Talk:Hitler's prophecy/Archive 1

B-class review / Pre-GA review
Ping User:Buidhe Anyway, B-class easily, and I don't expect much trouble in this getting GA. I could pass it for GA myself but I don't feel competent in reviewing prose or minute MoS issues such as hyphens or such, so I'd prefer another reviewer to tackle this, but if this is backlogged or such, please don't hesitate to ping me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is a bit weird to see Hitler 2008 as a reference.
 * Page ranges should probably be removed from sources since they are inconsistently present at only few entries, and all are given in References section.
 * HDL tools shows an unnecessary second link to genocide and Berlin Sportpalast
 * the term Polish ghetto might be linked to list of ghettos in occupied Poland or such
 * Thanks for your comments! 1) Hitler 2008 is correct since Hitler is attributed as the author of the speech in the 2008. 2) I think the page numbers are helpful, if I know them, for a chapter. They aren't included when citing the entire book. 3) Removed both. 4) Linked. buidhe 03:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Excluded sources
The following sources have been excluded. Although they do discuss the prophecy in detail, I believe that they are WP:UNDUE: buidhe 13:50, 23 May 2020 (UTC) Likewise, there are many sources which mention it in passing, but without in-depth analysis I think there is little that could be extracted from that. buidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 05:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Author notable; book got mixed reviews but this one specifically criticizes his interpretation of the prophecy speech
 * Appears to be duplicative of what Jersak wrote in Germany and the Second World War, which is more authoratative
 * Got negative reviews, eg
 * Mixed to negative reviews, author is not notable and teaches at a community college
 * Author is a linguist, not a historian. The discussion is a very technical linguistic analysis and I would not be confident about understanding it correctly. Also, the author seems to be non-notable.
 * Amateur historian, arguing that the Wochenspruch of 7 September was to prepare Germans to accept marking of Jews and/or deportation of same
 * Mixed to negative reviews, author is not notable and teaches at a community college
 * Author is a linguist, not a historian. The discussion is a very technical linguistic analysis and I would not be confident about understanding it correctly. Also, the author seems to be non-notable.
 * Amateur historian, arguing that the Wochenspruch of 7 September was to prepare Germans to accept marking of Jews and/or deportation of same
 * Author is a linguist, not a historian. The discussion is a very technical linguistic analysis and I would not be confident about understanding it correctly. Also, the author seems to be non-notable.
 * Amateur historian, arguing that the Wochenspruch of 7 September was to prepare Germans to accept marking of Jews and/or deportation of same
 * Amateur historian, arguing that the Wochenspruch of 7 September was to prepare Germans to accept marking of Jews and/or deportation of same
 * Amateur historian, arguing that the Wochenspruch of 7 September was to prepare Germans to accept marking of Jews and/or deportation of same

GOCE copyedit request

 * Allusions to Hitler's prophecy by Nazi leaders and in-party propaganda were common from 30 January 1941, when Hitler mentioned it again in a speech. Original emphasis removed and own emphasis added. Boldly edited. This wasn't alluded to in propaganda outside of the party?
 * By "party propaganda" general Nazi propaganda (most of it was published by the Nazi Party) was meant. Corrected.
 * In late 1941, Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels stated that the prophecy was coming true when justifying the mass deportation of Jews from Germany. Stylistic choice: "coming true" or "fulfilled"? Both work either way but "fulfilled" is a little more formal.
 * Probably better fullfilled
 * Despite its vagueness—the prophecy does not explain how the "annihilation" will come about—it is also cited as evidence that Germans knew in general terms of the extermination of Jews while it was ongoing. Last part of the sentence is unwieldy. Proposed replacement: "...as evidence that Germans were generally aware of the extermination against Jews as it happened."
 * Reworded although not according to the suggestion
 * (a difficult technical achievement at the time) I feel like a point is trying to be made here. Why is this relevant? To imply that the Nazis' technical know-how was more sophisticated than their peers?
 * The source says "Wie sorgfältig der Diktator die Einflußnahme auf die Stimmung der Bevölkerung vorbereitete, zeigt ein weiteres höchst bemerkenswertes Detail am Rande: die Aufzeichnung von Teilen der Rede auf Eilm und Tonband. Die synchrone Aufzeichnung von Reden in Bild und Ton war nach dem damaligen Stand der Technik schwierig und daher unüblich, auch bei Reden des Führers. Den Text der Rede vom 30. Januar 1939 aber händigte Hitler seinem Propagandaminister Goebbels schon einen Tag vor dem großen Ereignis aus (was ebenfalls unüblich war), und Goebbels seinerseits erteilte darauf Fritz Hippier, dem Ghef der deutschen Wochenschau, die genaue Instruktion, aus der langen, fast zweistündigen Rede eben jene kurze Passage mit Originalton zu filmen. So kam es, daß die Deutschen wenig später in allen Kinos des Landes diesen einen Satz aus dem Munde ihres Führers mit Augen und Ohren gleichzeitig vernehmen konnten - nachdem Hitler persönlich die Sequenz genehmigt hatte."
 * (a difficult technical achievement at the time) I feel like a point is trying to be made here. Why is this relevant? To imply that the Nazis' technical know-how was more sophisticated than their peers?
