Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:47, 14 January 2006

Adolf Hitler has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

Gads, could you get rid of the bit that was added in all caps about Hitler being a good guy and trying his best to rid the world of Jews? Christ, this type of crap in here doesn't help Misplaced Pages's credibility.

SIEG HEIL!

Archives

• Adolf or Adolph
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 1
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 3
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 4
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 5
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 6
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 7
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 8
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 9
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 10
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 11
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 12
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 13

Deportation of Jews

I think I might add something about the deportation of Jews to Madagascar. A lot of German citizens and Jews themselves were believed by Hitler that the Jews were to be sent to Madagascar.

"Charismatic leadership" or "Charismatic authority"

User:64.12.116.201 is constantly changing "Under Hitler's leadership..." to "Under Hitler's charismatic leadership..." despite being reverted. This smells slightly of POV, but I also don't think "charismatic leadership" should have its own article. — JIP | Talk 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Having read charismatic authority, I retract the latter part of my comment, and stand solely by the POV comment. — JIP | Talk 12:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The article does not assert charismatic authority, which has a specialized, socio-political definition. The common dictionary definition holds for use of the term charismatic in the article. Wyss 15:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I notice that the adjective is wikified as charismatic leadership which redirs to charismatic authority. Re-reading that, I think the latter article may have some wording problems itself.

I'm neutral. AH was charismatic (he swayed the German establishment, then a nation into institutional crime and atrocity of almost perplexing scale, never mind at least two women committed suicide as a result of their relationships with him). I think some readers mistakenly interpret charismatic as a positive attribute or sympathetic commentary. AH as much as anyone suggests that charisma, like so many other human qualities, is in itself but a characteristic... what one does with one's talents is ultimately much more important. Wyss 13:18, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

After pondering this a bit I think it's helpful, historically supported and instructive to use the term charismatic in the context of that sentence. Wyss 15:45, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Totally agree. Charismatic seems appropriate here. DJ Clayworth 13:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP. I'm not sure why you keep reverting this simple edit -- it is not POV in ANY way, but the plain and glaringly obvious truth. This man used his personal magnetism and charismatic authority to lead a nation (and Europe) to its doom. Other Nazi leaders used propaganda to transform this Austrian racist in to a mythical, godlike figure -- and from personally reading dozens of personal accounts over the years, he really was by all means intensely charismatic, and this was the basis of his authority (hence the reverts to charismatic leadership). Just ask any historian, sociologist, etc. -- WWII Nazis all called Hitler "The Saviour of Germany," like some modern-day Christ figure; or watch Triumph des Willens for yourself and find out; it isn't hard to spot there...everyday people need to be made fully aware that people like this exist and can naturally use their charisma to positively or negatively manipulate and sway the masses of "sheep." And the above User:Wyss is correct; charisma isn't ALWAYS a positive character trait like you seem to think User:JIP...some who have it (Hitler) used it to exploit others, make tons of money, wield negative power, dominate/oppress, etc., while others used it for positive social change and other worthy causes (Gandhi). Go and read the base article on Charisma and then let us know what you think here. --152.163.100.5 13:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep...there's nothing POV about that pithy statement; he was a charismatic maniac! He chose to use a profound gift in a terrible, terrible way...shame on him. Berlin Stark 20:48, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

According to Alan Bullock in his biography of both Stalin and Hitler, Stalin missed the charisma of Hitler, (page 404 if I remember it well). Andries 21:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete...it is true that AH had charisma and his leadership can be described as charismatic, but in the context of this sentence I think it's out of the way and superfluous. We can still include it at another place. Str1977 21:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Put it somewhere else and explain that it is a theory. --Ezeu 23:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Why would it be unsuperfluous somewhere else? Why is it a theory? Wyss 02:04, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

KEEP. The FACT that Hitler's leadership was very charismatic is VITALLY IMPORTANT to his ability to take over Germany, defy the Versailles Treaty and get away with it, and push anti-Semitism onto a people to such a degree that it is legally enforced, taught in schools, and millions of murders are commited for it. Mein Kampf is horribly written. It is dry, boring, asinine, and unreadable, but it says the SAME THING as his speeches. The difference was his charisma, which doesn't, of course, come out in print. It is in no way synonymous with "he was a good leader" or "what he did was right." If you still have problems with assigning any connotatively positive attitudes with H17LER DA KILL3R OF DA JOOz OMG then watch a video of one of his speeches on the internet. It doesn't matter what he says: the style is grand, he says what the people want to hear, and everyone cheers their head off. Hitler's subjects found him very charismatic. It is a FACT and not in any way anyone's point of view in any manner. 'Charismatic leadership' was the best way of saying it, makes the most sense, and is accurate, factual, and 100% related to Hitler as a dictator and to this article. Definitely keep the charisma in. I can agree that it might not be the best spot for it. But for the love of god the article is like 20 pages. The person who added it was too lazy to read the whole thing and I understand the sentiment. If you don't want the charisma there, read through the article and find a better spot if you want, or close your eyes and pick a place at random if you prefer, but it's definitely necessary somewhere. --68.148.168.84 03:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Referring to his charismatic authority should stay at the beginning of the article because it was so incredibly vital to his leadership and personality; that's where the most important stuff goes. 205.188.116.5 10:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

KEEP: there is film footage of Hitler speaking from a podium at a rally, which shows a crowd of screaming teenage girls bursting through a cordon to acclaim him - it predates the Beatles hype by 25 years. "Charismatic" is a keep, but should go along with "media manipulation" and "grow up!". I am grumpy, but not old.--shtove 23:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

• And you are sure it isnt a Leni Riefenstahl Films Inc. production? --Ezeu 23:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I dunno. The footage is staged but compelling, and Leni (or whoever) gives a masterclass in how to sell a politician to a shrugging electorate. We could all do with much much more of the same, couldn't we? BTW: This article has the longest list of foreign language counterparts that I've seen on W'pedia. Why are we all so interested?--shtove 01:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Why are we all so interested? Because Hitler masterminded and inspired the most destructive war and despicable genocide in the whole of human history, and ALL humans are fascinated (drawn towards yet also repulsed) by the ultra-dark side of humanity; this much is a fact. War (especially on the scale of WWII) is about as dark as you can get. Plus, it was relatively recently that the Holocaust and WWII happened, so the memories are still quite fresh in the wounded collective unconscious of the West, not to mention that many WWII-vets are still alive along with CC-camp survivors, ex-Nazis, etc. I don't care how "cultured" or "refined" you are or claim to be...Hitler's power and darkness will really make you think and his destructive "charisma" still holds sway today around the globe. WWII shaped the modern World as we know it today more than anything else that I can think of. Just imagine the scars that the Germans still hold, the guilt and shame. I’ve always believed that if a person wants to try and understand the 20th Century in the West he/she better try and understand German culture and Germany’s history. Thus, Hitler and his twisted legacy unfortunately lives on and will for a VERY long time to come. --Berlin Stark 07:43, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have never claimed to be cultured or refined. Why aren't we as interested in Stalin, who (by body count/ideology) was more deadly/influential than Hitler? And I think European inventions of the last 200 years have had more influence on modern life than any war.--shtove 12:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

In the long run Stalin was more deadly than Hitler.... But only in the long run... If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR, what was the destiny of the Slavs in Hitler's mind and how great was their courage during the war. There are some reasons to think that they found Stalin's dictatorship very mild in comparison... More serioulsly "Uncle Adolf" wasn't only the worse criminals of all times... He was was also self-destructive and worse of of all he wished to bring all Germany in his self-destructive project...

You wrote << "If you know what was the cost in human lives of the WWII (The Great Patriotic War) for the USSR,..." >> Oh I know the cost as I have studied Operation Barbarossa with some intensity for quite a while. Estimates range as high as 30 million! That's no joke! But of course the flu-pandemic of 1918-19 killed around 50 million, which is the same amount that was said to die in all of WWII; it's all really hard to follow with all of these "estimates" floating about. 152.15.100.163 22:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What else ? It scares me to the bones. Beuark... Ericd 21:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

No doubting the courage of Russian resistance to Barbarossa, but why didn't the same people have the courage to see what Stalin was about? The people of western Ukraine know all about the long run, because at one point a large proportion found themselves dead at Stalin's command. If you say,"comparatively mild" then you must be mad. As for the interest in Hitler, I guess it is partly generated by the soap opera aspects of both his life and the rise of the National Socialist party. Ancient Greek drama and Christianity are far more instructive than history in fathoming human depravity.--shtove 22:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I may be mad.... Soap opera ? Soap ? Well wash your face and look in the mirror. Experiencing a modern firearm shot is far more instructive than anything else in understanding human nature... Ericd 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It may depend on which end of the gun you're looking at, but gunpowder explodes and that's it - no mystery. Apologies for the "mad" query. The "soap opera" description relates to aspects such as the Geli Raubel relationship, the bad art, vegeterianism, drug taking, the jolly sympathy with children, the fatal attraction over women, the marriage to Eva Braun, etc -the kind that inflame vulgar fantasies. The question stands: why the blanket interest in Hitler, when Stalin merits as much, if not more? Isn't it a pretence to insist that the Hitler obsession has anything to do with moral reflection and lesson-learning?--shtove 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete I think there should be part of the article or even a whole section devoted to whether or not Hitler was charismatic, I just don't think it should be added here, it seems inappropriate and although I don't think people here have malicious motives I do think it is possible to be construed as POV. Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete agree in everything with Moshe. Andries 22:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete, replace with mesmerizing . Charismatic would be tolerable if we were journalists reporting him speaking , but charismatic in hindsight is poor use as it retains a positive quality that the sane world does not accord . It is therefore a poor use of English (unless the intention is to so accord the positive) .EffK 10:32, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I will re-introduce the statement about Hitler's charisma or charismatic leadership somewhere in the article as an attributed opinion something like

"Several historians and psychologists have asserted that Hitler possessed charisma or that his leadership was charismatic. "

References, Ian Kershaw, Allan Bullock in Parallel lives, psychologist Len Oakes in Prophetic Charisma. Andries 11:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

The "charisma" has a part in the article, but right now it is misplaced in the opening paragraph or rather phrased in too short a manner. In any case, the "charisma" deserves a sentence of its own, explaining that AH made use of his charisma in speeches etc. as part of his regime. Str1977 10:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete: the problem isn't so much the meaning of the term itself, but its placement in the article and its connotation. If we want a reference in the introduction to Hitler's personal charisma, it would be clearer to say that he was a gifted orator (if that's specifically what we are referring to.) As it is, we have a poorly explained reference which links to an article on a theory by Weber, which just doesn't belong in the introduction. To boot, a good proportion of readers will take this as an endorsement of Hitler, again because the meaning is overly vague. It's a mess. Moshe is correct that this needs to be moved. Blowfish 20:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: All the DELETE votes betray an anxiety about describing Hitler for the man he was. Charisma was one of his clear qualities, and the use of the term in this article is accurate.--shtove 20:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: He was charismatic by all accounts.24.141.217.93 22:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Anyone who wants to eliminate the "charisma" lines either doesn't understand "charisma" or rightly wants clarified context- mention does need to be made that his power came from his charisma (if it isn't) and this needs to clearly lead into his "charismatic leadership". There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION as to whether or not his leadership came from his charisma- everyone in the world at the time saw his ability as an orator and propaganda centerpiece. Seperating Hitler from his charismatic powers would be like trying to cover (not trying to make any associations here) Mother Theresa or Ghandi without mentioning religion. It's not only signifigant, it's absolutely inseperable.

