone as being of a state that did not exist, unless we made it clear we were referring to the ethnic or linguistic group to which they belonged, rather than citizenship. "German family in Austria", would tend to suggest they were migrants from Germany, rather than your intended meaning, that they were culturally, lingistically, politically, German citizens of Austria, like most of the population then. Thank God Scotland didn't leave the UK, we would have had nightmares working out who was Scottish, who British! Pincrete (talk) 20:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I kind of expressed my point badly though, people that were born during the Kingdom of Germany (which Austria was a part of) during the Holy Roman Empire, or during the German confederation, are described as "Austrians" on Wikipedia (though to be fair the confederation was a pretty loose organization), but corresponding people from other provinces (during the HRE days) are not described as "Bavarian" or "Saxon", but German, that is if there is a ethnicity/remark on citizenship at all, like on Mozarts article where there is none. Like take this comparison, both Martin Luther and Johann Sebastian Bach were born in the Electorate of Saxony, but it says "German" on their articles, not "Saxon", or let's take this guy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklaus_Manuel_Deutsch_I Now he was born when the Swiss cantons was part of the HRE Kingdom of Germany, yet he is described as "Swiss". I mean, if we are to have any form of system here it should at least be consistent. Now considering Austrians didn't consider themselves "Austrian" until after ww2, maybe the correct form is German family in Austria? Pincrete, if your basic rule of thumb is citizenship, then a lot of articles on people living many centuries ago shouldn't say "Swiss" or "Austrian", not that people were citizens back then, but subjects =P, in this case under the Kingdom of Germany. I don't think German family in Austria have to imply they were migrants either, it's not more strange a comment than "German family in Bavaria", or any other state that historically was ethnically and culturally German. Ofc I restate once again, I think "German" in Adolf Hitlers case should be linked to the Austrian article, but "Austrian" should not apply to Germans living in Austria during the days of the Kingdom of Germany, perhaps not during the German confederation, and perhaps not when Austrians considered themselves German. Anyway, considering the complexity of the history of Germany/ethnic Germans, I think the best rule of thumb should be something like "German" for ethnic Germans and linking that to whatever group that person belonged to, with the exception of Switzerland after independence from HRE and Austria after ww2, so a Baltic German would be linked to the article on Baltic Germans etc, or a system were both ethnicity and to geographical/state history of the individual person. Once again, it's all a mess, though as someone wrote "German-speaking Austrian family" was a kind of awkward sentence, I saw was because it seem to be edited away by now. Chronicler87 (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I suspect Bach is simply ordinarily thought of as German, but links within the article should give the more complex picture, but yes, there are probably anomalies as a result of balancing various factors. To complicate matters, opening sentence should be nationality when became notable (hence AH=German]], birth nationality is usually later. Pincrete (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2016
I paragraph ONE, at the end, I want to specify that Adolf Hitler was a central figure of the JEWISH Holocaust; because the Jewish holocaust was not the only holocaust that was perpetrated against a nation or group of people. To reference the Jewish holocaust in a monotonic manner such as this is akin to giving this holocaust more credence than any other, or discrediting any other holocaust all together.

12.167.40.34 (talk) 19:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It wasn't just the Jewish holocaust, even if they were the primary target. Homosexuals, the handicapped, Roma, black people, Freemasons, Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Marxists, and many others were also persecuted.  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ian.thomson is correct and it is clear that the Jewish people and many others were targeted; details set forth in the main article with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't work out what the object of the request is as its aims seem to me to be contradictory. Britmax (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are correct Britmax; the request is "contradictory" in presentation. Kierzek (talk) 20:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 'The Holocaust' primarily refers to the destruction of the Jews anyway, by extension it sometimes refers to other targetted groups, therefore 'Jewish Holocaust' would be a bit pointless. I wonder if the IP is referring to other notorious genocides in history? Pincrete (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Good Work
Adolf Hitler is a complex topic, it's important that a wide variety of perspectives are used, rather than one view or perspective, you have done a good job of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Millzie95 (talk • contribs) 04:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of surname; Hütte > Hut
Hello,

If translated literally to English, Hitler (save some dialect influences) would be Cottager not so much "he who lives in a hut". Could a regular editor please add that though Hut and Hütte are of the same root, it is the word cottage which is the better (idiomatic) translation of the word Hütte? A hut in English is a building of much simpler construction than a Hütte is in German, which like I said would best be translated as a (traditional, early modern) cottage. Compare cottage cheese which is Hüttenkäse in German. Thank you. 213.34.49.36 (talk) 09:22, 11 July 2016 (UTC) A "cottager" has quite a different meaning in English. A cottager more often the reference for gentlemen who go "cottaging". You should look that up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.250.7.244 (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * User:118.250.7.244, we are limited by the fact that the translation is 'reffed' and a suitable alternative ref would be needed to make the change. 'Hut' is ambiguous in English, meaning anything from a very modest dwelling down to a shed. Pincrete (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Nope! In any English dictionary the definition of "Hut" is very clear: A small single-story building of simple or crude construction, serving as a poor, rough, or temporary house or shelter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.176.243.174 (talk) 04:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hitler prophecy about the extermination of Jews
In the section about the Holocaust, would it not be worth adding that Hitler also repeated his prophecy of 30 January 1939 on 30 January 1942 and Goebbels also published articles proclaiming that his prophecy was coming true as well as noting this in his diary?--92.29.149.28 (talk) 17:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not a "prophecy" if Hitler says something will happen in the future then he makes it happen. The "prophecy" you refer to is nonsense. There's no good reason to emphasize it. Binksternet (talk) 18:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you're confused about the definition of prophecy. A prophecy is predicting something will happen, Hitler referred to himself as a 'prophet' in the speech.

Goebbels himself said on numerous occasions that the prophecy was coming true, for example:

"None of the Führer's prophetic words has come so inevitably true as his prediction that if Jewry succeeded in provoking a second world war, the result would be not the destruction of the Aryan race, but rather the wiping out of the Jewish race. This process is of vast importance, and will have unforeseeable consequences that will require time. But it can no longer be halted. It must only be guided in the right direction." - Goebbels

Emphasising it will show to the reader that even during the war when the extermination of the Jews was happening, Hitler himself spoke of his 1939 prophecy and that Nazi propaganda by Goebbels published articles speaking about it.--2.97.232.156 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that this is not a good addition to the article. First off, the Jews did not start the war; Hitler started it by invading Poland. Second, the word "prophecy" has a connotation of predicting events that are difficult to foresee, not of predicting events and then personally ensuring that they come about. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It does seems worthwhile to notice that Hitler publicly predicted that the outbreak of war would result in the destruction of the European Jews -- maybe it's less significant that he described his own prediction as a 'prophecy' or himself as a 'prophet' in doing so. --causa sui (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This speech forms part of the chain of public and recorded private statements which form part of the evidence historians have used to demonstrate that Hitler initiated and directed the Holocaust, as noted in the "The Holocaust" section. While it's an important part of this evidence, I'm not sure if it should be highlighted in isolation. We could expand upon the sentence reading "Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced,[318] his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry", but I don't think that would be hugely valuable in this top-level article, especially as no single quote establishes Hitler's role. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The original proposed addition is not needed; the point is made and as noted, the word "prophecy" would give the reader a false connotation; Hitler brought the events about himself. Kierzek (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nazi Party under Hitler could be arguably a cult or at least a political cult. However "prophecy" will mislead the reader. Hitler was actually a brutal 20th century dictator not a prophet in any biblical sense. It is too nice of a word for Hitler. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Prophets don't have to be nice, they just predict things that then happen. A lot of Biblical prophecies aren't nice. Britmax (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not talking specific biblical prophets, but rather the word "prophet" is nice compared to the "Dictator of Nazi Germany". Daniel was a prophet in the old Testament Book of Daniel and his reputation was good. So it is misleading to compare the biblical Daniel the Prophet to 20th Century Hitler. Someone could say I am going to get a drink of water, then walk over to a faucet and get a drink. That is not a prophecy defined as a prediction of (a) future event(s) outside of the control of the prophet. What reliable source(s) calls Hitler a prophet ? Cmguy777 (talk) 19:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Errrr .... the near 'wiping out of the Jewish race, we all know about, but when exactly did they 'provoke a second world war'? I thought that was done by Germany invading Poland. Pincrete (talk) 23:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Totally with users, and  on this one. Hitler's "prophecy" is widely used in Neo-Nazi and Holocaust denial discourse. Using Goebbels' quotes as somehow supporting it (as used above by the O/P) completely ignores it's grotesque distortion of terminology. It was a vicious blackmailing threat to the Western powers. Hitler was saying I have human shields basically. If I see the word employed in mainspace, I will delete on sight frankly, unless used with extreme sensitivity and with a shedload of context, and in addition a demonstrable consensus here as to it's usage. "Prophecy"! Nazi Twaddle. I believe Victor Klemperer had a great deal to say about the Nazi perversion of the German language in his classic work LTI – Lingua Tertii Imperii. I would incorporate aspects of that analysis if this abomination of language ever attempted to creep into this article.   Irondome (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Initiated World War II?
It is POV to say Hitler initiated World War II. It became a world war when the British and French empires declared war on Germany on 3 September 1939. Realistically Stalin initiated what became a world war by agreeing on 23 August 1939 to invade Poland at the same time Hitler did. Without that secret agreement Hitler could not have invaded Poland at all in 1939, as it would have resulted in war with the Soviet Union before Germany was ready. (86.133.254.46 (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Wow, that's amazing! Poor misundertood Adolf, eh? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC) p.s. are you the ip sockpuppet of a banned user? Thanks.
 * Hitler was trying to get back German territory that was stolen in 1919. How could Britain and France object when they were occupying half the world by force in 1939? (86.133.254.46 (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Not drinking the kool-aid here. Kierzek (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Gandhi was right - Britain and France could only object to Poland being invaded if they first removed all their forces from the countries they were illegally occupying. Anyway Stalin initiated World War II on 23 August 1939 by agreeing to invade Poland in conjunction with Hitler. (86.133.254.46 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC))
 * Right. So you won't mind us requesting a CheckUser check on your IP address then? Or will you just invade Poland? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Himmler memo, etc.
Himmler issued a memo entitled "Some Thoughts on the Treatment of Alien Population in the East", calling for the expulsion of the entire Jewish population of Europe into Africa and reducing the Polish population to a "leaderless class of labourers"

Into Madagascar* to be more precise. :) thats not the same thing !

Hitler have also done many concentration camp in north africa to exterminate jewlery in Africa, and also had a project of destroy jewelry in Palestine with the collaboration of the Mufti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.190.253.53 (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Jewlery? Don't you mean Jewry? Jewlery is what Adolf wore in only his Mine Camp phase, surely 78.151.27.63 (talk) 06:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * He was never very fond of mufti either. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2016
There are some points that I need to add as i have learnt about the munish putsch in 1923 so please permit me to enter the article and edit it.

Aaliyancool (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. 🔯 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:Green;">🍸 (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

What ethnicity was Hitler
Hitler may have been a Jew, but it did not stop him from killing six million Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:837A:4C10:E052:6BDA:C451:97D0 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, Hitler was not Jewish, sorry. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  05:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

New article on "Historiography of Adolf Hitler"
I started a new article entitled Historiography of Adolf Hitler it will eventually cover the most influential scholarly studies of Hitler over the last 80 years. Any additional help would be most welcome! Rjensen (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rjensen. The new article is a great addition to Wikipedia ! Cmguy777 (talk) 17:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2016
Technically the name "Adolf" was made up by himself once he became involved in the Nazi clan .. His actual name was Gandolf.

95.44.232.30 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Well at least the I.P went through the proper channels, and completed the required paperwork. I like that. Irondome (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I suppose Hitler's dog's real name was Toto. Kierzek (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Darkie, in fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No Martin that is Hitler pictured in the early 70's heavily disguised as a Peruvian shepherd. Now see what you've done. Not only have you proved Hitloid caught the sub, but you dragged poor inoffensive Peru into it. Shame on youse. Irondome (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, that later Peruvian photo was a bit of a giveaway. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * But is the Daily Star RS? Pincrete (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

1936 Summer Olympics
I can't find the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin mentioned in the article. Hitler wanted to use the Olympics to establish German superiority. If it is not in the article I believe a sentence or two should be mentioned. It was also that last time Hitler attended a "peaceful" internationally recognized event. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Suggested proposal: During the 1936 Summer Olympics held in Berlin, Hitler promoted Germany's industrial and athletic superiority, banning Jewish athletes from the German team. For two weeks during the games, to hide Jewish persecution from the world, Hitler authorized anti-Jewish signs from businessess in Berlin to be removed. Cmguy777 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in Evans, Bullock, or Toland that supports your wording that implies that Hitler was directly responsible for these decisions. The way the thing was handled was just as likely to have been directly managed by Goebbels. I can check Kershaw on or around September 17, as someone has our copy checked out right now. The new Goebbels book by Longerich is not checked out right now; I can have a look at it on Tuesday. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Hitler was in charge of the building projects for the 1936 Summer Olympics making permanent stadiums and he personally banned Jewish athletes from the German team. I can't see anyone taking down those signs, which they were taken down, unless Hitler approved of doing so. Feel free to change the sentences. Nothing is set in stone. The 1936 Olympics should be mentioned because Hitler wanted to "show off" his Nazi Germany to the world. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The building projects were the domain of Werner March (architect) and Albert Speer. Kershaw's account doesn't indicate a major role for Hitler in the games, other than attending. Mostly he just complained that the venue wasn't grand enough. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Not much said about it in Kershaw, SBHB is correct. Only about how Hitler knew all too well it was no time to "stir up a new antisemitic campaign. Sports would be turned into a vehicle of nationalist politics and propaganda..." It goes on to state, Germany would put on its "best face", so to speak. I don't believe Hitler had a major role in it. Kierzek (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * THE NAZI OLYMPICS GAMES - BERLIN 1936 (2016) FULL DOCUMENTARY This is a good documentary on the subject mentioning Hitler promising the IOC for big monumental buildings in exchange for the Olympics. Hitler was supreme dictator of Germany then and he had complete power in 1936. He wanted German superiority and if you check the medal count Germany won the most gold, silver, and bronze. The USA was second place. Hitler kept Jewish athletes from being on Jewish teams. I am not sure how the 1936 Olympics should be ignored in the article when 5 years later the world was at war. Cmguy777 (talk) 01:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Evans 2005, page 570, says that the Nazis were not even in power yet when Germany was awarded the 1936 Olympics. The video says the same thing: The bid was awarded in 1931 or 1932. Regardless, what makes the YouTube video a reliable source for use on this wiki? Who produced it? What did they use as sources? We can't add your suggested content without a reliable source, and this YouTube video does not look like a RS to me. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * AH is properly mentioned in the 'games' article. I don't see any particular reason for mentioning the games here, except possibly the 'world attention' that the games caused. Pincrete (talk) 22:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what I found in the Goebbels book: Prior to the Winter Olympics, the Propaganda ministry ordered the media to tone down the anti-Jewish propaganda (Longerich 2014, page 311). Hitler personally saw to it that L. Riefenstahl was awarded a contract to film the Summer Games. (Longerich 2014, page 321). — Ninja Diannaa (Talk) 16:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Nazi's allowed one Jewish athlete, her father was Jewish, Helene Mayer who competed in fencing. She won the silver medal. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a book source: The Nazi Olympics: Sport, Politics, and Appeasement in the 1930s (2003) edited by Anrd Krüger, William Murray According to this source on page 1 Hitler used the 1936 Olympic Games to establish his Nazi regime to the world. Hitler wanted only Aryans to compete in the Olympics afterwards. Cmguy777 (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * There is even a book titled Hitler's Olympics by Christopher Hilton (2011) Cmguy777 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Modified proposal 1: "During the 1936 Sum;mer Olympics held in Berlin, Hitler attempted to establish his Nazi regime as a legitimate world power promoting advanced technology sports complexes and Aryan athletic superority." Cmguy777 (talk) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not changed my opinion, as stated above, as to inclusion. With that said, I await the input of other regular editors herein for a consensus. Kierzek (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Modified proposal 2:"During the 1936 Summer Olympics held in Berlin, Hitler attempted to establish his Nazi regime as a legitimate world power." This to me sums up Hitler's goal for the 1936 Olympics. It really was his Olympics because by 1936 he was in complete control of Nazi Germany. Cmguy777 (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I haven't yet stated an opinion, so I will do so now: I don't think we should include this. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this a denial that the 1936 Olympics were the Nazi Olympics ? Cmguy777 (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No, not at all. Kierzek (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to a brief mention, since this is a very well known event (partly because of Riefenstal, because of Owens and because of some of the colour and religious issues), however the suggested text doesn't work IMO. Like all 'host nations', Germany would have wanted good PR for both domestic and foreign consumption, but is their any reason to think AH sought to 'establish his Nazi regime as a legitimate world power'? I'm not even sure what it means, it suggests courting respectability and in what sense anyway was Germany not already a 'legitimate world power', albeit a troubled one post-1920s and a controversial one post-AH coming to power? Pincrete (talk) 23:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler used the 1936 Olympics to build modern athletic complexes, he allowed non Aryan people to compete from other nations, and he wanted to demonstrate that the Aryan race was superior to other other races athletically. The world knew Hitler was persecuting Jewish people in Germany. The Olympics was to be used as propaganda that Hitler was on the same par as democratic republican powers. The Olympics were not boycotted in America although there was a Jewish movement to do so. America and the world tolerated the Nazi regime under Hitler. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Your WP:POV is showing badly. Irondome (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going by the research: the video and two books. A whole book has been written on Hitler's Olympics. But there is too much resistance on this talk page. This was a world wide event that took place in Nazi Germany. Apparently the 1936 Olympics is too controversial. Cmguy777 (talk) 05:17, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The subject is not 'too controversial', it's relatively peripheral compared to being responsible for the most destructive war the world has known and the attempted destruction of whole peoples. I'm not opposed to a brief mention, but detail belongs on the '1936 Olympics' article. Pincrete (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be in the article since Hitler and Nazi Germany hosted the event. Neither the U.S. nor Great Britain boycotted the Nazi Olympics. Germany won most of the metals in Gold, Silver, and Bronze. I am only for a brief mention of this in the article. Hitler was a dictator but he also was a Nazi propogandist. Here is a brief mention version : "Hitler and Nazi Germany hosted the 1936 Summer Olympics held in Berlin." Cmguy777 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Source: The Nazi Olympics Berlin 1936 Key Facts Cmguy777 (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article already has the sentence "In 1936, Hitler opened the summer Olympic games in Berlin"? I agree that the games could be seen as significant since the international boycott movement only narrowly failed (as the source stresses). What might have ensued if that boycott had succeeded? But, as has been suggested previously, Hitler himself did not seem to have had much involvement in the detailed organising. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Modified proposal: "In 1936, Hitler opened the summer Olympic games held in Berlin under Nazi Germany." If you watch the videos Nazi flags are seemingly everywhere. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But as this source opens: "Adolf Hitler, who was not a sports fan, had been lukewarm toward the whole idea of hosting the 1936 Olympics. It had taken some effort by Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels to convince him that the Olympic festivities could be exploited to advance the Nazi cause both inside and outside of Germany." That seems quite a fair appraisal. Hitler had to open it, obviously, but his participation didn't really amount to much more than that? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That website says "The Nazi administration spent 42 million Reichmarks building an impressive 325-acre Olympics sports complex located about five miles west of Berlin." Hitler was in full power in 1936 and he did not have to do anything he did not want to. It was all staged. A little girl gives Hitler flowers and the crowd cheers. It was all a ruse to cover up the persecution of Jewish people in Germany. The article is not saying Hitler was a sports fan, although that is subjective. If you watch the videos Hitler seems to be enjoying himself at the Olympics like a sports fan. He obviously desired that Aryan athletes win the most medals. Hitler was against Jewish Germans from participating, although he allowed a half-Jewish woman to compete in fencing for the German team. The sporting complex was state of the art and considered the first modern Olympics. Countries emulated the 1936 Nazi Olympics trying to out do other countries in future Olympics. The Olympics is very political. My above sentence includes that these are Olympics under Nazi Germany.  Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * All valid detail for the Olympics article. I have no terribly strong view, but I just don't see that this was so significant to Hitler the individual. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * History Place website is not RS. Kierzek (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the proposed sentence has a redundancy. Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. Saying that Hitler opened the Olympics under Nazi Germany is redundant. Dr.   K.  20:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, perhaps it's time to drop this. You've been lobbying for this addition for nearly two weeks and have not swayed anyone's opinion. Consensus appears to be against the addition at this time. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Diannaa. I have not been lobbying anything nor swaying anyone. I gave sources. There have been two books written on the 1936 Olympics. Martinevans123 said the 1936 Olympics could be "signifigant" because the international boycott was defeated. I agree there is no editor concensus. I don't have a problem dropping the subject. I appreciate all who participated in the discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Cmguy777. Perhaps "lobbying" was a poor choice of word. I did not mean to imply you were doing anything untoward. Sorry, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:13, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, I don't think anyone intended to be discouraging, but I hope you understand that the scale of AH's activity and notoriety, and the phenomenal number of books and documentaries about him, all mean that we have to be very concise on this article, and hope that linked articles expand each of the subject areas. Pincrete (talk) 18:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Since my name was invoked I will respond. I thought this discussion was at rest. I accept your apology Dianna. I had given a two books on the 1936 Olympics a well researched topic of discussion. No fringe theory is being proposed. To say Hitler had little to do with his Olympics is somewhat exagerated in my opinion. At core it was a "normal" Olympics, but Hitler turned it into a Nazi propoganda scheme on a world wide scale. There was an international effort to boycott the Olympics but this failed. It showed that the world had not yet viewed Hitler as an enemy. I would add to conciseness: clarification and context. There appears to be no concensus on the expansion of the 1936 Olympics in the article. We can just leave it lie for now. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:34, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Cmguy777, thanks for being so reasonable. Just as a p.s. - maybe it would be better to try and expand the single mention of the 1936 Olympics at the Joseph Goebbels article? There may be less resistance over there? But this is just a guess, as I am not familiar with the history of that article. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Cmguy777 about the importance of the topic. A solution is to include it under Nazi Germany. which now has tangential references to the Olympics and could use more serious coverage. The topic is about a revealing and important Nazi project more than Hitler's small role. Rjensen (talk) 19:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That also sounds very reasonable. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay with me as long as it is not lengthy and is RS cited. Kierzek (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with RJensen about this being mentioned in Nazi Germany article. But I also believe Hitler's role in the Olympics needs to be mentioned in this article since Hitler was the head of Nazi Germany, he opened the Olympics, he allowed other races to compete in the Olympics, he built the modern infrastructure for the Olympics, he attended the Olympics. The Olympics was to make Hitler look on par with other countries like the U.S.A. and England. It was designed to show Germany was the "master" nation. It was also a cover for the persecution of the Jewish people then taking place, a persecution that the U.S.A. and the international community knew was taking place and did not boycot. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It is already said in the article that he opened the Games, I'm not sure what you mean by 'modern infrastructure' of the games, and whether that is attributed to him personally. He would have found it impossible to stop 'other races' (from outside Germany) from competing (although I believe he tried in respect of Jewish competitors).
 * I still believe these games (and his role in them) are better explored in other articles, which have the space to go into details.
 * Yes, by 1936, other countries, inc UK and US, were increasingly aware of the nature of his regime, some people were appalled by the regime, some quietly approved and many did their best to ignore the problem, hoping they would not ever have to do anything about it. In the UK, that period's policy is referred to as appeasement, while in the US, the prevailing mood was called 'isolationism', both proved ill-advised, and possibly shameful. Pincrete (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If Hitler's Olympics is good for other articles, then it is good for this article too, in my opinion. It is obvious Hitler used the Olympics to promote himself to Germans but also to the world, and to cover his persecution of the Jewish people. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I think your logic is flawed. We can't include everything that Hitler was involved with in this one article. There's no denying he was involved in the Olympics, but the article has to focus on major topics? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that the 1936 Summer Olympics was a major topic. This was a world event taking place in Nazi Germany. It was controversial because the International community participated in this Olympics knowing that Hitler was persecuting Jewish people. Cmguy777 (talk) 04:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone agrees that the 1936 Olympics are a major topic, that is why it has an article and why much of that article concerns the various controversies. The film also has an article. Where we don't agree is whether AH's role was especially significant, compared to, for example, his role in the holocaust, his role in pursuing war with most of Europe, and ultimately, with half the world.