 * The source says "Wie sorgfältig der Diktator die Einflußnahme auf die Stimmung der Bevölkerung vorbereitete, zeigt ein weiteres höchst bemerkenswertes Detail am Rande: die Aufzeichnung von Teilen der Rede auf Eilm und Tonband. Die synchrone Aufzeichnung von Reden in Bild und Ton war nach dem damaligen Stand der Technik schwierig und daher unüblich, auch bei Reden des Führers. Den Text der Rede vom 30. Januar 1939 aber händigte Hitler seinem Propagandaminister Goebbels schon einen Tag vor dem großen Ereignis aus (was ebenfalls unüblich war), und Goebbels seinerseits erteilte darauf Fritz Hippier, dem Ghef der deutschen Wochenschau, die genaue Instruktion, aus der langen, fast zweistündigen Rede eben jene kurze Passage mit Originalton zu filmen. So kam es, daß die Deutschen wenig später in allen Kinos des Landes diesen einen Satz aus dem Munde ihres Führers mit Augen und Ohren gleichzeitig vernehmen konnten - nachdem Hitler persönlich die Sequenz genehmigt hatte."
 * The source says "Wie sorgfältig der Diktator die Einflußnahme auf die Stimmung der Bevölkerung vorbereitete, zeigt ein weiteres höchst bemerkenswertes Detail am Rande: die Aufzeichnung von Teilen der Rede auf Eilm und Tonband. Die synchrone Aufzeichnung von Reden in Bild und Ton war nach dem damaligen Stand der Technik schwierig und daher unüblich, auch bei Reden des Führers. Den Text der Rede vom 30. Januar 1939 aber händigte Hitler seinem Propagandaminister Goebbels schon einen Tag vor dem großen Ereignis aus (was ebenfalls unüblich war), und Goebbels seinerseits erteilte darauf Fritz Hippier, dem Ghef der deutschen Wochenschau, die genaue Instruktion, aus der langen, fast zweistündigen Rede eben jene kurze Passage mit Originalton zu filmen. So kam es, daß die Deutschen wenig später in allen Kinos des Landes diesen einen Satz aus dem Munde ihres Führers mit Augen und Ohren gleichzeitig vernehmen konnten - nachdem Hitler persönlich die Sequenz genehmigt hatte."
 * The source says "Wie sorgfältig der Diktator die Einflußnahme auf die Stimmung der Bevölkerung vorbereitete, zeigt ein weiteres höchst bemerkenswertes Detail am Rande: die Aufzeichnung von Teilen der Rede auf Eilm und Tonband. Die synchrone Aufzeichnung von Reden in Bild und Ton war nach dem damaligen Stand der Technik schwierig und daher unüblich, auch bei Reden des Führers. Den Text der Rede vom 30. Januar 1939 aber händigte Hitler seinem Propagandaminister Goebbels schon einen Tag vor dem großen Ereignis aus (was ebenfalls unüblich war), und Goebbels seinerseits erteilte darauf Fritz Hippier, dem Ghef der deutschen Wochenschau, die genaue Instruktion, aus der langen, fast zweistündigen Rede eben jene kurze Passage mit Originalton zu filmen. So kam es, daß die Deutschen wenig später in allen Kinos des Landes diesen einen Satz aus dem Munde ihres Führers mit Augen und Ohren gleichzeitig vernehmen konnten - nachdem Hitler persönlich die Sequenz genehmigt hatte."