STRONG KEEP: Blowfish - This has absolutely nothing to do with connotation. This is not a childrens book. The WikiCommunity should be interested only in denotation and as it has already been clearly stated the denotation of charismatic pinpoints AH's quality. Charisma is only subjective when there is doubt, however in this case there is none. AH could not have delivered so much destruction and that pace without convincing the public that it was justified. It was his presence and passionate oratory. That sold evil. Find me one academic historian who would not explain Hitler's charismatic nature as one of the top reasons he was near-universally accepted in Germany. Explaining it in any other way is concealing the truth. The truth that is accepted by all who value it.User:Mask 17:36 30 November 2005

MUST KEEP: W'pedia shouldn't be dumbing down things so they're palatable to the average person. "Charisma" has a very specific (not vague), value-nuetral definition that applies nowhere if it can't be applied to Hitler. Charisma isn't the ability to be popular-anyone can jump in front of a parade-its a leader's ability to make people want to changes their lives to live according to the leader's vision. George Washington, JFK and Reagan were popular. Jesus, Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Marx, Gandi, and unfortunately Hitler where charismatic.66.189.168.107 19:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)BoomBox 18:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Keep : I personally hate Hitler more than any other person in history, but I don't think he could have succeeded if he wasn't "charismatic". Blowfish says it's better to say he was a "gifted orator" - this is much more "positive" than "charismatic" - Satan himself was charismatic - one of my heroes, Martin Luther King was charismatic - so this illustrates Boombox's point - "charismatic" is neither positive or negative. And anyway, who says Hitler was a "gifted orator"? Only if you think that mad ranting, lies and slander makes for "gifted" oratory.
As for Andries "several historians and psychologists..." this sounds like weasel words (although you do give refs). The german people didn't need historians or psychologists to tell them that Hitler was "charismatic". If Satan was to arrive tomorrow, you can be sure that many people would be seduced by his charisma - except of course, there's no such thing as Satan...

Camillus 19:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect: Satan is already amongst us and makes regular POV reverts.--shtove 17:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Strong delete. Superfluous adjective, smelling of POV. Allowing more of and more of those adjectives in the introduction we would move backwards to having a de-NPOVed introduction and ultimately a bad article. I think we should refrain from using pejorative or complementary adjectives alike in the introduction. Ben /_C 23:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Move. Move to a different place in the article, but do not keep it here. Though I do agree that Hitler was a charismatic character, putting this at the start of the article gives a strong impression that this article is in support of Hitler; especially since the remainder of the paragraph has no strong emphasis on the horrific deeds that have been committed under his leadership.--Konstable 08:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: If the Churchill or FDR articles began by noting that they were "charismatic" would anyone object? I think not. One cannot allow one's personal opinion of a historical figure to construct a false objection to the truth. Hitler was, by all accounts, quite charismatic -- in fact, had he not been, it is unlikely that his party would ever have been anything but a fringe movement. Jim62sch 13:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

KEEP WITH A TWIST - his personal charisma was underwhelming. It may do well to point that out. In public, he was mesmerizing; his staff suffered for years from listening to the SAME rants and opinions at the dinner table, as well as from his severe halitosis. It was apparently not pleasant to be in the same room with him, and when his staff moved to Rastenburg, with the summer heat and the midges flying about, it was almost more than they could take. Publicly, very charismatic, but apparently someone exasperating to have to live with. Being a nightowl, he also stayed up to all hours engaging his staff in the same conversations over and over again. Having said all that, it should be a footnote somewhere - the article as is is fine - saying he was charismatic does not imply support for him. But perhaps change it to "publicly charismatic" - that is what leaders do, and implies less support for him on a personal level. Michael Dorosh 17:47, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

STRONG KEEP: - There is no question that Adolf Hitler was a charismatic man, and his leadership was especially charismatic. To deny that... is to deny the course of history. Perhaps ones personal opinions should not interfere with the scholarly discussion of the article.

STRONG KEEP. - Ideal type of Weberian charismatic authority. Ksenon 22:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Is that the charismatic authority of Marianne Weber, sociologist and women's rights activist, or of Renê Weber, Brazilian soccer (futball) player and coach?--shtove 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

"Born with his name" ?

In the 10th bullet under the "Trivia" section, I think that phrase should be changed to "given his name at birth" to show that very few babies are actually born with name tags. StuRat 23:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Trivia

'IMDb' in the first trivia entry should be a link to the article.

Bizarre trivia

I have a very conflicting piece of trivia I gained from various documentaries and books that I want to verify. On Hitler's desk there is a picture of:

• only Mussolini
• only Henry Ford
• only his mother
• none, he disliked having pictures in his office

Excommunication

My thoughts about the papacy, the popes and the history of the Roman Catholic Church aside: As Pope Benedict XVI has made public good will gestures towards the Jewish People (among other faiths) would it be a sign of ultimate atonement for him to excommunicate Hitler from the Catholic Church? Is it possible for him to excommunicate a dead person? --RPlunk 17:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

RPlunk, no one can be excommunicated post mortem. However, the Church can declare that someone dead had incurred excommunication while alive (there are action that will get oneself automatically excommunicated). In regard to living persons, excommunication is pronounced primarily for the benefit of the excommunicated, to indicate to him the wrongness of his ways and make him repent and turn back. (Of course this only works, if the person in question is touched by such a move - in regard to earthly rulers it worked with Emperor Henry IV, but not with Elizabeth of England or Napoleon. It would have worked less with Hitler.) The secondary reason is the benefit of other people, to warn them not to take someone as an example or to head his teaching (the latter in regard to theologians). In the case of someone dead, the primary reason falls away, since a dead person cannot repent and turn back. The secondary reason is still valid, but the question is whether this should be done - is anyone seriously in doubt about the relation between Hitler and Christianity. If so, education is needed and such a declaration of excommunication might play a role in that. But I doubt that this is the case. A mere symbolic excommunication (which I guess you mean by atonement) I don't right. Str1977 21:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Excommunication does not need to be declared by the church. AFAICS Hitler fell to a by acting in an apostatic way. This can be discussed, but anyhow, as Str1977 wrote: since Hitler is dead, there is no neccesity (and no possibility) to excommunicate him, because he can not change his acting anymore. And even Pope Benedict can not excommunicate a dead person. --mmg 00:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mmg, thanks for your further clarification. That's what I meant by "the Church can declare that someone dead had incurred excommunication while alive (there are action that will get oneself automatically excommunicated)" and I guess apostasy is only the tip of the ice-berg of things that will automatically excommunicate someone - but I agree that Hitler is guilty of that (and many other things - he surely scores 7 out of 7). Str1977 18:04, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, excommunication is not an act of ultimate condemnation, as seems to commonly be believed, rather it is simply the formal exclusion of someone from the community of the Catholic Church for theologically-oriented offenses such as desecrating the Eucharist, propagating anti-Catholic theological beliefs, violating the sanctity of the Vatican, and so on. It is not leveled against someone merely for not following the dictates of the Church, no matter how radically the person deviates (unless the person assaults the Church directly, although I suppose that was the case insofar as many priests, especially Polish ones, died in the Holocaust ).--Critic9328 16:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A neutral photograph of Hitler's face

Why not include a photograph of Hitler like the following into the Misplaced Pages introduction ? http://www.2worldwar2.com/adolf-hitler.htm The picture is free and shows Hitler's face as it looked during his dictatorship. No uniform is seen, no heroic gesture or expression is presented. So we just look into the face of Adolf Hitler. And since Hitler looked into the camera, we can look into his eyes. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (21112005) PS: As soon as the current version of the Misplaced Pages article on Hitler is editable, I will do two things: 1st) Remove the current Hitler propaganda picture; 2nd) Delete the entry "Cult figures" from the categories section.

Dear Hans, I think the current photo, the one you call propaganda, is better. Yes, it is an official photo and yes, it is aimed at portraying AH in a certain way, but this photo can also help to include into this article this way of "self-potrayal" or self-image. I don't think it's right to insist on AH looking bad on photos. There are other photos included to counter this and the article's text also should be more than enough to dispell any admiration for the man, except for those already lost. As for the "cult figure" category, I agree - the problem is not, that AH is not a cult figure for some people (not only Nazis), but I think the category is nonsensical - when properly applied it'd make a very big category. Str1977 20:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

As long as the Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, that long it will not serve for propaganda. What you say is just this: "I think the current photo, the one you call propaganda, is better." -- Can you give only one reason for your claim that: A propaganda foto is better than a foto of neutral origigin and purpose (Zweck) ? So: Why do you not think is my above suggestion not an appropriate one ? To present a picture (a photograph) of Adolf Hitler that is neutral ? Do you Str1977 have any problem with this ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (21112005)

The photo might be first taken for the purpose of propaganda, but that doesn't make any less neutral. I preferred it since it is a) of a better quality and b) giving more information than just how he looked. BTW, what about the propaganda photo over at Stalin? Don't read anything into my comments. Also, it would have been better if you had sought consensus for your pic before changing it. Str1977 00:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Hans, I think the photo you found here could be a suitable replacement if you can find a version of it that is high resolution (at least 600x600 pixels) and is not so poorly cropped (his head does not fit in the frame properly). —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-22 00:19:05Z

I think the photo we have (and have had for a long time) is fine. I don't find it non-neutral or anything. Keep it. Shanes 00:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

If this is what makes you wonder about Hitler photographs -- (I mean: that some picture has not a high resolution -- Well, then you are still playing in your sandbox. And you are a Hitler fan. So easy to say, so easy to prove. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ )

Your constant attempts at condescension and vandalism, Hans, have convinced me that you do not have good intentions with respect to this article, and so I see no point in continuing to debate it with you. I welcome further discussion if you decide at some point that you are capable of conversing constructively. Sorry to have wasted your time. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-22 01:41:32Z

Mr Rosenthal, may I ask you

• to desist from personal attack on any editor of this page.
• to desist from reverting and reverting before having a consensus.
• not to treat other people's arguments some dismissively. Treat others the way you want to be treated yourself. Take others seriously, if you want to be taken seriously.
• to assume good faith.
• to finally register and get a user name. I know you are free to remain on an IP-basis but this would help your position around here considerably.