 * To be honest, you appear to be more interested in saying the world should have boycotted the games than in recording what did happen and how AH was involved. Even if we all agreed on that, it would not be any part of our job to say so unless the majority of sources were clear about this. Speaking personally, I can only say that among a list of things that the European powers, the US and international bodies probably SHOULD HAVE DONE in the second half of the 1930's, boycotting the games would be some way down a very long list, it would be there, but symbolic rather than significant. Pincrete (talk) 17:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The world in 1936, or the countries who participated in the Summer Olympics, accepted Hitler as he was or apparently was propogandizing himself to be. The Russians did not participate in these games. Hitler was using his Olympics to propogandize the world and the power of his Nazi regime. It was on film. Two books have been written on the subject one even titled "Hilter's Olympics" He was hiding the persecution of the Jewish people. There was no 1940 or 1944 Summer Olympic games do to WWII. The Summer Olympics resumed 12 years later in 1948. By 1936 Hitler was in complete power as the article contends and to say he had little to do with the Olympics is an exaggeration. But we are going in circles. For whatever reasons there has been resistence to adding more on the 1936 Olympics in this article. Only proposals have been made. No additions to the article. No additional proposals to the article have been made so there is no need for further discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact there is Hitler's Olympics by Anton Rippon, and Hitler's Olympics by Christopher Hilton, as well as Hitler's Olympics: The Facts by John R. Webb. All good sources for the 1936 Summer Olympics article, I would have thought. But there is no consensus to add here. If there were parts of these three books that clearly showed Hitler's close involvement in the Games, however, maybe there'd be a better case for including more. I guess someone could draft up a paragraph in their sandbox, referencing these books (and perhaps others), if need be. I think just the book titles on their own tell us little. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

nb edit conflict, though I endorse what Martinevans123 is saying
 * We all agree that the Olympics are an important subject, biographers of AH however do not attach much significance to AH's role in them, compared to other events in his history. That is what this article is essentially, a summary of the main biographical/political/military sources. Several books have been written, and many good documentaries made about the Olympics, however thousands more books have been written about other aspects of AH. The most this article can include IMO is a sentence or two whose main purpose is to point the reader towards the Olympics article. Pincrete (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe this has reached the "Flogging a dead horse" stage. If additions need be made, then they should be put into the 1936 Summer Olympics article and a mention in Nazi Germany to a lesser degree; all with RS cites. Kierzek (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a small edition to the 'Olympics' sentence. Whilst I argued along with others that the Olympics weren't a very important part of the AH saga, I thought existing text was very 'flat', with no indication of why they might be significant. Feel free to revert or amend if necessary. Pincrete (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Amphetamine and methamphetamine
They aren't the same. Hitler used amphet not methamphet. Meth is just recreational. Hitler wouldn't do that; the drugs he used were to enhance his work and performance. See this http://amphetamines.com/amphetamines-vs-methamphetamines/ Wythy (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources I was able to check were this one, and this one and both say amphetamine, not methamphetamine. Amphetamine is mentioned elsewhere in the article (in the paragraph directly above). I think we need to go with amphetamine. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This source says methamphetamines and the methamphetamine article says that 'meth' as 'pervitin' was widely available and used by all German 'fighting troops'. I don't claim to understand the difference, nor know which is correct, but think that someone should check the sources used, (here and on the 'health' article). Pincrete (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not at home to check my RS books, but looking at the Hitler's "Health" article, it needs ce work and RS citing. Kierzek (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The Theodor Morell article also refers to 'meth' and specifically pervitin, as I say, I've no idea which is correct, numerous online sources refer to each, often citing the same source, though some specifically refer to 'pervitin', which is 'meth' I believe. My concern was that we should align with source and use the most RS. Pincrete (talk) 14:27, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This may be of help. An excellent paper by D.Doyle of the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh, published 2005. Note especially appendix 2, which is a list of medications known to have been used by Hitler, via Morell's drug regime. Pervitin is explicitly mentioned. It is also discussed in the body of the main text. I have had this in my PDF library for some time. I hope it can be used, as it discusses various aspects of Hitler's illnesses and recorded treatments. I note it is in the Adolf Hitler Health further reading section, but it has not been used as a source. Odd, as it is a R/S medical paper which I think should be used as citation material on several articles. At present it is not. Irondome (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the pointer. The paper is very interesting but contains a number of factual errors that are jarring to anyone with a casual knowledge of Hitler's biographical details. Eva Braun was not 17 in 1936; Hitler was not "in his early forties" during 1940-45; etc. It may be slightly unfair, but when I see basic errors like this it makes me wonder what else the author might have gotten wrong. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what happens when you give a medical Doctor a history bio ;) I would expect the drug and diagnostic material to be worth considering though SBHB. Irondome (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. I just noticed the Acknowledgments: "The author acknowledges with gratitude the assistance of David  Irving..." Surely not that David Irving? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup to all the above. I think Hitler was probably given both meth and amphet. Not necessarily at the same time. The use of either would explain his bad decisions. For instance declaring war on the USA; if he had not done this, there may very well have been two parallel but separate wars going on in the Atlantic and the Pacific - something Churchill dreaded. The USA and USSR would not have got together as they did do. Germany might have beaten the USSR. Speed (both types) make people feel invulnerable. Hitler did not use tactical withdrawal as he should have, particularly against the USSR. Wythy (talk) 17:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the historical errors and "assistance" of "that" David Irving, Irondome, I would vet the paper by D.Doyle carefully and cross-check it before including it in the Health article. Kierzek (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Dr.Doyle appears somewhat naive with regard to the politics of historical sources. It would have to be carefully vetted before use. I have some concerns that Doyle may have used material from Irving's Morell biography. An active collaboration with Irving would rule out it's use as far as I am concerned, to put it mildly. Irondome (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This book, apparently refers to 'meth'. Are we any closer to resolving this? Pincrete (talk) 08:20, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Are we any closer to resolving this? Pincrete (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland
Shouldn't it just be western Poland? The Germans did not invade eastern Poland until 22 June 1941. (Gfsdeal (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC))
 * No. See Invasion of Poland. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * To say Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 is misleading. He did not have full control of the country until 1941. (Gfsdeal (talk) 13:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
 * You're saying that an invasion equates to or requires "full control"? What a very odd notion that is. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * ditto Martinevans' comment. By this logic Hitler never invaded Russia (nor France?), since he did not succeed in gaining total control. Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler only invaded western Poland in 1939. The Soviets invaded eastern Poland. (Gfsdeal (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
 * It was one country. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It is customarily, and not incorrectly, referred to as 'the invasion of Poland', the proper place for the extent of conquest is that article. Pincrete (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hitler had total control of France. He never intended to conquer all of the Soviet Union, only the Ukraine. The introduction should say he initiated World War II by invading western Poland, or that he invaded Poland from the west in conjunction with a pre-arranged Soviet invasion from the east. (Gfsdeal (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
 * No. See Invasion of Poland. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Edit conflict Invading a country is invading a country, regardless of how much of it you conquer, or intend to hold permanently. That is the common understanding of the word, the place for details is the 'invasion' page, where they seem to be properly recorded. Pincrete (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "The German invasion began on 1 September 1939..." This is the key, the Germans invaded Poland, the country, on that date, which was the start of the Second World War in Europe. Kierzek (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Germany invaded western Poland only. It was agreed on 23 August that the Soviets would invade eastern Poland. World War II began on 3 September. (Gfsdeal (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
 * The relevant article, which has been linked to twice, says this, in its opening section:
 * "German forces invaded Poland from the north, south, and west the morning after the Gleiwitz incident."
 * If you dispute this, you need to go to that article and discuss it. Consensus seems to be against your suggested additions in this thread. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * They did not invade eastern Poland in 1939 because that was the agreed Soviet sphere of influence. (Gfsdeal (talk) 18:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC))
 * Just out of interest, why would you wish to draw this distinction? In what way do you feel it would be useful? Britmax (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Germany and the Soviet Union both invaded Poland. Hitler and Stalin could only invade the country if they had a pre-arranged agreement, otherwise they risked war with each other. (Gfsdeal (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC))