 * Rough translation "Just how carefully the dictator managed the mood of the population is shown by another remarkable detail: the recording of parts of the speech on a film and a tape. The synchronous recording of speeches in picture and sound was difficult according to the state of the art at the time and therefore unusual, even when Hitler spoke. Hitler gave the text of the speech of January 30, 1939 to his Minister of Propaganda Goebbels a day before the big event (which was also unusual), and Goebbels, in turn, gave Fritz Hippier, the head of the German newsreel, the exact instruction from the long, almost two-hour speech to film that short passage with original sound. It so happened that a short time later the Germans could hear this one sentence from the mouth of their Fiihrer with eyes and ears in all the cinemas of the country - after Hitler had personally approved the sequence."


 * I've revised the sentence to be more clear. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * At the time, Jews and non-Jews inside and outside of Germany paid close attention to Hitler's statements because of Kristallnacht and the possibility of war. In the following days, the speech attracted significant commentary in Germany. When? The speech? Some of Hitler's other statements?
 * Presumably the prophecy but examining the speech in question in its German original version indicates that this is incorrect, so I removed it.
 * (Entire quote): Not to be forgotten [...] corruption of nations! This should be clearly attributed to Hitler.
 * On 30 January 1941, in a speech at the Sportpalast, Hitler repeated himself verbatim. Edited. What did he repeat word-for-word?
 * Italicisation of Kristallnacht: I'll leave this be, though I will point out the Kristallnacht article it points to has it italicised in the title and in all instances in the body.
 * In November 1938, the Nazi leadership organized and incited the Kristallnacht pogrom against Jews, in part to bleed off excess antisemitic sentiment from party activists which had been suppressed for diplomatic reasons during the Munich crisis. Emphasis added. What was the main goal then?
 * Well, there was the cause/pretext of the Ernst vom Rath assassination but that's not really relevant to the subject of this article. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Hitler added that the Jews were also poisoning Czechoslovakia, prompting an antisemitic diatribe from Chvalkovský. To clarify, Hitler managed to get Chvalkovský to disparage Jews?
 * It's not clear in the sources if he intended to cause Chvalkovský to disparage Jews, but that occurred as a response.
 * ✅. Left as is.
 * The speech lasted two or two and a half hours. Why is this a choice? Is it supposed to be a range?
 * One RS says two hours, the other says two and a half.
 * . Citations added to point to conflicts reports from different sources.
 * At the time, the Évian Conference had failed, [...] When was this?
 * Clarified
 * In February 1939, Himmler advanced the timing for the upcoming world war and believed that it would occur soon rather than in the next decade because of the backlash to Kristallnacht. Emphasis added. Does "soon" only cover to the end of 1939?
 * He did not explicitly state the timeframe, just "soon" or the equivalent in German.
 * ✅. Left as is.
 * In the speech, Hitler implied that his previous threats against German Jews had caused the international Jewish community to influence Western powers into appeasement of Germany, and renewed threats would induce the Jews to convince the British government to make peace. If I'm reading this correctly, Hitler is saying that by threatening the German Jews, the international Jewish community would force the West like the US to comply with Germany's demands and the UK to seek peace.
 * Yes.
 * ✅. Left as is.
 * The Nazi leadership was already planning the invasion of the Soviet Union and considering deporting Jews to the conquered territories after a victory. At what point in time?
 * Clarified
 * In the lead article on 15 October from the periodical Die Judenfrage in Politik, Recht, Kultur und Wirtschaft titled "The War Guilt of the Jews", a series of quotes from various Jews is joined together in an effort to prove that the Jews declared war against Germany; the prophecy is mentioned at the end of the article. Rearranged sentence and expanded the periodical's name. Per MoS subjects should be referred to in the present even if they are discontinued, unless they no longer meaningfully exist. Does the publication still meaningfully exist now? If it does, it gets its own paragraph.
 * The ongoing RfC on this issue seems likely to conclude that discontinued periodicals are past tense, although I can't find fault with your wording. I am not sure what "meaningfully exists" is supposed to mean, the periodical probably has extant issues somewhere but I doubt much of anyone is reading them.
 * ✅. Gave it its own paragraph; not sure what "meaningfully exists" means either in the context of the MoS.
 * On 25 October, referring to attempts to drown Jewish women in the Pripet marshes, Hitler mentioned his prophecy that the "criminal race" (supposedly responsible for German casualties in World War I and "now again hundreds of thousands") would be destroyed. Retargeted link. Is there a verb missing between "prophecy" and "that", or did Hitler just simply mention his prophecy again that refers to the Jews as the "criminal race" and as such would be destroyed?
 * The latter
 * ✅. Added an extra word.
 * On 8 November 1941, Hitler referred to the prophecy in his annual speech at the Löwenbräukeller in Munich to the Nazi old guard to commemorate the Beer Hall Putsch. He was talking to the older members of the Nazi party?
 * Not quite, see Old Guard. Linked relevant article
 * At the time, Das Reich had a circulation above one million [...] Above one million what?
 * Print circulation means the number of copies distributed. Linked.
 * Dormeier wrote that the article "made public and legitimized that the Nazi regime was in the process of murdering the Jews of Europe". Who's Dormeier?
 * Fixed
 * Goebbels, who had a doctorate from the University of Heidelberg, presented the narrative to German elites with a speech at Friedrich-Wilhelm University in Berlin on 1 December. To confirm, the entire speech was the narrative?
 * Changed to "in", I'm not sure if he addressed other topics
 * As for Hitler's reference to the Jews "not laughing any more [sic]", "[a]ny benign interpretation... strains credulity". Who said the second quote?
 * Fixed
 * When Hitler added "everywhere" to his promise to end Jewish laughter, the audience may have understood that Hitler planned to globalize the Final Solution. Who posited this? The straddles into original research territory as it reads right now.
 * Attributed to Herf.
 * 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. . .. What would the result be?
 * Expanded
 * The article cited Goebbels' repetition of Hitler's prophecy [...] Did the article cite Goebbels' repetition or use it in the article directly?
 * Herf says "cited". I could not find a copy of the article online to double check.
 * ✅. Sources uncertain.
 * Confino contends that although not even Hitler knew what he meant by "annihilation", the speech showed that Hitler and his listeners already "imagine[d] a world in which extreme violence was applied to get rid of Jews and eliminate Judaism". Boldly edited. Did the speech explicitly demonstrate that Hitler imagined the world or implied it?
 * The former, I believe. Here's the quote from Confino: "The meaning of the speech is not so much that it was a radical departure that paved the way from persecution to extermination as it was a reflection of anti-Jewish sensibility, in which Hitler is revealed not simply as a shaper of German culture but as its product as well.Second, it [the 1939 speech] is a corrective to the common understanding among laypersons and scholars that the Holocaust was unimaginable and that the total removal of the Jews had not been anticipated. Of course, Germans could not imagine in 1939 the mass shooting in just two days in September 1941 of 33,771 Jews in Babi Yar and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. But Hitler could utter his words only because he and Germans could imagine a world in which extreme violence was applied to get rid of Jews and eliminate Judaism."
 * Fixed
 * When Hitler added "everywhere" to his promise to end Jewish laughter, the audience may have understood that Hitler planned to globalize the Final Solution. Who posited this? The straddles into original research territory as it reads right now.
 * Attributed to Herf.
 * 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. . .. What would the result be?
 * Expanded
 * The article cited Goebbels' repetition of Hitler's prophecy [...] Did the article cite Goebbels' repetition or use it in the article directly?
 * Herf says "cited". I could not find a copy of the article online to double check.
 * ✅. Sources uncertain.
 * Confino contends that although not even Hitler knew what he meant by "annihilation", the speech showed that Hitler and his listeners already "imagine[d] a world in which extreme violence was applied to get rid of Jews and eliminate Judaism". Boldly edited. Did the speech explicitly demonstrate that Hitler imagined the world or implied it?
 * The former, I believe. Here's the quote from Confino: "The meaning of the speech is not so much that it was a radical departure that paved the way from persecution to extermination as it was a reflection of anti-Jewish sensibility, in which Hitler is revealed not simply as a shaper of German culture but as its product as well.Second, it [the 1939 speech] is a corrective to the common understanding among laypersons and scholars that the Holocaust was unimaginable and that the total removal of the Jews had not been anticipated. Of course, Germans could not imagine in 1939 the mass shooting in just two days in September 1941 of 33,771 Jews in Babi Yar and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. But Hitler could utter his words only because he and Germans could imagine a world in which extreme violence was applied to get rid of Jews and eliminate Judaism."
 * ✅. Sources uncertain.
 * Confino contends that although not even Hitler knew what he meant by "annihilation", the speech showed that Hitler and his listeners already "imagine[d] a world in which extreme violence was applied to get rid of Jews and eliminate Judaism". Boldly edited. Did the speech explicitly demonstrate that Hitler imagined the world or implied it?
 * The former, I believe. Here's the quote from Confino: "The meaning of the speech is not so much that it was a radical departure that paved the way from persecution to extermination as it was a reflection of anti-Jewish sensibility, in which Hitler is revealed not simply as a shaper of German culture but as its product as well.Second, it [the 1939 speech] is a corrective to the common understanding among laypersons and scholars that the Holocaust was unimaginable and that the total removal of the Jews had not been anticipated. Of course, Germans could not imagine in 1939 the mass shooting in just two days in September 1941 of 33,771 Jews in Babi Yar and the gas chambers of Auschwitz. But Hitler could utter his words only because he and Germans could imagine a world in which extreme violence was applied to get rid of Jews and eliminate Judaism."


 * ✅. Left as is.
 * Historian Shlomo Aronson described the statement as "an open threat to kill the Jews" and "an open declaration of Hitler’s basic intention to eliminate the Jews", since he was planning the war. Emphasis added. "Since" in the sense of "because" or "from the time of"?
 * Because, corrected
 * He adds that "Hitler and other Nazis were at the very least bandying about the idea of a genocidal 'final solution'". Does "bandying" mean "casually passing around" in this context?
 * Yes
 * ✅. Added a word in editorial marks for clarification.
 * Historian Christopher Browning said in an interview that during the speech [...] Which speech are we talking about?
 * The 1939 speech, clarified
 * vernichten: Is this a conjugated verb form of "vernichtung"?
 * Yes
 * ✅. No further action.
 * According to Longerich, Hitler's reference to "international Jewish financiers" envisioned a scenario in which the United States and other western powers intervened to prevent German expansionism in Europe, to which Hitler was already committed: if it came to pass, the "international Jewish financiers" would be blamed for the resulting war, and Jews remaining in Germany would be held as hostages threatened with annihilation. If emigration and Nazi foreign policy were thwarted, Hitler was "keeping all options open for further radicalizing his Jewish policy". Slightly edited, red numbers added to scenarios. Are these two scenarios alternatives to one another?
 * No, I think they're more complemetary to each other. See the full quote: "His annihilation threat was intended, first of all, to increase the pressure on German Jews to emigrate and on foreign countries to receive them. Secondly, the announcement that the Jews in the German sphere of influence in Europe would be annihilated in the event of a world war was part of a long-term strategy for assigning blame for the outbreak of an impending war. When Hitler claimed that ‘international Jewish financiers’ within and outside Europe might attempt to bring about a world war (and not simply a war), the main target audience of his prophecy was the United States. He was contemplating a scenario in which the western powers, supported by the United States, could intervene in order to prevent him from continuing his expansionist policy in Europe, to which he was totally committed. In this case, blame for the war would rest unequivocally with the enemy, who had been incited by ‘international Jewish financiers’. And, thirdly, if a war begun by Germany turned into a world war as a result of intervention by the western powers, Jews within Germany’s sphere of influence would automatically become hostages over whom would hang the threat of annihilation. Thus, if his threats had no effect, if, in other words, emigration did not make much progress, and if, in the event of a war, the western powers were not deterred from intervening, then they would be responsible for the further intensification of Jewish persecution predicted in his ‘prophecy’. Thus, Hitler was keeping all options open for further radicalizing his Jewish policy."
 * According to Longerich, Hitler's reference to "international Jewish financiers" envisioned a scenario in which the United States and other western powers intervened to prevent German expansionism in Europe, to which Hitler was already committed: if it came to pass, the "international Jewish financiers" would be blamed for the resulting war, and Jews remaining in Germany would be held as hostages threatened with annihilation. If emigration and Nazi foreign policy were thwarted, Hitler was "keeping all options open for further radicalizing his Jewish policy". Slightly edited, red numbers added to scenarios. Are these two scenarios alternatives to one another?
 * No, I think they're more complemetary to each other. See the full quote: "His annihilation threat was intended, first of all, to increase the pressure on German Jews to emigrate and on foreign countries to receive them. Secondly, the announcement that the Jews in the German sphere of influence in Europe would be annihilated in the event of a world war was part of a long-term strategy for assigning blame for the outbreak of an impending war. When Hitler claimed that ‘international Jewish financiers’ within and outside Europe might attempt to bring about a world war (and not simply a war), the main target audience of his prophecy was the United States. He was contemplating a scenario in which the western powers, supported by the United States, could intervene in order to prevent him from continuing his expansionist policy in Europe, to which he was totally committed. In this case, blame for the war would rest unequivocally with the enemy, who had been incited by ‘international Jewish financiers’. And, thirdly, if a war begun by Germany turned into a world war as a result of intervention by the western powers, Jews within Germany’s sphere of influence would automatically become hostages over whom would hang the threat of annihilation. Thus, if his threats had no effect, if, in other words, emigration did not make much progress, and if, in the event of a war, the western powers were not deterred from intervening, then they would be responsible for the further intensification of Jewish persecution predicted in his ‘prophecy’. Thus, Hitler was keeping all options open for further radicalizing his Jewish policy."

Looking forward to your responses. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  23:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC) Update: Marked some items as done by requester. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  19:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Left as is.
 * Jersak writes that this "supplied the correct logic for the perpetrators against the background of defeat in the First World War". Who's Jersak?
 * He is introduced on first mention earlier in the same section
 * As a citation? This is the first time Jersak appears in the prose.
 * No, a paragraph earlier it states: "According to German historian Tobias Jersak [de], the true meaning may not have been obvious"
 * . Relied too much on the Find feature (didn't recognise the templated insertion).
 * Thanks so much for this very detailed copyedit, it will take me some time to work through everything... <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 00:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: Marked some items as done by requester. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  17:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks a million for your work on this article and many helpful suggestions! <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 08:51, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

I made a few tweaks for my second passover, but it seems like you've addressed everything and went ahead changing all of it; I've got one question that remains unanswered but it's an easy fix; I've moved it to the bottom of the list. I will assume your request is complete then? — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 )  05:21, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Der ist Schuld am Kriege!.jpg

Statements to diplomats. 'The Holocaust: A New History' by Laurence Rees
Pirow planned to suggest resettlement of German Jews to Africa. I do not know, if he told it to Hitler. 

Rees quotes documents published in 1951 and 1953. Hitler met Hungarian minister István Csáky and Czechoslovak minister  František Chvalkovský in January 1939. He declared twice that he wants to ‘destroy’ the Jews but the context suggested expulstion. Xx236 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Title
I'm a little unconfortable with the current title of this article and thought it might be raised for discussion. The word "prophecy" is quite a strong one, and "Hitler's prophecy" appears strange in an article title. I note that the word often appears in scare quotes in this context when used in WP:RS (eg in this Kershaw paper). Would Hitler's prophecy speech not be a better, clearer and more neutral alternative here? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's true that Kershaw uses scare quotes, but other sources either don't or are inconsistent (eg, ). I think your proposed title would have to be rejected on WP:COMMONNAME grounds ("Hitler's prophecy" on Google Scholar gets 75 results while "Hitler's prophecy speech" gets 4 results). In addition, the article is not exclusively about the original speech of 30 January 1939 (which could possibly have a separate article) but rather, a particular statement made in the speech and repetitions of it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. WP:NAMINGCRITERIA still applies, and I'm not sure Hitler's prophecy meets the "Recognizability" and particularly the "Naturalness" requirements on its own. To me at least, it sounds rather odd as a title. The addition of speech would remove this, and would still allow the article to deal with both the rhetorical concept and its original expression. Perhaps others will comment on this? —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Virtually all of the sources call it "Hitler's prophecy", or some variation thereof ("Hitler's 1939 prophecy", etc.). The name would be recognizable to someone who is familiar with the literature on Hitler. For "Naturalness", we have "Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English." -> which is accurate for the current title. Note that sources do make a distinction between the speech and the prophecy:
 * "In his speech to the Reichstag on January 30, Hitler made his first unequivocal public threat to exterminate (that is, murder)—not merely to remove, deport, or defeat—“the Jewish race in Europe” in the event that “international finance Jewry inside and outside Europe” brought about a new world war. He publicly repeated the genocidal prophecy on at least six subsequent occasions between January 30, 1939, and February 24, 1943. (Herf)"


 * "The speech, though not inaugurating an extermination program which would only fully materialize over three years later, ... the Jews of Europe, Hitler referred publicly and privately to his “prophecy” of 1939 on more than a dozen occasions. (Kershaw)"


 * "There is a clear link here with Hitler's well-known prophecy in his speech to the Reichstag on 30 January 1939... (Longerich)"


 * "In a speech to the Reichstag on 30 January 1939, Hitler made his notorious prophecy that another world war would lead to the..."


 * "Hitler's “prophecy” in his Reichstag speech on 30 January 1939 is generally the fixed point for Goebbels' commentaries on the murder of the Jews in the war years."