Good night, Str1977 01:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

When I, a lecturer of political science in germany, recently saw the Hitler photo on top of this page, I immediately thought that it looked like a propaganda photo - and it WAS a propaganda photo during the Third Reich for sure- , so why don't you choose a photo more, say, neutral ?

It looks great. Leave it alone. --Phroziac _. o º 14:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that Phroziac also found it looking great to watch the WTC jumpers falling down to the ground on 11 September 2001. Not so ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

ROHA, yo sure's a polititian. Where's you standing for office? The way you put down anyone who opposes you, pure talent. I guess next you'll call us nazis who do not agree with you. Wish I had your genius --Ezeu 05:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

All I do is to call those big kids, who do not understand or accept that the current photograph of Adolf Hitler served in the past and serves today as simple nazi propaganda. No more and no less. But Misplaced Pages is not the right place for propaganda, neither now nor in the future, is it ? Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005) PS: I admit that many of the younger contributors do not have an idea of what nazi propaganda meant in history, so they may have problems to understand what it means today.

I hope you don't seriously think that a simple photograph will portray Hitler in a "propaganda" light? Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 06:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this picture is better than a plain straight shot of his face since it gives you a feeling of just how (for lack of a better term) creepy this guy was, and how he manipulated his image to achieve his goals. That said, I think this picture may show that too subtly, there could be a better picture out there to use that shows more of his propaganda talents (say a poster or leaflette or something) and would make the point more forcefully.BoomBox 18:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"...many of the younger contributors do not have an idea of what nazi propaganda meant in history, so they may have problems to understand what it means today." I should hope that anyone contributing to any article on Misplaced Pages would be aware of the subject matter. It is therefore safe to say that anyone participating in this discussion in particular, has an idea as to the uses and impact of Nazi propaganda, regardless of their age. --Grim13

In the end, the picture for Hitler is the perfect ones (IMHO). When someone thinks of Hitler, they think of the man in the uniform (and his atrocities, but that gets into NPOV). If you wanted a shot of Michael Jordan, you'd get the one famous shot of him dunking the ball with his tongue sticking out- it's the most iconic representation of him that's ever been made. You don't look for a picture of him in casual clothing posing for a family photo- that's not "him". For nearly all major dictators, the shot that most people associate with the person is the classic military shot of them in full uniform. The only other shot that matches the one in place would be one of Hitler opening the Olympic games- and I think most people would take even more offense to that one. And in case it hasn't been said, looking for a photo "to show how creepy he was" is completely NPOV, and that doesn't belong here.

The first photo in Polish Misplaced Pages may be acceptable: it's a civilian pose from his twenties. Curiously, their article on Stalin seems to be longer than the one on Hitler. I wonder why?--shtove 23:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I’m just a reader of this article but my suggestion to the editors is:

why not  1: keep the propaganda picture of AH in his uniform, which is both a stereotypical way of AH being presented to the public as well as a prototypical way of presenting dictators (as has been mentioned above by someone else). 2: disambiguate your intentions etc by making a note that explains that this is actually a propaganda  pic aiming at portraying Hitler as such and such… Andry

Clarification on Schicklgruber name

From "Early Years":

Alois Hitler was born out of wedlock and used his mother's surname, Schicklgruber, until he was 40. In 1876, he began using the name of his stepfather, Johann Georg Hiedler, after visiting a priest responsible for birth registries and declaring that Georg was his father...

This doesn't make sense to me. He was born in 1889, used Schicklgruber until he was 40, but began using "Hiedler" in 1876? These numbers don't add up. Can someone clarify? 71.139.49.248 03:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Alois Hitler was born in 1837, not 1889. Shanes 04:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

the SS complex

I would put this part of the article much more general. SS and Gestapo were not the only state organizations which built up the suppression system. It was the whole security group. IHMO the list looks like this:

• Reichssicherheitshauptamt as the head organisation which managed all police services and intelligence services
• The Gestapo as the german secret police
• The SS as the main terror instrument and its intelligence service SD
• The SA with shrinking influnce

In my eyes there are numerous other organisations which supported that terror system but these are the main ones.

--mac_c 12:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Mac c, can you go ahead and propose what the edit should look like and I'll think about putting it in? --Nlu 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

PoV

"He unleashed World War II and carried on the systematic disfranchisement and murder of at least 11 million people" - someone can remove this PoV. I can't do it myself because this article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.19.130 (talk • contribs)

Will do. --Nlu 16:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Can someone, please, replace the leading propaganda photo of Hitler by a neutral one ? I can't do it myself because this article is protected. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (24112005)

Mr Rosenthal, you know perfectly well why this page was protected, don't you? Str1977 17:32, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can make a reasonable argument (rather than simple assertion) why it is propaganda and why, despite the fact that any propaganda is necessarily historical by now and would have no actual propaganda effect, please do make that argument. I'll consider it after you make an argument. However, assertion is not argument, nor does it help your argument that you unilaterally delete the image without making any arguments. --Nlu 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What was PoV about that sentence? I think it sounded good in the intro. Gilliamjf 04:05, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The POV part (presumably) was that it was Hitler who led to the "systematic disfranchisement and murder of at least 11 million people," where the cause and effect is disputable. There's no dispute that Hitler committed huge atrocities that led to the death of millions of people, but attributing to him the entire death toll is at least mildly POV. Please see my revision and see what you think. --Nlu 04:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, I don't like it. Jews were not the only victims. --Yooden

How does this revision sound? - of approximately 6 million European Jews as well as other ethnic, religious, and political groups in what is now known as the Holocaust. Gilliamjf 19:59, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Much better. I don't care that much for the exact wording (your's is fine though), but the others shouldn't be left out. Thanks! ---Yooden

Modified. Please see if this looks OK. --Nlu 22:48, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The "His and his regime's policies" part does not sound too nice. Sorry, can't name an alternative. Thanks anyway for including the non-Jews. --Yooden

01:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)I think the sentence, "The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in a massive number of deaths, commonly cited as at least 11 million people – including about 6 million Jews – in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.", should be rewritten using 'murder', 'killing' or ‘systematic extermination’ the word ‘deaths’ does not indicate intent. One of the theories of Holocaust deniers is that concentration camp victims died of disease as a result of shortages caused by Allied bombing. There is no dispute that the Nazis intended to wipe out whole classes of people. I don't see how attributing the entire death toll to Hitler is POV. He was the absolute commander of Germany, the Nazi party and the apparatus of extermination. I suggest “Under Hitler’s leadership the Nazis and their collaborators carried out the systematic extermination of people it considered undesirable, the total death toll is believed to exceed 11 million people - including about 6 million Jews – in a genocide now known as the Holocaust” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.167.163 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005 (UTC)

NSDAP

I don't think the change done by HorsePunchKid lately is a good one. Names are usually given in their original with a translation. Also, NSDAP is no abbreviation of National Socialist German Workers Party, but only of Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. Here is my proposal: "He was leader of the short for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party, NSDAP), better known as the Nazi Party" Yes, it's long, but so is the name in the first place. --Yooden

The word "Nazi" was first used by the Anglo-American press as a disparaging nickname, in the same manner that they referred to "Japs". Perhaps, better known in the U.S. as the Nazi party, but in modern Germany, the Nazi regime is known as the NS-Regime. Gilliamjf 20:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I suspected that the phrase wasn't contemporary in Germany, I think it should be noted as such. Today the term is very common in Germany, NS-Regime would be pretty formal. Since this is a slang expression anyway, I propose to leave it out in the introduction and spend some more words in a latter paragraph. (I think Brits used 'Huns'?) --Yooden

How about "commonly referred to as the Nazi party" Gilliamjf 22:23, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Please see how I've worded it and see what you think. --Nlu 22:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope, this is bad. As Anonymous said, NS is seldom used, and always in compounds, Nazi is much more common. --Yooden

Oops, that's probably Str1977, not Anonymous. Sorry. --Yooden

My main problem with User:69.151.183.180's edit was that it was blatanly ungrammatical. After thinking about rewording it, I decided that leaving it up to the link to define the term was sufficient. Regardless, the current version looks fine to me! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-25 23:10:04Z

I'm not happy with the current version (Nlu at 22:34). In German "NS" is only used as part of a compound, "der NS-Staat" or "NS-Verbrechen". I have never heard "NS-Partei", but "Nazi-Partei" or "Nationalsozialisten" or simply "Nazis" are common. Also I can't think right now of a NS-compounds that can't be worded as Nazi-compunds - however, Nazi sounds more polemical, while NS- seems more neutral.

As for the origin, I think, it was coined in German politics as a parallel term to "Sozi", which is short for Social Democrat. "Huns" stem from a speech by Kaiser Wilhelm II in 1900. Str1977 23:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Details: Sozi would probably also have meant socialist, not only social democrat. The Kaiser did not invent the racial slur; my question would have been whether Nazi was used by the USians while the Brits used Huns. --Yooden

Yooden,

originally in the 19th century the terms "Sozialistisch", "Sozialdemokratisch" and even "Kommunistisch" were synonyms. The SPD for some time was called "Sozialistische Arbeiterpartei" before the settled with "Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands". And the SPD-people were nicknamed "Sozi(s)" (or more vulgar "Soze(n)"). For a long time, they could still be called Socialist or Socialdemocrat (and other Socialist parties were minute and short-lived) and only the confrontation with non-democratic Socialism a.k.a. Communism made the inclusion of "-democratic" essential. But still, the famous SPD Godesberg party platform of 1959 has the term "democratic Socialism", though this programme was the SPD's farewell to Marxist ideology.

As for the "Huns" - when Wilhelm gave his speech "Huns" was no racial slur but the name of an ancient people noted for striking fear into their opponents. Wilhelm said that putting down the Boxer Rebellion would earn the German military the same reputation in the eyes of the Chinese. This speech was so over the top, even for Wilhelm's standards, ("Prisoners are not to be made ...") that the public was shocked about it and when World War I arrived and reports about German atrocities (whether true or false has no bearing on that) spread, the English remembered and thought: "Well, they said it 14 years ago that they are like the Huns". Hence, the name stuck.

Regarding "Nazi" vs. "Hun" - IMHO, Nazi is more politically oriented while Hun is an "old-style" racial slur. The Americans were hardly involved in WWI (when the term "Hun" became popular) and ince anti-German sentiment was not as deep or wide-spread as in Britain, they, I guess, adopted the more political epithet "Nazi", making the war a conclict of ideas (which it was to some extent) - Emigrants might have played a role with that as well. That didn't stop the British from using "Nazi" as well, but only alongside of the by then rooted "Hun".

Str1977 10:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the explanation! --Yooden

You're surely welcome. But keep in mind that my comments on the Hun-Nazi-issue are merely educated guesses. I could be completely wrong. Str1977 10:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

I think that there has been a sufficient protection to hopefully let things cool down. Would there be any objection to unprotecting the article? If not, I will unblock the article about 22:00 UTC today. --Nlu 22:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Verfassungsschutz

The Verfassungsschutz is not a single oganization, there is a federal office (Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz) and several Länder offices (see Verfassungsschutz). My proposal for Legacy: "(...) political extremists are generally under surveillance by the Verfassungsschutz, one of the federal or state-based offices for the protection of the constitution."

Edits

Hello friends of history:

I propose that the "References" section be replaced by the "Further reading" section and the use of the List of Adolf Hitler books. The References section was getting to long and it was unsorted. In addition, how do we know what books were actually used to create the Adolf Hitler article? I would be obliged if you added book titles and help turn the List of Adolf Hitler books into an Annotated Bibliography by writing articles that review the books and authors and linking them to the books. Some of the books and authors have already been linked as the articles have been previously written.

In addition, I have added a "Speeches" section, List of Adolf Hitler speeches lots of speeches still to be added. I hope all will contribute to this historically significant project.

Thank you for your time and input.

Cordially WritersCramp 17:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems like a protect and then unprotect always bring out the best in the editors.  :-) --Nlu 17:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I'll agree with that for now, due to the strong point made that we don't know which books were used in this article. But I am a little bit divided, since the argument also applies to almost every other article in wikipedia, and since it is quite unusual to do it like this. Furthermore, I myself have for instance used Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (and others) when reviewing this article. Perhaps we should at least list the most famous references, but I don't know for now. By the way, the List of Adolf Hitler books is great! Good going, WritersCramp! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 00:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello DNA thank you for the kind words, I hope you will help by participating, lots of annotations to write and books to add :) You might want to purchase the first in the trilogy * Evans, R. (2005). The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939. Penguin Press HC. ISBN 1594200742 . Ian Kershaw believes it will replace the The Rise and Fall as the standard once the trilogy is published. Cordially WritersCramp 13:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean Up Suggestions

Hello Friends,

May I put forward the following suggestions for a vote/discussion:

1. Nominate this article to be featured, even if it fails, we will get suggestions from others who are unbiased, the last vote was back in July 2005.
2. "Trivia Section" I suggest we rename this section to something more Encyclopedic and then Move it to a "Main Article", replace it with a brief paragraph.
3. The "Media section" has one entry in it... can we delete it ?
4. The four small boxes aligned right at the bottom, can we align them in a row and place them after the "External Links" section, it looks poorly formatted.
5. I think generally some of these sections should be moved to "Main Articles" and then shortened to a paragraph, to make the article smaller, it is getting to long and will inevitably grow longer over time.
6. The external links section is getting to long and some of them add little value, this should be cleaned up.

Comments welcome...Cordially WritersCramp 16:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed one of the four boxes (the WikiTree link), as I felt it was inappropriate, not being part of the Misplaced Pages:Sister projects. I am against "trivia" sections; either find a way to mention it in an appropriate context or don't mention it at all. The "media" section should be kept in hopes of further expansion. The four (now three) boxes near the bottom... well, that's just sort of the standard layout, and I don't think it should be tampered with. Arranging them horizontally would probably force the page to be unnecessarily wide. The external links must be trimmed; for example, three separate links to speeches is excessive, the links to the Nazi archives is better off on the Nazi page, and so on. I agree that nominating it for FA status again would be a great way to solicit feedback. Thanks for all your work on this article so far! —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-11-29 04:06:47Z

I agree with HorsePunchKid on all his points, except one: the trivia section. Generally, I agree with him that trivias should be incorporated into the appropriate context, but in this case I find the trivia legitimate, since it is a VERY famous person. Another thing: it is a good thing to nominate an article for peer review (see Misplaced Pages:Peer review) to get feedback on how to improve the article. This might help before making a request for FA. My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis 09:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Reprotection

I've reprotected the article due to the failure by "ROHA" to discuss in a meaningful (or civilized) manner, and the constant shifting in IP, which I construe as sock puppetry. Please try to engage in civilized discourse. --Nlu 02:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

And, just to be clear; I do not endorse the current image. I do, however, de-endorse (if that is a word) the conduct of "ROHA" in refusing to discuss in a meaningful/civilized manner. --Nlu 02:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I cannot see your point: I have given good reason why the current propaganda photo of Adolf Hitler (taken by Heinrich Hoffmann) is not acceptable within an encyclopedia like Misplaced Pages. If you do not read the dicussion page (and the message behind the picture), then this is your problem. All I want to say and repeat as long as anyone visits this Misplaced Pages article on Adolf Hitler is: A 💕 is not a good place for propaganda. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

You have given your reasons. Others, myself included, have responded to your reasons. You have failed to respond in any intelligible or actionable way to any of the points we've made, resorting instead to blatant personal attacks. I'll leave it up to you to go back through the talk history and pull out the specific points. To start things off, though, I'll ask you again to provide a reasonable (by criteria I have previously explicitly enumerated) alternative photo that we can all consider as a replacement for the current photo. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-01 03:11:39Z

First of all, I do not like people like "Linuxbeak" to remove my contributions from the discussion page. "Linuxbeak" seems not to have understood that on this page we discuss and do so in a free and open way. Second,

is not a propaganda photograph of Hitler. Which answers your question. Unprotect the article, and I will replace the current propaganda photo by the one above. (If you do not want to retrieve the history of this discussion, then this is your problem, which does not at all affect my argumentation.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

Tell you what: if you agree to abide by a poll (which, according to Misplaced Pages standards, can only be participated in by registered users with sufficient edits -- which would exclude yourself, incidentally -- but which you would only have yourself to blame) as to which image is proper, I will unprotect the page after the poll is over, but not before. Alternatively, if you agree to stick to a single IP or user name so that you can be blocked for violations of 3RR, I will unprotect the page. If you are promising neither, you are in no position to demand an unprotect. --Nlu 06:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing; I've examined the history of the talk page, and it appears that your accusation against Linuxbeak removing your comments is false. I suggest that you apologize, or risk losing further credibility. --Nlu 06:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify the above comment; Linuxbeak removed one edit of yours, in which you equated another user to a terrorist. The removal is entirely appropriate. --Nlu 06:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The reasoning behind changing the portrait of Adolf Hitler provided by Mr. Rosenthal is irrelevant. I see absolutely no reason for changing the photo, as it is not in any way offensive. Adolf Hitler is not doing anything questionable in the image, and the argument that 'the photo was taken as a peice of propaganda' lacks substance. Thus, I believe the photo should not be changed, and the page continue to be protected from edits due to Mr. Rosenthal's consistent attempts to change the image without the consent of other members. --Grim13

"...without the consent of other members." -- Do you, Grim13, know the movie Twelve angry men ? It's a classical film by Reginald Rose and Sidney Lumet with Henry Fonda. It tells the story of eleven men who were convinced by one man that they were wrong. This movie is about prejudice and foolishness and is also available on DVD. I recommend it to you and others. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

Don't try to analogize your conduct here with that (fictional) juror there. First, you're hiding behind multiple IPs to elude Misplaced Pages regulations, while that juror was there, in the flesh. Second, that juror didn't equate other jurors to terrorists. Third, that juror won the others over with logical reasoning. You're doing none of these. --Nlu 06:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I also note that you are not responding to my proposals to resolve the issue. I will assume this is an implicit rejection. --Nlu 06:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As I said before, I recommend the movie to others as well, including Nlu. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (01122005)

When I was a wee lad of six or seven years, and knew nothing of Nazism, I chanced to walk into the room while my parents were watching Triumph of the Will. The scene was, as I recall, a bunch of Hitler Youth tossing another into the air with a large blanket. Their faces were bright, their eyes were shining, and to a young child this looked like great fun. As I remarked. My parents exchanged a glance, then sent me from the room, shut the door, and would not allow me back in until the movie was over.

At the time I thought this was strange, but soon forgot about it. It was only years later that I understood why I had been sent from the room. You can probably guess why. The film is Nazi propaganda, intended to make Nazism look appealing, and it is frighteningly good at this. The scene that had caught my fancy was clearly meant to entice the young male mind, and mine had fallen for it completely. My parents were, understandably, unsettled.

The photograph that currently leads off this article is no Triumph of the Will, to be sure, but it is of the same ilk. We see Hitler, dressed in military uniform, lit from above, his arms crossed, his face uplifted, his eyes raised: every inch the noble and glorious leader of the Fatherland. It is an excellent photograph, and that is precisely its danger. I would not be averse to using it with a caption that explains all of this, but by presenting as the first image without any kind of comment, we take part (even if we don't intend to) in the glorification of Nazism that it represents. I suspect this is why Herr Rosenthal objects to it so strongly. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

If it's not clear, I concur with Herr Rosenthal's suggestion to use Image:Adolf_Hitler.jpg instead. Keep the propaganda in the article, by all means, but use it elsewhere, and explain it. Explain what it is, what it's meant to do, and how it does that. —Charles P. (Mirv) 07:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

As I wrote above when I commented about my protecting the article: the issue is not which photo is more appropriate; it's about how inappropriate "ROHA"'s behavior is. "ROHA" is again (by silence) refusing to submit himself under proper Misplaced Pages procedure for change or popular vote. Highly ironic for someone who is denouncing Hitler. --Nlu 07:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, ROHA's behaviour, his constant reverting without discussion (that means two way exchange) and his name calling to any opposition is unacceptable.

Secondly, I don't think the current photo problematic though it was taken for propaganda reasons. In contrast to "triumph of the will", the picture isn't very appealing nowadays, IMHO. Anyway, many pictures of rulers on WP were propaganda first (paintings certainly were), though none of these was as bad as Hitler. But propaganda is no issue there. And by the propagandistical origin the picture also gives some non-verbal information about how Hitler saw himself. Also, who is the photographer of the suggested alternative? I won't say but I think you can guess. Str1977 09:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree with Str1977. I'm not sure that it would be beneficial to supply a caption to the image outlining its role as propaganda but am under the belief that if this be done for Hitler, the same should be done for the similar image of Joseph Stalin. I still believe the image should remain on the page; Misplaced Pages serves as an educational resource, and I feel it would be wrong to shy away from a peice of world history, as grim as it may be. Illustrate why it isn't right, but do not remove it outright. As for the film "Twelve Angry Men", I have heard of it but have not seen it. I will take your advice, Mr. Rosenthal, and watch it; IMDB.com tells me it is the 21st greatest movie of all time. --Grim13

• Pardon me, but aren't almost all pictures of Hitler appropriate for use likely to have been originated as "propaganda", taken by his photographers in highly contrived situations? The picture in question depicts Hitler in a military garb — the only POV-effect I could imagine it really have on the reader is thinking that Hitler is militaristic, but that's neither really up for debate nor is it exactly what the objection is about. Personally I'm willing to wager that Image:Adolf_Hitler.jpg is "propaganda" as well. Unfortunately it is a low-resolution file and has no copyright or source information, so I don't think it's a good candidate for replacing this one, if that is/were necessary.
• I could imagine objecting over a picture which made Hitler out to be a nice man (i.e. that famous one of him giving a flower to a little girl), but I'm not sure I get the objection in the current one. In any event, civil editing behavior is necessary. The last juror did not win by trying to submit a not-guilty verdict to the judge against the will of the others. He won by talking it out until everyone, even the last hold-out, agreed with him. So let's talk. --Fastfission 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Talking outloud here because I am considering doing this: ROHA, if I unprotect the page and you violate 3RR (as you've apparently threatened to do by your words and lack of words when I offered a compromise), I am looking at your entire IP range and am getting to the point that I might block the entire range. Be careful what you're wishing for; if that happens, you, not I, will be the one responsible for any collateral damage, for your behavior. It's a thought at the moment which I am considering. I am also weighing additional options. Please choose your path wisely. --Nlu 05:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What a lot of discussion. I'm going to admit I only skimmed it. Here's 3 things that I spotted that may or may not have needed elucidation:

• polls are evil and aren't binding anyway.
• The replacement image is public domain, and uploaded by a contributor who knows his copyright law.
• The replacement image does seem more neutral, though I don't mind either way.