Salzburger Vorstadt 15
Perhaps the stone may stay, but not the modest guest house it commemorates. Is the story notable for this article? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I came upon this story myself a few years ago (follow links in BBC), whilst it's an interesting footnote to history, I don't think any case can be made for including it in this article. Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The photo and caption is enough. Kierzek (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Austria to Demolish House Where Adolf Hitler Was Born
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/austria-demolish-house-where-adolf-hitler-was-born-n668046 IQ125 (talk) 22:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. I wonder where it is. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2016
Adolf Hitler was frequently beaten by his father. His brother died when he was 10. His mom also Died when he was 20 years old. 198.206.25.77 (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, "hit happens", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of the Hitler's name
There is a problem concerning the pronunciation of Hitler's name as indicated in the article. An example to illustrate it can be found in the video "Adolf Hitler Rede in der Luitpoldhalle Abschlussrede" (i.e. "Adolf Hitler, Speech at the Luitpoldhall, Final speech") which you can find at YouTube. After the end of Hitler's speech and waves of "Heil!" it is Rudolf Hess who cries: "Die Partei ist Hitler! Hitler aber ist Deutschland, so wie Deutschland Hitler ist!" (i.e. "The Party is Hitler! But Hitler is Germany as Germany is Hitler!")

In the first sentence: "Die Partei ist Hitler!" you will hear the name "Hitler" with very clear "r" at the end. This is the correct pronunciation. In the second sentence, however, the last letter "r" of the name is sounding like an "u" as in "but". This is not precisely correct but is the usual case for pronouncing a word with "r" as last letter in Germany. It is the same with "er" ("he") where too the "r" is usually pronounced like "u". Examples of this kind can be found in Hitler's speech. Since he had originally come from Austria he takes a rolling "r" for an "r" at the beginning ("Reich") or in the middle of a word ("Partei"). An "r" at the end of a word as in "wieder" ("again"), however, is also in Hitler's pronunciation sounding like an "u".

Further examples can be found in the first part of the video "Hitlers Österreich" which is also to be found at YouTube. When Hitler at the beginning of March 1938 triumphantly enters Vienna the folks are crying: "Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler!" and they pronounce the name "Hitler" just in the way as described above. It may have been different in pathetic speech, for example in the theater or when reciting a poem. In these cases an "r" at the end of a word is usually pronounced as rolling "r". However, when listening to Hitler's famous: "Als Kanzler und Führer der deutschen Nation und des Reichs melde ich hiermit vor der Geschichte den Eintritt meiner Heimat in das Deutsche Reich!" ("As chancellor and Führer of the German nation and of the Reich I with this announce for history the entering of my fatherland into the Deutsche Reich!") it turns out that even there Hitler is pronouncing every "r" at the end of a word like an "u". So he himself will have pronounced his name that way.93.232.64.175 (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting any change to the article? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * So someone's pronunciation of a word can vary. Wouldn't have known that if you hadn't told me. Really. Britmax (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hi there, Nazi Party here, Adolf Hitlerrr speaking, how can we help you?" Martinevans123 (talk) 14:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows that he hid out in Somerset after the war, under the name of Hitl'oo'arrr. Britmax (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "great ideas", apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Video of Hitler giving a speech
I have found a video of Hitler giving a speech, on YouTube. I have studied the Holocaust but I had never seen him speak before and it's an enlightening and terrifying experience. I think maybe a link to the video should be included in the EXTERNAL LINKS section of this article. Would this be appropriate? Does anyone object? Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EV9kyocogKo

HandsomeMrToad (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't link to that, as it is a copyright film posted to YouTube without the permission of the copyright holder. Therefore it's a copyright violation. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can film footage enter the public domain by virtue of its age? If so, when does that happen? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Copyright law is pretty complex. Please refer to the Commons:Hirtle chart for more information on this topic. See the section "Works Published Abroad Before 1978". Also see Non-U.S. copyrights, which states that pretty much all German wartime films are at present still under copyright. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Diannnaa. That's very useful. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That link (Non-U.S. copyrights) doesn't give the full picture though. Captured Nazi-era German photographs/films/etc held by NARA are essentially in the public domain.  See, for instance, the Hoffmann archive, and the relevant ruling on its status:
 * 'The Attorney General, acting pursuant to the Trading with the Enemy Act, 50 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1-33, vested in himself all rights in the photographs and photographic images "to be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States." See Vesting Order 17952, 16 Fed.Reg. 6162.' [and the time to bring a suit expires two-years after seizure] vs. United States'' (69 F.3d 46)
 * It is likely that German newsreels such as Die Deutsche Wochenschau are similarly covered by this ruling, though I don't know if that has been tested. The NARA records are poorly indexed so I don't know if the particular footage under discussion is held by them.
 * Is there a copyright help-desk, where we can get official WMF positions on such complicated matters, or are we simply obliged to follow the pronouncements of passing (and consequently obliged to listen to counter-claims from ignunt hillbillies)? --Hillbillyholiday talk 22:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While this book incorrectly shows that all 1.5 million Heinrich Hoffmann images were placed in the public domain as seized Nazi property, the actual court document shows that the documents seized were several hundred thousand, not the entire collection. Therefore the vast majority of the works by Hoffmann and his studio are subject to the usual rules of copyright protection. We don't know who created this newsreel or in what year and whether or not it was copyrighted in its source country or in the United States and whether or not that copyright was ever renewed. These factors make it impossible to determine the copyright status, but the links I already provided make me think that it probably is still under copyright. Therefore I think we should not link to it. There's no copyright help desk; you might try asking user:Moonriddengirl. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply Diannaa. I agree that with no real information we can't link to this clip, but without some official avenue for copyright disputes, don't you think such pronouncements could be seen as legal threats? --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) So, when you say "impossible to determine the copyright status" you mean "impossible for us to determine the copyright status", otherwise there'd be no copyright to worry about? Do you foresee an actual claim for damages because of copyright here, or are you just defending the general principle as it's understood at Wikipedia? And lastly, although that video has been up at YT for 4 years and watched 4 milion times, YT doesn't seem to care about any copyright infringement, or just hasn't been challenged by the copyright owner yet? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to assume some of these questions are rhetorical, as I have no information on the inner workings of YouTube. To make a long story short, we don't make our copyright decisions based on whether or not we think we are going to get caught, we don't wait and take down copyright violations only when a complaint is received, and we don't base our copyright decisions on what other websites choose to do or not do. Hillbillyholiday, none of my statements were intended as legal threats or legal advice, but only tried to answer the copyright questions to the best of my ability. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The first one wasn't rhetorical. But I understand that you can only answer on the evidence you have to hand which, as far as that YT video posting is concerned, is very little. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not accusing you of making legal threats, Diannaa, it's just that in complex situations, given an editor runs the risk of being blocked and/or sued for supposed copyvio, it would sure be helpful to have a dedicated WMF legal eagle on hand. --Hillbillyholiday talk 23:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Diannaa, if not exactly a copyright 'legal eagle', is as close as we are going to get round here, since she is sometimes responsible for enforcing copyright rules on WP, our local (unpaid) copyright cop. Editors don't get blocked for minor violations, only if they repeatedly show they don't care about trying to stay inside the rules. Pincrete (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Diannaa's work is commendable. But where do we go for official clarification on tricky copyright situations? I think erring on the side of caution is a good idea, I'm sure Mr Slater agrees. --Hillbillyholiday talk 00:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I've found that the clip HandsomeMrToad asked about is from the end of Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, which was indeed captured after the war and held by NARA (see: here), and is thus in the public domain.
 * Whether we should link to, or even embed it, is another matter. --Hillbillyholiday talk 01:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


 * SUPPORT LINKING It's terrifying, and enlightening.  Until I saw it I had no real idea what he was like in person.  My clearest impression came from Charlie Chaplin's mimicry in The Great Dictator.  I'd be interested to see the argument AGAINST linking to it, though.  HandsomeMrToad (talk) 02:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well one argument for not linking to it (not necessarily my opinion), is that this particular film is still banned from being shown in Germany, except in certain circumstances. There may be similar laws elsewhere. --Hillbillyholiday talk 02:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Include details on "mistaken" World War I enlistment?
As reads: At the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was living in Munich and as an Austrian citizen volunteered to serve in the Bavarian Army. According to a subsequent report by the Bavarian authorities in 1924, Hitler almost certainly served in the Bavarian Army by error.

Proposed change: At the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was living in Munich and volunteered to serve in the Bavarian Army. According to a 1924 report by the Bavarian authorities, Hitler almost certainly enlisted by error, mistakenly allowed to join with the enthusiastic crowds of young men who volunteered at the start of the war, rather than being returned to Austria, which was legally required because of his Austrian citizenship.

Arguments: I suggested the proposed change, arguing that it provides context for the sentence about being allowed to enlist by mistake. is of the view that the additional details aren't needed in an article that may already be overly long. Anyone else have any thoughts on the matter?

Thanks,

Billmckern (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: ''In 1914, at the outbreak of World War I, Hitler was living in Munich and voluntarily enlisted in the Bavarian Army. A 1924 report by the Bavarian authorities concluded that Hitler had, almost certainly, been mistakenly allowed to enlist, since, as an Austrian citizen, he should have been returned to Austria.'' … … My suggestion is based on the notion that it helps to identify what the 'error' was, but we can't really afford the space for 'enthusiastic crowds' etc., who are background to AH's joining.Pincrete (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * -- Thanks for the suggestion. I like it.  Let's see if anyone else weighs in.


 * Thanks again,


 * Billmckern (talk) 00:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * How about: According to a subsequent report by the Bavarian authorities in 1924, Hitler almost certainly served in the Bavarian Army by error, since as an Austrian citizen, he should have been returned to Austria. A few less words. As Kershaw states that the Bavarian authorities "were unable to clarify precisely how..." it happened. Page 53 in my edition. Kierzek (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * - I like that suggestion too. Thanks.  I'll keep watching to see if anyone else has a suggestion or a comment.


 * Billmckern (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * , - I went with a slightly modified version of the most recent suggestion.  See what you think of it.


 * Billmckern (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've 'tweaked' yours slightly, mainly in the preceding sentence.Pincrete (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Removal of remaining limits to Dictatorship
Would it not be easier to change "Removal of remaining limits" to simply "Dictatorship"?--John Bird (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the section says "Hitler took care to give his dictatorship the appearance of legality", yes, it probably would. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure I agree. 'Dictatorship' is a sliding scale, a creeping consolidation of power, the suggestion is more eye-catching, but less precise. Pincrete (talk) 18:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well yes, even it's easier, and maybe simpler, it may not be as accurate. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The prior language is better as it describes exactly what occurred and it is made clear the result. Kierzek (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2016
i need to add about a journal he had. Groikot (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC) If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 15:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not the right page to request additional user rights.

Not going for Moscow in 1941 was no mistake
A very strong case on how the Germans "could have won" is made by Russell H. S. Stolfi in "Hitler's Panzers East: World War II Reinterpreted" (1992). Nonetheless, I read plenty of earlier studies which were likely tainted by the German general's view (Liddel-Hart comes to mind) of the situation, pro-German authors writing about their own countrymen in the sixties and seventies, and of course, the whole era of the invincible Wehrmacht which tainted what would have been otherwise objective studies. More and more modern scholars are shedding doubt on the soundness and feasibility of an attack on Moscow. Robert Citino makes a great case that the efforts around Kiev were remarkable and a stunning success, which in his opinion validated the approach Hitler took. Still - I am not entirely sold that they could not have captured Moscow - the question for me is "at what cost and to what end?" given their supply and weather problems. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:44C9:ECAB:50DB:A9F1 (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC))


 * And why would capturing Moscow have meant victory over the Soviet Union, anyway ? There were still thousands of miles of the SU left for them to retreat into, to continue the fight, while the Nazis stretched their supply lines out farther and farther, making moving troops, equipment, and supplies between the Eastern and Western fronts even more problematic, time consuming, expensive in terms of fuel, and subject to attack.  They only way I see this strategy working is if the Eastern front was their only one.  Then they could move their entire war operation, including factories and command structure, near the front to alleviate the supply line problem.  StuRat (talk) 17:49, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Mercatante argued the correct course of action would have been to focus on Leningrad, Ukraine and the Caucasus - just as Hitler had wanted from the very beginning. The "Path to defeat" section needs to be reworded to show that not all historians agree temporarily halting the advance on Moscow was a mistake. (2A00:23C4:6388:7300:44C9:ECAB:50DB:A9F1 (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC))

"And why would capturing Moscow have meant victory over the Soviet Union, anyway?"

And there is a precedent here. On September 14, 1812, a French army entered Moscow and took over the Moscow Kremlin. Most of the Imperial Russian Army had already retreated. The French forces were soon stuck in the ruins of a burning Moscow, facing supply problems and problems and "with no foreseeable prospect of Russian capitulation". They had to abandon Moscow and retreat themselves.

Capturing the capital did not cripple the Russian Empire. Why would it cripple the Soviet Union? Dimadick (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hitler didn't commit suicide
There is extremely convincing evidence that Hitler escaped Berlin via tunnels to a plane which brought him to Spain and Uboats brought him to Argentina. While there is not 100% factual proof of this I think it would be unnuetral to NOT include information about the theory, mainly because the article only supports the old theory. Something along the lines of although he was reported to have committed suicide, recent evidence may suggest he may have been transported to Argentina...

I'm sure some of you know about this, I mean, the FBI released documents saying he continued living in Argentina, there is a TV show dedicated to proving he continued living after ww2.

2601:844:4002:B4FF:D491:7133:36AA:4F95 (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It would be ridiculous to think of this as anything like a "UFO conspiracy" would be ridiculous given recent evidence. Please read into it it's much more than an FBI document there was literally a manhunt for him in every intelligence agency. 50.142.9.61 (talk) 04:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This 'theory' is mentioned at Conspiracy_theories_about_Adolf_Hitler's_death. Given that no serious historians give any credence to it, adding it here would be undue unless you have evidence that there was "literally a manhunt for him in every intelligence agency." Besides, it's common knowledge that Hitler actually ended up somewhere else. --Hillbillyholiday talk 04:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * watch the tv show genius... whether or not you deem that "reliable" enough for wikipedia's overly-strict MOS, what I'm getting at, buddy, is this: watch the show (yes sometimes tv shows can document historical findings), observe the obvious evidence, then ask yourself if this article is complete. I'm sure you won't actually do that so here's my congratulations in advance for being ignorant.2601:844:4002:B4FF:D491:7133:36AA:4F95 (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not your buddy, guy. --Hillbillyholiday talk 05:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * anyways as I was saying, it is a major disappointment that this article does not address the fact that there is controversy surrounding his death. A whole damn TV show is dedicated to it. Yet you feel it is not worthy. Yes people will know everything noteworthy about hitler after reading this except the fact that his death date is still debated to this day and more so by the day. Great argument Wikipedia, people shouldnt know there is contreversy backed with some strong evidence. And I'd appreciate it if someone other than Hillbilly could take the time to reply. Instead of one user reading my comment then dismissng it so quickly. Would like different views on this please, not just yours. Simply doing this for the knowledge of the people... The readers of Wikipedia...

2601:844:4002:B4FF:D491:7133:36AA:4F95 (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Some TV show I saw but can't name" is not listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources. We generally stick to peer-reviewed and fact-checked works by professional academics instead of sensationalist TV shows that care more about ratings than accuracy.  Ian.thomson (talk) 05:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Fake news cant earn advertising $$ says Facebook (as of today) but they still post it. We don't post it. If a tv show convinces some people of hoaxes then Wikipedia is not for them.  When wiki calls XYZ controversial then many people will suppose it's perhaps true ...and over time I think most will lose track of that "perhaps" qualifier.  Rjensen (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hang on... didn’t Hitler’s dog make it over to Argentina hidden in a mini dog U-boat?? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * And all this time I thought Hitler was living incognito with Elvis and Jim Morrison in Area 51. Kierzek (talk) 13:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * you guys swear you're hilarious. The tv show is "Hunting Hitler" no one asked me to name it, so I did not. None of you present a valid argument to my proposed addition to this article. This is a page about hitler. Tell me how the hell this page can accurately give a representation of who hitler was if it does not even address the fact that the only television show dedicated to him that is currently on-air is based on finding bullet proof evidence of his escape to Argentina. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that might just be significant. You guys have yet to address that. I'm not saying to use the TV show to prove he was in Argentina, but rather as additional proof that there is a huge controversy surrounding his death. Whatever, this is the kind of reason I quit Wikipedia a long time ago... headstrong users. Anyone who reads this page will just assume it's a fact he died right at the end of World War 2, when it is not. That, Wikipedia users, is a fact. Hitlers death date is not agreed upon by many historians, just look it up! Don't make the readers of wiki learn this on the streets! But Wikipedia can't mention that because why? Because we want people to only believe that side of history and that it was never  questioned? This article will never fully describe Hitler until it addresses the fact that there is skepticism about his death, and that there are projects going on today which investigate this. The article will not be complete without this, it is a fact that his death date is questioned. Please do not respond to this with jokes about conspiracy theories, it's not making any argument whatsoever and is purely a waste of your time.

2601:844:4002:B4FF:D491:7133:36AA:4F95 (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the Arbitration Committee has ruled in the past, fringe theories not backed up by a mainstream viewpoint should be treated as such. A single TV show is not a mainstream source. If you could find more reliable sources to back up your view, then the Argentina theory can be added. Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hilarious or not, I'd certainly never swear, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * To be precise, the statement "Hitlers death date is not agreed upon by many historians, just look it up!" Is totally false. I've read a lot of on The topic of never seen a single serious historian anywhere in the world who thinks he escaped Berlin. The standard book for 70 years has been Hugh Trevor-Roper, The last days of Hitler (1947). You can read a long at Amazon, or buy your own copy for four dollars, postage included. Why don't you read that and then come back here and tell us how Trevor Roper got it all wrong. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * nodody thought to mention to me that Conspiracy theories about Adolf Hitler's death is an article, that's all you had to say. And i don't care about that book, it's old news. The tv series is finding new evidence day after day and they WILL prove this. And when that day comes imma hunt each of you down and remind you that it wasn't significant enough to put something about his death's controversy in the article, since there is even a freakin tv show dedicated to it. Have fun putting too much time and effort into articles that most people dismiss as extremely unreliable, while not getting paid to do it 😂 50.142.9.61 (talk) 14:41, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if the day does come that a reliable source says that Hitler didn't kill himself, we will then proceed to add that information to the article. However, a unnamed fringe TV show is not considered reliable. Joshualouie711 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The Conspiracy theory article was mentioned above by editor Hillbillyholiday, already. And if you ever do want to read a detailed book on the subject I would suggest: Joachimsthaler, Anton (1999) [1995]. The Last Days of Hitler: The Legends, The Evidence, The Truth, ISBN:1-86019-902-X. And there is a paper back edition, if you wish to save money. Enough said. Kierzek (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "... hunt each of us down"? Mein Gott, right, I'm off to Rio. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hunt each of us down???--I'm not too worried: he's been unable to hunt down a book that is on the shelves of his local public library. Rjensen (talk) 15:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Observation: the anonymous refers to a television series called Hunting Hitler, which does not have a Wikipedia article at this point. According to the IMDb, it is a 2015 documentary series from History, an American television channel known for its pseudohistorical shows. Provided that sources can be found, it might be worth mentioning the series in the channel's article. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the article currently says "During the 1990s, History was jokingly referred to as "The Hitler Channel" [Ref: Schone, Mark. "All Hitler, All the Time", Salon.com, May 8, 1997]. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "The tv series is finding new evidence day after day and they WILL prove this." Great. Let us know when they do. Britmax (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't hold your breath. Who knows, maybe they "WILL" find Jimmy Hoffa's body, while they're at it. Kierzek (talk) 17:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * This is simply ridiculous. Even for a talk page, imagine to make the smallest reference to it in the article. And however I strongly oppose the use of on-line medias as a source. Silvio1973 (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I am still waiting for them to discover The Treasure of Oak Island. And Geraldo Rivera's Al Capone's vault led nowhere.  As they said on the X files, 'the truth is out there.'  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 19:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 7&6=thirteen -- I can tell you how the next episode of The Curse of Oak Island ends; the Lagina brothers don't find any treasure, but they find just enough clues and information that they decide to keep going.


