Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 60

after July 20

Finally bought a copy of Last Days of Hitler, and noticed it mentioned after the July 20 bomb, when Hitler went into hiding, people were thinking Himmler might have taken over. (p99 of this preview) I didn't see it in any relevant articles and given I haven't worked on this article in years I thought I'd leave it to someone else decide if it has a place here. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, it is on the page dealing with 20 July Plot. It's an entirely predictable rumour that would fly around before the regime gave the public the official version. If I'd been around at the time, I'd have also immediately thought "It must be Heini!". As Churchill said, and I paraphrase, your main enemy is always the one behind your back. Kim Traynor (talk) 21:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Mental illness

The health section omits all mention of mental disorders. 188.29.18.18 (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The books I read stated that both he and Eva Braun were obsessed with personal cleanliness, but I found no information on any mental disorders. If you have found a reliable source that covers this topic, please provide more information and one of us will check it out. Thanks. --Dianna (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Michael Fitzgerald's book Autism and Creativity: Is There a Link between Autism in Men and Exceptional Ability? received a positive review by Allan Snyder writing in Nature (Snyder, A. 2004. Autistic genius? Nature 428(6982), 470–471). In it, Fitzgerald claimed that Hitler had "Autistic Psychopathy" (Asperger syndrome). --Diamonddavej (talk) 20:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, but this information was removed from the article on 10 January 2012, based on this review in the British Journal of Psychiatry, which calls Fitzgerald's claims "fudged pseudoscience". -- Dianna (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The Fitzgerald's book was also reviewed by Iain McClure writing in the British Medical Journal, he gave it 3 stars, he didn't pan it.[1][2] Also, what about Andreas Fries' article, why was that excluded too? Fries concluded that Hitler met DSM-IV-TR criteria for Asperger syndrome. --Diamonddavej (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed with this edit. I personally have not been able to assess the quality of Fries' article, as it is in Swedish. I am unable to read the article in the British Medical Journal, as a subscription is required. -- Dianna (talk)

Here's link to the BMJ's review doesn't require a subscription.[3] Also, I used used Google Translate to translate Fries' article, you can download it from here - [4] Furthermore, Fries responded to criticisms of his article here.[5] --Diamonddavej (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dave. I will look this stuff over tomorrow. -- Dianna (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I have no objection to the material being re-added. Please wait a few days so other active editors have a chance to respond. -- Dianna (talk) 21:40, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Fries' article (which is journalism, not medical or academic commentary) does not actually support this conclusion. He weighed evidence on both sides, much of which was firmly against the conclusion. Furthermore, McClure's review is not support for the one conclusion Fitzgerald drew which is specifically at issue here. I am strongly against adding this back in.Ulpian (talk) 18:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Anders Fries' (specialist in psychiatry at Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge) conclusion was: "Based on data from Bengt Lily-Gren biography of Adolf Hitler I consider him to have met the criteria limits for Asperger syndrome according to ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR. However, he only said to have had a subclinical syndrome according to Gillberg and Gillberg [12] and Szatmaris [15] criteria." The DSM-IV-TR is the recommended diagnostic criteria used by clinicians to diagnose Asperger syndrome, Gillberg & Gillberg and Szatmaris criteria were used in the past or locally. Thus, Fries clearly concluded that Hitler had Asperger syndrome according to the most widely used diagnostic criteria in use today. Furthermore, I object to your characterisation of Fries' article as journalism, it is clearly a medical commentary. Indeed, Fries defended his conclusions regarding Hitler against objections raised by Mikael Tiger (Resident physician, Psychiatry Northwest Stockholm County Council).[6] --Diamonddavej (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Fries' article was not peer-reviewed. As for the preference for the DSM-IV-TR, I would only note that the DSM-V (which will soon supplant it) will eliminate Aspergers Syndrome as a diagnostic category entirely. Even in the context of speculation, this is too thin. Ulpian (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Jean-Marie Loret

A claim has been made that Jean-Marie Loret was an illegitimate son of Hitler, born in 1918. Should there be further info in this area? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.212.244 (talk • contribs)

We decided that these unproven claims are not going to be included in this article. here is a link to the most recent discussion: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 52#May have had affair in June 1917 resulting in son born in France in 1918. -- Ninja Dianna (Talk) 20:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Was he vegetarian?

(section title added by --71.72.151.150 (talk) 04:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hitler Was Not A Vegetarian! I am so angry to see Hitler stated as being a vegetarian on Wikipedia. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was a vegetarian. I don't know how this legend got started, but it is not true.

Look at these links.

• http://www.foodrevolution.org/askjohn/47.htm
• www.naturalnews.com/025163_Hitler_vegetarian_vegetarianism.html
• http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.151.150 (talk) 03:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Speer (1971, pg 170) says he was a vegetarian. Kershaw (2008) mentions it in six different places. There is also mention in Bullock (1999), the source actually cited in the article. --Dianna (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See the index entry on Hitler, vegetarianism in H Trevor-Roper, Hitler's Table-Talk, OUP 1988 where Hitler explicitly states in three places that he is a vegetarian and implies the same in other passages, for example when he describes the benefits of a meat-free diet. He twice refers to having given up meat (because he believed it made him sweat too much), though he doesn't state when. In one place he says that at one time he and Hess lived solely on Tyrolean apples, suggesting that his 'conversion' occurred some time after 1920 when the two first met. Kim Traynor (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Some vegetarians find it threatening to their belief in the moral value of vegetarianism that Hitler was a vegetarian, so go out of their way to disprove it. All experts of Hitler agree that he was a vegetarian. It is no legend. The only "legend" is the one created vegetarians, who have scoured sources to find unrelible gossip, which is often contradictory. Paul B (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Goebbels wrote in his diary that Hitler was "a convinced vegetarian" (29.12.1939) and mentions him indulging in "Long talks on vegetarianism, the 'coming religion'" (12.11.1940). Kim Traynor (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a vegetarian only if you use the loosest possible definition of "vegetarian". Everyone is a vegetarian during the eight hours a night that they're sleeping and not eating meat, for example. While Hitler might have tinkered with a vegetarian diet on occasion, there's no evidence that he did it for any appreciable length of time, nor that he was ever very strict about it, especially since there are enough first-hand accounts of him eating meat. As for Hitler and Goebbels claiming that Hitler was a vegetarian, they had an agenda to portray Hitler as pure, and their testimony should be treated with suspicion. Otherwise, you're basically asking us to place our faith in Hitler. I think most rational people would consider Hitler an untrustworthy person. 24.155.109.196 (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no reliable evidence at all of his consciously eatlng meat that I know of. The "evidence" is second or third hand gossip. All the reliable evidence says he was - direct testimony from those who knew him. Given that vegetarianism was considered eccentric, there was no political advantage to portraying Hitler as a vegetarian. Goebbels' diary is a private document, and, no, it's not about placing any kind of 'faith' in Hitler. It's about the evidence. Paul B (talk) 09:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

So you just ignore all the evidence that doesn't support your point of view? Some biographers definitely reject the idea that Hitler was a vegetarian. Some sources say that Hitler was a vegetarian, some say that he wasn't. Seems to me the best evidence is that enough people witnessed him eating meat. Even one source that says he was a vegetarian, says in the same breath that he ate ham. Another says he ate sausage. That seems to suggest that people using that term to describe Hitler (including possibly Hitler himself) had a very loose definition of the word "vegetarian". If Hitler was a vegetarian, it seems he was a ham-and sausage-eating one. 24.155.109.196 (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not me who ignores any evidence contrary to "my" views, it's you. "My" views are simply the ones that the experts express. I have no personal need to believe he either was or was not vegetarian. All the sources from people who knew him say he was vegetarian. The stuff about ham and sausage comes from gossipy articles written by people who had no personal knowledge (and the eating ham claim is obviously a misunderstood joke about his antisemitism). Historians do not base judgements on such feeble second-hand sources. They look at the actual evidence from his life. Paul B (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No, not all experts on Hitler agree that he was a vegetarian. As stated in the link I posted, Robert Payne, a biographer of Hitler, says Hitler being vegetarian is a myth spread by Joseph Goebbels:

"Hitler's asceticism played an important part in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend he neither smoked nor drank, nor did he eat meat or have anything to do with women. Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages and kept a mistress....His asceticism was a fiction invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self-control, the distance that separated him from other men....In fact, he was remarkably self-indulgent and possessed none of the instincts of the ascetic. His cook, an enormously fat man named Willy Kannenberg, produced exquisite meals and acted as court jester. Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar...."

On page 89 of The Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook (1964), Dione Lucas, recalling her pre-World War II stint as a hotel chef in Hamburg, Germany, states: 'I do not mean to spoil your appetites for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined at the hotel often. Let us not hold that against a fine recipe though.'

This was stated in the links I provided, which you clearly couldn't even be bothered to read. For your information, I'm not even a vegetarian. I eat meat every day. I just think it is ridiculous that Hitler would be vegetarian, and I have good sources that say he wasn't.

And it's interesting I can link my sources, yet you won't link yours.

What really makes me angry is that this website's "Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism" page states Hitler is only considered to have been vegetarian, yet the Adolf Hitler page flat out says he was a vegetarian. I have defended Wikipedia in the past. My own sister mocked me taking Wikipedia as fact at one point, saying "Anyone can edit it" and now I agree. Never again will I defend Wikipedia.--71.72.151.150 (talk) 00:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Below are some quotations from some of the books we used to prepare this article. Albert Speer was very close to Hitler and spent a great deal of time in the inner coterie at the Obersalsberg. Here is what Speer says:

• "A little soup, salad ... he no longer ate anything substantial." (Speer, 1971, page 152)
• "Hitler was served his vegetarian food ... a gigantic lobster was served ... but Hitler made disapproving remark about the human error of consuming such monstrosities" (Speer ,1971, page 170-171)
• "Even here at headquarters he would often make fun of meat eaters, but he did not attempt to sway me ... If there were a meat broth I could depend on him speaking of 'corpse tea' ..." (Speer, page 391)

Here is what Alan Bullock says:

• "He never touched meat ... Hitler not only kept a special vegetarian cook ... but held strongly that eating meat or any cooked food was a pernicious habit which had led to the decay of past civilizations" -- (Bullock, 1999, p 388)

• Ian Kershaw (2008)—one of the top Hitler biographers—mentions it in six different places. Here are two examples: Page 615: "Hitler confining himself as always strictly to a non-meat diet"; page 160: ... from then on only took vegetarian meals"

It's also in John Toland's biography (pages 402 and 739). -- Dianna (talk) 13:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

What you call "your" sources are just copied word for word from the Wikipedia article on Hitler's vegetarianism. They are feeble primary sources from gossip, and one secondary source from Robert Payne, a biographer who wrote numerous potboiler bios of all sorts of people and is not any kind of expert (Payne devotes an entire chapter to Hitler's totally fictional visit to Liverpool). Paul B (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hitler had a "messianic complex"

Croatian writer Giancarlo Kravar: Adolf Hitler has developed a "messianic complex" during World War II. This, according to BBC, said the recently discovered psychological profile 1942nd was commissioned by British intelligence. "Hitler was caught in the trap of religious delusion. Jews considered the incarnation of evil, the incarnation of good himself.", wrote the autor of the psychological profile academic Joseph MacCurdy from Cambridge. 85.114.62.130 (talk) 13:06, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point is being made here. Hitler the Messiah? I don't think contemporaries needed to be told he had a 'messianic complex' - they could see it. Any British or American intelligence profile amounts to a wartime perspective on the enemy by an author or authors no doubt heavily influenced by propaganda, and is of little value outside of a study of wartime perceptions. These long-range psychoanalytical analyses have as much credibility as a long-range weather forecast at the time. Kim Traynor (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Information [...] faulty. "Notable opponent" "Pacifism"

An revert of my edit by Dr.K used the reasons that "Original research present" was present in my edit. The two things he pointed out was that "notable opponent" and "pacifism" were not in the citation, which indeed appears very convincing, I could certainly see his reasoning. The source, however did choose the use Hitler first to show how "Not everyone was so charitable," so it would be natural to add the word notable, assuming everyone'd agree the source implies it. However, now I see not everyone agrees the source implies it, so if Dr.K really thinks whether this was notable is questionable, I can change it to some other less assuming word. It is really just some word I for some reason thought was implicitly accepted, and just thrown in to make the sentence less ugly. I can change it if it's a problem. The other word, "pacifism," of course, is not in the source, and the Christmas truce has absolutely no association whatsoever with the mentality of pacifism, but the actual word I used was pacify. Pacify was just the best word to fit there, but I found it on the thesaurus, and didn't know what it means before, so then perhaps readers wouldn't know what it means either. Making it a link helps allowing searching for its meaning faster.

At any rate, my point is, if those are the only things Dr.K wants to fix, it doesn't mean the whole edit ought to be reverted. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 03:27, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The main reason your edit is not being included in the article is because it has been discussed at some length, and the consensus was that it should not be included. -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Further, the actual source mentions that:

Not everyone was so charitable. Cpl. Adolf Hitler of the 16th Bavarians lambasted his comrades for their unmilitary conduct: Such things should not happen in wartime. Have you Germans no sense of honor left at all?

Hitler was referring to the fraternisation between the soldiers which included smoking among the combatant troops, cutting each others' hair etc. So the correct transcription would be that Hitler criticised the conduct of his comrades, i.e. the mingling and fraternising, which he found unbecoming for military officers, not the truce itself. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I feel that consensus only works well if people are trying to defend it, instead of ignoring questionings. You know the number of people who had been in a discussion will vary over time, and I think that just because we had the discussion end (when you all became silent) at sometime when there was more people on your side, doesn't always mean you established consensus. If you want to discuss, you can, but if you don't, maybe others still will. What I say, for some reason sounds ugly, but I'm not trying to wrongfully accuse you of conspiring to stop further discussion.

Dr.K, I guess you've got me here. Truth is, I never thought about that possibility he wasn't referring to the Truce, and I just picked the source from the Christmas truce article, sorry for looking like an idiot, but thank you for pointing that out, I wish I was the first to notice... Now, just realizing how unrelated of a source I had been using, I found more sources, some which do claim Hitler was against the truce. By the way, now I recall why I used the word "notable". That was the word used by someone else in the Christmas truce article, and I kind of, um, copied it.

• • • "if we can believe the 1940 testimony of Hitler's fellow dispatch runner Heinrich Lugauer, Hitler abhorred the Christmas Truce"... could be found at page 63 in [7] (an online book)
    • "The informal ceasefire stretched all across the 500-mile western front where more than a million men were encamped, from the Belgian coast as far as the Swiss border. The truce was especially warm along a 30-mile line around the Belgian town of Ypres, Jürgs notes. Not everybody, though, approved. One Austrian soldier billeted near Ypres complained that in wartime such an understanding "should not be allowed". His name was Adolf Hitler." was found in [8]
    • "A young Adolf Hitler, then a Colonel in the German army, felt that such fraternization should be banned. Apparently he was recorded as saying, “Such a thing should not happen in wartime… Have you no German sense of honor at all?”" in [9] seems to support how the quote mentioned in the first source was indeed about the fraternization, albeit just that quote.
    • "No place in Hitler's mind for the famous Christmas Truce of 1914. "That enraged me. I have always wanted my enemy to hate me, so I could hate, hate, hate him in return"." in [10] would make a solid source, but it looked rather fishy so I looked for more.
    • "Hitler strongly disapproves of the Christmas truce: "There should be no question of something like that during war."" in [11] seems pretty clear, although this source uses another source that I didn't find (dead link)
    • "The truce was especially warm along a 30-mile line around the Belgian town of Ypres, Jürgs notes. Not everybody, though, approved. One Austrian soldier billeted near Ypres complained that in wartime such an understanding "should not be allowed". His name was Adolf Hitler." in [12] uses that quote as well.
    • [13] also mentions the "not allowed" quote.

DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the inclusion of the edit. It is not an important incident in the life of Adolf Hitler, and we don't have room for it here, in my opinion. -- Dianna (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. As I said at an earlier stage, why do people feel it is so important to record what Hitler thought of the 1914 Christmas truce? If he didn't like it, that's an entirely predictable reaction from a German nationalist and an attitude that must have been shared by hundreds of thousands in German uniform. The truce was condemned in Britain by the patriotic press and public, as one would expect. So what? Hitler was not an important political leader at this point in time. His opinion is only that of an 'ordinary' German soldier. Why do people feel a compelling need to include this in the article? Kim Traynor (talk) 20:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Your point about the British also condemning the truce is a good one. From the same source which I reverted previously:

When Gen. Sir Horace Smith-Dorrien, commander of the British II Corps, learned of the consorting, he was irate: I have issued the strictest orders that on no account is intercourse to be allowed between the opposing troops. To finish this war quickly, we must keep up the fighting spirit and do all we can to discourage friendly intercourse.

So I agree. Being against the truce is not something unique to Hitler or even Germans in general. So IMO his reaction to the truce does not give us any particularly valuable or notable insight about his character. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem is, if we don't mention it, many people wont know. If someone asked you "so how did Hitler think of the truce," and you never read that he opposed it, you would answer "I don't really know." Sure, no one will actually ask that, so you can still argue it is unimportant, but that sentence was just to clarify the point that it is not predictable information (whether or not important). So is it important? Well, truth is, that is not really important, as you said, because Hitler wasn't well known when he was in the army, and few people noticed his opinions at that time, in fact, I shouldn't have argued that this was important. Notice, however, this reasoning that he was not well known when he was in the army--and few people noticed his opinions at that time--could apply to just about anything in this article's "early years" section. So the actual requirement is not importance, but how much the information tells about the subject the article's about. Hitler's opposition to the Christmas truce tells more about him than, say, for example, the sentence "Like other German nationalists, he believed in the Dolchstoßlegende (Stab-in-the-back legend), which claimed that the German army, "undefeated in the field," had been "stabbed in the back" on the home front by civilian leaders and Marxists, later dubbed the "November criminals"." which is the second sentence to mention the stab-in-the-back theory. So if we got rid of everything that does not reach the criteria that disallows what I wrote, little will be left of this article. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 19:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I will not oppose your argument about Hitler's early years when he lacked notoriety because I don't think that it really matters if Hitler was well-known in the early years or not. Eventually he became notorious enough that IMO even his early actions need to be examined, if they are a source of some particular insight into his character. The problem is I am not convinced that his opposition to the Christmas truce, given that it was so common to oppose it among both camps, gives us any valuable insight into his mind. Having said that, I respect your arguments and I can actually see your point. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Contrary to what is suggested above, if I was asked by someone, "so how did Hitler think of the truce?", I would reply immediately, "he must have hated it!" Belief in the 'stab-in-the-back' and the right-wing attitude to Weimar politicians as 'November criminals' are far more important points of longer-term significance and direct relevance to Hitler's political career than the one-day wartime truce in which a very tiny minority of troops fraternised briefly. Kim Traynor (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Dr.K, this valuable insight factor is very important, we can agree on that, but the thing is, I think the determination of what is and is not valuable insight is rather subjective. This may create quite a challenge to come to some agreement, but I believe that if the 'stab-in-the-back' belief can be mentioned twice, the Christmas truce deserves at least one mentioning. After all, you don't gain much more insight the second time you read something.