Kim Bruning 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Reunprotection

OK, after exchanging ideas with some other admins, this is what I'm going to do:

1. Later this morning Pacific Standard Time (UTC -8), I am planning on unprotecting the article.
2. Everyone, including ROHA (your IPs will be considered a single entity), will be under a strict order not to violate 3RR.
3. Violations of 3RR will result in a 24-hour block as soon as I or another administrator who knows about the situation becomes aware of the situation, with no further warnings, for at least a week. Additional violations of 3RR after the first will result in a substantially longer block. I'll consider whether to extend this self-imposed policy further. For you, ROHA, that will be a range block for your entire IP range. Again, if there's collateral damage, that's on you, not me, due to your unacceptable behavior.

Anyone who believes that I am handling this incorrectly is free to bring a request for arbitration. Be aware that the Arbitration Committee may very well impose a sanction far more severe than what I'm dealing out here. --Nlu 17:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Additional note: this unprotection is not an invitation to revert as many times as it would take not to violate 3RR. If someone violates the spirit but not the law of 3RR, I will reprotect the article with the version that I interpret to be unfavored by the person. --Nlu 17:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The article has just been unprotected. Guidelines that I wrote above apply. --Nlu 18:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick memo, as of 12:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC), ROHA has reverted the picture six times, five times connected with personal attacks on other editors. Str1977 12:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your conscience statistics. Hope they will be of any help for you and others. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (04122005)

I'd block, except that the IP address keeps changing. Nlu has indicated that he may block the entire range, and while I support that, I haven't worked out how to do it myself. So far I've just done individual blocks. In any case, ROHA seems to be at work late at night or early in the morning, so the page may be safe for the moment. If anyone would like me to protect it, or later to unprotect it, please let me know. I will be at the computer, with my Watchlist open, even if I don't make many posts. AnnH 12:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"ROHA seems to be at work late at night or early in the morning," -- Thank you for the compliment. But your guess is wrong. I am working around the clock. Meaning, I am watching "big kids" whenever they try to go out of the Misplaced Pages sandbox. Sometimes I have to add a 25th hour of work. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (04122005) PS: When I add my 25th hour, the kids are usually sleeping deep and well.

Following the last post from ROHA, I have reprotected the page. I'm not sure how healthy it is to have a page protected as frequently as this, but this disruption can't be allowed to go on, and I'm not going to mess with range blocks until I've read all instructions (which won't be today). I'll leave it to Nlu to decide what to do about ROHA's disruptive behaviour. However, I'm prepared to unblock if any non-disruptive editor asks me to do so, and this page is on my watchlist. AnnH 13:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page after blocking ROHA's range for 48 hours. (I did so by blocking IPs identical in the first 16 bits; if he moves onto IPs of a wider range, I'll block those, too.) Collateral damage is unlikely to result as that does not appear to be a range where we've seen other English Misplaced Pages users (they belong to a German ISP). If collateral damage does occur, any admin who's around when I'm not, please take appropriate action. (ROHA, if this behavior continues after block expires, the entire range will get at least a 1 week block, more if the situation is severe.) --Nlu 17:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Just FYI: The block belongs to the German ISP, T-Online, biggest ISP in Europe with more than 10 Million customers. This article is of special interest to German Wikipedians, so expect some backlash. I am still in favor of blocking the range, but it should be accompanied with an explanation of the reasons and a pointer to a resource to report the abuse (http://www.t-com.de/ip-abuse might do). (That's ROHA's abuse I'm talking about.) --Yooden

T-Online owns lots and lots of IPs; I am going to hope that the 16-bit unique range is owned by ROHA's local exchange; if that is the case, hopefullly any damage will be minimal. --Nlu 17:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not speak from authority here, but it sounds to me like you're doing the right thing, even though it seems at first rather heavy-handed. If Misplaced Pages gets complaints about the block, that gives us a specific reason to contact the ISP and let them know that Hans is vandalising the site, which may be actionable according to T-Online's Terms of Service. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-05 05:44:19Z

Confronted the Reichstag

Is nonsense: Nuremburg studied the Mar 15 Cabinet, recording Hitler's breezy expectance of Centre support, and negotiations with the Centre to persuade them to this had Centre Chairman Monsignor Kaas co-chairing a daily working committee with Hitler. These negotiations show that the use of the word confront here, is wrong. Confront could be a misunderstanding of English. To confront with, suggests novelty and surprise .The manner of this suggestion suggests normality also, referring to the sitting R'stag as if it were some normal parliament.The removal by arrest and murder of the Communists had completely up-set any possibility of check upon Hitler by a Centre/SPD /KPD block(however much they despised each other). The prior negotiations were a show, but the Centre gained what they could of constitutional priveliges, along with catholic Civil servant protections, and Catholic educational protections. The Socialists attempted a boycott, and were out-maneuvered by a last minute change to procedure, which justified continuance of the anti-Communist Hitler rigging(deputy arrest) as 'dormancy',confirmed for us by User:Str1977. I placed the word 'illegally' arrested deputies, hardly normal.It appears the constitutional illegality of such interference with the sovereignty of the people's deputies, disappeared by this last minute maneuver of dormancy. That could be described by the word 'confronted'. I have pointed this 'confronted' out before , and it is still erroneous . The main article is also not the Timeline . The main article was recently corrected by me. This article is simplistic . Source is the then John.W.Wheeler-Bennetts Hindenburg,The Wooden Titan, Macmillan 1936,p440-448,whose descriptions form the basis for much subsequent history. It is WB who first asks the questions as to why Kaas voted the bloc-"Was the prelate still so naïve that he believed in Nazi promises or were his nerves shaken by the chancellor's outburst and the grim incantations from without.("Give us the Bill or else fire and murder.") EffK 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

German Businessmen

Is inaccurate, they are the Industrial Magnates, not just businessmen. I would be quite happy for them to be the Industrial Magnates as that gives the import. I do not accept German Businessmen does more than divert the inattentive reader to that which is shockingly worthy of attention. I will change it, right? I think the true clear importance is noticeable by writing Nazi-Funding Industrial Magnates, OK ?

I draw attention to the incoherence upon the Fire Decree . No legal justification is yet sourced as to the legality of Deputy arrests supposedly consequent on Hindenburg's signing of a Decree (this or another purely Police Decree?) empowering the Prussian/Berlin Police to arrest and detain sovereign memebers of the Reichstag Institution. Papen claimed ignorance, so what do we claim here? Is it legal or is it not? If it is , can we pleases prove the legality, and not simply assume it because it is tidier ,like "confronted" ???EffK 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Re your second item: the arrests were done through the executive organs (police etc) on the basis of the Fire Decree which had suspended basic rights. Not fair, not fine, but true.

Re your first item, I want to ask our fellow contributors which alternative they thinks best (the link always remaining the same):

• Schacht, Thyssen and other leading businessman
• Schacht, Thyssen and other Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial magnates
• Schacht, Thyssen and other Nazi-funding Industrial magnates

I will give no arguments or preferences now. Don't want to influence anyone.

PS. EffK - if you could please not jump to the moon over any minute detail. It will be better for your (and my) nerves. Str1977 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the police, OK. But legal or not legal? Would you please tell me if it is considered legal now, if legal then, and if legal at the trials? I mean sovereign Deputies, not Communists in general. Papen answered the trials as to whether he knew that deputies were arrested and maltreated in the negative. It is one thing you not answering to do with accusations against me, but you claim to be a historian, so I ask this series of specifics , in diminuishing expectation of getting a straight answer. if you ever find out, do let me know. As to Magnates, they are called magnates from Mowrer through the post-war histories. Why change terminology from the clear specific, to the hazy general ? I know you don't want me anywhere on WP, and cannot allow that I have a native's view of language , so it is as Jimbo said, lacking merit to argue. EffK 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent EffK re-write

I am hopping from one incorrect article here to another , and refer the serious or concerned editor to in good faith relate these changes to sourcees as presented in other related articles, available via my edit button, in so far as they relate to parallel articles . I will define them if I am disbelieved . Thankyou, (and the edit history names them as Shirer, Tallet and Atkins (from user:John Kenney) , K v Klemperer, John Toland, John Wheeler-Bennett, Arthur Rosenberg and all . EffK 14:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

LINKS

I think the link to the Hitler museum should be eliminated it claims to be neutral but is really a Nazi front site as indicated by its own link page. There are enough Nazi sites out there without Misplaced Pages having to promote them.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.167.163 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005 (UTC)

My main problem with the site is that it claims to be neutral but isn't. If the link isn't eliminated it should be labeled as a Nazi front site.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.50.167.163 (talk • contribs) 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sectioned, removal/ changes POV

FK. I have Sectioned this story somewhat. I said each edit that it was a necessary section. Some people have short sight and sectioning can assist them. Others would get lost in the screen , or the story, yes? EffK 18:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

FK. So, Ill have to dig up the classic kick back scheme, what a drag, still rules are rules. I shall do so.

Atkins and Tallet as to the truth of the quid pro quo attested and provided by User John Kenney, as User:Str1977]] well knows. Kick back is a translation in to American English, and is used there to describe the same. I'll get the diff. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Centre_Party_%28Germany%29/Archive1&action=edit&section=4]

Looking at it, I will admit that the basic substance of Flamekeeper's accusations seems to be supported by Atkin and Tallett's narrative - Pius XI and Pacelli were willing to acquiesce in the Centre Party's demise as a quid pro quo in return for the Concordat, and Kaas was, essentially, acting as their agent.

FK. Now, I sourced that all parties allowed the use of Art 48 in October 1931, so why suggest other-wise, {User:Str1977}} ? Please, be true to source ,esp. especially when I have sourced exactitudes.

FK. Now, why do you deny the relevance of , and remove the highlight to, the completely relevant and justified Westphalian-Industrial Magnates and the Nazis, Str1977 ? It is apparent that the course of Hitler's life is over-turned by this financial support in the most truly revolutionary fashion. I say this is an effort at POV enforcement .

FK. Now, I am aware that you possess strong will to insert your radical opinion via such removals , and that you do this to the limit of rationality, and beyond- as in the Source which you are prepared to traduce and yet leave billed by author. This is clearly un-acceptble policy by you, and I do not have to analyse your motivation for doing so. Your assertion as to your opinion re The Fire, is entirely un-sourced by any means, and we, I, am only interested in that which an editor can prove in good faith, as I do so. I do so to the extent of illustration of reason based in all source, including that provided by ,you say, your religion. I do not have to tarry here, as my analysis is hitherto crystal clear : I accuse you of utterly ir-rational allowance to yourself, of arrogation to yourself of power in Misplaced Pages greater than the accepted norms of Source.

FK. Now, in the case of the Magnates, you starkly continue to reduce the truths available through history as sourced, even as represented in Misplaced Pages . I am detained obnoxiously by this mis-use of good-will, my good will. Here and now you continue to provoke the serious rift of rational consensus the which I as User, should not have had to expect , or suffer still.

FK. I can only hope that some reasonable editors might realise the extreme action you take in this regard here and now. The thought that this is to continue between the two of us alone is provocation to that which I am then attacked for, explanations and ranting etc etc. Now I hope that rational witnesses and editors will avail of the buttons to undo what is opinionated editing, ie POV editing. The serious nature of Str1977 editing has come to my shocked attention since this editor's arrival on Misplaced Pages, as I openly attest. Any more POV changes cannot expect to further ruin my capacities to undertake good faith in WP, and I warn you here that I shall therefore with equanimity await your further POV insistence, add them all together, and post them where Arbitration will hopefully deal with you. So, go ahead, User but spare us waffle here- do your damage and here limit yourself to sourced justifications for your NPOV . EffK 21:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)ps you say that Papen conspired against Schleicher with Schleicher. !! 'Trivia could be the frock Geli was wearing. Not the Fuhrer's  ? tax evasion ?EffK 22:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FK. Ill add bad English to this : "that no longer be legally challenged" !

FK. removed resurrected EAct ]

Str1977 provides something reasonable here Adolphe Legalite

A reasonable editor will judge my edit reasonably. (I will talk to one).

I did not change anything to your industrial magnates, except for including (!) their financial contributions to the broke Nazi party.

I don't know what you mean by hightlighting. Wikilinks (I did not delted this one) are there for linking, not for highlighting.

Where did I suggest what you say I do regards the Article 48. The SPD opposed Brüning's very first budget, which led to the first decree and the dissolution of the Reichstag. After that, the SPD tolerated (and Centre, DDP, DVP, BVP anyway), but unfortunately the majority was gone.

I put the tax evasion into trivia, as I don't know where to put it and it was blocking the reading flux where it was (A propos "blocking" - ARE YOU BLOCKING ME, I'd say if I reacted as you did.)

Your sectioning I partly retained. But some were too small. Is it you that is shortsighted. Just wondering, it would explain some things.

And please, before making anymore edits take a piece of paper and write a hundred times H-I-N-D-E-N-B-U-R-G. I don't want anymore Hindenbergs.

Str1977 22:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

FK. Str1977 Removal Sourced un-contitutionality ]

Hate-Monger

Did you know the Hate-Monger, a supervillain from the Marvel Comics universe, is a fictional representation of Adolf Hitler ?! Strange but True :)

Semi-protection

I'd like to suggest a this page to be semi-protected as per Misplaced Pages:Semi-protection policy.

I think the editors of this page do a great job of reverting vandalism, but their time could be spent much better improving this and other articles rather than wasting their time making sure it doesn't get worse than it is.

Any comments?

-- nyenyec ☎ 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's Apperance

He was born with only one testicle, EXTREMLeY strange, but true! (if you do not believe me, look it up!) --198.234.191.189 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

You're not the first to want to add it. And we do have an article on the song, see: Hitler Has Only Got One Ball. But it is just propaganda. See also the article on Adolf Hitler's medical health. Shanes 18:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Missing from this Article

I am glad to see that some of my input remains on this page, but several omissions are noticeable.

The Reichskonkordat, and the quid pro quo/kick-back thereof negotiated. User:Str1977 it seems balks at the inclusion of this history. This is very wrong, in fact its omission is a scandal in itself...

Monsignor or Prelate Ludwig Kaas is mentioned, as he should be, several times- but there is no link upon his name...

'Charismatic' stinks - what is this some kind of SPOV(sympathetic)/POV ? It is inaccurate as the word charismatic qualifies a lasting positive. Charismatic would certainly be appropriate to a contemporary report, but not as a one word hindsight description of a genocidal maniac. I agree we're all too stupid to find the right word- a one to keep up with the simplistic nature that some accord to these pages , but again say that mesmerising is less POV, but no I don't have a theasaurus ...

'Internal links' to Anti-semitism , Nazi Concepts, Appeasement, Concordats, People various seem to be absent along with the other matters I mention . I am no longer prepared to be assailed by reverts- as last on 15 December, designed to discredit me, and therefore leave this for virtuous editors' inspection.... EffK 10:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

-Maybe a quick statement as to why your input omissions should be "noticable" would help everyone? And just because the word 'charismatic' is misunderstood by some people, doesn't change its definition. Talk about it in its section, not here. gspawn 06:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I already did. It's still dumb and its still there. Re ommissions Noticeable because they are put in every history worth its salt. The deal with the Reichskonkordat gave international acceptance to a pariah , persuaded a third more Germans to more willingly accept the Nazi State, and this was effected through Ludwig Kaas. 'German businessmen' is imprecision, repeated twice . The sectioning I placed was clearer-at present it's distraction and counter-productive. But, here's a statement as to why I cannot even clean-up my own input- I refer you to my response of a few days ago at 15 December ],http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/EffK/Evidence#3_December_2005

I'm fed up with the revisionism that goes down here. It has always been impossible for me to edit on any articles, as revisionism buts in before appropriate clean-up can start. It is like building an enciclo during a punch-up. I note the tone of user Calderra/gspawn with regret. Are you suggesting that I am un-helpful by chance ? I suggest that good faith would return this article to the manner in which I left it recently , OK? Revisionism is very subtle, by the way , and uses the handy coverlets of enciclo, length, off-topic, all when at last we have the chance to write a full enciclo . Tt costs a dime for a million words, so what's with these attitudes ?

EffK 07:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I also think charismatic is appropriate. The positive connotation is a misunderstanding. DJ Clayworth 14:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Towards answering the question of gspawn above, I was on this point at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nazi_Germany#Civil_Liberties_are_not_the_point and http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pope_Pius_XII#Visible_1_1_2006_Impossibility_of_a_Serious_Article_.3F . EffK 00:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You cannot win the propaganda race

For me it seems to be quite clear that you cannot keep the current propaganda pictuture of Hitler within this English Wiki article. You will have to decide by yourself. Or you will have to learn. So easy is that. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (22.12.2005) PS: Remove the pic, then I will remove your pic. Thats what it is all about.

Hans again changed the picture and the article is again protected. Like many others, I find Hans' abusive and disruptive behavior very disturbing and I completely understand if some people here don't want to negotiate with him anymore after he left the discussion. I also think that threatening to vandalize this article until the picture is changed he is weakening his point and he should be shown that we don't allow vandalism. He should just be banned and ignored. However, I further understand (please correct me) that he can change his IPs across a very broad range which makes it difficult or even impossible to ban him.

Let me try to understand him. I know, that he spends a lot of time on this and the German article. He is very interested in Hitler and he is attending the discussions to the Hitler article in the German wikipedia, where he also doesn't have a user account and is largely ignored. I guess (don't know) that he is Jewish (from his name) and considerably older than most other wikipedians (from his comments above, where he said you young ). Taking into account that Hans is possibly Jewish (certainly German) and Germany's history, his obsession with the picture makes sense, so I suggest we should be considerate with him and not judge him too hard.

Talking about the picture, I personally was also a little bit shocked when I saw that a propaganda photo appeared on top of the article, but didn't want to start a discussion when the article just had improved that much. But, when I read Charles' comments about his childhood experience with propaganda, I couldn't refrain from giving my two cents. I see from comments above that some other people also didn't like the photo. For technical reasons (resolution, cropping) the picture may be preferable, but it certainly is not NPOV (simply because it is propaganda) and therefore not appropriate for use in an encyclopedia that can be accessed by everyone, e.g. children and other people, who are not familiar with European history, and who are susceptible to propaganda. I don't think it matters what kind of photography Stalin's article shows, but I think, even if this would mean giving in to terrorism, even if Hans should be banned, a different picture has to be found. I think we had one before, that was (maybe technically inferior) more appropriate, because more neutral. As Charles said, the current picture could be placed somewhere farther in the article, so the point about how Hitler wanted to present himself could still be made.

About banning Hans, an administrator should contact T-Online (his German internet provider).

Ben /_C 16:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand the controversy over use of a propaganda picture - if you go to the Elizabeth I of England article, that uses propaganda portraits and nobody objects. If the use of the picture was in itself propaganda, or promoted the aims of that propaganda, then there would be a valid objection. And excusing a disruptive editor's conduct because of his ethnic sensitivities is not on.--shtove 18:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't excuse him. I think he should be banned, I thought I made that clear. Then, there is a small difference between Elizabeth and Adolf Hitler. Ben /_C 18:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

No excuse - good stuff. I'm familiar with the Elizabeth article, so I took it as an example, and my portrait point relates to propaganda only. But just for the hell of it - the English queen condoned criminal privateering for the benefit of the state, encouraged colonisation by driving out natives, oversaw war in Ireland "by fire, sword and famine" (justified by dodgy racial comparisons), and used propaganda to great affect for the establishment of a greater England and, ultimately, Britain: how small is the difference? When it comes to historical comparisons, I've left messages above about our fascination with Hitler and relative ignorance of Stalin - we seem so eager to heap our opprobrium on him that we forget he was just a man, and that others have been equally capable of evil.--shtove 20:22, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I still think, I didn't excuse him but tried to understand him, there is a difference. I like what you said about the queen and how people are capable of evil. Probably there are still many people out there who adore her as a strong monarch. Ok, so tell me about her pictures, please. Are there pictures of Elizabeth that show her in a more NPOV way, show her recognizably, and are appropriate for an encyclopedia? Ben /_C 21:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Even if an act can't be justified, it can be excused (the difference between murder and manslaughter in a crime of passion); but even if it can't be excused, can it be understood? Perhaps in a psychiatric sense. I agree with your comments on Hans, but a person of good faith shouldn't entertain crankiness in others - it only encourages the buggers to keep doing what they're doing. On Elizabeth's portraits, I think there's five contained in the article, two of which are non-propaganda (or non-iconographic); there's a good external link at the end of the article, which shows just how well she managed her image. I think both types of portrait (if they really are to be distinguished) are appropriate to Misplaced Pages - include as many as possible. Should the lead photograph be a strong one? I'd say so, just to grab attention for the article - after all, the greater part of the content is in the words. There are people who adore Elizabeth, and rightly so - she was a remarkable woman; unfortunately, many of her admirers are unthinking patriots. Have you voted in the Charisma delete-undelete section above? The only right government is "of the people, by the people, for the people", but I think the Hitler obsession sets up a historical costume drama that helps people to ignore Abe Lincoln's advice and claim vindication for their own prejudices. I'm not mad.--shtove 22:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Our understandings of excuse seem to differ. I say he should be punished because he violated rules. His behavior is not acceptable. When I say, I can try to understand it, I mean that his motives were possibly not "evil", in a way that's similar to manslaughter and murder. This judgement of mine is perfectly in line with the assume good faith guideline.

I wholeheartedly agree with what you said, about "of the people, by the people, for the people" and Hitler cult as a vindication to defy democratic principals. However, I don't see what your conclusion is. Mine is the following: Nazis and anti-democrats characterize him as the energetic, charismatic, and strong leader, who started a war, determined to help the German people that was unable to help itself. I think a picture showing him in a uniform promotes that characterization and is therefore bad in the lead.

I didn't read the Elizabeth stuff yet (I have to admit I suspect it to be off-topic), but I will. There is a saying: "a picture says more than 1000 words." Pictures convey emotions to the viewer. For pictures there should be the same policy as for text. They should be NPOV. This means, that if there is a pro-something picture, it has to be complemented with enough NPOV pictures and explanations and possibly POV pictures for the other side. Propaganda pictures unbalance an article.

BTW, I just voted in the charisma section. Ben /_C 00:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

was Hitler a Rothschild?

i read that his paternal grandmother was pregnant while in the service of Salomon Rothschild in Austria. Piggo31 18:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Ten foot pole

I ain't going near this article, not even with a ten foot pole. Kudos to those of you that have ventured into doing so. --Cyde Weys _vote 20:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Propaganda picture?

I don't see what the big deal about Adolf Hitler's picture is. When I first saw the picture, I had no idea it was a propaganda picture. It's not like it says "help Germany win the war" or anything. Just because the picture was taken for propaganda purposes, it doesn't mean it is propaganda. Hitler was a military leader--what's wrong with depicting him in a uniform? --Bowlhover 22:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Most usable (i.e. good quality, close up) photos will be propaganda or publicity shots at least. Does anyone even have a photo not authorized by Hitler that could be used? --Davril2020 04:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

If Hitler had left one legacy, it’s his propaganda machine. Even his advisory Josef Stalin was interested in the way the Fuhrer portrait himself to the world. For just that reason Germans rarely publish anything Nazi. Instead of fighting about the propaganda pictures, rather add an interpretation of the photo and state its propaganda value. If no propaganda material is to be shown then all photos of Hitler taken after the end of the First World War should be removed.

Recent Vandalism

I wonder if the flood of vandalism this article experienced last month had anything to do with radio host Phil Hendrie - he went on a little rant about how ridiculous Misplaced Pages is for not reviewing edits before they're applied to articles. Then he asked his listeners to go to the Adolph Hitler article and just vandalize the hell out of it, to prove his point. Hendrie's show is very odd, but it's also nationally syndicated. --relaxathon 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, that some people write lines about this famous Nazi-leader, and do not know, at the same time, how to spell his first name. These are the types of contributors to this Misplaced Pages article, who propagate the current propaganda picture of the famous Nazi-leader, but have never read a single line in a scientific textbook about the history. What a shame ! Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (03012006)

That's a very probable scenario. But he and his army of vandals didn't count on our new policy, did they? Mwahahaha! The wiki prevails! --TantalumTelluride 07:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

six to ten million Jews? Wannsee, and "final solution"

Was this citation footnoted? If anything, I'd always heard the figure was between five and six million (I recall reading that The Destruction of European Jewry, described as the most definitive work on the Holocaust , put the number around 5.1 million).

Also I've read that the Wannsee Conference was the not *the* time and place where the Holocaust was "planned", in fact there was no single meeting that laid out the whole process, but people like to imagine there was a singlular event that can be identified as the "main event" so to speak. (Consider the fact that Himmler himself did not attend.) (This fits in with what is sometimes referred to as the "functionalist" vs. the "intentionalist" school of Holocaust scholarship, with which I happen to agree .)

Also "Endlösung" in German does not have any specific connotation to the Holocaust, in my experience, rather it is phrase (or word) which can be applied to any situation, thus the proper expression is "Endlösung der jüdischen Frage" or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question"--can any native speakers confirm this? --Critic9328 16:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe then, now it's pretty closely connected to the Holocaust. --Yooden

ID of Hitler's body

On a History Channel documentary they said that identification was made using Hitler's ears (I don't remember if it said that this was in conjunction with dental records or by itself), apparently ears are like fingerprints and they had some way of comparing the corpse they found with medical records.

Also they mentioned something about a double that Hitler had employed during the war to frustrated would-be assassins, and that this man was also killed at this time, this being part of the reason for the belief that Hitler himself survived. Finally they said he aimed the pistol he used upwards through his mouth, as a gunshot through the sinal cavity will cause massive distortion of the facial features, making identification difficult (Hitler was apparently loathe to subject his body to the same treatment that Mussolini had received in Italy ).

Also the show claimed that his skull was not destroyed along with the rest of his remains in the 1960's but was sent back to Russia where it still exists.--Critic9328 16:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dilectissima Nobis , Pius XI and Hitler

The megamemex Timeline uses the words 'pope ...saw no difficulty in relation to a Christian Dictatorship', which is their shorthand, or out of the earlier humanitas Timeline, wording for the quote here. In #3 of the Encyclical Dilectissima Nobis there is a clear reference to the Reichskonkordat which makes of it some relevance. The encyclical exited in June 1933, the Reichskonkordat was formally indicated to the world by Pius XI on April 10 1933.

"Nor can it be believed that Our words are inspired by sentiments of aversion to the new form of government or other purely political changes which recently have transpired in Spain. Universally known is the fact that the Catholic Church is never bound to one form of government more than to another, provided the Divine rights of God and of Christian consciences are safe. She does not find any difficulty in adapting herself to various civil institutions, be they monarchic or republican, aristocratic or democratic. Speaking only of recent facts, evident proof of this lies in the numerous Concordats and agreements concluded in later years, and in the diplomatic relations the Holy See has established with different States in which, following the Great War, monarchic governments were succeeded by republican forms. Nor have these new republics ever had to suffer in their institutions and just aspirations toward national grandeur and welfare through their friendly relations with the Holy See, or through their disposition, in a spirit of reciprocal confidence, to conclude conventions on subjects relating to Church and State, in conformity with changed conditions and times. Nay, We can with certainty affirm that from these trustful understandings with the Church the States themselves have derived remarkable advantages, since it is known no more effective dyke can be opposed to an inundation of social disorders than the Church, which is the greatest educator of the people and always knows how to unite, in fecund agreement, the principle of legitimate liberty with that of authority, the exigencies of justice with welfare and peace."

Str1977 challenges the abbreviation made of the sense, even though there is no contradiction , of course, and would limit the relevance of this Encyclical to Spain and to republicanism, as if it shewed the modern open lenient-to-democracy advanced Mother Church, whereas Pius XI clearly refers to recent diplomatic relations made to ,well, Hitler in April as well as Napoleon. Every source will tell you that Hitler ruled Germany absolutely from late on the day of 23 March 1933. The absolute dictatorship is according to William L. Shirer as to no doubt from thenceforth. That Pius XI and his advisors the Prelate Ludwig Kaas and Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli seemed not to see even by June 1933 that there was any trouble with the justice of this Dictatorship, is interesting in this above confirmation. In itself this statement would have given internal German catholicism some cause for thought. This is as clear as the papacy wished to be, and it is abundantly clear even though it suggests tolerance of empowered Spanish Republicanism, that it does not openly speak of the virtual reverse into a monarchical authority, that of a Dictator. Given who Kaas and Pacelli were in German terms, and the editorial denialism inside WP as to the great loathing of Hitler by the Church, it does bear attention , as confirmation of sources which suggest generalised papal approbation of Hitlerism as a method. That this itself contradicts all social teaching from Pius XI elsewhere, makes it hard to close the above allowance for a tempering of the principle of legitimate liberty with that of authority, or the exigencies of justice with welfare and peace with christian custom. The words are a clear warrant for legitimate freedoms to be trampled, for peace to be shattered for authority. This is your ultimate source here. This is the power, and it claims the church as the educator and uniter to temper legitimate liberty and peace by alliance of diplomacy towards justice and authority.

Were these words simply referring to the Church itself as authority , one could have had hope, but this refers to the Church disinterest as to the temporal degree of Liberty, whether democratic or "aristocratic" or monarchic. "Recent times" to this Pope and Church would run to decades, but there could have been no doubt as to the relevance of "Diplomatic Relations" instituted to Hitler's Reich in April- a papal objective for hundreds of years. The world was also filled with no doubt as to the degree of liberty instituted by the papally approved authority after the April 1 Jewish Boycotts. In respect of Spain, there are further issues, but the user:Str1977's continued suggestion that I (and the Megamemex Timeline's quote of historian Guenter Lewy) misinterprets the relevance of this Encyclical we can see now in its glory. This quote comes straight from the vatican, off the Pope Pius XI Misplaced Pages glorification. The entire #3 is relevant to German History via this Pope and his advisors, and, of course, here to Adolf Hitler. Why- because of German acceptance of that which the pope accepted. EffK 01:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, EffK, I am still insisting: You are misreading the encyclica. I guess that you have read it only after you read about it on your cherished timeline. The editors of that timeline definitely misinterpreted it and you are merely copying them. For those interested in what Dilectissima Nobis really said, go to Str1977 10:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I answer this easily thrown accusation.

The exclusions of these events, especially considering my sourced presentation of Pope Pius' approbation to Hermann Goering on 10 April, my sourcing of Ludwig Kaas' Vatican approbation combine to re-inforce these words. For readers who are confused the quickest is to paraphrase them. Pius said how pleased he was that germany at last has a strong leader "uncompromisingly opposed to atheistic nihilist Communism", whilst Kaas said he'd met with Hitler many times and viewed him as possessing noble plans and motives.