 * The article is fundamentally not about the speech, but about a particular statement in the speech, which is called "Hitler's prophecy" by historians. "Hitler's prophecy speech" should redirect to an article about the 30 January 1939 speech, if we had a separate article (the speech dealt significantly with unrelated topics, and could merit a sepearate article). Renaming this article would cause confusion about what the subject of the article is. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:20, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I share User:Brigade Piron's doubts about recognizability, as well as some discomfort about whether it's encyclopedic to call Hitler a prophet or even a false prophet. If the article's title unambiguously referred to one or more paragraph(s) of 30 January 1939 Reichstag speech and later allusions to but not earlier formulations of Hitler's Holocaust prediction then one might expect to see interlanguage wikilinks. "Hitlers Weissagung" doesn't turn up for me on google, and "Hitlers Prophezieung" leads only to a dead link on WP:en Reich Chancellery meeting of 12 December 1941. Sparafucil (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter whether it's used on WP, what matters is use in reliable sources and we have it both for English and German version ("Hitlers Prophezieung") (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Those search results seem rather to confirm non-recognizability, turning up quotes from 1933-1943 in all sorts of contexts besides Hitler's Holocaust 'prophesy': Hitler even 'prophesizes' his own death. I can't put my hands on Goldhagen right now to look at the printed index, but how is it that an online search of "Hitler's prophesy" in Hitler's Willing Executioners gets 0 hits? Sparafucil (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd like to confirm that in my reading, I've seen "Hitler's prophecy" used to refer to this fairly consistently. In fact, Hitler in later years often referred to his "prophecy" and his status as a "prophet". There is really no other convenient name for the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:14, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know how others feel, but wouldn't object to quotation marks being added to the title. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler's prophecy vs Hitler's prophecy
Is just using Adolf Hitler's surname enough? Yes, most people do associate "Hitler" with Adolf Hitler, but that's not the point. Hitler's full name should be included, just like the other Wikipedia articles, such as Adolf Hitler's rise to power, Military career of Adolf Hitler, Adolf Hitler's wealth and income, Health of Adolf Hitler, etc.--OZZY19455 (talk) 22:09, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Those may be descriptive titles. This is not, it's what it's called in reliable sources and "Hitler's prophecy" is what it is called. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:21, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * That is indeed the case. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:35, 15 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand where OZZY is coming from but if the sources back this term, without the forename, then it's what we should use. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hanging sentence
On the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_prophecy#Kristallnacht, you can see the phrase "...Hitler's view.[22]" hanging alone by itself. It looks weird so I suggest increasing the size of the picture to get that phrase along with the rest of the paragraph @Ian_Rose — Preceding unsigned comment added by LostCitrationHunter (talk • contribs) 12:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Reason for renaming
cf. Hans Mommsen > https://www.jstor.org/stable/25681003 Mike Coppolano (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Please don't move without getting consensus using Requested move. Almost all the cited sources call this topic "Hitler's prophecy" (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Der ist Schuld am Kriege!.jpg

Another reference to the "prophecy" circa 1943
Yitzhak Arad (Yad Vashem)'s pictorial history of the Holocaust has another quotation from Hitler or possibly Himmler, about the prophecy and including words about the "bacillus in the East" being already largely "drained" as of sometime in 1943 (or late 42). I don't currently have access to the book, and plan to look it up and add to the article when I can (WP:NODEADLINE), but am mentioning this in case someone else with access to that source or the equivalent is interested in doing so. Sesquivalent (talk) 20:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * "I'll go to the supermarket" and then going to the supermarket is not prophecy. You either need to write prophecy here between quotation marks or say somewhere that this is a corruption of the meaning of prophecy: the claim that you know what will happen. 95.86.74.98 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Is "the earth" deliberately not capitalized like "the Earth"? Should that be mentioned or clarified?
The article uses the "earth" four times, and each time is uncapitalized, which in English is generally more spatially-localized to simply mean the "ground" or "soil", unlike the proper name of our entire planet, "the Earth". My limited understanding of German is that it capitalizes all nouns, so I don't know how German writers even make this distinction...and on top of that this is a verbal speech, which seems to make it hard to determine in what sense the word is being used for the English translation. But this manner of capitalization does seem important enough to bear at least a footnote, particularly considering the translation's choice of capitalization for other nouns. My sense is that Hitler here is fearmongering about the entire Earth being taken over by bolshevization, in which sense I believe that word should be capitalized and hyperlinked to the Earth. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We shuld always do what our reliable sources do, and every translation I've looked at does not capitalize "earth". This being the case, we should not capitalize "earth". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, since it's in quotes I copied all of these from the cited sources and it looks like all the translations I cited must not have capitalized it. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)