Kim Traynor, if you can say "he must have hated it!" for the Christmas truce, perhaps you can say it for a lot of things this article mentions, but none of us were examining how a student who knows little will say. You know how Wikipedia is not meant exclusively for intelligent readers, so I think that should mean it is, at least, safer, to mention it (concerning predictability). As for importance, will I personally thin whether or not something belongs on an article depends more on importance divided by the space it takes. Perhaps we can compact the sentence about the Christmas truce so it is just a few word? DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 02:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

From my experience in editing Wikipedia, I notice how during a disagreement between two people, the person who decides the other side came up with more reasons will tell the other to go ahead with what he/she wants. But in a disagreement with more than two people, anyone who decided the other side came up with more reasons will just silently leave the discussion because he/she feels he/she doesn't have the authority to speak for his/her side and let the other side go ahead. However, the problem lies in what happens when everyone of one side silently leaves. Because nobody tells the other side to go ahead, anyone, including people who have previously left the discussion, who looks at the discussion will have no clue who has left and which side has won. The only information given from looking at the discussion is how many people have argued for either side. Thus, people looking at the discussion, especially people once in the discussion but left long ago and coming back to check witch side has won, will falsely assume the consensus is with which ever side has had more people, as no one (not me at least) normally checks the dates comments are posted. In the end, I never get to make my edit regardless of how many times I win the argument, because everyone who checks if my edit is with consensus will conclude it is not and revert it. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 18:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

You will know whether or not you have won an argument if someone with whom you have argued concedes your point. The rest is just commentary. Malljaja (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Lack of response sometimes means that people have given up trying to argue, as it is obvious that the same points are just being made repeatedly. It does not mean that they have silently conceded, and that therefore the editor with the last word can assume that they have "won" the argument, giving them carte blanche to make any changes for which they have been arguing. Paul B (talk) 23:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

DontClickMeName, the reason I stopped posting to the thread is because I don't see any point in repeating the same arguments over and over; I have already explained my position clearly several times. For me to continue to participate in this thread ad nauseum squanders the only resource I have to offer to the encyclopedia: my time. Wikipedia is not a zero-sum game or a competition where some of us are losers and some are winners. We're all here on the same team, trying to improve the encyclopedia, not trying to win or lose. Consensus is against your proposed edit; you are in fact the sole editor in favour of including the material. That's a pretty clear consensus for non-inclusion. Please don't invest any more of your time on this; surely there are more productive ways for you to contribute. -- Dianna (talk) 03:34, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Umm, Malljaja, I have seen countless two-people people discussions where one conceded to the other's points, but never once have I observed such an occurrence in a group. It is completely understandable, as I myself finds it too unfairly dominating to let those I'm debating against to go ahead without being certain others in my position agree. I'm not trying to say that it is not ideal to wait for other to confirm acceptance, but I am saying that doing so could fail when no one does so. Paul Barlow, I think you're right, but people who do leave a debate silently will nevertheless appear to still be part of it. Indeed, of course I wasn't certain everyone silently conceded, but if I didn't say that they could be, none of you would reply. Also, Diannaa, there is no reason to split hairs over my use of words, because I never implied that I'm arguing just for the sake of "winning." Coming to a conclusion requires counterarguments, not just stating your opinion. I'm not denying to say there was no point in time where the consensus was stacked against me, but when the entire mass of the consensus failed to produce a single counterargument, prospects for the consensus to stay appears... fishy, to say the least. DontClickMeName _talk^{contributions} 04:55, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

To imply that there is something fishy going on borders on a personal attack, and your continual posting of walls of text here and your refusal to drop the issue is becoming disruptive. Please find some more constructive way to contribute to the encyclopedia. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. -- Dianna (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

breakdown of 40 million deaths mentioned in Legacy section?

Could someone provide a breakdown of the 40 million deaths attributed to Hitler in the Legacy section. The death toll can be counted in many different ways - battlefield vs. civilian, genocide, democide, etc. A reader who thinks of Hitler as having murdered 6 million Jews and 6 million non-Jews might wonder about the 40 million number, as might someone who has read Rummel's ~21 million figure for democide.--Wikimedes (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This is sourced to Del Testa, David W; Lemoine, Florence; Strickland, John (2003). Government Leaders, Military Rulers, and Political Activists. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 83. ISBN 978-1-57356-153-2. I looked at the source at the time of our GA review in December, but Google is only giving me a snippet view today, so I can't say how those authors broke it down. Our article World War II casualties gives a sourced figure of 62,171,600 to 79,184,700, which includes the Pacific theatre, not directly related to Hitler. Subtracting Burma, China, Dutch East Indies, French Indochina, India, Japan, Korea, and the Philippines leaves a death toll of about 40 million in the European theatre. These numbers include:

• 6 million Jews
• 500,000 to 1,500,000 Roma
• 2-3 million Polish civilians (other than Jews) killed to make way for German settlers
• 1 to 2.5 million German civilians (other than Jews)
• 12 to 14 million Soviet civilians (other than Jews)
• 8 to 10 million Soviet soldiers [including 3.3 million Soviet prisoners of war (intentionally killed or starved to death in POW camps) (Evans 2008, p 185)]
• 4.4 million German soldiers
• 416,800 American soldiers
• 383,800 UK soldiers

There's more data at World War II casualties . -- Dianna (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

If one also adds soldiers and civilians killed during the invasion/occupation of France, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, and British civilians killed in German air raids, the estimate of 40 million seems rather conservative. Malljaja (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. We are very lucky and I feel grateful to those who served. -- Dianna (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The Soviet losses are higher than western estimates thought over the years. Glantz states: 10,008,434 killed or missing as to troops; Ostfront German Allies, dead or missing: Hungary: 350,000; Italy: 45,000; Rumania: 480,000; Finland: 84,000; total: 959,000. Kierzek (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting to good article status and thank you for your quick responses.

When I first saw the 40 million number in the legacy section, I thought it would be a good idea to add text indicating that the figure included the soldiers killed in battle in the European theater of World War II. Some readers might not blame Hitler directly for this and it probably should be mentioned that it is included in the total. Looking at the figures provided by Dianna and those in the World War II casualties article, perhaps some other deaths deserve specific mention for a similar reason. For example the 1 to 2.5 million German civilian deaths appear to include civilians killed by the Allies, victims of the German Expulsion after the war, and Germans who perished during corvee labor in the Soviet Union after the war (all mentioned in footnote 19). The Allies, the expelling countries, and the USSR bear some responsibility for these deaths as well. If the reliable sources count these in Hitler’s death toll then we should as well, but I think that a broad breakdown of the figures that make up the total death toll should be added to the article so that readers can be better informed. Of course this breakdown would also include the deaths that were clearly Adolf Hitler’s responsibility as well as those that can be considered grey areas.

I was able to look at the del Testa, et.al. reference on Google Books, and its entry on Hitler does not give a breakdown for its figure of 40 million. It does call the European WWII death toll “Hitler’s darkest legacy” and mentions the “large numbers of soldiers and civilians sacrificed” by most European countries. Would Rummel’s Death By Government be an acceptable source for compiling breakdown of the number of deaths attributable to Adolf Hitler? It gives a fairly detailed breakdown and I can get it out of my local university library. If so, I can come back to this talk page in a few weeks with a proposal on how to include the information in the article.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a great idea. Please keep in mind that any additions to the article have to be kept short, as we are still about a thousand words over the recommended upper limit of 10000 words. Thanks for your interest in helping improve this important article. -- Dianna (talk) 13:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The deaths do not need breaking down in such detail, or in my opinion at all, in this article.We do not need to lengthen an article which already has problems with its size. This is an article on Adolf Hitler, it is not titled "an analysis of the statistics of victims of World War Two". Britmax (talk) 10:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Here’s Rummel’s death toll estimate (from Rummel, R.J. (1994) Death by Government p.112. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. ISBN 1-56000-145-3):

Genocide: 16,315,000

Slavs: 10,547,000

Jews: 5,291,000

Gypsies: 258,000

Homosexuals: 220,000

Total Nazi Democide (genocide plus other killings, eg. 3 million prisoners of war): 20,946,000

European war dead in WWII (including 5.2 million Germans): 28,736,000

I recommend replacing “Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale and resulted in the death of an estimated 40 million people, including about 27 million in the Soviet Union.” With:

Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale(ref del Testa) and the Nazi regime killed an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war.(ref Rummel) In addition, approximately 29 million soldiers were killed in the European theater of World War II.(ref Rummel)

This would add about 13 words and a reference to the article, but it does specifically mention both battlefield and civilian deaths. The new reference (Rummel) discusses what goes into the estimate in some detail and makes it clear that these civilian deaths are the direct result of Nazi action and not, for example, the Polish Government expelling Germans following WWII. Rummel also provides citations for his estimates (I didn't see any citations in del Testa), which makes them more verifiable.--Wikimedes (talk) 10:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Del Testa makes a better source; the reader shouldn't have to hunt around in Wiki articles to find out how many of the deaths were civilians and how many were military personnel. Could we tweek the wording:

Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale;(ref del Testa) the Nazi regime was directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war.(ref Rummel) In addition, 29 million soldiers were killed in the European theater of World War II.(ref Rummel)

It's just a few words longer, but a bit clearer. Comments? -- Dianna (talk) 14:24, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

This looks good to me. I'd suggest to remove "directly or indirectly" before "responsible". "European theater of WWII" could be shortened to "World War II", wiki-linked to the former. Malljaja (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I would change it to "ultimately responsible" given the fact he would have direct and indirect responsibility; I would leave in "European theater of World War II", to avoid any confusion for the general reader. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Dianna's tweak looks good to me. I don't think the qualifier "indirectly" is necessary, unless it is meant to include people who died of mistreatment or neglect in the camps rather than being gassed or shot. Rummel does not mention famine (which he would if it was part of the total, eg. in the Soviet Union) or collaborationist regimes in his chapter on Nazi democide, though perhaps the collaborationist regime in Yugoslavia may have been responsible for a percent or two of the total. I agree that "European theater" should be left in.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The mistreatment and neglect was often intentional. "Ultimately responsible" might be the way to word it. -- Dianna (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Probably just "responsible" is sufficient. But if you feel "ultimately responsible" is better, that works too.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

"But after leaving home he never attended Mass or received the sacraments"

Why is this important to mention in the very first line of his religious views? Do you have to attend mass or receive the sacraments in order to be catholic? ScienceApe (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The first line should be on what Hitler did believe in. Hitler only remained officially Catholic because he never took the effort to de-register from the Catholic Church. Hitler personally hated Catholicism - even when he was a youth living in Catholic-dominated Vienna, he was adamantly anti-Catholic. A good book on about Hitler's private life called Hitler's Library shows that Hitler read and made repeated notes on books that sought to merge science and spirituality together. He was also superstitious and somewhat interested in paranormal issues like reading books that investigated the existence of spirits or ghosts (a passing interest but not a fanatic attachment to paranormal activities like some unreliable sources have exaggerated). But aside from his rhetorical appeals to Christianity in politics - a standard political ploy then and now to gain support from religious voters, I have seen little evidence that Hitler took the values of Christianity seriously.--R-41 (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that, but that's not what I'm asking. From understanding, you don't have to attend mass or receive the sacaraments in order to be catholic. Correct me if I'm wrong. ScienceApe (talk) 02:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Does the article say that he wasn't Caltholic? The bit you quoted doesn't. causa sui (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't mention that in the first line. It implies a POV that Hitler may not have been catholic or a good catholic. It could be mentioned later on in the paragraph to expound on how religious he was. ScienceApe (talk) 23:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Speer says (p. 141-142) that Hitler saw the church as important politically, as a conservative influence on society. He felt that if the church were eliminated the faithful would turn to mysticism, which he thought would be a step backwards politically and culturally. Speer says that although Hitler never officially left the Catholic church, he had no real attachment to it. I suggest the following for the opening paragraph of the section:

Hitler saw the church as important politically, as a conservative influence on society. He felt that if the church were eliminated the faithful would turn to mysticism, which he thought would be a step backwards politically and culturally. Though Hitler never officially left the Catholic church, he had no real attachment to it. (Speer, Inside the Third Reich, pp 141-142). After leaving home he never attended Mass or received the sacraments.[323] He favoured aspects of Protestantism that suited his own views, and adopted some elements of the Catholic Church's hierarchical organisation, liturgy, and phraseology in his politics.[324][325] Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he "can be classified as Catholic",[326] but that "nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context."[327]

-- Dianna (talk) 01:03, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with those changes. ScienceApe (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay! I will put it in. -- Dianna (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler and Eisner

Any reason why this section was taken out?

There are three photos showing Hitler at Kurt Eisner’s funeral in Munich, Adolf Hitler walked behind his coffin in his role as head of a military unit, the Ersatz Battalion of the 2nd Infantry Regiment. Photographs show Hitler was wearing two armbands at Eisner’s funeral walking in the funeral procession with a black armband of mourning and the other a red armband of the socialist revolution (a revolution that Hitler publicly claimed was the reason Germany lost World War 1, due to the non-Christian saboteurs such as the Jews and Bolsheviks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BernardZ (talk • contribs) 14:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was serving as a representative for the army that the time and as such he might have attended the funeral (though this has been controversial — the pictures in question are of low quality and thus subject to guesswork). Further, it does not imply that he mourned Eisner's death or sympathised with the socialist government at the time. Malljaja (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If a policeman, say, is part of a guard protecting demonstrators it means he is doing his job. It's not evidence that he agrees with the opinions of the demonstrators. Hitler, if indeed he was there, was doing his job. Paul B (talk) 15:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The photographs are generally accepted plus they show Hitler was wearing two armbands at Eisner’s funeral walking in the funeral procession with a black armband of mourning and the other a red armband of the socialist revolution He was not there as a policeman. BernardZ (talk) 17:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean that he was. It was an analogy. He was there representing the army. Paul B (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Wearing a red armband? This sounds like you are just making it up, prove me wrong what evidence do you have that he was there representing the army. BernardZ (talk)

The photographs have been generally accepted by whom? Hitler at that time was a complete unknown — unless these pictures were taken by someone who knew him personally, it is as easy to unambiguously identify him as it would be to identify the colour red in these low-quality black and white pictures. Hitler may have been at the funeral, because — as already mentioned above — he was an army representative, not because he wanted to pledge allegiance to socialist causes. Malljaja (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

If you had read what I wrote Malljaja instead of reserving it you would have your answer as I listed the references. BernardZ (talk)

I reverted an edit by the contributor "IPWAI" — are you the same person, and if so, could you please clarify why you edit this entry under two user names? Further, I did look at your references — they were a sundry mixture of urls and one reference to a very recent book by Thomas Weber. So if you say that these "photographs are generally accepted", given the nature of your sources and the above-mentioned fact that unless historic photographs show a person who was personally known to the photographer, it is anybody's best guess who this person was, it stands to reason to question this assertion. Malljaja (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever.. I doubt you did any research in view of your earlier comments. There is nothing sundry about the urls and Thomas Weber is a professional historian. His biography is here.

http://www.abdn.ac.uk/cass/staff/details.php?id=t.weber His book is well regarded. BernardZ (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC).

Since you're quick to complain about what you perceive as a lack of good faith and as per my unanswered question, are you editing here under two different user names? And if so, why? Malljaja (talk) 13:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

BernardZ, we know who Weber is. This was discussed in detail. See: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 52. The consensus was to not make this addition for reasons set forth above; therefore, a "good faith" discussion on the matter has already occurred. Kierzek (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing in the discussion about Eisner, which is the part that was scrubbed, I am not sure that part has had a "good faith" discussion. It may interest you that Andrew Roberts wrote a very favorable review on Weber's book as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Roberts_%28historian%29 BernardZ (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Eisner is mentioned in the section linked, along with Hitler's alleged attendance and reason's for such (if he was there). They were discussed. Kierzek (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The material was removed at the time of our GA review as not historically significant. Here is a link to the GA review: Talk:Adolf Hitler/GA1. Here is a link to the archived more recent discussion: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 52#This article has outdated material that has since been challenged or disproved; the funeral was definitely discussed. Remember we need not only to prove he was at the funeral, but also why, and why it would be historically significant; we are not allowed to speculate; that would be original research. One thing we have been trying to do in this article is to stick to basic provable facts and not include a lot of speculation; the general reader is not looking for information about debates among historians, but for basic facts about Hitler and his era. We would also have to show that the event is significant enough to warrant placement in the article, which is presently some 1000 words over the recommended limit of 10000 words. -- Dianna (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I would dispute that it was not historically significant. It is our duty to the readers of this encyclopedia that the discussion and its possible significance be discussed. Also I agree with Dianna that this page is big enough. I would suggest that a new page be created to discuss it. Note I think that Malljaja's behavior could have been better. 120.148.211.252 (talk) 07:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with BernardZ that Hitler's association with the Bavarian Soviet Republic should be mentioned as well as mentioning the photographs that is believed by multiple scholars to show Hitler at Eisner's funeral. Historians have noted that in the photographs Hitler was wearing a black mourning armband on one arm and a communist red armband on the other (BernardZ should be careful with the term "socialist", the armband was used for the funeral of a communist politician). Historian Thomas Weber's review of Hitler's regimental files has confirmed that Hitler did indeed serve the Bavarian SR. There is no evidence of any personal relations or attachment between Hitler towards Eisner but it does show that Hitler was briefly embedded in the communist regime unlike other future Nazis who were in anti-communist organizations at that time. It is important to mention because it shows the influences on Hitler's life, while Hitler never mentioned his now-known service in the Bavarian SR, Hitler did mention that he was deeply impressed by the political symbols, slogans, and behaviour of the communists in Munich, and sought to adopt similar ones for the Nazis.--R-41 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As BernardZ has mentioned, and I have mentioned in the past, Thomas Weber is a respected scholarly historian who has studied this period of Hitler's life in Munich shortly after the war. Thomas Weber has made an important contribution to the study of Hitler's life by revealing that immediately after World War I there is no evidence that he had instantly become anti-Semitic on or shortly after November 1918 and notes that unlike rabid nationalist soldiers who flocked to the Freikorps in late 1918, Hitler did not. Instead Hitler served with distinction in his batallion even after it was taken over by the communists - being elected to a position within his communist-led batallion. Weber notes that from 1918 to mid-1919 there is no available evidence that shows that Hitler was anti-Semitic, but that there is evidence that during that time Hitler believed in a classless society and was an anti-monarchist. Weber says that evidence points to the wave of nationalist uproar by Germans to the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919 as the point in which Hitler joined in this wave and its circles of anti-Semitic nationalists.--R-41 (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, Hitler did remain in the army, because it gave him a job — his first real (and only) job. So he was not free to join the Freikorps, and he ended up briefly to serve in a "communist" batallion. I do not object to this being included in the entry, so long that it conveys this finer point. Malljaja (talk) 13:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion of it. Wikipedia does not base its material on user's opinions, it bases its material on reliable sources. The historian Thomas Weber says that there is no evidence that Hitler was an anti-Semite before the wave of uproar in Germany that resulted from the Treaty of Versailles. Thomas Weber has noted that the only known political views that Hitler was known to have held prior to uproar that followed Versailles is that he then believed in a classless society and that he was an anti-monarchist.--R-41 (talk) 13:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that Hitler stayed in the army after WWI because it gave him a job, it's a well-established fact: "Approaching thirty years of age, without education or prospects, his only plans were to stay in the army, which [..] had provided for him since 1914, as long as possible. (Kershaw, Hitler:Hubris, page 109). We've been over this before, but have moved little from there — your inability to stay focused on a single topic seems to be a contributing factor. Your obstinacy suggests that you are objecting to using Kershaw's work as a source. According to Google Scholar, Kershaw's "Hubris" has been cited >690 times (>50 times per year), whereas Weber's book has been cited two times (a rate of 1 citation per year). Given that citation rate is an undisputed measure of impact and relevance of scholarly work, your case that Weber's account should carry greater weight here is very weak. Malljaja (talk) 14:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Weber worked for Kershaw to help write one of his major books on Hitler, so I doubt that they are on opposite polls of their views on Hitler. Again, Weber's material should not be ignored - his work is about a specific instance of Hitler's life and statistics of its use do not alter the fact that Weber's work has been praised by prominent historian on Nazi Germany, Richard J. Evans for being a very valuable contribution to the historical study of Hitler's life. Both Kershaw's claim and Weber's claim should be included. Remember however that Weber's work is newer that Kershaw's and has accessed Hitler's regimental archives that no historian prior to him has done. Evans in his review of Weber's work stated that he agrees with Weber that evidence points to Hitler's notorious anti-Semitism beginning a substantial amount of time after the end of World War I in response to Versailles.--R-41 (talk) 20:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

You are again switching the topic, which is whether or not Hitler's purported attendance at Eisner's funeral should be included. And if so, how it may have been connected to Hitler's continued service in the army after WWI. Malljaja (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable for it to be included, a number of scholars have identified Hitler as being in the funeral procession, the historian Thomas Weber has noted the photograph in his work, and has found corresponding evidence to show that Hitler's battalion was run by the Bavarian communists. It is important because Hitler wasn't like the typical reactionary nationalists immediately after WWI, Hitler was ferociously anti-bourgeois and disgusted with bourgeois culture both in public and in private, and very anti-capitalist to which he added an anti-Semitic twist to it - again both in public and in private. Hitler himself admitted that he was impressed by the communists in Munich in how they presented themselves and their tactics. The picture of Hitler at Eisner's funeral shows above all the situation(s) that he was in - regardless of whether he really believed in their views, he had to work alongside a communist regime, and he worked with its propaganda department. And many have noted the similarity of the aesthetics and language of Hitler's propaganda to that of the communists.--R-41 (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthplace is misspelled. Someone please change this

I can't edit this, so someone should change this: The Birthplace is badly misspelled as "Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn in Ranshofen"

It's "Gasthof zum Pommer, in Ranshofen am Inn".

Ranshofen is part of Braunau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunau_am_Inn), located at the river Inn. Therefore "am Inn". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ingosp (talk • contribs) 09:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think that "inn" (Gasthof in German) is being used here in the sense of a temporary lodging, and is not referring to the river Inn.--Wikimedes (talk) 09:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Shirer says "in the Gasthof zum Pommer, a modest inn in the town of Barunau am Inn". "Gasthof" means an inn in the sense of a small hotel. The article says "Gasthof zum Pommer, an inn in Ranshofen,[9] a village annexed in 1938 to the municipality of Braunau am Inn" so I don't think anything needs to be changed. -- Dianna (talk) 14:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Citation Needed

"including nearly six million Jews." -> citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eng442 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? This is a generally accepted figure from the time of the Nuremberg trials. It may be too high; it is just as likely to be too low. Any attempt to question or discredit the figure is usually a prelude to Holocaust denial. It might, however, be desirable to add a caveat that it is an estimate and that the true number is unknown. Kim Traynor (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It already has a citation: Vad Yashem 2008 (citation number 207): "There is no precise figure for the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust. The figure commonly used is the six million quoted by Adolf Eichmann, a senior SS official. Most research confirms that the number of victims was between five and six million."--Wikimedes (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems unequivocal. And it's maybe worth pointing out that Eichmann was accepting the Nuremberg figure, showing that he didn't know any better himself. Kim Traynor (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of text about Romani

I have removed this addition to the article:

Under Hitler’s rule, both the Romani people and Jews were defined as “enemies of the race-based state” by the Nuremberg laws; the two groups were targeted by similar policies and persecution, culminating in the near-annihilation of both populations within Nazi-occupied countries. (ref)Janos Barsony, “Facts and Debates: The Roma Holocaust,” in Pharrajimos: The Fate of the Roma During the Holocaust, ed. Janos Barsony and Agnes Daroczi (New York: International Debate Education Association, 2008), 1.(/ref)

There's a couple of problems with this edit. First, although the quoted source backs up the claim that the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 covered Romani people, my primary sources (Shirer and Evans) do not say that; they show the Nuremberg Laws as pertaining to Jews alone. In fact Evans says that Hitler did not issue a decree specifically about Romani or Gypsies until 8 December 1938. The second problem is that the text has been copied directly from the Wikipedia article Porajmos, without attribution, as is required by Wikipedia's licensing and copyright law. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is the relevant guideline. Could I get some assistance here as to whether this information is accurate, and if so, how do we want to include it in the article? Thanks. -- Dianna (talk) 01:29, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's half true. The quotation is rather misleading. The laws did not define anyone as "enemies" of the state. It didn't use that language. It was law for the "protection" of "German blood". Initially it excluded non-Aryans, but lawyers objected that the term "Aryans" was problematic (technically it should include Gypsies, but exclude Hungarians, for example). The term was then changed to "non-German" and other "racially alien" blood. Again Gyspies/Romani were not mentioned in the laws, but Wilhem Frick made statements that this phrase should be interpreted to refer particularly to "Negroes and Gypsies" [14]. So, it was not just Jews and Romani, but Jews, "Gypsies" and Negroes. Of course there is another problem of defining "Gypsy", which is not a religion like Judaism and has no clear or rigid rules of ethnic inclusion. None of this has anything to do with annihilation. The Nuremberg Laws and the Holocaust are different things (though obviously related). Japanese people would also be excluded from mingling their "blood" with Germans according to the laws, but of course they were not victims of the Holocaust, for obvious reasons. And the small numbers of black-Germans were not rounded up and killed either (see Hans Massaquoi) . Paul B (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the first version or draft of the Nuremberg laws did not include Romanis and Gypsies, but the Interior Minister at the time, William Frick, expanded the law to "members of other races whose blood is not related to German blood, as, for example, Gypsies and Negroes." see here. I have not come across the definition of "enemies" in this context, so the quote may indeed be misleading, but it would be good to find a more authoritative source than enotes (I've not been able to extract relevant information from Kershaw, which is my principal source). Malljaja (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Um, did you read my comments? The wording of the law(s) do not include Frick's line about Negroes and Gypsies. It just refers to foreign "blood" (only Jews are specifically mentioned in the actual wording after the vague "non-Aryan" was replaced). Frick's remark was his explanation of how the law should be interpreted. The working out of who exactly had citizensahip rights and marriage rights was then a matter for the judiciary to codify in detail. Paul B (talk) 09:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Paul, for not specifically responding to your earlier comment. I cannot access the source you gave, because Google restricts its content, so I'm basing my assessment on the enotes reference. On the whole, I do not disagree with your interpretation, though the enotes source also speaks about a supplemental decree to the laws that included Gypsies and Romani people. Because enotes doesn't have inline citations, I've not been able to locate the original source that says so. Given that the Nuremberg Laws were rather hastily written, the entry should probably not contain sweeping statements about its contents, so I agree with Dianna's original idea that the section in question be removed from the article. In the interest of length and since Nuremberg Laws has its own entry, I do not see this as a problem. Malljaja (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor's intent was to highlight what happened to the Romani people. However, their fate is already mentioned in the article, so there is no need to repeat it. I will change "Roma" to "Romani people" so it is clearer. The link goes to our article Porajmos. -- Dianna (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, I think that's the way to go. Malljaja (talk) 19:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Romani people were specifically marked for extinction by the Nazis, like the Jews and Slavs. The entire article has just one, yes count it, just one mention about the Romani people. The article in its current form is consistent with the devaluation of the life of the Romani people like other much of other dominant media. To make an argument "In the interest of length and since Nuremberg Laws has its own entry, I do not see this as a problem." can be used to most other material in this article, it becomes simply a subjective assessment of the value of life of different humans. LuxNevada (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

There are three reasons why I disagree with you. (1) This article is about Hitler specifically, and not about the Holocaust or its victims. To put in more content about the Romani holocaust would be undue weight; Poles, Slavs, and other victims only get a passing mention as well. (2) You may not be aware of it, but the recommended length for a Wikipedia article is 10,000 words, and this article is at present 11,250 words; we should therefore not be looking to add further content to the article, but rather, to be snipping more out. There are readability issues as well as technical issues for the guideline; people trying to read the article from a mobile device may not be able to do so if the article is too big. It is therefore imperative that we stay focused on the main subject: Hitler. (3) You need to re-read the above discussion as well; the content you added is not actually accurate. -- Dianna (talk) 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The notion that any specific group, including Jews, was "marked for extinction" before 1941-2 is highly problematic. It implies an extreme intentionalist model which is not supported by the historical evidence. Measures against Gypsies (Roma and Sinti) were far more piecemeal and improvised even then, in contrast to the treatment of Jews. But as Dianna says, this is an article on Hitler, not on the Holocaust, the Nuremberg laws or Nazi racial policies. Jews loomed large in Hitler's writings and speeches. Gypsies did not. Paul B (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Arguments such as "recommended length of articles are 10,000 whereas this is 11,250 therefore I have free license to delete whatever does not suit my prejudices" are really quite pathetic. As for Gypsies not "looming large", as for one of the ethnicities that were population that were almost almost completely killed off by Hitler and the Nazis in the areas they occupied, any article on Hitler should mention Gypsies prominently. Unfortunately I do not have the time to battle for this, but I have no doubt that some future editor will bring to this article balance. LuxNevada (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

LN — Paul, Dianna and others have presented good reasons as to why this topic is adequately covered in this entry. This is an encyclopaedic article, not an essay, so given that this article presents formidable challenges to adequately cover multiple facets of Hitler's life and actions, brevity has to be one goal. I would urge you to employ the principle of good faith when you respond to or question the motivation of others. No one here is questioning the untold suffering caused by the subject of this entry. Malljaja (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Their reasons are sound, LuxNevada. Further you are close to violating WP:PERSONAL. Personal attacks will not help your argument or position as to the matter at hand. Kierzek (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

This article in Nepali Language

Hello,

I am translating this article to Nepali Language. I would appreciate if anybody who has rights to edit this article would link it to Nepali Language. अडोल्फ हिटलर Thank You in advance. Jpkoirala (talk) 00:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I am adding an interwiki link to हिटलर, as it looks like that's what the article title is right now. -- Dianna (talk) 03:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 June 2012

Wish to add something: date of death 1st May 1945, confusing my students. additional wish to add something on the following topics: additional nazi swastika symbol copied from Hindu swastika symbol Mohamedaddeen (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Multiple sources place his suicide on 30 April. The origins of the swastika, discussed at Swastika, are beyond the scope of this article. Rivertorch (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Aryan supremacy

I don't know why this revert was un-reverted for discussion, but no discussion initiated. Either "Aryan supremacy" is the same as "anti-Semitism" (Aryan = non-Semite) or it is being confused with Nordicism, which was certainly a factor in Nazi ideology, but not a programme as such. In fact, in practice this is is better described as "Germans are better than everyone else" - or German nationalism/supremacy - which is already listed. "Aryan supremacy" is far too vague and ambivalent. Paul B (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Kierzek (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree too. -- Dianna (talk) 23:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the late explanation for reverting my own edit — I've got sidetracked by analog activities. I've been asked about why I reverted Aryan supremacy, and wanted to open this for discussion here, and now got beat to it. I too agree with Paul's assessment and his re-revert. I do not recall Hitler using the term and it certainly is not on par for pulling votes like maligning the Versailles Treaty and invoking Bolshevik conspiracies. Malljaja (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Birth certificate vs. baptismal certificate

This phrase, "Alois's birth certificate did not name the father" should really read, "Alois's baptismal certificate did not name the father". "Birth certificates" did not exist at that time. One could argue that baptismal certificates are equivalent to birth certificates, but they are not really the same thing, and this sentence is needlessly imprecise. MonteGargano (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've change "birth certificate" to "baptismal register"; this is according to the wording of the sources I have. Malljaja (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit Advisory

'This article is frequently vandalized, which is reverted immediately. If you wish to try test editing, please go to the sandbox located at Wikipedia:Sandbox.'

What' the point in having the 'test editing' section when there is clearly no 'test editing' intended whatsoever?!

DAFMM (talk) 10:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hitler and German nationalism

When it talks in the childhood and education bit and states "Hitler became obsessed with German nationalism from a young age" would it not be better to describe that many German Austrians felt the same or people living along the Austro-German border?

"The area where Hitler grew up lay along the German border, where many Austrians considered themselves to be German-Austrians and expressed loyalty to the German imperial house." - Source

So wouldn't "Hitler, like many Austrians living along the Austro-German border considered themselves German Austrians and began to develop his German nationalist ideas from a young age" come across as better?

Whilst adding the picture of the ethnic groups in the Austria-Hungary Empire to show how many ethnic German people lived in Austria and all along the Austro-German border to make it more clear to people reading the article?

There should be something mentioned about him being Austrian in with the collaboration of his German nationalist views, since he wasn't the only Austrian who believed in a Greater Germany and was a Pan-German in his day.--GermanicSnake (talk) 17:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I am unable to review the quoted source as Google won't let me access it. The source you are quoting is a self-published book, and therefore is not suitable for use in this article. The source used in the article (Evans 2003) says that Hitler was strongly influenced by Georg Ritter von Schönerer, whose supporters were particularly numerous in Linz, and by the music of Wagner, with its Germanic myths and legends. -- Dianna (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

GS, we've been over this Austro-German story before — my suggestion is to let it be. Malljaja (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, there is many sourced cited books that say that the German Austrians considered themselves Germans first back then and were German nationalists (not just books but many citable sources too, it should make the Austrian-German relation more noticeable as anyone can claim to be a German nationalist.

There is a difference between Germanic and German as well!

Malljaja some people since 1945 want to deny Austrians are ethnically German and the "first victim" myth and all others are rubbish.

German Austrians is more better suited, before it used to be something along "Hitler, like many Austrian Germans considered themselves Germans etc etc" - why was that even removed?

It is certainly better than what is shown now.--GermanicSnake (talk) 06:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The content was removed because it doesn't tell us anything revealing about Hitler; and because the claim that Austrians think of themselves as Germans is not backed up by reliable sources. What is better for the article is a matter for consensus to decide, and my opinion is that the material does not belong in the article. -- Dianna (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

We are talking about then not now. It is true to say that the vast majority of Austrians these days do not see or consider themselves Germans (despite still of course being ethnically German) but back in Hitler's day the vast majority of German-Austrians that were born in Austria-Hungary still did consider themselves Germans regardless whether they were born German citizens or not. There is many reliable sources that can back up the "Austrian national identity" the de.wikipedia.org "Austrian identity" confirms this and makes it clear that until 1945 (roughly) Austrians seen themselves as Germans and then after the war distanced themselves from the German nation and the German identity.

Yes it does tell you about Hitler as he himself was a German Austrian born on the Austro-German border, it tells you his citizenship and ethnicity combined together and 'why' he became a German nationalist because it was rife in Austria at that time as they wanted to all be part of Germany and strived for a Greater Germany.

Why do you think in 1918 the name was the Republic of German-Austria and the Anschluss was welcomed by the Austrians?

Of course people like yourself might be the traditional enemy of the truth and deny Austrians being Germans but this is backed up, in fact until 1866 Austria was part of Germany and its only because of a historical unfortunate event (German war) that Austria never unified Germany but Prussia.

If the Austrians won the German war in 1866 would you question their Germanness?

Anyone can become a German nationalist, the Austrian roots makes it more notable for readers to see why he was one even though he was not born a German citizen.

I am not trying to say in it "Austrians are Germans" but to say "Hitler, like many German-Austrians" is more accurate, and it claims from a very young age but really he didn't pick up his patriotic German nationalist beliefs until after he served in the army (this is also what it states in his military career page of Wiki).--GermanicSnake (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, this information is non-notable and not backed up by reliable sources. Frankly, your insistence on including such minutiae is very tiresome. Consider dropping it, because it's got you into hot water before. Malljaja (talk) 19:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me what you consider a "reliable source" - there is many sites and books citing what I've said as well as historical evidence, nice deflecting what I've said though. :)--GermanicSnake (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The content guideline is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Books should be scholarly works from reputable publishing houses. Peer-reviewed journal articles are good. News sources should be from publishers known for a high level of fact-checking (New York Times, Times of London, Wall Street Journal, for example) but we should not source to opinion pieces or editorials. Websites are mostly not ok; the only ones I would consider adequate for Good Articles on WWII are Yad Vashem and USHMM. Blogs are out, as are self-published websites and books. There's a notice board at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where editors can get an opinion on the reliability of any source. Regardless of your sources, my opinion is that we don't have room for a discussion of pan-Germanism here in the Hitler article. It's off-topic, and should not be added to the article. -- Dianna (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There is an awful lot of reputable sourced books available about the German nationalist in Austria by the German Austrians, news sources you actually consider reliable any journalist can type them up and why should a Holocaust site be considered anymore reliable than others (Yad Vashem)?

You also deflected my question regarding the question about the German war and the German question, also the two Anschluss (one failed, one successful) - it states from a young age but on Hitler's military career wiki site it says after he served in the army, stating he was German Austrian or an Austrian German makes it a lot more easier to understand why he WAS a German nationalist and not an "Austrian" nationalist.--GermanicSnake (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Religious views and Steligmann-Gall

I think that this passage should make it clear that Steligmann-Gall's thesis is controversial and provocative. Steligmann-Gall's anti-Christian statement that Hitler "can be classified as Catholic" is very offensive and a view that no practicing Catholic would accept. Academics put forward their own views and theories and will sometimes promote a controversial idea as Steligmann-Gall does in this case. I am not against his views being aired, I am against them being aired without qualification. Historian David Irving has famously published material denying the holocaust. Are you going to reproduce his ideas without qualification too?John2o2o2o (talk) 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

There's really no need for the sentence about Steigmann-Gall's conclusions to be in the article at all, in my opinion. Is anyone in favour of its removal? -- Dianna (talk) 00:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I certainly am. John2o2o2o (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Diannaa, I would recommend you check to see what Kershaw states and go with it. I would check but do not have time tonight. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Kershaw certainly doesn't classify him as being technically Catholic. I think the whole sentence "Historian Richard Steigmann-Gall concludes that he 'can be classified as Catholic', but that 'nominal church membership is a very unreliable gauge of actual piety in this context'" should be removed; Hitler was plainly not pious or religious; the sentence is redundant and confusing. If no one objects in the next few days, I will remove it. -- Dianna (talk) 22:34, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Religious Views

There is a picture of Hitler meeting Haj Amin al-Husseini who is identified in the caption as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The picture is dated 1941. According to Wikipedia itself, Haj Amin al-Husseini was only Grand Mufti of Jerusalem till 1937. This is a serious error that gives the impression that somehow Hitler and Muslims were aligned or working in concert. Al-Husseini was traveling Europe on his own agenda, not representing any Muslim nation. Out of thousands of pictures of Hitler, why is the particular picture with the false caption on display in Wikipedia? It very well can be taken as an attempt to smear Muslims, and should be taken down.

Samwayfare (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What you need to do if you wish the image to be removed is nominate it for deletion. The photo is not hosted here on English Wikipedia, but on the Commons. Here is a link to two versions of the file: File:Haj Amin al-Husseini meeting with Adolf Hitler.jpg, and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1987-004-09A, Amin al Husseini und Adolf Hitler.jpg. I have amended the caption of the first photo to show he was former Mufti of Jerusalem at the time of the meeting. I did not edit the caption of the second photo, as it is a translation of the original caption from the Deutsches Bundesarchiv, who donated the photo to the Commons, and the captions should not be changed on that particular set of photos. For documentary purposes the German Federal Archive often retained the original image captions, which may be erroneous, biased, obsolete or politically extreme. -- Dianna (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is two politicians meeting. It has nothing to do with Hitler's religious views. Britmax (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake. I did not realise we still had the picture here in the article. Does anyone else besides Samwayfare think the picture should be removed from this article, or moved to a different section perhaps? -- Dianna (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Brimax, that this picture merely documents a meeting between Hitler and al-Husseini. It does not in any way suggest that the two men had a shared agenda or were "working in concert" nor that al-Husseini was representing a Muslim nation. So I don't see why it needs to be removed or even moved within the article. Malljaja (talk) 13:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it could be removed on the basis that the subject of the photograph is not mentioned in the article. Pics should not be merely decorative; they should illustrate the content. I have removed this pic in the past on that basis, but someone has put it back. -- Dianna (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree the meeting had nothing to do with Hitler's religious views so it should not be there. A little history as to their meeting: Haj Amin al-Husseini opposed the British controlling Egypt and Palestine. He actively collaborated with Germany and Italy, meeting Adolf Hitler and asking him to back Arab independence. Hitler promised him the leadership of the Arabs after the British were driven out of the middle-east. Later, he helped recruit Muslims for the Waffen-SS; specifically a Bosnian Muslim division; the 13th Waffen Mountain Division of the SS Handschar. Since the guy is not mentioned in the article, I am neutral on his inclusion; but the photo should be moved, at least. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In light of the above two comments, I agree that removing or moving the image may indeed be in order. I do not have strong feelings about this either way though. Malljaja (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the caption. I strongly feel the purpose of the picture is to simply malign Muslims. Wiki is used to describe major milestones in a summarized article. This was an insignificant meeting, a detail in Hitler's life that does not belong in Wiki. As others noted, Husseini is not even mentioned in the article. I feel someone's intent was to associate Muslims with Hitler by showing a person easily identified as Muslim by his clothes and head dress. The false caption identifying him as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem only added to this smear. The picture should be removed as it is not relevant to the article or major milestones in Hitler's life. Samwayfare (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is impossible to say what the motive of the editor who chose the picture may have been (I've no idea who that was and see no reason to scour the archive seeking him/her out). It may well have been simply to have some sort of relevant image for that section. Hitler did praise Islam, as he saw it as a martial religion, unlike Christianity. The article does note this, and there is more detail in the Religious views of Adolf Hitler article. I'm in two minds about it myself. I think it's as good a picture as any to have. As this is the article on Hitler himself, any image really should be directly about him rather than Nazi ideology in general. Paul B (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect it was an attempt to smear Arabs in terms of guilt by association, motivated by present-day tensions and hostility between Israel and Palestine. Kim Traynor (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Image

The image of Adolf at the beginning of the page, in my opinion, would be better if it wasn't him in a Nazi uniform. This is to differentiate him from Nazism. Not a big deal or anything, but I just think it'd make the page look better. 99.178.171.244 (talk) 04:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)SilverStar

We don't have a lot of choices as so many of the best pictures are not yet in the public domain. Most of the top Nazi officials wore uniforms most of the time, so it might be difficult to find a good clear image, in the public domain, with no uniform. Eva Braun's photographs will come into the public domain in the United States in 2015, I think. Hoffmann did not die until 1957, so there's a long wait for most of his stuff. Here's a few potential images I might suggest: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1990-048-29A, Adolf Hitler.jpg from 1936; File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-S62600, Adolf Hitler.jpg from 1937; File:Hitler portrait crop.jpg from 1938 -- Dianna (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

This mentions both the page looking better and differentiating Hitler from nazism. I understand the page could look better but that's of course subjective to each person. I'm curious as to why we would want to differentiate him from nazism, as most of he world associates him with it. UselessToRemain (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and wearing uniforms was a big part of their schtick, so why no uniform? -- Dianna (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no real reason to change to a non-uniform image. Hitler more commonly wore and was photographed wearing them; especially after World War II began. Kierzek (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The photograph is Hitler's official portrait and therefore absolutely appropriate to show him as the 'Leader' of the Third Reich. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was homosexual

New studies are showing that Adolf Hilter may in fact have been a homosexual. His interest in the Hitler Youth is a sign of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuteness93 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This information should be added when you find a supporting link, of which there are many across the webverse124.176.222.19 (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. None of the major biographers believe this. a "supporting link" is needed to reliable secondary sources. Rjensen (talk) 05:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no evidence to support that Hitler was a homosexual it's just a myth like his alleged Jewish ancestry (again false) to add drama.--92.238.167.69 (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

As Rjensen states, the majority of historians do not believe it to be true. So there would be WP:FRINGE problems; and second, most websites do not meet WP:RS standards and are considered self published sources. So a "supporting link" from one would not meet the standards for addition, either. Kierzek (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Kierzek. This is a fringe theory, not supported by historians. -- Dianna (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This is just yellow press speculation, it's quite rare that serious historicans consider this.-- Laber□^T 03:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think there may have been a serious political reason for Hitler's interest in the Hitler Youth rather than an alleged homo-erotic interest. Kim Traynor (talk) 22:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's correct, Kim Traynor. Hitler did say this, "He who gains the youth, gains the future." To him and every National Socialist the youth was an important part of society and had to be active in their community. Derpian (talk) 09:14, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

And anyway...there were girls in it too! Paul B (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I think these two just want to believe he was a Homosexual, the Hitler Youth was made up of both boys AND girls, even so, Hitler had many girlfriends over the course of his life, and even married Eva Braun (his longtime girlfriend since 1929, and yes I know they were married for just one day but married nonetheless). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Cole (talk • contribs) 02:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

pido la eliminacion de este articulo.

Este articulo no es imparcial ni objetivo.un articulo debe ser imparcial y objetivo,pues de lo contrario queda sujeto a la ideologia y al antojo del que lo ha escrito.en un articulo no se puede ser subjertivo,pues deja de ser un articulo,objetivo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.224.105.247 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If you can tell that, you can talk to us in English. Britmax (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Britmax, if you can tell what he said, you can answer him in Spanish.98.170.197.91 (talk) 02:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, this was en Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I can tell from "es imparcial ni objetivo.un articulo" that the IP does not feel that the article is objective enough. Beyond that, no. So it's just as well that I don't have to as this is still en Wikipedia. Britmax (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Mr 77etc says that the article is not objective. That's all. No explanation. Too pro-Hitler? Too anti-Hitler? Too much/too little on the Holocaust, autobahns, his musical tastes? God knows. Or not. Trans: "This article is not impartial or objective. An article should be impartial and objective, otherwise it is subject to the whims of ideology and its writer. Such an article that cannot be subjective and is therefore not an objective article." In other words, it's not objective because it's subjective, which stops it being objective. blah. Paul B (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The section header reads "I ask for the removal of this article". It struck me that the IP mentioned the writer of the article, when this particular piece, in the best collaborative fashion, has grown and improved over time thanks to the work of many authors. -- Dianna (talk) 22:24, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Diannaa. Given that fact and the additional one that this article passed GA review, speaks for itself. Kierzek (talk) 16:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitlers Labor code and economy of the Third Reich

It`s Orwels 1984 behavior to erase the facts as that:

"In 1934 Adolf Hitler on January 20 first in Europe with "The national labor code" set the 40-hour - 5 days labor week and 12 to 21 days paid holyday for the workers. Unemployment fell 6 times to low than 1,5% (reduced from six million in 1932 to one million in 1936). Hyperinflation and black market of the Weimar Republic was stopped. Hitler oversaw one of the largest infrastructure improvement campaigns in German history, leading to the construction of dams, autobahns, railroads, and other civil works."

"The national labor code" (Law on the regulation of National labor)- 23.01.1934 is a well known published in Reichsgesetzblatt on 23.01.1934 act of the law of the Third Reich, my personally opinion about AH role in the European history is very strongly negative, but if We hide and don`t know the truth facts about him We will have the some body like AH again! Mpb eu (talk)

What you are putting forth (as to the 40 hour work week) may be true; but in the end, I must say as a reader, so what? The problem as I see it anyway, is the fact that it changed steadily as the years went on after Hitler demanded a change to a war economy. Schacht, a free market economist at heart, had a falling out with Hitler over the changes Hitler demanded (self-sufficiency from within Germany and German-controlled land; and the war economy) True, the increase in work hours was to a lesser degree through 1939; however, as the war years progressed, the long hours worked, along with pay, lack of goods and even food available greatly effected the German worker. The war led to an "all consuming" appetite for resources, labor efforts and manpower in the end. These are the reasons why I reverted your entry. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I removed it and you will soon be sent to room 101. It's confusingly expressed, and frankly it's not clear what you are trying to say. I guess you want to state that the Nazis regenerated the economy and introduced innovative labour laws. That's better suited to the Nazi Germany article. Paul B (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

What is a Third Reich ?

there was a `Drittes Reich` or `Third Empire` but not a nonsense like `Third Reich` or ... wait! ... btw. how about this -> `Drittes Empire` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.39.45.148 (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Statelessness

The sidebar states that he held Austrian citizenship until 7 April, 1925 and became a German citizen on 25 February, 1932. Does this mean that he was stateless during the intervening 7 years or did he have some kind of non-citizen resident status?Axeman (talk) 04:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It's in the body of the article. He was stateless for seven years and at risk for deportation. Shirer (p.130) says this is one reason why he chose to live at the Obersalzberg; he could quickly slip over the border back into Austria to evade arrest if need be. Shirer goes on to say that Hitler repeatedly sought German citizenship in the latter 1920s, but was turned down. He obtained German citizenship in 1932 courtesy of the Minister of the Interior of the state of Brunswick, who was a member of the NSDAP. -- Dianna (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hitler as an artist

Biographical information should be added about Hitler's artistic life and his influence on european art. It is omitted here and there is much evidence to support the idea that part of Hitler's motivations for engaging in WWII making the information valuable and relevant.--Stringfellowaaron (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hitler had zero influence on European art. One can make a case that Nazi imagery had an influence on modern graphic design, logos etc, but that's a different issue, and is not specific to Hitler. Hitler dislike of Modernism was certainly part of his ideology, and therefore in a small way related to his view of the "degeneracy" of Western culture and "Jewishness" in art, but Hitler and Stalin were of one mind on this topic, whereas Mussolini was, in part at least, sympathetic to Futurism. So I can't see art as a major cause of World War II. Paul B (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

All I'm suggesting is that biographical information concerning Hitlers artistic life should be included in this section, because it is pertinent to understanding his role in the history of art. Additionally, my statement concerning Hitler's influence on european art was misunderstood, but it is completely false to say that "Hitler had zero influence on European art." The word I should have used was "affected." While he might not have "influenced" the direction of art, he catastrophically "affected" the european art world. Also, it has been asserted in the film The Rape of Europa that prior to World War II, that Hitler's anti-semitism was fueled by his denial from art school by a panel of judges containing Jews. Again, not my argument but this argument exists and can be supported. There for, while, yes we must not include the Nazi affects on the art world, there should be a section that provides Hitler's artistic history.--Stringfellowaaron (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The outflow of artists, designers, writers etc from Germany had an impact on culture, yes, but that would be appropriate for the Nazi Germany article. There was a debate between Goebbels and Rosenberg about art (Goebbels was sympathetic to Expressionism). Hitler supported Rosenberg, who hated all modern art. This goes beyond Hitler, so is not suited to the biographical article on him. There are many many theories about the origin of Hitler's anti-semitism. I don't think we need a specific section on Hitler's art activities, but it is discussed throughout the account of his early years. Paul B (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Barlow. My opinion is that we don't really have room for this peripheral material here in the main Hitler article. -- Dianna (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a godawful article, nominally on one of Hitler's paintings Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich (Hitler), which rambles about all over the place. It could be turned into an article on Hitler's art works and views on art, which we could link to from here. Paul B (talk) 19:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I request a more smiling and conducive depiction of the Fuhrer as lead image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Oxycut (talk) 00:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Conducive to what? And smiling for what reason? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:19, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter anyway; there are no such images available for use. -- Dianna (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-2004-1202-500,_Adolf_Hitler,_Joseph_Goebbels,_Tochter.jpg

Such images exist. He possessed a delightful smile and effusive love for the children of his race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.206.168 (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are lots of similar pictures, but they are generally 'snapshots' like this one. We use standard official portraits for for most political figures if they are available. Nazis are no exception to the general rule. Paul B (talk) 12:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear which man is Hitler, and we can't see his face clearly. -- Dianna (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Oxycut is banned User:DavidYork71 per check-user Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oxycut. Please see LTA report at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/DavidYork71. -- Dianna (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images

I was tinkering with the images today and removed several, as the text was starting to get squished by an overabundance of pics. They're all so great, it's hard to know which ones we should use. Any comments or suggestions are welcome. -- Dianna (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree as per MOS:IMAGELOCATION - Dont think I could have chooses any better - good job!Moxy (talk) 21:58, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

The ones you chose are fine. The squeezing of text between photos can be a fairly common problem, as you know. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Not clear

It is not clear why German police were enforcing Hapsburg conscription legislation. Normally, such legislation is viewed as an expression of national sovereignty and not enforced by foreign governments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.65.2.31 (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

German police was not enforcing foreign legislation. They followed a request by Austrian authorities for extradition from Germany on the basis of an offence (ie, draft dodging)—such agreements were and are not uncommon between countries. Malljaja (talk) 00:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: link to swastika

Under "Entry to Politics" section, final sentence of second paragraph ("Hitler designed the party's banner of a swastika in a white circle on a red background"), swastika should be a link 176.251.61.177 (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

•  Done Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Poverty?

User:Ylee has added the following; "Contrary to Hitler's claim in Mein Kampf, he did not grow up in poverty; Alois' pension gave the family a comfortable lifestyle." (cited to Bullock|1962|p=26) Personally, I don't think this is useful. The main problem is that thre is no way of defining what is meant by "poverty" or "comfortable". Is there a specific claim in Mein Kampf that is contradicted? Saying that Hitler exaggerated the poverty of his youth might be better, since that does not make a rigid distinction between a state of 'poverty' and 'comfort' (surely one can be 'poor but comfortable'?). What exactly does Bullock say about Hitler's alleged misrepresentation? Paul B (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The relevant text from Bullock is:

Hitler attempted to represent himself in Mein Kampf as the child of poverty and privation. In fact, his father had a perfectly adequate pension and gave the boy the chance of a good education.

I believe my edit is a reasonable paraphrase. Ylee (talk) 18:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I disagree, Ylee; there is still vagueness present (as written) in the article; and I agree with Paul that there is no exact way to define what is meant by "poverty" or "comfortable". Kierzek (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to remove or re-word the addition, because Hitler does not say in Mein Kampf that he grew up in poverty. Bullock is wrong about that. Hitler says that they suffered financial difficulties after his father died; this is hardly the same as growing up in poverty, as Hitler was already thirteen. His father had been well-off enough to retire at the age of 56. -- Dianna (talk)

I too see several issues with this addition. The clause "Contrary to Hitler's claim in Mein Kampf, he did not grow up in poverty;..." begins with a conflict ("contrary to") that seems oddly misplaced because it does not arise from what is said previously in this section; and, as already pointed out by Paul, Kierzek, and Dianna, "poverty" is a vague term. I also support removal or substantial re-wording of this addition. Malljaja (talk) 02:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

I have taken it out. -- Dianna (talk) 03:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: rewording of 'at the centre of the holocaust'

{{editrequest}} The lead currently claims that "He was at the centre of the founding of Nazism, the start of World War II, and the Holocaust." Though it is properly a good idea to include a reference to the holocaust in the lead, claiming he was at the center of it seems bitstrong -- the Holocaust really was more of Himmlers thing. I propose a change to "He was at the centre of the founding of Nazism, the start oWorld War II, and played a pivotal role in the conception and execution of the Holocaust". It's a bit less concise, but I think more correct overall. 84.20.89.8 (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

disagree. he was "at the center" in that Himmler and the others spoke in his name and his authority. Hitler left the pivotal decisions to others. Rjensen (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

from your response I understand that you think "he was at the center" is less strong than "he played a pivotal role", is that right? 84.20.89.8 (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

only one person is at "the center" while several can play pivotal roles, so I see "center" version as stronger. Rjensen (talk) 14:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It is appropriate to say in the lead that Hitler as at the centre of the Holocaust, even if Himmler was its main executioner. Himmler very loyally worked towards his Führer's wishes; Hitler, being a rabid antisemite, clearly instigated and encouraged the Holocaust. Malljaja (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Hitler clearly would be said to be the one "at the centre"; one must remember that he was the hub of the wheel in which the Nazi Party and Nazi state ultimately revolved around. Kierzek (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:LEAD. The section on the Holocaust is more than sufficient to say that Hitler was at the centre of it in the lead section. Further, several editors have objected to the change. If you still wish to make this change, please discuss further on this talk page and gain a consensus, then re-add the template. Thanks. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:34, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Will do, once I have more time. My reading of both the Holocaust section and the Holocaust article does not put Hitler in the center, cherry picking: "The Holocaust (the "Endlösung der jüdischen Frage" or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question") was organised and executed by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich. The records of the Wannsee Conference—held on 20 January 1942 and led by Heydrich, with fifteen senior Nazi officials participating—provide the clearest evidence of systematic planning for the Holocaust.", "Although no specific order from Hitler authorising the mass killings has surfaced,[212] he approved the Einsatzgruppen—killing squads that followed the German army through Poland, the Baltic, and the Soviet Union[213]—and he was well informed about their activities." and, from the lead of Final Solution: "Heinrich Himmler was the chief architect of the plan, and the German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler termed it "the final solution of the Jewish question" [...] it was only with the decision to eradicate the entire Jewish population that the extermination camps were built and industrialized mass slaughter of Jews began in earnest. [...] the conference was chaired by Reinhard Heydrich. He was acting under the authority given to him by Reichsmarschall Göring in a letter dated July 31, 1941. Göring instructed Heydrich to devise "...the solution of the Jewish problem...""

Note that I am not being a Hitler or holocaust apologist here; Hitler was very clearly aware, and very much approved, and, to kick in an open door, obviously responsible as the highest in command, for the holocaust; had he not approved, it would not have happend. Yet if any single person should be named as being in the center, it should that not be Himmler, or, possibly Heydrich, rather than Hitler? If so, should the lead here still stand as it stands? 62.140.132.30 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the best way to handle this is to make it clearer in the body of the article that everything was done on Hitler's orders. For example, we could change it to say " ... was organised and executed by Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich at Hitler's behest." --Dianna (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] The Holocaust would not have happened in the absence of Hitler, even if Himmler or Heydrich had been around. There are some finer points when it comes to its execution, but in instigating and furnishing the ideology for the Holocaust Hitler was at the centre of it. Moreover, "centre" does not imply a single person occupying it. For the purpose of the lead of this particular entry it is sufficient to indicate that Hitler stood at the centre of the Holocaust—it doesn't let Himmler, Heydrich, and others also involved in it off the hook. Malljaja (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see your point there. Still if I would summarise the other sections saying he is in the center still feels too strong. How about "and created a philosophy of racial purity on which the holocaust was based, which was carried out with his approval", possibly adding something like and under his authority? 62.140.137.151 (talk) 16:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I hear you, but I see several problems with such addition. Hitler did not really develop a "philosophy of racial purity", his antisemitism amounted only to roughly hewn opinion, not a rigorously developed philosophy. Also, the sentence in question is the third one in the lead—it merely introduces the topic, which is dealt with later on in the entry. I agree with Dianna's idea that this is better handled by making it clear in the main body of the article that Hitler's orders (or tacit approval of others' orders) resulted in the Holocaust. Malljaja (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the section is fairly sound, and his tacit approval is made clear quite well in the section. The problem I have here however is that tacit approval, no matter how real, or how vile, does not make for being in the center. I can fully go along with your reasoning "without Hitler, no holocaust", but putting him in the center remains too strong a wording for tacit approval in my opinion. He really wasn't in the center of the holocaust as he was at the center of national socialism, or at the center of (the escalation into, if you take the Sino Japansese war as a starting point) WWII. Is there a different phrasing you can propose that doesn't put him in the center, but acknowledges his responsibility and role in the holocaust? 62.194.104.217 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia that puts Hitler at the centre, its the RS: look at the titles of full-length books and scholarly articles: Hitler and the Holocaust (2001); The Holocaust, Hitler, and Nazi Germany (1994); Hitler & the Holocaust by Alan Bullock - (1994); Hitler and the Holocaust: The Hidden Story (2001); Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans & the Holocaust (1997); The Holocaust, Hitler and Nazi genocide (1981) etc etc.. for articles try: "Hitler’s Genocide: Teaching the Psychology of the Holocaust" in Teaching of Psychology (2012); "Willing Executors of Hitler's Will? The Goldhagen Controversy, Political Analysis and the Holocaust" in Politics (2000); "Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Killed More?" New York Review of Books (2011); "Nations Have the Right to Kill: Hitler, the Holocaust and War" in Journal of Genocide Research (2010), etc etc Rjensen (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok then. At least the section should support it then. I'll see if I can get my hand on a few of those books. Would you happen to have page numbers ready? If not, no problem, I should be able to find it anyway. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 19:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd imagine Hitler and the Holocaust does that from cover to cover though. I'll see what I can find. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

A good online place to start is Dan McMillan. Review of Fritz, Stephen G., Ostkrieg: Hitler's War of Extermination in the East in H-Genocide, H-Net Reviews. October, 2012. URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=35868 which states "Fritz efficiently develops the ways in which the war provided the necessary ideological context for the radicalization of Nazi Jewish policy into genocide, beginning with Adolf Hitler's worldview, from which both the Holocaust and the war in the East sprang. Hitler saw the Jews as Germany's deadly and implacable enemy... [etc]" and shows how Hitler was at the center of the Holocaust Rjensen (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool

Some older accounts mention that at some time prior to WW2 Hitler made a "little known" brief visit to the UK, Liverpool to be specific. Here he was to see the docks and then appreciated just how much the UK dedpended on its shippping fleet.

Are any other details known or is this just another legend? AT Kunene (talk) 17:46, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The most recent discussion about this was around the time of our GA review; the discussion is at Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 52#May have taken a trip to Liverpool. Quick version: There's no solid evidence to support the notion, so it does not appear in the article. -- Dianna (talk) 18:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Mein Kampf

Did Hitler actually write this book or, as was his usual practice, dictated it to somebody else who then wrote it down?AT Kunene (talk) 17:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It was dictated to Emil Maurice and later Rudolf Hess and was begun while Hitler was in prison. The first volume was published in 1925 and the second in 1926. The book was edited by Father Bernhard Stempfle, who was editor of a small antisemitic newspaper. (Bullock, page 121, 133). -- Dianna (talk) 18:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

URL mispelling

When I get to Adolf Hitler's page it gives me the URL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hilter.

Notice the HiLter instead of HitLer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.70.13.42 (talk • contribs)

I was able to reproduce that by searching for "Adolf Hilter". Adolf Hilter redirects to Adolf Hitler. Monty Python, anyone? -- Dianna (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

antichrist?

First paragraph states that most people think of him as one of the antichrists. It is not cited, and hardly could be factual, seeing that "most" people in the world are non-christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsoder (talk • contribs) 13:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the good faith edit as it is uncited and POV. Kierzek (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Completely missing in all Wikipedia-articles about Hitler

Was leider auch im deutschen Wikipedia fehlt:

Hitler: ein einziges klares Ziel seit der frühesten Kindheit vor Augen, sich das "Mitfühlen" (Empathie) dauernd abtrainierend, eine perfekte hypersoziale Intelligenz ("Theory of Mind", "mind reading"), ein pausenloses Arbeiten selbst im Schlaf und der naive Glaube, es gäbe so etwas wie "die Juden" und "die Geschichte" − und mit einem eklatanten Mangel an Selbstironie... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.0.102.1 (talk) 08:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if you conveyed your idea more clearly. What you mean by "a perfect hyper-social intelligence" and the rest of your statement is unclear to me. I cannot therefore reply to your points. I note you state it is missing from German Wikipedia, as well. Kierzek (talk) 12:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Still the English Wikipedia, though. Britmax (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Without a source it's hardly worth considering, but this is my effort at a free translation:

From his earliest childhood he kept one clear goal before him...to permanently remove all empathy from his being. He sought a perfect intelligence that was above social conditioning, he continued to work at this even while asleep, and he held the naive belief that there were such things as "Jews" and "history". And all this with an astonishing absence of self-irony. Rumiton (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

"He continued to work at this even while asleep".. What? How does anyone know? What is self-irony and how does one detect its absence? All opinions. Britmax (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Its nonsense, really. Kierzek (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is. No idea where it came from but it reads like a mishmash of things that were postulated about Hitler with things he probably said about himself. He suggested that he was in a divinely inspired state by comparing himself to a Schlafwandler (sleepwalker), so this stuff about working on his Weltanschauung even while sleeping might be connected with this. Rumiton (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hitlers flight to Argentina

Why isn't this theory concluded in the article? Some theories are completely nonsense, but this theory described by Simon Dunstan and Gerrard Williams in their book: 'Grey Wolf: The Escape of Adolf Hitler' has some very good grounds for it's existence. I think I 'm going to write something about it, if you disagree with this feel free to remove it, but I think it's an important theory to include in the article which I can't find in the Dutch wikipedia neither. I just noticed that you can't edit it so I will type it down here and ask if someone can include it into the article.RealExperience (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry to discourage you, but if you add material on theories such as this, they will likely be immediately removed. The Argentina theory was most recently discussed in October 2011. Around the time of our Good Article review (December 2011), it was decided to strip out theories and speculation. We don't have room for it; most such claims don't meet Wikipedia sourcing standards; and it's not the material our readers are coming here for. What we want to provide is basic facts about the subject of the article presented in as neutral a way as possible, not theories or speculation. -- Dianna (talk) 16:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The difference with most other theories and speculation is that this one is supported by quotes from Stalin and Churchill, but also the FBI and other gouvernment sources that by a lot of these people was claimed that Hitler didn't die but fled to Argentina. When Stalin was asked in 1945 if Hitler was dead, he answered 'no'. I understand if you don't want to conclude it, but I will post the piece I wrote down anyways and I let you decide whether it's worth including, the reason why I think this should be included is that in contrast with most other theories and speculation this one has some ground, because people like Stalin seem to support the theory. Anyways, I will read the link you gave me.

Piece:

According to British authors Gerrard Williams and Simon Dunstan Adolf Hitler and his wife Eva Braun fled to Argentina and died there in 1962. This is a very controversial theory and it is also ridiculised by historians, including Mr Walters. Williams told Sky News: ‘There is no forensic evidence for his, or Eva Braun’s deaths, and the stories from the eyewitnesses to their continued survival in Argentina are compelling.’

In their book, they describe how American intelligence officials were complicit to the escape of Hitler, in exchange for war technology developed by the Nazis. They also say that skull fragments from the Russians, claimed to be of Adolf Hitler are actually that of a young woman under 40 years old. Mr Walters criticised this as evidence for Hitlers flight to Argentina: 'There were many people in the bunker and it takes a giant leap of the imagination to get from a museum in Russia to him living a life in Argentina. 'Mr Williams and Mr Dunstan claim a body double took Hitler’s place and an actress stood in for Eva Braun on April 27. It was at this point that the pair were able to flee Berlin, travelling to Tonder in Denmark before returning to Travemunde in Germany. From here it is claimed that they flew to a Spanish military base at Reus, south of Barcelona, before General Franco supplied a plane to take them to Fuerteventura in the Canary Islands. A day later the two fugitives are said to have boarded a U-boat and the two body doubles were executed and their bodies subsequently burned. The book points to declassified FBI documents which contain references to Hitler having escaped Berlin to begin a new life in South America.

It also includes testimony from the pilot who supposedly flew Hitler and Eva Braun out of Berlin to Mar Del Plata on the Argentinian coast.

Here they say he lived in a wooden chalet in a remote village where they survived on the money from looted gold and jewellery.

The book quotes a number of sources, such as cooks and doctors, who claim to have knew the Nazi leader before he died aged 73 on February 13, 1962. They claim that Hitler's bloodline survived through two daughters he had with Braun.

If Hitler had escaped to Argentina, he would have been following in the footsteps of his henchmen, Mengele, Eichmann and Barbie who all fled after the war to South America.

A film based on the claims called Grey Wolf is currently being made and is due to be released early next year. It is not the first time that Hitler has been rumoured to have fled to Argentina. Author Abel Basti claimed the same in his 2003 book Hitler In Argentina. He said Hitler and Braun fled to Argentine shores aboard a submarine and lived for many years in the vicinity of San Carlos de Bariloche, a tourist site and ski haven some 1,000 miles southwest of Buenos Aires. In his book Bariloche Nazi-Guía Turística he reproduced documents, affidavits, photographs and blueprints aimed at steering the reader to the sites that sheltered Hitler and his top henchmen. He claimed the Incalco Ranch, located in Villa la Angostura on the shores of Lake Nahuel Huapi, was the refuge chosen by Argentine Nazis to hide the couple. Set amid a pine forest, it could only be reached by boat or hydroplane, and belonged to Argentine businessman Jorge Antonio, one of the most trusted friends of three-times president Juan Domingo Perón.

Basti also claimed Hitler had lived at Hacienda San Ramon, six miles east of Bariloche, which belonged at the time to Schaumberg-Lippe principality.' (Quoted from Daily Mail)

Williams and Dunstan did their research in Argentina and Argentinians who helped them with their book received death-threats: ‘two of our eyewitnesses received death threats from persons unknown while working with us on this book.’

Source: [15] RealExperience (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it an idea that if I have read the book I make a special page about it because it seems there isn't one yet? RealExperience (talk) 16:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

You could make a page about the book, but it may be considered non-notable in itself. Alternatively you could create a page on "Adolf Hitler survival theories", or some similar title, which might include notable literature such as Steiner's The Portage to San Cristobal of A.H.. Paul B (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Normally books are not considered notable enough for Wikipedia until their authors have Wikipedia articles. The Daily Mail is not considered adequate sourcing for most Wikipedia purposes, so sorry. I am going to place a "welcome" template on your talk page that has links to useful imformation as to how to get started editing. Welcome to Wikipedia :) -- Dianna (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

We have lots of similar conspiracy theory articles, so it would not be amis to make one on this topic, which is certainly notable. It's not only inspired literature such Steiner's novel, but also Philippe Van Rjndt's The Trial of Adolf Hitler (1978) and doubtless others. The theory, or rather the various competing 'Hitler survival' theories, have been fanmiliar in the press and conspiracy literature for years. It's not difficult to find sources. Paul B (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

the RS are unanimous that the escape stories are false. HOWEVER they were very widely believed or talked about in the 1940s and 1950s and deserve an article of their own. Rjensen (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

It should not be added here, nor in the Death of Adolf Hitler article either (where it has been discussed in the past on the talk page[16]). The wild theories have serious WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY problems; and are not accepted by RS main historians as has been noted above. It does make for good fiction writing. I guess a separate article might be a thought as long as it is CLEAR therein that no RS historians accept the theories as fact. I must add that I really don't believe articles like these are a good idea in the end; where to stop: one on Elvis, next? Kierzek (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

well the Elvis Pressly bit is firmly entrenched in American folklore: ) It's as true as Paul Bunyan. As for Hitler's escape, it was a worldwide myth for many years and shows a profound willingness to believe fantasy instead of government statements. Rjensen (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

You have to admit, the two are not always mutually exclusive. Rumiton (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you both have a point. A "worldwide myth" which Stalin and the Soviets had a lot to do with at the time. They presented different versions of Hitler's fate according to its political desires and propaganda; even through the 1960s with Lev Bezymenski's KGB written book on Hitler only taking poison. See: Eberle, Henrik; Uhl, Matthias, eds. (2005). The Hitler Book: The Secret Dossier Prepared for Stalin from the Interrogations of Hitler's Personal Aides. Since then some don't want to believe the RS version of the events which are even put forth by MI5 on their website. See: "Hitler's Last Days" [17]. Kierzek (talk) 17:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Risk of declaration of war from Britain and France

The article says:

Hitler was concerned that a military attack against Poland could result in a premature war with Britain.[219][225] However, Hitler's foreign minister—and former Ambassador to London—Joachim von Ribbentrop assured him that neither Britain nor France would honour their commitments to Poland, and that a German–Polish war would only be a limited regional war.[226][227] Ribbentrop claimed that in December 1938 the French foreign minister, Georges Bonnet, had stated that France considered Eastern Europe as Germany's exclusive sphere of influence;[228] Ribbentrop showed Hitler diplomatic cables that supported his analysis.[229] The German Ambassador in London, Herbert von Dirksen, supported Ribbentrop's analysis with a dispatch in August 1939, reporting that Chamberlain knew "the social structure of Britain, even the conception of the British Empire, would not survive the chaos of even a victorious war", and so would back down.[227] Accordingly, on 21 August 1939 Hitler ordered a military mobilisation against Poland.

However, according to The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy, Adam Tooze, page 321, it was the opposite:

Hitler chose war in September 1939 and he did so even though he knew that an attack on Poland would most likely provoke a declaration of war by Britain and France. Marcelo Jenisch (talk)

I think he was planning all along to go to war with Britain and France; Evans (2008) pp 112–113 supports this; but his concern was regarding the timing – he did not think they were ready for a war on multiple fronts. -- Dianna (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Further reading, such as Evans (2005) p 697, shows the paragraph needs to be re-written using Evans, Shirer, and Kershaw. I can get Kershaw this morning if no one has it checked out, and have other sources here. I will work up a draft and post it here on the talk page for discussion -- Dianna (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I have done some reading and Kershaw and Evans both agree that Hitler did not believe that Britain and France would intervene if Poland were attacked. This disagrees with Tooze's statement. Regardless, I think we should clarify the content a bit; here's my proposed edit:

Hitler was concerned that a military attack against Poland could result in a premature war with Britain. However, Hitler's foreign minister—and former Ambassador to London—Joachim von Ribbentrop assured him that neither Britain nor France would honour their commitments to Poland, and that a German–Polish war would only be a limited regional war. The German Ambassador in London, Herbert von Dirksen, supported Ribbentrop's analysis with a dispatch in August 1939, reporting that Chamberlain knew "the social structure of Britain, even the conception of the British Empire, would not survive the chaos of even a victorious war", and so would back down. Ribbentrop learned on 19 August that the Soviet Union, led by Joseph Stalin, would be willing to sign a non-aggression pact, so Hitler addressed fifty leaders of Germany's armed forces on 22 August and urged that an attack on Poland should be launched without delay. His opinion was that the western powers were not yet strong enough to come to Poland's aid, and that they would likely not intervene. Many of the officers present at the meeting disagreed with Hitler's analysis. The launch of the invasion was initially scheduled for 26 August.

The next paragraph will also need small tweeks on linking etc if this edit is inserted. -- Dianna (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine but a little long. Should be trimmed a little bit. Kierzek (talk) 03:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The sentence about von Dirksen could be omitted. -- Dianna (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I would trim it like this:

However, Hitler's foreign minister—and former Ambassador to London—Joachim von Ribbentrop assured him that neither Britain nor France would honour their commitments to Poland, and that a German–Polish war would only be a limited regional war.[226][227] Ribbentrop claimed that in December 1938 the French foreign minister, Georges Bonnet, had stated that France considered Eastern Europe as Germany's exclusive sphere of influence;[228] Ribbentrop showed Hitler diplomatic cables that supported his analysis.[229] The German Ambassador in London, Herbert von Dirksen, supported Ribbentrop's analysis.[227] Accordingly, on 21 August 1939 Hitler ordered a military mobilisation against Poland. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Dianna (talk) 03:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 08:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler professed Roman Catholicism

I had heard that, surprising as it may seem, the religion that Hitler professed was Roman Catholicism, but the only reference to this fact that appears in the article is his inclusion in the category "German Roman Catholics" at the end. Does any one think discussion of this topic could be earlier in the article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

There is discussion of this topic in the section "Religious views". -- Dianna (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sex at birth

Adolph Hitler Was born with both male and female genitalia.96.3.22.156 (talk) 19:23, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, he changed the spelling of his name later, as well. Apparently. Britmax (talk) 19:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

Should redirect for "Drittes Reich" and "Third Realm" be to Abstract object (per Frege), or to Nazi Germany (per Hitler)?

(See also the 독일의-Wikipedia's Drittes Reich (Frege) -

"In dem Aufsatz Der Gedanke des deutschen Philosophen und Mathematikers Gottlob Frege (1918) bezeichnet der Ausdruck Drittes Reich einen Bereich der Realität, in dem die nach seiner Auffassung objektiven Gedanken angesiedelt sind:

Die Gedanken sind weder Dinge der Außenwelt noch Vorstellungen. Ein drittes Reich muß anerkannt werden. Was zu diesem gehört, stimmt mit den Vorstellungen darin überein, daß es nicht mit den Sinnen wahrgenommen werden kann, mit den Dingen aber darin, daß es keines Trägers bedarf, zu dessen Bewußtseinsinhalte es gehört. So ist z. B. der Gedanke, den wir im pythagoreischen Lehrsatz aussprachen, zeitlos wahr, unabhängig davon, ob irgendjemand ihn für wahr hält. Er bedarf keines Trägers. Er ist wahr nicht erst, seitdem er entdeckt worden ist, wie ein Planet, schon bevor jemand ihn gesehen hat, mit andern Planeten in Wechselwirkung gewesen ist.[1]

Mit dem Argument, dass es andernfalls keine Intersubjektivität geben könne, postuliert Frege neben dem Reich der subjektiven Vorstellungen und dem der "objektiv-wirklichen" physischen Gegenstände noch ein "drittes Reich": das der "objektiv-nichtwirklichen" Gedanken. Sie werden vom Bewusstsein erfasst, aber nicht hervorgebracht."

• I don't speak German, but "Third Realm" and "Drittes Reich" both redirect to Nazi Germany.
• There is often a problem when Kant, Frege, Wittgenstein, etc., are translated by lighter weight thinkers (i.e., by anyone).
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is WP:RS.
• According to reliable secondary source Gideon Rosen in the "Abstract Objects" article at SEP, "Frege concludes that numbers are neither external ‘concrete’ things nor mental entities of any sort. ... He says that they (thoughts - by which Gideon Rosen means the senses of declarative sentences, apparently with Rosen using Frege's highly technical meaning of "sense") belong to a ‘third realm’ distinct both from the sensible external world and from the internal world of consciousness... As this new ‘realism’ was absorbed into English speaking philosophy, the traditional term ‘abstract’ was enlisted to apply to the denizens of this ‘third realm’."

Note: Rosen does not provide citations in support of this particular SEP:OR "encyclopedia" article statement, re what he calls "absorption" and "enlistment", likely because of a lack of historical scholarly works to rely on re the etymology of "abstract object". But we at Wikipedia have higher standards than SEP when it comes to OR.

I propose a disabiguation page. But having inadvertently stepped from writing WP:BLPs into trying to edit the Alternative medicine article, I assume per User:IRWolfie's comments at alt med, that it is best to first propose things in a small way at talk pages, before editing on any articles involving religion, racist groups, evolution, alt meds, and articles about topics involving groups of irrational people that are still in existence.

Discussion is here ParkSehJik (talk) 02:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"Position" in Table

That Hindenburg preceded and succeeded by Doenitz is not accurate, because they held positions of President. The position Fuhrer was newly established by Hitler and abolished after WWII. I would suggest doing it like for Muammar Gaddafi - not naming Successor or predecessor as "Fuhrer" 134.155.36.48 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Both the info box at the top and the succession tables at the bottom specify that these people were "President", so I'm not clear what your suggested edit might be. -- Dianna (talk) 01:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured in Hungarian Wikipedia

Hi! Please somebody insert a {{Link FA|hu}} template! Thanks, 46.35.206.137 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! πr² (t • c) 20:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

"By 1943, Hitler's military decisions led to escalating defeats."

I am not sure it is quite correct. Although Hitler's mistakes were one of the reasons, we cannot underestimate the active role of the Allies. Germany lost not because of poor military decisions by 1943, but because the Allied armies learnt due lessonf from their earlier defeats, as a result, the armies Hitler had to deal with in 1943 were not the same armies Wehrmacht easily defeated in 1939-41.
In connection to that, I think it would be more correct to speak about Hitler's strategic (not only military) decisions, such as a decision to declare war on the US or the USSR, his underestimation of the Allied potential, etc that eventually lead to german defeat.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree - this seems to reflect the view pushed by German generals in the decades after the war that Hitler's decision making was the cause of Germany's defeat. While this view was once relatively popular, it's long-since been discredited. Modern historians tend to attribute the string of German defeats from late 1942 onwards to improvements in the quality (and size) of the Allied militaries (due, in part, to the economic superiority of these countries, as well as them learning the lessons from their defeats earlier in the war) and Germany's economy and military being unable to keep pace with these improvements. By 1943 Germany's defeat was basically inevitable, regardless of who was in charge and the kind of decisions they were making. As such, I'd suggest that this sentence be replaced with "By 1943 Germany had been forced onto the defensive, and suffered a series of escalating defeats" or similar. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have put Nick-D's suggested wording into the article. -- Dianna (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

But wasn't Hitler's decisions to invade the USSR and declare war on the US not strategic mistakes? Does anyone seriously argue that without these two decisions, that the war would have ended up very differently? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes they do (some historians argue that in 1939 Hitler started a war which Germany was doomed to lose given that his goals greatly exceeded Germany's long-term military, economic and diplomatic capabilities and the fact that the Allies were inevitably going to get their acts together and bring their much greater economic weight to bear). Anyway the text was referring to 1943 by which time Germany had no chance of avoiding defeat. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

By the way I've reverted your reversion of Dianna as a) the edit was supported by other editors and b) in the comment above you didn't actually address the point which lead to the change (eg, in reference to 1943). Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick, you are not completely right. The Battle of Kursk, a large scale German offensive operation, started in summer of 1943. It was the first WWII offensive when Wehrmacht appeared to be unable to achieve strategic breakthrough. Obviously, Germany was not forced onto the defensive by 1943. As Glantz says, after Stalingrad the USSR could not loose the war, however, only after Kursk it has became clear that Germany will be defeated.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair point Paul; Germany obviously spent most of 1942 on the offensive and the Allies didn't start to make major headway until 1943. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's eastern border in the spring of 1941... para needs work

This paragraph is pretty concerning. The first sentence attributes the view that "Soviet troop concentrations on Germany's eastern border in the spring of 1941 may have prompted Hitler to engage in a Flucht nach vorn ("flight forward") to get in front of an inevitable conflict" to a 1989 book by Richard J. Evans. In his recent - and monumental - history The Third Reich at War Evans makes no such argument, and presents Hitler's motivations as being purely aggressive (the relevant pages are 160 to 163). On page 162 he argues that Hitler's main reason for ordering the invasion was to isolate Britain, and that Hitler expected the Soviet military to be easily defeated despite it being about the same size as the German military. As such, in his main and most recent work on this topic Evans argues pretty much the opposite of what's being attributed to him here. The next sentence is also questionable - David Irving is totally discredited and (as far as I'm aware) Viktor Suvorov isn't generally regarded as reliable on this topic and no weight should be placed on their views. More generally, this para doesn't acknowledge the fact that German preparations to invade the USSR began in 1940, and the debate over the Soviet forces in occupied Poland is outdated and no longer worth covering (it appears to reflect the debates which occured in the 1970s and 1980s, and not modern historiography): we know lots about Hitler's motivations in starting this war and they were overwhelmingly aggressive (in short, he wanted to isolate Britain, secure the USSR as a source of supplies and, in the longer term, 'living room' and, to a lesser degree, destroy the USSR before its rearmament program was completed). Since the Soviet archives were opened up we also now know that the USSR wasn't intending to attack Germany as Suvorov claimed and couldn't have done so if it had wanted to due to the poor condition of most of the military (David Glantz's work on this topic seems to generally be regarded as definitive). As such, I'd suggest that this paragraph be either removed outright, or be replaced with an accurate discussion of Hitler's motivations. Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Totally agreed. The quote below may be useful.

"The indisputable fact remains that once Hitler had played all his diplomatic cards and had failed, once it was obvious that Ribbentrop's plan to integrate the Soviet Union into a Eurasian bloc directed against Britain had miscarried, the war to be conducted was to be an ideological and racial contest aiming at the total destruction of Russia and the reduction of its population to servitude. "(H. W. Koch. Operation Barbarossa-The Current State of the Debate. The Historical Journal, Vol. 31, No. 2 (Jun., 1988), pp. 377-390)

--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Nick-D. The claim that Stalin planned an offensive in 1941 has been refuted by Dave Glantz, Wikipedia should not be the forum for the discredited fringe thesis of Suvorov--Woogie10w (talk) 14:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Woogie, Stalin did plan an offensive, although it is not clear whether that was a preemptive strike or a counter-attack (he was not an idiot, and he understood that a war with Hitler was inevitable). The point is, however, that Hitler's decision to start Barbarossa was not dictated by Stalin's preparations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

All Soviet war plans on paper were based on an offensive strategy, the defense was not an option to commanders in the field. In June 1941 Soviet forces were not deployed for an offensive, forward based units were in barracks undergoing training. Infantry, armor and artillary were not deployed as a integral units in the field, read Glantz! --Woogie10w (talk) 14:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not talking about a possible Soviet attack in June 1941, my point is that Stalin did preparations for offensive actions in 1941-42, and that would be quite natural, because the USSR was the only German rival in continental Europe, so it had to be ready to any development of the events. However, all of that is of secondary importance: Hitler made a decision about Barbarossa not in 1941, but in 1940, and that decision was not dictated by Stalin's military preparations. The major point is that Barbarossa was not conceived as a preemptive strike (as Hitler pretended officially).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What is more important is that Victor Suvorov does not says "that the official reason for Barbarossa given by the German military was the real reason—a preventive war to avert an impending Soviet attack scheduled for July 1941" Thus, Koch (Op.cit) says "it was Hitler's fundamental intention to acquire living space in the east by way of racial and ideological war of extermination,34 a thesis neither Suvorov nor Hoffmann has ever disputed, because neither ever dealt with this specific issue." That means that the para is simply wrong.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the broad assertion that with Operation Barbarossa Hitler acted on his plan to expand "Lebensraum" into the east, but I do recall that, e.g., Kershaw undertook a more nuanced discussion of the causes and aims of "Barbarossa" and also its timing. Because of a recent move, my books are not in their usual places, so it may take me some time to find and peruse the section in question. However, I think the sentence, "In late 1940 Hitler realised that Ribbentrop's plan to integrate the Soviet Union into the Axis block had failed," is a little abrupt and has no obvious connection to the preceding sections, since they lack any mention of Ribbentrop's plan. So this section needs still some work to provide some appropriate context and background. Malljaja (talk) 16:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Understood. I'll try to do something.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to edit further.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I might add a bit on Hitler's longer-term goals for the conquered territory in the USSR. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The recent edits have been good. However, it is redundant to have:

Hitler's attempt to integrate the Soviet Union into the anti-British bloc failed after inconclusive talks between Hitler and Molotov in Berlin in November, and he ordered preparations for a full-scale invasion of the Soviet Union.; followed by this:

In late 1940, Hitler realised that Ribbentrop's plan to integrate the Soviet Union into the Axis block had failed, and ordered preparations for a large scale offensive (codenamed Operation Barbarossa) aiming at the total destruction of the Soviet Union and the use of its natural resources for subsequent aggression against the Western powers.

I would suggest leaving it where it is first mentioned. Where it is mentioned the second time, I would suggest this: On 22 June 1941, contravening the Hitler–Stalin non-aggression pact of 1939, 5.5 million Axis troops attacked the Soviet Union. The aim of large scale offensive (codenamed Operation Barbarossa) was the total destruction of the Soviet Union and the use of its natural resources for subsequent aggression against the Western powers. Kierzek (talk) 18:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. I myself noticed this duplication, however, I had no time to fix it. Please, do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I will go ahead and do it, as Kierzek is semi-retired from Wiki and may not be able to return promptly to complete the edit. -- Dianna (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Never mind; someone has gotten to it. -- Dianna (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I did and was remiss in updating that the edit has been done. Malljaja (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The invasion seized a huge area, including the Baltic states, Belarus, and Ukraine. However, the German advance was stopped outside Moscow in December 1941 by the Russian Winter and fierce Soviet resistance.

In my opinion, this is an oversimplification, which reproduces old myths and leaves one important Hitler's personal action beyond the scope. Concretely, in late summer of 1941, Hitler made a decision to suspend Wehrmacht offensive to Moscow and to temporarily divert part of troops subordinated to the Army Group Centre to the South (Kiev) and north (Leningrad). It is known that that personal Hitler's decision caused a significant crisis in German leadership, and some German generals (and some historians) believe that it was that decision which predetermined the outcome of the Battle of Moscow. For source, see (Alan F. Wilt. Hitler's Late Summer Pause in 1941. Military Affairs, Vol. 45, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 187-19).
I would say that the paragraph is telling more about the history of WWII (reproducing old stereotypes) rather then discusses Hitler's personal steps that affected its outcome. Thus, it is necessary to tell about some other important Hitler's personal decisions that had far reaching consequences. We need to say that after initial successes of the Operation Blau Hitler made a decision to split the advancing armies onto two parts, and instead of just securing eastern flank of the troops advancing to Baku ordered to seize Stalingrad, which eventually lead to total destruction of his best 6th Army and the failure of the operation as whole. It is necessary to tell that Hitler prohibited 6th army to withdraw from Stalingrad before the encirclement was complete. It is necessary to tell about his personal role at Kursk, and so on. In my opinion, the section should focus on his personal actions, not just on the history of WWII.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that it's best if the article focuses on Hitler's decisions but please keep the size limitations in mind when performing your amendments. At 11,311 words the article is already 1311 words over the recommended limit of 10000 words. Any additions and modifications will therefore have to be concise and short to help keep us close to the recommended target size for Wikipedia articles. The decisions about the 6th Army are already covered at the article on Manstein and Battle of Stalingrad. In my opinion, even if the 6th Army had been allowed to leave Stalingrad it is unlikely they could have reached Moscow. There were essentially no roads, and there was no way to bring the necessary materiel to the city to take it. Have a look at this photo: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-140-1220-17A, Russland-Mitte, PKW im Schlamm.jpg. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Stalingrad, no doubts Paulus was unable to break through to the East or North. What I am talking about is a breakthrough to the West. That would allow Germans to save at least the personnel. BTW, Soviet command considered that possibility, and initially they did not believe they would be able to preserve encirclement had Paulus decided to strike to the West using his full power (available to him by 19th of November). The encirclement was considered mostly as a way to drive the Germans from Stalingrad, not to destroy them.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to echo Dianna's word of caution about adding new material to this entry, which is already too long. The Stalingrad example is a case in point: it is one in a series of serious military blunders, in large part brought about by Hitler's inability to agree to tactical retreats (see, e.g., Speer "Erinnerungen" p 261f). This—along with his aversion to taking advice from those better trained in the field (like, e.g., Gudrian)—was a major hallmark of his. So rather than going into minutiae of each of these instances and in the interest of brevity, it would be sufficient to highlight one or two examples of Hitler's mismanagement of military matters (his advocating the use of newly developed jet airplanes as bombers rather than as fighters, for which they were originally designed, may be another such example) to show the generality of this trait in his personality. Malljaja (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand and share your concern, however, don't you find the article devotes disproportionally low space to 1941-44 events and, accordingly, too much attention is given to the earlier events? For example, do we need this paragraph in the Start of WWII section:

"Hitler was concerned that a military attack against Poland could result in a premature war with Britain.[220][226] However, Hitler's foreign minister—and former Ambassador to London—Joachim von Ribbentrop assured him that neither Britain nor France would honour their commitments to Poland.[227][228] Ribbentrop claimed that in December 1938 the French foreign minister, Georges Bonnet, had stated that France considered Eastern Europe as Germany's exclusive sphere of influence,[229] and he showed Hitler diplomatic cables supporting his analysis.[230] The German Ambassador in London, Herbert von Dirksen, also supported Ribbentrop's analysis.[228] Accordingly, on 22 August 1939 Hitler ordered a military mobilisation against Poland.[231]"

We can safely reduce it to "Although Hitler was concerned that a military attack against Poland could result in a premature war with Britain, Joachim von Ribbentrop assured him that neither Britain nor France would honour their commitments to Poland. Accordingly, on 22 August 1939 Hitler ordered a military mobilisation against Poland."

Such copy editing could save space for the material having more relation to Hitler, not to European policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good observation; the sending back and forth of cables by diplomats is not directly about Hitler, and the passage is a little too detailed for the scope of this article. -- Dianna (talk) 03:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I too agree—a more incisive edit seems to be needed here. If this were to cause anguished shrieking, it could be adjusted to include more detail, but I agree that this would free up valuable space. Malljaja (talk) 14:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed out the excessive detail about the diplomats, and propose adding a bit about Stalingrad, as Hitler's decision to not allow them to withdraw led to the total destruction of the 6th Army. Current content: "In February 1943, the Battle of Stalingrad ended with the destruction of the German Sixth Army." Proposed content: "In February 1943, Hitler's repeated refusal to allow their withdrawal at the Battle of Stalingrad led to the total destruction of the 6th Army. Over 200,000 Axis soldiers were killed and 235,000 were taken prisoner, only 6,000 of whom returned to Germany after the war.(Evans 2008, pp 419-420)". Feedback welcome.-- Dianna (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What is more important is Hitler's decision to choose Stalingrad as a second major objective during German thrust on Caucasus. That was a fatal decision that eventually lead to a failure of both operations.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Dianna, I think adding your proposed text would be a good addition. Paul, I would rank them at least equally, but I agree that this is also a detail that it very worth mentioning. If Evans does not cover this, Kershaw (and possibly also Speer) maybe good additional sources for this. Malljaja (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to focus on facts as they actually occurred rather than try to extrapolate what might have happened had different decisions been made regarding the wider strategy. This edit, with its ghastly list of casualties, demonstrates the immediate consequences of Hitler's decision to leave the 6th Army in Stalingrad. The source is Evans 2008 pp 419-420. -- Dianna (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I recall reading in Kershaw or Speer or in both that high-ranking military personnel had concerns about Hitler's focus on Stalingrad. If I remember this correctly (and I cannot currently check that) then this would be a fact and worth including as it would further highlight how Hitler's personal involvement in military decision making and strategy resulted in disastrous outcomes. This should be dealt with very briefly, however. Malljaja (talk) 15:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I am going ahead with my proposed edit, as it adds very few words and gives more detail on one of the major turning points of the war. The article has not grown in the recent flurry of editing; in fact it has shrunk a bit, so we do have some wiggle room. If Paul Siebert wishes to propose an addition about Hitler's errors in the wider strategy as well, that would be great. -- Dianna (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Deaths atributable to Hitler

We had a discussion about the number of deaths mentioned in the Legacy section in May 2012 and several editors pulled together the content that is now in the article. Here's a link to that discussion: Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 53#breakdown of 40 million deaths mentioned in Legacy section?. An editor would like to re-visit the matter so I am inviting editors to post comments here. -- Dianna (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You altered Rummel's estimate of deaths in the European theatre of WW2 (around 30 million) to refer only to soldiers, when it plainly includes European civilians who died as a result of military action that Rummel does not consider democidal. Here's a hint: In Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world, all military deaths combined total around 22 million--counting the deaths of prisoners of war that Rummel terms democide! This should be reversed.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's what editor Wikimedes said was in Rummell:

Here’s Rummel’s death toll estimate (from Rummel, R.J. (1994) Death by Government p.112. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, N.J. ISBN 1-56000-145-3):

Genocide: 16,315,000

Slavs: 10,547,000

Jews: 5,291,000

Gypsies: 258,000

Homosexuals: 220,000

Total Nazi Democide (genocide plus other killings, eg. 3 million prisoners of war): 20,946,000

European war dead in WWII (including 5.2 million Germans): 28,736,000

So that's some 21 million civilians and 29 million soldiers for a total of 50 million. -- Dianna (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this is truly the result of a legitimate misunderstanding of Rummel's work. Democide only includes a fraction of the civilian deaths resulting from military action--Rummel regards plenty of military actions that inadvertently harm civilians as non-democidal. By your logic, Rummel's estimate that the US military committed 6,000 democides in the Vietnam war means that only 6,000 Vietnamese civilians died as the result of US military action, which is an absurd underestimate.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that the "democide" figure of 20 million represents only a portion of the civilian deaths? That many additional civilians died? Because your edit said the opposite. Your edit claimed a total of 29 million casualties, both soldiers and civilians. That's just not possible, because the sources say there were 26.6 million dead in the Soviet Union (ref: Michael Ellman and S. Maksudov, Soviet Deaths in the Great Patriotic War:a note-World War II- Europe Asia Studies, July 1994), ten million of whom were soldiers; six million dead in Poland (ref: Wojciech Materski and Tomasz Szarota. Polska 1939–1945. Straty osobowe i ofiary represji pod dwiema okupacjami. Institute of National Remembrance(IPN) Warszawa 2009 ISBN 978-83-7629-067-6, pp. 29-30), half of whom were Jews; Germany: 6.6 to 8.8 million people (ref: Hubert, Michael, Deutschland im Wandel. Geschichte der deutschen Bevolkerung seit 1815 Steiner, Franz Verlag 1998 ISBN 3-515-07392-2 p. 272, and other sources); and so on.

• Soviets 26.6 million
• Poles 6 million
• Germans 6.6 to 8.8 million

I am up to 39.9 conservative side estimate and have only included three countries so far. -- Dianna (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, never use Rummel for numerical estimates. According to Barbara Harf, Rummel has a strong tendency to produce exaggerated figures, and, in addition, his data are simply obsolete. Regarding 26.6 -6 - 8.8, there is a danger of double counting, because the Poles tend to count deaths within Polish pre-1939 border, whereas the Soviet death include the deaths in newly annexed territories. As a result, the Jews killed in East Poland (aka Western Belorussia/Ukraine) appear to be counted twice.

According to Ronald Grigor Suny (Obituary or Autopsy? Historians Look at Russia/USSR in the Short 20th Century. Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, Volume 3, Number 2, Spring 2002 (New Series), pp. 303-319) Hitler may be accused of causing 40-60 million deaths as a result of the WWII he started. Let's stick with this figure.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there is no consensus at RSN or elsewhere that Rummel is an unreliable aource, although doubtless you can find critics of his work. However, in virtually every other Wikipedia article in which Rummel is cited, claims are attributed specifically to him, and other estimates are provided. That Rummel is the sole source for the numbers used here is a bit odd. If the lead is to mention the death toll, I would suggest something like: "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 09:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I have deleted the disputed sentence for the following reasons till consensus is reached.

1.) As was expressed in the previous discussion The deaths do not need breaking down in such detail, or in my opinion at all, in this article. We do not need to lengthen an article which already has problems with its size. This is an article on Adolf Hitler, it is not titled an analysis of the statistics of victims of World War Two. Britmax 10:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

2.) The intro should be a summary of the article, and yet this info nowhere appears in the article.

3.) The disputed info has no referenced source. ALL article content has to be verifiable with a reliable source

4.) Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Yet no responsibility for numbers of deaths during WW2 appears in the intros or Wiki articles of either Stalin or Churchill or Roosevelt or Truman.

5a.) Hitler's policies ALONE can not be be held responsible for all these war dead figures as in the final analysis it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany (not the other way around) after negotiations over a German corridor to Danzig/Gadansk broke down.

5b.) Hitler himself wrote that he did not want war as is detailed in the testament article "It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. ...I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem—similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war..."

Etc., etc.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1. This was a single editor, expressing his/her opinion; several others were in favour of including this info.

2. The numbers in question are in the Legacy section and have been sourced.

4. WP articles vary in content and quality, so there's no reason to infer standards from other articles; in addition, to lump Churchill, Roosevelt, and Truman together with Hitler and Stalin seems like a deliberate muddying of waters.

5a. Whose final analysis are you talking about? Historians are near unanimous in assigning Hitler's policies as the chief reason for the outbreak of WWII.

5b. To call Hitler into the witness box here is not credible; his statements rarely held any water against probing critical analysis by numerous scholars. Malljaja (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

1. The main point is that there is at present no consensus concerning this disputed sentence. And I am raising again the previously expressed view that it is not even necessary to have the problematical and disputed sentence - in any of the opposing forms that it is currently being proposed - at all.

2. There is nothing in the 'Legacy' section concerning a figure of "50-70 million".

3. You have ignored point three, which leaving all other arguments aside, seems enough to argue for the deletion of the disputed sentence in any of the forms being currently suggested.

4. It is a simple statement of fact that all these wartime leaders obviously have responsibilty for some of the war dead, with the addition that the Allied leaders have responsibilty for instigating and carrying out the targeting of civilian populations in aerial bombing campaigns. But yes, I agree, this argument is perhaps only "muddying the waters".

5a. You appear to have missed the key word which was "...ALONE" and which I understood was TheTimesAreAChanging's initial reason for amending the disputed sentence. (Quote: "50 to 70m soldiers did not die in combat. These figures include the Holocaust, 20m Chinese and millions of Indochinese killed by Japan, millions of Indians in famine, millions killed by Stalin, ect. Hitler can't take all the blame for WW2".)

5b. You will no doubt agree that our own opinions are not enough to warrant inclusion in Wiki articles. So, "his statements rarely held any water against probing critical analysis by numerous scholars," I feel is of little help to us here. Anyay, I included this to point out that we cannot hold one person responsible for so many WW2 war dead, especially when no-one disputes that this one person claimed not to have wanted war and when another wiki article has it that "The Allies became involved in World War II ...because they were concerned that the Axis powers would come to control the world." This statement shows that there were numerous 'players' who hold responsibilty for the escalation that led to the global war and THAT it was numerous 'players' on the Axis side alone.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. 5a. If you want to argue "...Hitler's policies as the chief reason..." then we need to find a source that backs that up, and we need to word the sentence so that it says that he was "chiefly" responsible for the resulting death figures.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

2. You did not read what you deleted; "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust." Further, the Legacy section states, "Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale;[326] according to R.J. Rummel, the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war.[327] In addition, 29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theater of World War II.[327]. Source [327] is Rummel 1994, p. 112.

3. No, I have not. See above.

5a. Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII; if you have a reliable source that claims otherwise, please advise. WWII resulted in the death of >50 million people, and, although Hitler did not personally prosecute or sanction all of these killings, he was the leader of a nation that went to that war at his behest (his personally statements to the contrary notwithstanding).

5b. I am not voicing any opinion other than that Hitler's personal statements can hardly count as evidence for his true motives and actions. What other WP articles say is immaterial here. Malljaja (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Re your #3 (ALL article content has to be verifiable with a reliable source). As a rule, we provide sources to support the material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged. In connection to that, could you please tell me if your deletion is an indication that you challenge the facts that Hitler's policy lead to the WWII, the Holocaust and murder of millions non-Jews? If your answer is "yes", could you please explain us if you express just your own opinion, or your criticism is based on what reliable mainstream or significant minority sources say (in that case it would be useful to see those sources)?--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

To Paul Siebert. This sentence HAS been disputed. Do you agree? I have explained my reasons for the deletion in five clear points. I therefore ask you please re-read them and if anything is unclear I will be happy to explain. As I have not added a replacing sentence I do not see a need to provide supporting sources for anything that has NOT been added to the article.

To Malljaja.

2. I DID read what I deleted (apply good faith please). I can only refer you again to my points one to five. If you wish to dispute the reasoning of these please feel free to do so. The sentence is a result of incorrect synthesis. E.g. It is NOT stated in the sourced 'Legacy' info that Hitler ALONE was responsible for the "29 million soldiers and civilian" deaths. Therefore to say so in the lead is incorrect if this is the claimed source. Do you agree?

3. Hmmm? This one is a little worrying if you really think you originally replied to point 3? diff [18]

5a.& 5b. You are again voicing your own opinion. If you have a source that says "Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII" could you please reference it WP:VER. Until you do it remains an undisputed statement of fact that Britain declared war upon Germany in in 1939, NOT (not the other way around). If you wish to argue this point I wonder if you really should be editing WW2 related wiki articles. The article itself declares that Hitler was surprised when GB and France declared war and angrily said to Ribbentrop: "Now what?". And this article is about Hitler. If his own death testament is not apllicable here I don't know what is. Plus I have provided you with a supporting and well-sourced qoute from another wiki article. Wiki articles should not contradict each other, nor should a wiki page have material in the lead contradicted in the article itself. I hope you will agree such contradiction is not desirable nor acceptable.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

2. No, I do not. The lead does not say that Hitler alone was responsible—no one would make such a claim. Hitler's policies and aims set in motion WWII.

3.I do not understand your question. Please consider rephrasing it.

5a & 5b. Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland to which the UK and France reacted. Hitler (and Ribbentrop) had erroneously assumed they could get away with it and without the two countries honouring their treaty obligations with Poland—hence, Hitler's comment. You may want to read up on this, e.g. in Kershaw's "Nemesis." Malljaja (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Hitler was perfectly aware of British and French obligations in the case of the attack of Poland by "a European power" (i.e. Germany). If one wants to speak about British responsibility for outbreak of WWII, the only thing Britain can be blamed in would be its excessive peacefulness during Munich and occupation of Czechoslovakia. I would like Mystichumwipe to present sources that support his weird idea about British responsibility for WWII outbreak.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

In order to avoid personal opinion arguments here can we concentrate upon the main issue. Leaving all else besides, the fact remains that this disputed sentence under discussion from the intro is NOT sourced, so is not verifiable and therefore infringes core wiki policy. The text under the subtitle Legacy does NOT state that Hitler or his policies alone were responsible for what led to the deaths of 50-70 million, nor 50 million as Malljaja has written (qoute:"Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII") and as the disputed intro sentence infers.

As for the rest, I confess I do find this quite incredible that you both want to argue over the obvious fact that it was Britain who declared war and not the other way around. It is of course also historical fact that Stalin invaded Poland AND Finland in 1939 but Britian did NOT declare war on the Soviet Union. So the idea that Britain had no other option but to declare war against Germany is not historically sound, or why did it not also declare war against Stalin? It is also undisputed historical fact that Hitler sought and offered a peace treaty with Britain and France after Dunkirk in 1940. So therefore all deaths after 1940 can also NOT be laid at the feet of Hitler alone. I find it surprising the necessity for someone to point out these obvious historical facts and for editors to try to argue against them. Paul Siebert, you ask for a reference. I have already given one from Allies of World War II which has yet to be acknowledged by you. Perhaps this one will help: "...how inadequate is our traditional way of understanding it [WW2]. It is not enough to to portray the war as a simple conflict between the Axis and the Allies over territory... Some of the most vicious fighting was not between the Axis and the Allies at all, but between local people who took the opportunity of the wider war to give vent to much older frustrations... Given that the Germans were only one ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts, it stands to reason that their defeat did not bring an end to the violence. In fact the traditional view that the war came to an end when Germany finally surrendered in May 1945 is entirely misleading: in reality their capitulation only brought to an end one aspect of the fighting. The related conflicts over race, nationality and politics continued for weeks, months and sometimes years afterwards." (Savage Continent by Keith Lowe, p.366. Publication Date: 5 April 2012. ISBN-13: 978-0670917464). Please note this part: "the Germans were only ONE ingredient in this vast soup of different conflicts". Therefore we can NOT infer that Hitler was alone responsible for all those deaths as the disputed intro sentence incorrectly does (AND does without providing a verfiable source).--Mystichumwipe (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Another sourced qoute from a leading historian against this disputed sentence. Its from the wiki article on Ian Kershaw: "In the 2000 edition of The Nazi Dictatorship, Kershaw wrote he considered Gerhard Ritter's claim that one “madman” (i.e. Hitler) single-handedy caused World War II to be that of a German apologist..." i.e. is a view that Kershaw considers NOT correct. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, you're constructing a giant straw man. The lead and legacy sections say that Hitler's policies were responsible for the death of ~50 million people—it does not say that he alone was responsible. Again, here is the current wording: "Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale;[326] according to R.J. Rummel, the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war.[327] In addition, 29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theater of World War II.[327]." It is sourced to Rummel (citation 327). If you have a concern over whether Rummel is an appropriate source, please go ahead and lay it out. Do not suggest that the statement is unsourced, however. It is sourced. Malljaja (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Kershaw's view, and I agree with it. That Hitler did not single-handedly cause WWII is common knowledge as is the fact that the policies and actions of Britain and France and other nations indirectly contributed to the outbreak of the war because, as Paul pointed out, they did little to squelch Hitler's appetite for acquiring additional territories (most infamously in the Munich Agreement). Hitler was shrewd enough to know that he was betting the farm gambling on a favourable outcome ("Ich habe immer Vabanque gespielt"), and he had a long string of fortunes playing with a relatively weak hand because his opponents did not play theirs well. These were the ultimate causes that allowed Hitler to rise and embark on territorial conquest; this does not impinge on the fact that Hitler's ideology and policies were responsible for the death of >50 million people—they were the proximate cause, and it is appropriate to include this fact in the lead. Malljaja (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re "So the idea that Britain had no other option but to declare war against Germany is not historically sound, or why did it not also declare war against Stalin? " Please, read literature before asking such questions. Britain did not declare war on Stalin because it had no obligations to do so: Anglo-Polish agreement stipulated military actions only in the case of German attack. The source for that is (Paul W. Doerr 'Frigid but Unprovocative': British Policy towards the USSR from the Nazi-Soviet Pact to the Winter War, 1939 Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Jul., 2001), pp. 423-439). The same source clarifies the situation with Winter war. Britain actions in September 1939 did not cause WWII, responsibility lies only on Germany and on Hitler personally. This is a mainstream view, and I suggest you to stop pushing your fringe ideas. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Malljaja asked me to post an opinion as he knows I have many edits to the article and might have something useful to contribute. I would like to point out to Mystichumwipe that (once we reach GA status and beyond) all material in the lead also needs to appear elsewhere in the article per WP:lead. We typically do not repeat the citations from the body of the article in the lead; it's optional at the GA-A-FA levels, except for direct quotes. The source for the numerical data is Rummel 1994, p 112. My second point: Hitler alone is not being blamed for these deaths or for the events of WWII in Europe. His racially motivated policies are being blamed. Pretty much everything the Nazis did was racially motivated; their policy of seeking additional Lebensraum for the Germanic peoples could only be done by aggressively capturing territory from neighbouring countries. It's not synthesis to say this, and this point is covered (with appropriate sources) in several spots in the article. Third point: In my opinion having this number and this sentence in the lead is important in order to demonstrate to the reader the scope of the disaster. -- Dianna (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I had planned to review this matter in detail when I got home tonight but that is not needed given it has been discussed before and given the fine detailed replies by Malljaja, Paul Siebert and Diannaa above. Whether one believes the war in Europe was a continuation of World War I or the start of new hostiles on the continent, the fact remains that Hitler and Nazi Germany by their "policies and actions" led to the direct outbreak of the war in Europe. Kierzek (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is the sentence I deleted and which is being disputed (it is not the same as what Malljaja claims, who appears to be confused as to what is being discussed and their own involvement in this discussion): "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust."

Malljaja has argued previously:"Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII". We all seem to agree that Malljaja's statement is not correct. Yet I still argue that the disputed sentence still infers what Malljaja falsely stated. No other reason is given for the cause of so many deaths other than Hitler's policies, so what else are we inviting the reader to understand? PLUS The alleged source for this we all agree is supposed to be R.J. Rummel's 'Death by Government'. But the legacy section summarises him thus: "...the Nazi regime was responsible for the... killing of an estimated 21 million civilians and POWs." etc. Even then it doesn't state the regime was responsible for either 50 or 50-70 million deaths. The disputed intro sentence presumably reaches this 50 million figure by adding the total from this sentence "...29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theater of World War II." But again that is not being ascribed to "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies". Thus I am arguing that the disputed sentence is an incorrect synthesis that has no verifiable source. I would like to thank Dianna for correctly understanding and for respectfully directly addressing my issues over this disputed sentence. I understand your point that we do not need the sources in the lead if the info is in the article. But do you see how I am arguing that the info is not in the article with the way the disputed sentence is currently worded?

As for all the rest, this shouldn't be a history lesson but the "proximate cause" of WW2 has been regarded as obviously complex. I suggest we are not serving our readers or wikipedia by oversimplifications that are the result of innaccurate synthesis.

Finally, may I again suggest to editors that we should be involved in creating an encylcopedia that does not contradict itself. In the article Causes of World War II is written:"The main causes of World War II were nationalistic tensions, unresolved issues, and resentments resulting from the World War I and the interwar period in Europe, plus the effects of the Great Depression in the 1930s. The culmination of events that led to the outbreak of war are generally understood to be the 1939 invasion of Poland by Germany and Soviet Russia and the 1937 invasion of the Republic of China by the Empire of Japan."" Nowhere there is mentioned the subject of this biography page or his "policies". Yet Kierzek and Paul Siebert are still arguing for this, despite the provided opinion of historian Ian Kershaw contradicting their view and despite this Causes of World War II wiki article. --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Re Rummel, you should read carefully about his concept of democide; under "killing" he means killings of non-combatants. Although Rummel's numerical estimates (and the procedure itself) have been severely criticized, in this case they are more or less in accordance with other sources. What he included in 21 million? The Holocaust, executions of civilians in occupied territories, famine deaths (for example, deaths of civilians in besieged Leningrad, and similar deaths. Obviously, Rummel does not include into this estimates military deaths. However, would it be correct to say that Hitler is not responsible for deaths of British soldiers in Africa? Of Soviet soldiers in the Eastern Front? Of his own soldiers at Stalingrad? Of his own civilians killed during the Allied bombing of Germany? Of course, he is: he didn't kill them, but he is responsible for their deaths, because that was a direct consequence of his expansionist policy. Again, the sentence you are persistently deleted does not say Hitler's policy killed 50 million, it says resulted in those deaths. Do you see a difference?

Regarding your second argument, I am sorry, but this argument is purely demagogic. Of course, you correctly listed the factors that lead to WWII. However, wars are started not by nationalistic tensions, or unresolved issues, but by concrete peoples. In this particular case, such a man was Hitler, who came to power as a result of the factors listed by you, but who decided to conduct the policy he conducted. The idea that history is totally deterministic is not supported even by materialist historians, and Hitler had a freedom of manoeuvre: before September 1939, he could stop at any moment, and German expansionism could assume different forms (for example, economic ones).--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:37, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Mystichumwipe, not counting myself, three other editors have provided very convincing reasons why the sentence in question should stay in the lead. Your above comments really only repeat what you have previously said, namely, that the disputed sentence is an incorrect synthesis and is not properly sourced. Both of these arguments have now been refuted: The sentence in the lead, "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths of an estimated 50 million people during World War II, including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust," refers to this sentence in the Legacy section: "Hitler's policies inflicted human suffering on an unprecedented scale;[326] according to R.J. Rummel, the Nazi regime was responsible for the democidal killing of an estimated 21 million civilians and prisoners of war.[327] In addition, 29 million soldiers and civilians died as a result of military action in the European theater of World War II.[327]" The meaning and numerical information are in agreement between the two sections in question. The differences in semantics you seem to be alluding to are very minor. Further, it is not our job here to ensure consistency in content among WP articles. This entry is at GA and had a thorough review, whereas the article to which you are referring to has not the same quality rank, and, therefore, probably requires additional work that goes beyond the scope of our task here. So, in summary, simply insisting on complete removal of the lead sentence is not likely to achieve consensus. Please note that I have not written the sentence in question—I see my role as preserving the integrity of this important entry. I will go ahead and re-insert the sentence in question. If you feel you have suggestions to make as to how to tweak the wording in the two sentences to accommodate your perceived discrepancy in meaning, feel free to discuss here, but do not simply remove content with which you do not agree. Malljaja (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mystichumwipe, you mis-read my points. I agree with Kershaw; I have read his books, cited them many times in this article and others; I agree that Hitler, by himself, doesn't shoulder all the blame for all that happened; with that said, one can't get around the fact that Hitler was the driving force behind the Nazi Party and Nazi Germany. Hitler pursued an aggressive foreign policy aimed ultimately at conquest; some like Kershaw argue that the aim was only Europe (which I agree, but that does not matter); others argue the aim was for world domination; with a division line being drawn with the Empire of Japan. The point is that certainly the unsettled aftermath of World War I, along with the Great Depression and other factors helped create the environment at hand in Sept. 1939, but Nazi Germany, led by Hitler and his minions, made the decision to invade Poland in Sept. 1939, which was the overt act which started the Second World War in Europe. Kierzek (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to keep repeating my reasoning because with the exception of Dianna I don't feel anyone else has been adequately addressing my points. For example Malljaja you have again(?) repeated the sentences from the legacy section, which seems quite unneccessary. You merely have to demonstrate how they say the same thing as the disputed sentence. I have demonstrated how I think they do NOT. It would be nice if somebody who disagrees with me could address this. TheTimesAreAChanging and myself think similarly. This view was also shared by another editor in the previous discussion. So that is three editors. The fact that the same discussion has come up again, to my mind demonstrates the problematical nature of the sentence in its current form. I myself won't venture an alternative as I would prefer to delete it altogether. As I have previously said there is nothing comparable about the responsibility of the policies of other war leaders for deaths, civilian or otherwise. Truman doesn't even get mentioned under the Hiroshima article. As Britmax correctly pointed imo, out this is an article on Adolf Hitler, not an analysis of the statistics of victims of World War Two. And as I have attempted to show, the numer of deaths (50 million) can not be fairly said to result from Hitler's policies alone. The Keith Lowe ('Savage Continent') quote alone demonstrates this. No-one has responded to that. I do not think this disagreement is merely a semantic quibble. On the contrary. And as I read it we are three editors who have made the same point. Maybe these questions will help clarify the issues:

Q1. Is the disputed sentence stating that 21 million civilians and POWs + 29 million soldiers and civilians who died as a result of military action in the European theatre, are ALL the result of Hitler's policies? If so can we have the exact quote from Rummel to back that up please.

Q2. As I have previously pointed out, Hitler sought a peace treaty with Britain after Dunkirk and Kershaw states that if anyone other than Churchill had been in power in the UK, Hitler would have got one. [19]. Therefore is it not correct to also say that Churchill's policy of refusal was responsible for deaths after 1940? If someone could directly address this point I would be grateful.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 18:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the problem is not in our failure to adequately address your points, but in your inability to understand our responces. Thus, you write "And as I have attempted to show, the number of deaths (50 million) can not be fairly said to result from Hitler's policies alone." However, nobody argue with that. The problem is in the word "alone", which you are persistently adding, and which in not present in the sentence you are removing. Indeed, was Hitler alone responsible for the deaths of 8.5 million of Soviet solders in the Eastern Front? Obviously, the answer is "no", because these huge losses were a result of Stalin's mistakes. However, had those death been possible if there were no Barbarossa? Of course, no. It was Hitler's decision to invade the USSR which triggered a mechanism that lead to Eastern Front hostilities, and he of course is fully responsible for all consequences of this his decision (although he was not an only person who can blamed in all EF casualties). However, again, who is telling here that Hitler's policy was the only reason of WWII deaths?!!. Your argumentation is a huge straw man, and your inability (or refusal) to understand that is the only reason why this dispute has not ended yet.

You write "Hitler sought a peace treaty with Britain after Dunkirk and Kershaw states that if anyone other than Churchill had been in power in the UK, Hitler would have got one." Did I understand you correctly that you sincerely believe that the party which refuses to sign peace is always guilty in continuation of war, irrespective of proposed conditions of the peace treaty? To speak seriously about peace with Britain Hitler had to (i) vacate the territory of Poland (a British ally) he occupied in 1939; (ii) vacate the territory of France he occupied in 1940. Only after that could he discuss any peace with Churchill, because for the latter to sign peace on Hitler's condition would mean to violate British obligations to its Polish and French allies. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't have much to contribute except for a few questions. If Rummel's figures have been called into question by subsequent scholarship, then why are they still in the article? Why are not the more recent estimates used instead? In general, I am struck by the excessive reliance on outdated or dubious scholarship. Shirer and Maser, for example, should not be afforded the status of reliable sources. This is 2012, and there are many, far more reliable sources to draw upon. Why is someone like Goldhagen, criticized by many respected scholars for his polemical, shoddy style, in there and someone like Christopher Browning, by far Goldhagen's superior as a historian, not in there at all. There is an enormous wealth of high-quality German scholarship that has not made it into published English translations or original English-language work yet. However, that should not be a reason to exclude these German-language sources. Most importantly, however, somebody (with lots of time -- I don't qualify) should take an iron broom to the article and ruthlessly sweep out all outdated sources (except, of course, for corroborated first-hand eye-witness accounts) and replace them with the most recent high-quality scholarship.89.204.154.183 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ToPaul, ironically I think you have now again just ignored my points! ;-}

A.) Haven't you just ignored two very clear questions, posed as a way to attempt to resolve this stand-off?[20]

B.) And Malljaja has definitely previously argued :"Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII". Do you really deny that?

C.) I have previously said if you agree that "Hitler's policies" were NOT ALONE in the resulting death figures than the wording has to reflect that. If that has been adressed can you provide the diff please?

D.) You yourself have twice accused me of promoting fringe views. And yet you agree Ian kershaw, Keith Lowe and other wiki articles are not 'fringe'?? (scratches head). You were the one who asked me to provide sources. Have you adressed the one I provided from Keith Lowe and how that relates to the disputed sentence? I just re-read and I can't see a response. So I fail to see how you conclude that it is I myself who is ignoring responses? :-o

E.) Still NO_ONE has answered my explanation for why I believe that the Rummel sentences in the Legacy section can NOT be referenced as a verfiable source for this disputed sentence. I have attempted to demonstrate how it cannot. [21] And I have now again raised my issue but posed as a question instead, to see if I am missing something here . Didn't you just ignore that question? So please, reply to just that point. Otherwise if you have no opinion on that I fail to see how discussing other issues further with you helps us. I don't see how this is a strawman argument, as verifiability is core wiki policy and yet still no-one has adressed my clear and detailed reasoning about how 'Rummel as source for this' can not be verified. Plus, as I have previously argued, the sentence in all the forms it has been proposed ALWAYS infers "Hitler's policies" alone. I of course agree the word "alone" is not in the sentence. But how is it not inferred? Malljaja even wrote that "alone" was correct (see above). Can you please address how the sentence can be understood in any other way than inferring 'alone'?

As for the rest you keep widening the conversation by posing what I consider only loosely related questions. But to humour you: what exactly were the peace proposals that Churchill refused in 1940? Do you know? I understood they did include an independent Poland and "(ii) vacating the territory of France he occupied in 1940" [22]. Of course without Hitler and his "policies", the situation would never have arisen in the way it did. But I have not been arguing against that (your own strawman?). I am arguing there were other leaders' "policies" involved. E.g. regarding: revoking the Treaty of Versailles; [23][24] the fear of the spread of communism; fear of a socialist United States of Europe; [25] fear of the international rise of Fascism, especially in Italy (Mussolini), Spain (Franco), Britain (Mosley), France (Bucard), ... etc., etc., etc. Which all I think demonstrates AGAIN the oversimplification and thus inaccuracy of the disputed (and I argue unverifiable) sentence that we are discussing. But this is a side shown to my main point, (which was my original third point):

can the disputed sentence be verified by the cited source of Rummel. I say not. Can you humour me and show how it can, please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 11:18, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Ironically, I've already answered these questions in my previous (19:43, 13 December 2012) post. The answer on Q1 is: Hitler is not the sole person responsible for those deaths (even the decision to murder European Jews was made by a group of top Nazi leaders). However, (i) we are talking not about Hitler personally, but about Hitler's policy, and (ii) we do not say Hitler's policy was the sole cause of all those deaths. Surely, it was one of major reason of the deaths of 50 million people, arguably, the single most important one, but it is not the only one. The answer on Q2 is: it is ridiculous and somewhat hypocritical to put any responsibility on the party that refuses to sign a deliberately unjust peace treaty. To that, I can add a new argument: do you have any evidences that by signing a separate peace with Hitler Churchill could prevent any death? Previous history of Anglo-German relations demonstrated that every concession just increased Hitler's appetite: after swallowing Austria (which was silently approved by western powers) he demanded Sudetes, after Munich (which, as Chamberlain declared, would bring "peace for our time") he took Czechoslovakia fully, then he took Poland, then conquered France - what could guaranty that he would not use a peace with Britain for preparation for new conquests? I am pretty sure that would be the case.

I am sorry, I did not read the rest of your post: you ignore my answers, therefore, I see no value in continuation of this discussion. The sentence you are persistently removing is based on what reliable sources say, is not controversial and in supported by substantiated arguments presented by several good faith users. If you want to present new arguments, please respond on my arguments first. The sentence removed by you will stay until you will convince us that you were right and we were wrong. Feel free to continue this discussion, but the sentence you are trying to remove must stay until the consensus about its removal is achieved on the talk page. You should have to realise that the next deletion of this sentence may be a subject of discussion at WP:ANI, so I strongly advise you not to delete it. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@Mystichumwipe: Several of us have stopped posting to this thread. The reason I stopped is because I don't see any point in repeating the same arguments over and over; I have already explained my position clearly several times. For me to continue to participate in this thread ad nauseum squanders the only resource I have to offer to the encyclopedia: my time. In this instance consensus is against your proposed edit; you are in fact the sole editor in favour of removing the material. That's a pretty clear consensus for its inclusion. Please don't invest any more of your time on this; surely there are more productive ways for you to contribute to the encyclopedia. Your continual posts here and your refusal to drop the issue or to understand the other editor's points is becoming disruptive. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in you being blocked from editing. -- Dianna (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

@89.204.154.183: You are absolutely right that the article could use some more freshening up. If you have access to some good sources you could propose amendments to the article here on the talk page and one of us would be happy to place them in the article for you. As for myself, the resources available at my local library are limited, and I do not have the budget to buy books to edit Wikipedia. I don't speak German. Please feel free to create an account if you plan on sticking around; we could always use more help from knowledgeable editors. -- Dianna (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Woogie10w (talk · contribs) to comment on this topic - he has an excellent understanding of the literature on the casualties of World War II. In my own view, the sentence is essentially correct but a bit simplistic (in that Hitler wasn't the inventor of his views and the Nazi state and German society also played a key role in what took place between 1933 and 1945). In the second volume of his biography of Hitler, Ian Kershaw states that "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead" (p. 841), which as far as I'm aware is the most common view among modern historians (though there are - and probably always will be - many views on this matter and no consensus). As such, I'd suggest broadening this paragraph somewhat to acknowledge the wider responsibility for the war and the killings. Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nick, the paragraph says "Hitler's supremacist and racially motivated policies resulted in the deaths..., and I see no appreciable difference between that and the idea expressed by Kershaw you cited. I don't understand how could this statement to be broadened, because it seems to be broad enough. If you have some concrete ideas, please, propose them here. --Paul Siebert (talk) 13:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

In the article we have 21 million victims of Hitler and 29 million civilian deaths for a total of 50 million European dead citing R. J. Rummel as a source. Also bear in mind that in addition to these WW2 era deaths the Rummel claims an additional 5 million deaths due to internal Soviet democide from 1939 to mid 1941. So in total Rummel’s figures include 41 million excess Soviet deaths in the period 1939-1945 (democide Hitler 12.5 million, democide Stalin 14.5 million plus 14 million war related Soviet deaths). These figures are from Rummel’s Lethal Politics, pages 137 and 167. Almost all other academic sources in print put the WW2 era (1939-1945) excess Soviet deaths at about 25 million using a census based population balance methodology in contrast to R. J. Rummel’s figure of 41 million. R. J. Rummel’s figures are definitely not mainstream and the definitive answer to the question of the number of Hitler’s victims. Why use him as the only source here on Wikipedia?--Woogie10w (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rummel's figures for the USSR are totally inadequate. Thus, he claims 40 million were killed in Gulag, whereas current consensus is that total amount of Gulag death amounted to ca 2 million, and that Gulag had no demographic consequences for the USSR. If you have better figures it would make sense to replace Rummel with better data.--Paul Siebert (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

We may want to also include the study by Timothy D. Snyder, Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin Synder puts the figure attributable to Hitler at 10-11 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Woogie, we should discriminate between the deaths attributable to Hitler (i.e. murder of Jews, execution of civilians in occupied territories, deaths of Soviet POWs, and other deaths caused by his regime deliberately) and the deaths that resulted from his policy. In that sense, for example, the death of German civilians during Allied bombing were a result of Hitler's policy (more precisely, of the war he started), and he could easily avoid them by surrendering timely. The figure of 10-11 million is already present in the lede ("including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust").

By the way, the latter statement ("including 6 million Jews and 5 million "non-Aryans" who were systematically exterminated as part of the Holocaust") is not fully correct. It is currently believed that The Holocaust (Shoah) was a mass murder of Jews. Deaths of other "non-Aryans" does not fall into this category. I suggest to bring this statement in accordance with the Holocaust article.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

USSR Population Balance 1927-1953-:Russian Academy of Sciences study 1993

Description	Amount(in millions)
population Jan 1928	151.6
Births	138.5
Population Transfers(net)	19.5
Deaths	(118.0)
Population Dec 1953	191.7

A.In figure of 118.0 million dead are 26.6 million in WW2

Source:Russian Academy of Sciences study 1993- Andreev, EM, et al., Naselenie Sovetskogo Soiuza, 1922–1991. Moscow, Nauka, 1993. ISBN 978-5-02-013479-9

The death toll according to R. J. Rummel in Lethal Politics- 71 million unnatural deaths in the USSR from 1928-53(12.5 million Nazi democide, 43.0 million Soviet democide (Executions,Gulag or famine) and 26.0 million in WW2.) Assuming that the Russian Academy of Sciences figures are correct; Rummel is telling us that 60% of all deaths in the USSR(1928-53) were due to repression or war. Rummel claims the census figures are not reliable, so he based his analysis entirely on English language sources published prior to the fall of the USSR in 1989. Rummel uses his own methodology that is outlined in Lethal Politics pages 235-243.--Woogie10w (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Rummel's methodology is based on taking different figures from different sources and obtaining some most plausible estimate (he didn't do his own archival research, and didn't approach critically to questionable sources). This methodology was systematically debunked by Dulic (for Yugoslavia), and it is known that his figures are inflated (Harff). The historians and demographers studying the USSR cite Rummel very rarely, and they do not use his figures.

Obviously, since validity of Rummel's estimates strongly depends on quality of sources he used, his estimates of European (non-Soviet) causalities are much more trustworthy (simply by virtue of better quality and availability of the data). However, that is just my personal opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This recent study puts total WW2 deaths at 39 million in Europe including about 10 million deaths due to Nazi repression .[26] The figure of 39 million in Europe is in line with the actual population balance in Europe. Rummel's figure of 50 million includes 10 million in the USSR that is not supported using the recent 1993 population study in post communist Russia. Rummel walks on thin ice--Woogie10w (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear if these figures include, for example, Soviet soldiers from Asia who were killed in Eastern front or died in Nazi camps. Most likely, these figures do not include, for example, deaths in Gulag in 1942-43, most of which were a result of war famine in the USSR (a direct result of the war started by Hitler). Generally speaking, all WWII deaths except Chinese and Japanese are attributable to the policy of Nazi Germany (i.e. to Hitler's policy).--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul, we cannot second guess the source but my own research off Wiki is in line with about 40 million dead in Europe. Between Stalin, Hitler and Anglo-American bombs a lot of folks died. Soviet soldiers from Asia died in Europe, they are part of the entire Soviet population. The grey area is to allocate famine deaths in the USSR between Europe and Asia, as editors of Wikipedia we must rely on published sources. In any case these famine deaths are attributable to the war in Europe.--Woogie10w (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Woogie, "deaths in Europe" and "deaths as a result of Hitler's policy" are separate categories that do not fully coincide. We have sources that estimate the latter to be ca 50 million, so I don't see any problem here.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul tell us the figures of the 50 million deaths for each nation in Europe, a simple column of numbers that adds down to 50 million. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Woogie, as I already said "deaths in Europe ≠ deaths as a result of Hitler's policy". See Ian Kershaw, who says that "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead" (p. 841). --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Kershaw must have including Asian deaths in WW2 because about 40 million died in Europe. Again I ask you please tell us the figures of the 50 million deaths for each nation in Europe. --Woogie10w (talk) 03:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If we include Asian deaths, the casualties would be between 62 and 78 million. I don't believe a modern author can claim WWII as whole caused just 50 million deaths. Again, Hitler's policy affected not only Europe. Thus, you probably know that Japan decided to attack European and American possessions in Asia only because of Hitler's successes in Europe. --Paul Siebert (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok Paul, lets do the math, USSR and Baltic States 24 million, the Third Reich 7 million, Poland 6 million, Yugoslavia 1million, other nations 2-3 million. That adds down to 40 million and includes war related military & civilian deaths; and includes deaths due to Nazi repression. The figure of 40 million agrees with generally accepted figures for European casualties. Paul tell us the figures of the 50 million deaths for each nation in Europe, a simple column of numbers that adds down to 50 million--Woogie10w (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Woogie, I do not tell the death in Europe add down to 50 million. I am telling that the effect of Hitler's policy was not limited with Europe alone. He was an author of WWII, and his policy lead to deaths both inside and outside of Europe. That is what Kershaw meant, in my opinion. Without Hitler, war in Asia would not be so bloody, and probably would be halted soon by European powers.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Now back to sqaure one R. J. Rummel who claims 50 million deaths in Europe including 21 million due to Nazi democide. We need the figures of the 50 million deaths for each nation in Europe, a simple column of numbers that adds down to 50 million.--Woogie10w (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We do not need a table here—there are already similar tables at World War II casualties. What we need to present is the prevailing view of historians on the number of casualties due to Hitler's policies. If Kershaw— considered an authority in the field—puts this number at 50 million, it should be included; likewise, if there are respected scholars of similar calibre who corroborate or refute this number, their estimates should also be included.Malljaja (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To follow on briefly from my above comment, I've successfully located my trusted copies of Kershaw, and added two pieces of information: (i) The association of Hitler's name with the physical and moral catastrophe of WWII and (ii) a numerical estimate of its human toll. I have not touched the section dealing with Rummels, as I do not have his book, but perhaps it can be shortened/amended for brevity and accuracy. Malljaja (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. So, as I am seeing it, what we have here is a sentence in the lead that NO-ONE actually agrees upon in every detail, and which EVERYONE agrees is incorrect in some regard. Paul Siebert now even admits: "5 million 'non-Aryans' ...is not fully correct." So... Can we agree then that it at least needs rewording (one of my initial points) ...if we keep it at all? (at least as Nick-D suggested, broadening it "to acknowledge the wider responsibility")

And, at the risk of causing upset, (stay calm, stay calm now;-) may I again express my opinion that to merely argue over what are the correct figures is missing the larger point. Its not only the figures that are disputed. The disputed sentence infers that ALL these deaths (whatever the figure) were just the result of "Hitler's policies" and Malljaja and Paul Siebert have repeated exactly that here in this discussion. We seem to be all agreed that Rummings DOES NOT say that and that Kershaw also does NOT say exactly that. As we have to provide a verifiable reputable secondary source for the way the sentence is specifically worded, and as we clearly haven't got one if people are arguing over the reliability of Rummel's figures, then, Houston we have a problem. Some have argued both ways saying that they are not saying Hitler policies alone and not Hitler himself. But Dianna created this disputed topic with the title: "Deaths atributable to Hitler". If a chief contributing editor themself expresses this discussion in these terms I really don't think it honest to argue that this disputed sentence is qoute: "(i) not about Hitler personally, but about Hitler's policy, and (ii) we do not say Hitler's policy was the sole cause of all those deaths". How can we not expect readers of the article to understand the sentence as attributing responsibility of deaths to Hitler himself if Dianna him/herself did when creating this talk topic? :-o--Mystichumwipe (talk) 12:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Before talking about disagreements, lets talk about less controversial things.

1. Woogie argues WWII caused 40 million deaths in Europe. Please, tell me who disagrees with that. I myself am sure Woogie is knowledgeable enough, and I have no doubts his opinion is correct. If someone disagrees, please, put your name here:
2. Mystichumwipe argues that Hitler (or Hitler's policy) was not the sole factor that lead to outbreak and continuation of the WWII. I totally agree, however, if somebody disagrees, please, put your name here:
3. I, Paul Siebert, believe that Hitler's policy had a global effect, so many people outside of Europe (strictly construed) became victims of this policy. Does anyone object to that? If yes, put your signatures here:

Regarding "5 million non-Aryans", the only thing I suggest is slight re-wording.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As I was asked to contribute I would say that my opinion has not changed from the quotes above: there is no way to ascribe all of the deaths of WW2 to any one person and anyway this kind of detail belongs in an article on the war, or analysing the victim figures. Maybe you could say that Hitler's policies led to global war that resulted in the deaths of x million people but that's not the same thing at all. Britmax (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not know who puts responsibility on one person solely. To say that Hitler's policies lead to global war etc would be too vague: actually, the Holocaust, extermination of other non-Germans, or similar crimes were not dictated by military needs. --Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO the legacy should read "Hitler was responsible for the deaths of six million Jews in the Holocaust and millions of other Europeans including Roma, POWs, Slavs and political opponents of the Nazis" since there is no definitive figure for the others it is best to leave it open ended as "millions of other Europeans" There is no need to go into detail, just have a Wiki link to the Holocaust. In any case get rid of Rummel's numbers, they just don't have general acceptance by other historians--Woogie10w (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Woogie, your "Hitler was responsible for the deaths etc" is too soft. The people you are talking about were killed in accordance with his orders, so he is directly responsible for that. With regard his indirect responsibility, see Kershaw, who, as I see, causes no objections from your side.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Kershaw's "over 50 million" is just fine, we don't have to go into the details of casualties in a short bio of Hitler--Woogie10w (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Woogie—I cannot speak to the accuracy of Rummel's number nor do I have strong feelings about whether or not his estimates should remain in the entry. However, since I would like to see more than a hand wave about the scale and consequences of the disaster that occurred as a result Hitler's policies and orders, I've now added the Kershaw quotes (and I also thank Nick for identifying the relevant section in Kershaw—otherwise I probably would have spent a whole afternoon on leafing through it). I'm glad that we're in agreement about Kershaw's estimate, and I'm hopeful that we can soon put this numbers discussion to rest—it's a very difficult topic to deal with appropriately, but it's important to get it straight and accordance with the analyses by reputable scholars. Thanks again. Malljaja (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet the sentence appears to remains exactly as it was before my involvement in this discussion, so I do not understand the comment: "I've now added the Kershaw quotes". Can youiexplain. I have tweaked it myself to more closely concur with the Kerhsaw quote and to eliminate the contested "5 million 'non-Aryans". --Mystichumwipe (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just reverted that change as it contained a number of inaccuracies: 1) I'm not sure if Hitler is in fact "considered the main author of the second world war", and this isn't terribly meaningful given how many people were involved (especially as he had little to do with the onset of the fighting in the Pacific 2) "which left over 50 million dead" - it's believed that over 60 million people died as a direct result of the war worldwide 3) "his supremacist and racially motivated policies responsible for the deaths of approximately six million Jews who died in what is referred to as the Holocaust." - why leave out the millions of other victims of Hitler's policies? Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we not have to have a source for this info? It has been argued by you and Siebert that that source is Kershaw. You yourself wrote: "Ian Kershaw states that "Hitler was the main author of a war leaving over 50 million dead" (p. 841), which as far as I'm aware is the most common view among modern historians (though there are - and probably always will be - many views on this matter and no consensus). As such, I'd suggest broadening this paragraph somewhat to acknowledge the wider responsibility for the war and the killings." Now you appear to be arguing the exact opposite?! :-o So 1. are you arguing with Ian Kershaw or just the new wording or what...? And 2. it has been argued here that the 5 million 'non-aryan' is incorrect. So I deleted that. I'm just trying to move this forward from the sentence that as I understood no-one agrees with, yet still remains relatively unchanged. I have already stated that I think the sentence in any of the forms is problematical. You appear to agree. Then why not have a go at it yourself instead of reverting. OR lets delete it. We still have the wierd situation where Dianna argued this lead sentence isn't about Hitler's personal responsibility for deaths and yet called this talk topic Deaths attributable to Hitler and Malljaja said its not talking soley about Hitler's policies and yet wrote exactly that it is that ("Hitler's ambitions and policies alone led to WWII; if you have a reliable source that claims otherwise, please advise.") Now you appear to be doing the same thing, arguing two totally conteradictory positions. So could you clarify your position for me please.--Mystichumwipe (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Donald L Niewyk in The Columbia Guide to the Holocaust [27] has a discussion that gives a summary of the academic discourse on the topic of the classification of Holocaust victims. Niewyk is a scholar dealing with the Holocaust [28] --Woogie10w (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)