I am quite happy for Str1977 to interpret whatever he wants, but I believe that readers should note these words to judge how far the Timelines 'stink' intellectually! At least they report that which is so absent and denied entry here in Misplaced Pages. I note the User does not answer any of my points other than by asserting that I have an interpretation, and that it is wrong. I consider that all these statements are relevant to the history and that their exclusion is entirely ill-balanced . I have a lengthy history with this User, and largely it consists of elucidation as to exactly why any inclusion of these are forbidden, necessitated by his step by step denial of fact. I cause 'trouble' by noting that any questioning, however sourced from the most standard histories, is forbidden because it strikes at the very heart of the Vatican. The words of Pope Pius XI at this time undoubtedly were affected by the advice of Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli who later as pontiff claimed Infallibility. Thus any criticism is anathema to the Church as endangering this principal, amongst other core values. None of my questions at Pope Pius XII discussion at this time are answered, and most of them seek to challenge this extraordinary editor's categorisation of himself as historian. These are necessary as he has consistently, as here, availed of near zero counter-source of statements or excerpt which can balance the clear historical(sourced) qualification of Vatican involvement.

I am almost immune to his categorisation of me as a POV pusher, and have become a Wikpedia provider myself as I alone have some knowledge of this particular denialism in Wkipedia. I rather think it is time that I itemised and recorded where the exact discussions of graduated denialism deal with exactly what facet of the 1933 picture. Then readers/editors could be spared wading through the acres of reasoned indignation which the denialism precipitated.

I have attempted at talk Vatican Bank, an Article in dire need of attention yet not as much as this Hitler series needs it, to estimate the possibility of including sufficient apologist/denialist attitude into Misplaced Pages articles. This has been rapidly followed by the discussion at Pius XII concerning the impossibility of editing here such an Article as includes proper balance. I am out-right insulted by four self-confessed catholic editors as being purely a POV pusher. All of them itch to see me and, if it were to be , my ilk, banned from Misplaced Pages. The fact that I have fought tooth and nail through Misplaced Pages to gradually infuse some reality, visible now within this Hitler Article, at Weimar Republic and throughout related subjects, and that I have succeeded in revealing the actual facts, does not in any way slow this posse of abusive accusers. Only I recognise, in circular fashion, that the reason is as I state above. There is a line beyond which approved Catholic understanding will not cross. I dispute that this is pure history debate, as the User has constantly been in error beyond the norms of this level of sourceing, disputing the timelines and having to accept reversals. He claims that by including the historically sourced qualification of the kick-back scheme made between Hitler and the Vatican- undisputed by him- I am wrong to single this out from the litany of general Hilter success. I consider this a fatuous argument as the historians characterise the relationship of the one party, the catholic Centre Party Germany quite clearly. I have never categorised other parties, for which I have not been presenting source, and certainly never tried to excise or remove any such categorisation as should or could be made.

I believe, guided by the rare individual(s ? ) in Misplaced Pages, that exclusion of facets is not the way to build a useful Misplaced Pages and that should this editor object to inclusion of source, he would do better to provide contrary source such that any argument be sourcedly visible information, worthy of requisite representation. I source involvement between the Vatican and Hitler concerning the Roman Catholic Centre, which consisted of itself and a Bavarian split. I have not sourced any relationship between Bavaria and the Vatican, but certainly William L.Shirer mentions that the Bavarians dissolved following removal, whatever, of their purely state control preceding the inevitability, in that region . The user kindly provides us with a banned/dissolved breakdown at talk Pius XII, but would have done better in my repeated opinion to allow the sourced historical comment which does single out the catholic Centre as having been the subject of bargaining, made indirectly but clearly between the Vatican and Adolf Hitler. This alone makes the report necessary and the exclusion inimical. I take it ill that that which I have included, should be castrated despite its source because he cannot include other information. If the user were more even handed he would accept straightway that he should have qualified any such inclusion with any relevant missing information, rather than forcing me to this repetitive reasoning and sourceing. I'm sick of these questions-why deny the Kaas meeting with Hitler on his return fom the 24-31 Rome visit ?, Why disclaim the illegality of the Secret Annexe to the Reichskonkordat, why qualify the arrests as legal? the takeover as legal? why exclude Pius XI's above approbation? why exclude that the kick-back was bargained by the Vatican itself-when he agrees it? If I say that the Communists went to bed with Pius XI, then exclude it as un-sourced falsehood, OK? Or the nationalist right DNvP. I insert no claims that are not out-there.

I wrote on Hitler here: In particular this self-dissolution,in the case of the large and noble Centre Party, was brought about with a classic kick-back scheme in return for Vatican achievement of the subsequent Reichskonkodat negotiations. It is not untrue nor does it make claim disputed by this user. But it is utterly excised and remains so. I object to being made to work so hard. NB in the case of. No other party had its Chairman and leader cuddling up to old friends in the un-accountable Holy See whilst chairman, or whilst not chairman. Franz von Papen had no party and is remarked as being along with Kaas, one of the two driving forces for this sordid history, because he cuddled up to everyone he could gain from.

EffK 14:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This Adolf Hitler a Good Article ?

As fo the list of categories below I say :Nonsense-it is an un-worthy Article.EffK 14:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

German Businessmen

I objected to the reduction of Magnates to this looser weaker, ill decribing term. I believe I sourced the correct term, but certainly sourced the facts, and now it is up for deletion under the genral historical term , which was Rhenish-Westphalian Industrial Magnates. Someone had tacked on ++++and the Nazis, unhelpfully, I always thought. Do we care that without their lolly/dosh/re-finacing and grants, that Hitler would have failed in his enterprise? That Papen, the ex-chancellor king-maker conspirator, welded through the bankers these magnates into the grand enterprise? The enterprise as a controlled counter-revolution or defeat of the entire left, even the democratic left, and married the desire of even the papacy to this. The sporting hero scheming two faced catholic nobleman, so well known to the German President, his family, the Aristocrats, the landowoning class of Prussia, the Army officer class, the magnates or largest Industrialists of particularly Rhine-westphalia, the Catholic Church highest, the corrupt nationalist media and business circle, the whole bang-shoot. Do we delete him, Papen, too, being as he is , sourceable as being and doing all this? Some sane editor could think. EffK 00:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"Charismatic leadership" or "Charismatic authority" (second act)

"The question stands: why the blanket interest in Hitler, when Stalin merits as much, if not more? Isn't it a pretence to insist that the Hitler obsession has anything to do with moral reflection and lesson-learning?--shtove 00:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)".--shtove 01:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It's to do with how history is taught in school and how it's passed down. In Britain, history focuses largely on the world wars, throughout mandatory lessons and GCSE (I'm not so sure about A level). I don't know what is said about in other countries since I'm from Britain. Also, since Russia aided the allies in the 2nd World War, Stalin is inevitably ignored in the multitude of documentaries that have been made about it, since these documentaries are made by the countries that won, and so focus on the losers. Because of this, most people when asked about the 2nd World War will think of Hitler, even if they know very little about it (e.g young children), since he has been the most televised dictator from recent times. Even people with little interest in the 2nd World War know a lot about Hitler because of the mass of information about him. If teaching about Stalin was widespread throughout history lessons and the general public then I'm sure that people would talk about his 'atrocities' just as much. However, this hasn't happened because Stalin's actions were very self-contained, and kept within Russia, whilst Hitler's were committed at a time when most of the world had an interest or involvement with Germany. As such, we have an interest in things that involved us, and teach them in history. Stalin's actions did not involve us, and so draw less interest. it sounds very cold-hearted, but humans tend to have little time for learning about things that do not, or did not ever involve them to any great degree.Humpelfluch

Your points are sound, but not all GCSE pupils or tv-viewers are interested in Hitler, and I daresay a few of them are more interested in Stalin. What I'm getting at is the obsession we have. My view is that Hitler is our chosen cipher for evil - absent God - and that the soap-opera of his life gives the cipher mass appeal. As for the self-contained nature of Stalin's actions - state communism set out to dominate the world and human nature: far more pernicious than Germany's cobbled together ideology. I wonder what Ukrainians and Poles would think of the obsession?--shtove 22:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, but from what I see in the Hitler/Nazi Misplaced Pages presentation, here the cipher of evil is underplayed. His personal and rock hard, never changed and clear program is very hard to find, and completely un-linked as I question below. Sorry , temerity to interject but...EffK

That is true, but the fact remains that there are far more documentaries about Hitler than Stalin, since the 2nd World War was bigger and affected more countries than Stalin did. For this reason the average person knows more about what Hitler did than Stalin, and this may not be throught choice or interest, but simply because what Hitler did is focused on so much more than Stalin. I've given a reason or two above for why this is so, but I don't know for certain why, all I know is that we do focus more on Hitler, and because of this the vast majority of people know of the Holocaust, but not as many will know of Stalin's atrocities. And so when we talk about great evil, Hitler is what a lot of people will think of. It may also be due to the fact that a lot of Jews survived the concentration camps and were able to talk about it, and the allies saw these camps and were able to talk about them. Less people survived what Stalin did, so less people could talk about it or have first hand experience of it.

As for state-communism, it may have set out to take over the world, but it wasn't as involved with us as Hitler's plans. Germany invaded, Russia did not. Germany basically atempted to put forward their views and dragged the world into it, while Russia may have had the plans and intention, but were not so loud about it, so less people knew, and still now, less people know about state communism than Nazism, again because Nazism affected so many more people than Russian communism. Russian communism affected the people in the country, but Nazism affected the country, and every country they invaded and fought against.Humpelfluch 15:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Absence of Program

Why is there no reference to the 25 -point plan, no link to it, either from here or from the recommended sub-articles?

Why does the Holocaust article go against all history and present the Holocaust as emanating fro the Nazi party and Collaborators without identifying the clear sngle progenitor. This is to ignore the whole history. If he was so charismatic, and as he was the Fuhrer, why is his direct control un-recognised? EffK 23:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection again

I think it should be put back and kept on forever. I see no point of taking it down. -- nyenyec ☎ 02:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's religious beliefs

Some quotes can be found at stephenjaygould.org:

• "I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." (Adolf Hitler, from John Toland , Adolf Hitler, New York: Anchor Publishing, 1992, p. 507.)
• "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." "For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people." "When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." (Adolf Hitler, in a speech delivered at Munich, April 12, 1922; from Norman H. Baynes, ed., The Speeches of Adolf Hitler: April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1, New York: Oxford University Press, 1942, pp. 19-20.)

Shawnc 22:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Experiment: I am now as before and will always remain so... For I have also a duty to my own people... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited. The Devil can cite scripture - but this one didn't even bother: he sprinkled Christian phrases about for decency's sake. Aren't his religious beliefs summed up in the notion of race and in the term, "National Socialism"?--shtove 00:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I think he was not a Christian. He was well aware that could not publicly condemn (or contradict) Christianity because that would be devastating to his popularity. Only (difficult to verify) private discussions can serve as evidence in this matter. He even stopped the T4 euthanasia programme under pressure from the churches. Andries 23:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

He openly said he was a christian, he went to church, he discussed his faith in quite a few speeches and screeds... are we holding Hitler to a higher standard of WP:V just because he was such a monster otherwise? Ronabop 00:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles