Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 15

message: I would put this part of the article much more general. SS and Gestapo were not the only state organizations which built up the suppression system. It was the whole security group. IHMO the list looks like this:
* Reichssicherheitshauptamt as the head organisation which managed all police services and intelligence services
* The Gestapo as the german secret police
* The SS as the main terror instrument and its intelligence service SD
* The SA with shrinking influnce
In my eyes there are numerous other organisations which supported that terror system but these are the main ones.
--mac_c 12:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Mac c, can you go ahead and propose what the edit should look like and I'll think about putting it in?  --Nlu 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the SS complex 

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

message: Hello friends of history:
I propose that the "References" section be replaced by the "Further reading" section and the use of the List of Adolf Hitler books.  The References section was getting to long and it was unsorted.  In addition, how do we know what books were actually used to create the Adolf Hitler article?  I would be obliged if you added book titles and help turn the List of Adolf Hitler books into an Annotated Bibliography by writing articles that review the books and authors and linking them to the books.  Some of the books and authors have already been linked as the articles have been previously written.
In addition, I have added a "Speeches" section, List of Adolf Hitler speeches lots of speeches still to be added.  I hope all will contribute to this historically significant project.
Thank you for your time and input.
Cordially WritersCramp 17:25, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like a protect and then unprotect always bring out the best in the editors.  :-)  --Nlu 17:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, I'll agree with that for now, due to the strong point made that we don't know which books were used in this article. But I am a little bit divided, since the argument also applies to almost every other article in wikipedia, and since it is quite unusual to do it like this. Furthermore, I myself have for instance used Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (and others) when reviewing this article. Perhaps we should at least list the most famous references, but I don't know for now. By the way, the List of Adolf Hitler books is great! Good going, WritersCramp! My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 00:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello DNA thank you for the kind words, I hope you will help by participating, lots of annotations to write and books to add :) You might want to purchase the first in the trilogy * Evans, R. (2005). The Third Reich in Power, 1933-1939. Penguin Press HC.  . Ian Kershaw believes it will replace the The Rise and Fall as the standard once the trilogy is published. Cordially WritersCramp 13:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

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

message: Is inaccurate, they are the Industrial Magnates, not  just businessmen. I would be quite happy for them to be the Industrial Magnates as that gives the import. I do not accept German Businessmen does more than divert the inattentive reader to that which is shockingly worthy of attention. I will change it, right? I think the true clear importance is noticeable by writing  Nazi-Funding  Industrial Magnates, OK ?
I draw attention to the incoherence upon the Fire Decree . No legal justification is yet sourced as to the legality of Deputy arrests supposedly consequent on Hindenburg's signing of a Decree (this or another purely Police Decree?) empowering the Prussian/Berlin Police to arrest and detain sovereign memebers of the Reichstag Institution. Papen claimed ignorance, so what do we claim here? Is it legal or is it not? If it is , can we pleases prove the legality, and not simply assume it because it is tidier ,like "confronted" ???EffK 00:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the police, OK. But legal or not legal? Would you please tell me if it is considered legal now, if legal then, and if legal at the trials? I mean sovereign Deputies, not Communists in general.  Papen answered the trials as to whether he knew that deputies were arrested and maltreated in the negative. It is one thing you not  answering to do with accusations against me, but you claim to be a historian, so I ask this series of specifics , in diminuishing expectation of getting a straight answer. if you ever find out, do let me know. As to Magnates, they are called magnates from Mowrer through the post-war histories. Why change terminology from the clear specific, to the hazy general ? I know you don't want me anywhere on WP, and cannot allow that I have a native's view of language , so it is as Jimbo said, lacking merit to argue. EffK 00:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: German Businessmen

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