 * I can tell you how the next episode of Finding Bigfoot ends, too; the searchers don't find Bigfoot, but they find just enough clues and information that they decide to keep going.


 * I'm pretty sure that the next episode of Hunting Hitler also ends with the searchers not finding Hitler, but finding just enough clues and information that they decide to keep going.


 * Wait -- I'm starting to sense a pattern.


 * 20:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Billmckern (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Thankfully we've been informed that this WILL be proven. So I'm sure we are more than happy to wait patiently for that day to arrive and then adjust the article eccordingly. Unless, of course, you already know what happens in the very last episode of Wikipedia, the search for truth?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The genocide was ordered by Hitler?
While looking through the article regarding the a/the central figure discussion above, I came upon this:

''The genocide was ordered by Hitler and organised and executed by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. … … … Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced,[319] his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry.''

There is an (apparent) contradiction here. I can work out what is possibly meant, but the net effect seems a contradiction and 'conceived and authorised' is not exactly 'ordered'. Is there a clearer way to phrase this? Pincrete (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The prior paragraph's last sentence says "By January 1942, he had decided that the Jews, Slavs, and other deportees considered undesirable should be killed." With that in mind, would it make sense to delete the sentence you refer to ("The genocide was ordered by Hitler....") and have the next paragraph read as follows:

''Although no direct order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced, his public speeches, orders to his generals, and the diaries of Nazi officials demonstrate that he conceived and authorised the extermination of European Jewry. He approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union—and was well informed about their activities. On 22 February, Hitler was recorded saying, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews".'' Since this section focuses on Hitler's role in the Holocaust and not the operational details (which is where Himmler and Heydrich assume the main roles), I'm wondering if the information on Himmler, Heydrich and Wannsee might make more sense in a different paragraph. Just a thought. Scaleshombre (talk) 01:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That was the kind of resolution I was thinking of, but I know that others here know the sources better than me. Personally I would simply remove the phrase "ordered by Hitler and", but retain "organised and executed by Himmler and Heydrich" and the stuff about Wannsee. This places the 'factual' elements before any characterisation/summary of AH's role. Possibly, if supported, 'conceived and authorised' could be firmed up a bit. Pincrete (talk) 12:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

German citizen
Robert Payne writes in his book The Life and Death of Adolf Hitler "there is some doubt whether Hitler ever became, in proper legal form, a German citizen."

Why is this so?

How come it's not mentioned in any of the more major biographies of Hitler (Bullock, Kershaw, Toland, etc)?--92.18.67.210 (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany by William L. Shirer and Ron Rosenbaum. According to Shirer and Rosenbaum, Hitler renounced his Austrian citizenship in 1925, shortly after he was released from prison, so that he wouldn't be deported -- the Austrian government accepted, because they didn't want him back in their country.  The Story Behind the Holocaust: Forgive and Forget? by Natalie Silverman.  According to Silverman, when Hitler wanted to run for president in 1932, he needed to be a German citizen.  The government of the state of Brunswick was under the control of the Nazis -- the Interior Minister obliged by appointing Hitler as attaché of the Brunswick liaison office in Berlin.  This appointment conferred automatic Brunswick citizenship.  Under German law at the time, being a citizen of a German state like Brunswick automatically made the holder a German citizen.


 * Billmckern (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That's how I understood Hitler became a German citizen. So where does the doubt come from that it's possible he never became technically a legal German citizen?

The German Wikipedia page Einbürgerung Adolf Hitlers (Adolf Hitler's naturalization) also says:

"Die Vorgehensweise in Hildburghausen wirft bis heute mehrere ungeklärte Rechtsfragen auf: So z. B., ob es sich dabei um eine Art „Scheingeschäft“ handelte und, sofern dies der Fall war, welche Konsequenzen dies für die Beteiligten hat. Damit in Verbindung steht, ob Hitler tatsächlich rechtskräftig Deutscher geworden ist und ob er sich mit dem Zerreißen der Ernennungsurkunde einer Urkundenunterschlagung strafbar gemacht hat. Ebenfalls ungeklärt bleibt, ob die beiderseitige Zerstörung aller Dokumente aufhebende Wirkung auf die Rechtswirksamkeit der Ernennung hatte.[29] Noch zur Weimarer Zeit erörterte Walter Jellinek das Problem der „Scheinernennung“ im Preußischen Verwaltungsblatt."

English translation:

"The procedure in Hildburghausen throws until today several unresolved legal issues. Thus, for example, whether it is a kind of " sham transaction " acted and, where this was the case, what consequences this has for those involved. This communicates whether Hitler actually legally became German and whether it joins with the tearing of the letter of appointment of a certificate embezzlement has committed an offense. It is also unclear whether the destruction of all documents on both sides had a detrimental effect on the legal effectiveness of the appointment. Yet the Weimar period discussed Walter Jellinek the problem of "bill appointment" in the Prussian administration Journal ."--92.29.152.42 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The German citizenship law of the Wiemar Republic stated "Jeder Angehörige eines Landes ist zugleich Reichsangehöriger" ("Any national of a country is also a member of the Reich") so since Hitler became a citizen of Brunswick he became a citizen of Germany.

https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Verfassung_des_Deutschen_Reichs_(1919), Article 110.--92.29.152.42 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Stoppen Sie die Pressen
“Adolf Hitler Was a Woman”, Claims New Harvard Study


 * "Professor of Forensic anthropology", Hans Verner: “How is this possible? How could Hitler have hided this aspect of his life from historians for so long?” he admits, visibly puzzled by the results.
 * "Hitler's personal physician", Helmut Lang: noted a number of physiological anomalies that led him to believe that Hitler was in fact a woman
 * "Celebrated historian", Abraham Zerlig: described these anomalies in detail in his 1976 best-selling book Die Frau hinter Hitler (The woman behind Hitler)

Come on, wiki, there's no evading the truth this time. Harvard, historians, physicians, DNA, even the History Channel, what more do you want? I demand that this is included in the article. --Hinterwäldlerurlaub (talk) 17:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Surely, Tits on Hitler would have been a real givaway? No one told Eva. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Martinevans123, they should have just gone with the dropping boxes of poisonous snakes on Hitler and his staff; faster. Kierzek (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The existence of the sex-hormone plan proves it. The Brits obviously went through with it, one can only speculate as to why they didn't want it known. Perhaps it got out of hand and there were other "experiments"? I know the Queen Mum enjoyed prancing round parties dressed as Stalin and when one closely examines a photograph of her, it suddenly becomes all too plausible. --Hinterwäldlerurlaub (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The article quoted appears on the site worldnewsdailyreport.com and other similar sites (as in fringe media) "World News Daily Report is an American Jewish Zionist newspaper based in Tel Aviv and dedicated on covering biblical archeology news and other mysteries around the Globe. Our News Team is composed of award winning Christian, Muslim and Jewish journalists, retired Mossad agents and veterans of the Israeli Armed Forces. We are based in Tel Aviv since 1988 where are published more then 200,000 copies of our Daily Report paper edition everyday."

this ought to demonstrate the quality of its reporting: Recent Posts japan-whaling-boat Japanese Whaling Crew Eaten Alive By Killer Whales, 16 dead doctor German Scientists Prove There is Life After Death yoko-ono Yoko Ono: “I Had an Affair with Hillary Clinton in the ’70s” drakkar USA: Viking Ship Discovered Near Mississippi River

I suggest that anyone finding so obviously manufactured an article check 1 - the reliability of the site on which you found it and 2 - verify that it is not a hoax on snopes.com. And for you people who consider yourselves not to be "elitist": when results of a study are released you should find the name, date, participants of the study, where published, and citations on academia.com or researchgate.com as well as references in the media.21:19, 12 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.109.40 (talk)