Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 1

message: header added by me
moved from posting about other subject In any case, Amazon.com is selling ~600 books about "Adolph Hitler". Lirath Q. Pynnor probably 11 Nov 2003
moved from posting about other subject Also, most of the early results from the Amazon search on "Adolph Hitler" either seem to be older books or books not particularly about Hitler.  A search for "Adolf Hitler" yields more than 4500 results.  A google search on "Adolf Hitler" yields 392,000 results.  A search on "Adolph Hitler" gives less than 70,000.  I think the word "occasionally" is appropriate. john 23:46, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: First postings about (mis?)spelling Adolph

message: header changed by me
Hundreds of books use Adolph exclusively, tens of thousands of websites use Adolph, Britannica acknowledges this spelling...should Wikipedia? This is not a vote on whether to use "Adolph"; it is a vote on whether to mention that other writers do use it. probably 12 Nov 2003
====Yes====
*Lirath Q. Pynnor
*Definetly as an alternative spelling, like Alphonso for Alfonso. Check Adolph in google.de for 371,000 hits. Enough? Muriel 14:25, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote about mentioning the (mis?)spelling Adolph

message: *Lirath Q. Pynnor
*Definetly as an alternative spelling, like Alphonso for Alfonso. Check Adolph in google.de for 371,000 hits. Enough? Muriel 14:25, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Yes

message: *If you are checking _german_ websites in google, Adolf has 37.500 hits, Adolph only 178. I think Adolph is a misspelling. - user:82.82.117.83
*I personally can't stand the other spelling of Adolf. Let's not just follow Brittanica on this issue, as we try to be better than them elsewise. --user:zanimum
*Including the wrong spelling in the introduction makes the incorrect spelling appear equally valid, which it is not -- it is simply wrong.Maximus Rex 14:44, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: header added by me
Here's the cover and title page of what appears to be a 1941 (and hence presumably official) German language edition of Mein Kampf with the "Adolf" spelling. And here it is blown up 168... 19:57, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  More arguments whether Adolph is a mispelling or an alternative spelling (yet without any suggestions how to say it in the article)

message: of course this header is by me
I tried to organize everything in a way that was NPOV, I hope no one noticed I found it a hopelessly long discussion *very big smile* . If you didn't, I must have done it in a NPOV way. BTW I could have added much more headings but as it seems everyone finally agreed I didn't think it was that important. PHEW Done, hopefully. Hmm maybe I'm to perfectionist, but well I don't seem to be the only person here :-P Laudaka 07:09, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Final remark by the "reorganizer" [[User:Laudaka|Paul/laudaka]])

message: heading added by me
Since World War II as such began in Europe, I don't see why we can't just say Hitler started World War II?  The ongoing Sino-Japanese War was not considered a part of World War II until Japan attacked the United States and the United Kingdom in December of 1941. john 22:48, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the general consensus on the start of World War II proper is that it began on September 1, 1939, with the German invasion of Poland.  I suppose one might argue for the British and French declarations of war two days later.  But, as I said, the Sino-Japanese War, and even more so the invasion of Ethiopia or the Spanish Civil War, were, while related, not the same thing as World War II.  Only in retrospect can they be considered to be a part of the same war.  I'm not sure what actions by Russia prior to September 1939 could be seen as particularly aggressive (although their conduct in Spain was certainly odious).  In any event, the article would not say that he was the instigator of World War II, but that he is widely seen as such, which is hardly controversial. john 22:56, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Did Hitler start World War II or was he only one of the persons starting it?

message: heading added by me
the text looked like this before the changes: "was Chancellor (January 30, 1933 - April 30, 1945) and Führer (August 2, 1934 - April 30) of Germany."
All those dates in the introductory sentence make it very hard to parse and to read. The birth/death dates where they appear conform to a fairly familiar encyclopedia convention, so they aren't such a stumbling block as the others. Could we take out the date ranges of his chancellorship and fuhrer-ship? It seems to me that if readers know when Hitler lived then they're already acquired the gross conception of historical context that one hopes to convey in an introductory summation. Can't they wait until later in the article to learn precisely when he attained first this form of leadership and then that one? I think most readers curious for that info would have the patience to do so. 168... 22:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Giving exact dates of Hitler's Chancelorship and Führer-ship is making the first sentence hard to read

message: Just a near-idle question for all you HItler experts. 
I understood that AH's body was dug up by the Soviet when East German went away and was cremated, the ashes being scattered in the North Sea.
Other than my spotty memory, it there any evidence of this being true?
Paul, in Saudi
Just added the header Laudaka 13:16, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Question about what happened to Hitlers body

message: The new edit says that Hitler worked as a house painter for a while.  I think that's a myth but I am bookless at the moment. --Zero 10:36, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He was certainly not a house painter.  He was homeless for some time in Vienna, though, I believe. john 20:19, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In Vienna he worked as a painter, but not a house painter. He painted postcards and larger pictures. There's a book about Hitler as a painter. In German, though: PRICE, Billy F.: "ADOLF HITLER ALS MALER UND ZEICHNER". In "Mein Kampf" Hitler states that he always wanted to be a painter, an artist. Captain-c 08:30, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Here you can find some drawings of Hitler. Captain-c 08:34, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hitler as a painter 

message: All right.  If Adolf Hitler was not a dictator, who was? - Hephaestos|§ 06:37, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not that simple: Hitler first came to be chancellor by legitimate democratic election, and only later proclaimed himself Führer (a title that can fairly be translated as "Dictoator".) Mkweise 07:20, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler did not come to power by a legitimate democratic election, exactly, as has been pointed out numerous times.  He came to power in what might be seen as a parody of Weimar democratic forms, at a time when those forms had been completely ignored by the very men who brought him into power for quite some time.  Furthermore, Hitler can certainly be termed a "dictator" from well before Hindenburg's death in 1934 (which is when he officially became Führer).  I'd suggest that the Enabling Act of April 1933, at latest, established Hitler as "dictator" in all meaningful senses of the word. john 07:54, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler became gradually a dictator. I think he was a 100% dictator when he succeeded Hindenburg as a president in 1934 and thereby gained control of the military. Andries 10:20, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Dictator or legally elected ''Führer'' (leader) and politician?

message: The paragraphs on the surname "Schicklgruber" are flatly contradictory.  What's the real situation? --Robert Merkel 01:16, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing you misread "Alois Hitler" as "Adolf Hitler", because I did that a few times too.  --Zero 03:51, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Schicklgruber

message: Was Adolf Hitler part-Jewish? --Lst27 21:50, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a myth for which there is essentially no evidence.  --Zero 23:52, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  A better answer would be: Nobody knows. No one knows who Hitler's paternal grandfather was, so no one can state that it is a fact that he [the grandfather] was or was not Jewish. There are only opinions on this matter, and in Wikipedia, NPOV requires that opinions never be asserted by the article, they only can be attributed and cited. See Neutral Point of View  ChessPlayer 06:59, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part-Jewish? 

message: Now I know users like 172 are going to point to my most recent addition and call me Fascist. How dare I write anything nice about Hitler, after all, unless I were some knuckle dragging fascist.  
I did this to prove a point.
This article paints hitler in a bad light. Now, there is nothing wrong with that, he certainly was an SOB and one of the most horrific leaders in human history, but if I were to write an article with this tone about Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin or the USSR, it would spark the mother of all edit wars. 
I have seen an ongoing edit wart on Pol Pot with some of the most ludicrous and nonsensical justifications being made for his and his regimes behavior. 
I wonder why that is? Why is it that a article which accurately condemns Hitler and Nazi Germany is not contested, but an article which would portray Stalin in a similar light would be flooded with apologists? Why does Wikipedia reward the most stubborn, and allow them to basically re-write history? Why the hell should we even be having this debate?TDC 15:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest Revision

message: Everyone who edits at Wikipedia should go to Neutral point of view and study it until they understand it well. I see a lot of evidence in articles, including this one, that people have not done this. For example, I see articles where it appears that people think the policy advocates that a neutral point of view be argued in the text. This is not what the policy states. Other people seem to think that neutral means balanced, that it is ok for the article itself to assert a point of view, if it is done fairly. This also is not what the policy states. Others seem to feel that it is ok for articles to promote a point of view, if that point of view is overwhelmingly popular and not offensive to the vast majority of people. This also is not what the policy states. You need to read the policy page to understand NPOV, the policy is not intuitive. ChessPlayer 06:28, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm hoping you're not targeting me as one of the failures to understand, as I've read over the page multiple times. If so, though, I'm curious exactly what you see my error as being. Snowspinner 16:41, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't targeting anyone. ChessPlayer 17:09, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia NPOV Policy 

message: The article claims Hitler was "democratically elected," but does not mention what office he was elected to, because it can't, Hitler was never elected to any government office. I think the statement is misleading and should be removed. Hitler was not elected, he was appointed. Hitler then gradually increased his power by politics and force until he was the sole authority.  The enactment of the Enabling Acts was not an election, but a ceremony masquerading as an election. There was no real vote, as the choice was cooperate or die. If my memory is correct, the hardcore opposition was banned entirely from the chamber when the "vote" took place, and the rest where acting under knowledge that to oppose the Act was likely to get them tortured and/or killed. At no point in Hitler's rise to power did he get elected. ChessPlayer 01:37, 15 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democratically Elected 

message: The reason Hitler was on TIME's cover was because of the events in Munich. To mention TIME right after the events of 38 is exactly right. ChessPlayer 07:05, 16 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  TIME 1938 

message: "The regime he led caused the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more." - Only by a twisted, one-sided interpretation, can this statement be called a hard fact. It is as one-sided as saying, "The US caused the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more in WWII" which is equally true. One sided statements that imply blame are POV and not allowed to be asserted by the article itself, but can be stated as the opinions of sources, when those sources are cited, 
The crucial point here is the word "caused". Causation in historical works is almost always a matter of opinion, debate, and often controversy. To claim its hard fact here is completely unjustified. 
I am rewording the intro so that it is not POV and blaming Hitler's "military-industrial" complex for "the deaths of millions and the displacement of millions more." If someone disagrees, let them show how this statement is not in the same category as stating that America, or Britain, or Russia caused it. History is not science, and historical analytical statements are opinions, and this one definately is. ChessPlayer 00:32, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't forget about the concentration camps. Fredrik 00:55, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think its factual to assert that Hitler was responsible for the camps. The sentence does not give the impression it refers to the camps, as it does not mention them, and the sentence before was refering to conquest. If it is the camps, then it should make that clear. ChessPlayer 01:08, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is to blame for the destruction of the war? 

message: The article mentions that Hitler may be gay. That is fine but then I also feel that I have to include to extensive evidence that Hitler was a heterosexual to balance it. That would make the article unwieldy. I propose removing the reference to Hitler's hidden gay life. Andries 07:36, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Hitler's sex life

message: Substituted at 20:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment