New Imperialism and Talk:Adolf Hitler: Difference between pages

Revision as of 21:01, 2 January 2003

Revision as of 12:57, 11 October 2005

Line 1:

{{talkheader}}

In a scramble for overseas markets between the [[Franco-Prussian War]] and [[World War I]], [[Europe]] added almost 9 million square miles — one-fifth of the land area of the globe — to its overseas colonial possessions. Ushering out the cavalier colonialism of the mid-[[Victorian era]], the age of [[Pax Britannica]], the late nineteenth century [[Romantic Age]] was an era of "empire for empire's sake". But scholars debate the causes and ramifications of this period of colonialism, dubbed "The New Imperialism" to distinguish it from earlier eras of overseas expansion, such as the [[mercantilism]] of the [[16th century|sixteenth]] to [[18th century|eighteenth centuries]] or the liberal age of "[[free trade]]" colonialism of the mid-nineteenth century.

{{facfailed}}

{{controversial}}

{{FascismProject}}

{{FAOL|Hebrew|he:אדולף היטלר}}

''An event in this article is a [[MediaWiki:January 30 selected anniversaries|January 30 selected anniversary]].'' (may be in HTML comment)

==Background, the Age of Pax Britannica ==

The [[American Revolution]] discredited mercantilism and contributed to the appeal of the [[classical liberalism]] of [[Adam Smith]]. A disciple of Adam Smith was [[Richard Cobden]], who contended that the costs of occupation often exceeded the financial return to the taxpayer. In other words, formal empire afforded no reciprocal economic benefit when trade would continue whether the overseas political entities were nominally sovereign or not.

----

Roughly between the [[Congress of Vienna]] and the Franco-Prussian War, [[United Kingdom|Britain]] reaped the benefits of being the world’s sole modern industrial nation. Following the defeat of [[Napoleon I of France|Napoleon]], Britain was the "workshop of the world", meaning that its finished goods were no longer produced so efficiently and cheaply that they could often undersell comparable, locally manufactured goods in almost any other market. If political conditions in a particular overseas markets were stable enough, Britain could its economy through free trade alone without having to resort to formal rule or mercantilism. Britain was even supplying half the needs in manufactured goods of such nations as [[Germany]], [[France]], [[Belgium]], and the [[United States]].

==Archives==

==Causes of New [[Imperialism]] and Formal Empire==

===Loss of Comparitive Advantage===

As the newly industrial powers, such as France, Germany, and the United States, rose, however, Britain's comparative advantage in trade of any finished good began diminishing, and it began to face far stiffer competition. Britain’s share of world trade fell from one-fourth in [[1880]], one-sixth in [[1913]], and one-eight in [[1948]]. Britain was no longer supplying half the needs in [[manufactured goods]] of such nations as Germany, France, [[Belgium]], and the United States. Britain was even growing incapable of dominating markets such as [[India]]. The nation had lost much of its [[comparative advantage]] in the manufacturing sector. To make matters worse, British manufactures in the staple industries of the [[Industrial Revolution]] were beginning to experience real competition abroad. The German textiles and metal industries, for example, had by the beginning of the Franco-Prussian War surpassed those of Britain in organization and technical efficiency and usurped British manufactures in the domestic market. By the turn of the century, the German metals and engineering industries would be producing heavily for the free trade market as well. In midst of Britain’s relative industrial decline, the fact that invisible financial exports actually kept Britain "out of the red" is somewhat indicative of both Britain’s pressure to secure overseas markets in both nominally independent states and colonies and its newly precarious hegemony over overseas markets.

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/mentioning the (mis?)spelling Adolph|Adolf or Adolph]]

These problems coincided with the long-term effects of the severe "[[Long Depression]]" of [[1873]] - [[1896]], which had followed fifteen years of great economic instability. Business after [[1873]] in practically every industry suffered from lengthy periods of low—and falling—profit rates and price deflation. This greatest problem during this period was that production often exceeded domestic demand. This forced an adoption of new policies. The manufacturers had become very powerful forces in the more democratic Britain, controlling the purse strings of the major parties. The manufacturers were eager for new destinations for exports and pushed for the government to secure captive markets in Africa.

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 1]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 3]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 4]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 5]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 6]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 7]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 8]]

*[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 9]]

==Satanic occult and suicide date==

At a time when the contiental powers' abandonment of free trade limited the European market, some business and government leaders, such as [[Leopold II of Belgium|Leopold II]] and [[Jules Ferry]], concluded that sheltered overseas markets would solve the problems of low prices and over-accumulation of surplus capital caused by shrinking continental markets. Among the new conditions were the short-term effects of the severe economic depression of [[1873]], which had followed fifteen years of great economic instability. Business after 1873 in practically every industry suffered from lengthy periods of low profit rates and deflation; profits were falling because too much capital were chasing too few markets, especially after the rise of newly industrializing states in export trade with its traditional markets in continental Europe, [[China]], and [[Latin America]].

I have removed the following from the article:

===Improvements in Technology===

New techonologies also played an important role. The development of steam ships great decreased transportation costs and made previously unviable markets in Africa effective investments. New technologies, especialy [[mass production]], also reduced production costs bringing manufactured goods for the first time into the financial reach of the world's poorest.

''Due to his occult interests, it has been speculated that Hitler chose April 30 because of its importance as a [[Satanism|Satanic]] holiday.''

===Power Vaccuum in Africa===

The continent of [[Africa]] was also largely unowned. This is mostly because of the decline of what Britain’s [[Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne-Cecil|Lord Salisbury]] would deem in the [[1890s]] "dying " [[Spain]], [[Portugal]], the [[Netherlands]], and the [[Ottoman Empire]], none of which were significant powers by the begining of the [[20th century|twentieth century]]. This left almost the entire continent of Africa open for exploitation.

In the edit summary I said I'd move it to the trivia section, put decided it was too weak. There are so many wildly speculative and conflated rumours about AH that some picking and choosing is inevitable. There is zero documented support that AH practiced any from of religion as an adult (incuding ritual satanism), much less chose his death date to coincide with a satanic holiday. The timing of his suicide had much more to due with Red Army shock troops being only dozens of metres away and were expected to be knocking on the bunker's doors (so to speak) within hours. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 20:27, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

===Increased European Competition===

Continental political developments in the late 19th century, relating to the overall breakdown of the [[Concert of Europe]], also rendered this imperial competition feasible, in spite of Britain’s centuries of long-established naval and maritime superiority. As unification of Germany by the [[Prussia]]n Garrison State went forward, contending capitalist powers were thus ready to compete with Britain over stakes in overseas markets. The aggressive nationalism of [[Napoleon III of France|Napoleon III]] and the relative political stability of France under the liberal [[Third Republic]] also rendered France more capable of challenging Britain’s global preeminence. Germany, [[Italy]], and France were simply no longer as embroiled in continental concerns and domestic disputes as they were before the Franco-Prussian War.

The history channel says otherwise, and I trust them more than you. [[User:Lilath|Lilath]]

Control of tropical Africa had strategic implications in an era of feasible inter-capitalist competition, particularly for Britain, which was under intense economic and thus political pressure to secure lucrative markets such as India, China, and Latin America. In Britain’s case this process of capitalist diffusion had in many regions led it to acquire colonies in the interests of commercial security; France and Germany would later follow suit. For example the [[1869]] completion of the [[Suez Canal]] prompted the strengthening of control of [[Egypt]]. Battles over control of the [[Nile]] headwaters caused Britain to expand in teh Sudan, and the close proximity of the Russia’s expanding empire in Central [[Asia]] to India also terrified [[Lord Curzon]], thus triggering [[Afghanistan|Afghan]] wars of conquest. [[Cecil J. Rhodes|Rhodes]] and Milner also advocated the prospect of a "[[Cape Town|Cape]] to [[Cairo]] empire, which would link by rail the extrinsically important canal to the intrinsically mineral and diamond rich South, from a strategic standpoint. Though hampered by German conquest of [[Tanganyika]] until the end of the Great War, Rhodes successfully lobbied on behalf of such a sprawling East African empire. Formal colonies were often, in hindsight, strategic outposts to protect large zones of ‘investment’, such as India, Latin America, and China.

::I'm not so sure you haven't taken whatever you may have heard on the History Channel out of context and with all due respect, your notions of trust have nothing to do with it. Lots of nutty speculations have been made about AH, in print and on TV. This is unsupported and would require multiple secondary cites of ''primary sources'' for inclusion in this article. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:13, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

===Social Views===

New social views of [[colonialism]] also arose. Rationalized by [[Rudyard Kipling]]-style [[racism]] and [[Social Darwinism]] in predominately [[Protestantism|Protestant]] empires and the paternalistic (but [[republic]]an and progressive) French-style "mission of civilization", was attractive to many European statesmen.

If I may be so bold, I suspect AH would have AVOIDED the april 30th date if he had known it was a satanic holiday. He was interested in the occult as a way to gain more power, not because he was a believer. There is no credible information I have ever seen that would support such a claim. I suspect he thought he was on God's side in WWII, and would have argued with you if you disagreed with him. I am no expert, but I am a serious amateur historian, so I hope my thoughts help. I also have a degree in Psychology, if that matters!

== Theories of Imperialism ==

[[J.A. Hobson]] and later [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]] linked the problem of shrinking continental markets driving European capital overseas to an inequitable distribution of wealth in industrial Europe. Lenin and that bourgeois economist to his liking contended that the wages of workers did not represent enough purchasing power to absorb the vast amount of capital accumulated during the [[Second Industrial Revolution]]. This charge was not baseless, and its logic is even evident in the causes of the interwar [[Great Depression]] beginning in the US, which had garnered the coveted center of the world’s capitalist economy following the Great War, not just the Long Depression of 1873-96. For instance, a fundamental misdistribution of purchasing power during the great industrial expansion of the post-World War I era might have been the Second Great Depression’s main contributing factor. Porter, however, notes that Britain, "Struck with outmoded physical plants and outmoded forms of business organization… now felt the less favorable effects of being the first to modernize." He contends that "a kind of vicious circle had been set up, with domestic industry lagging because capital was going elsewhere because industry was lagging." Unlike J.A. Hobson, however, who links underconsumption to a misdistribution of purchasing power, Porter argues that “the best thing that Britain could have done to correct [its balance of payments] would have been to make her export industry more competitive—improve her methods of manufacturing and marketing in order to sell more abroad.”

By the way, it still says in the article that "it has been speculated that Hitler chose April 30 because of its importance as a [[Satanism|Satanic]] holiday." that phrase has not been removed yet.

===J.A. Hobson]]===

In the [[1870s]], [[London]] financial houses also achieved an unprecedented control of industry, contributing to an increasing concerns among elite policymakers regarding British "protection" of overseas investments — particularly those in the securities of foreign governments and in foreign-government-backed development activities such as [[railroad]]s. Although it had been official British policy for years to support such investments, with the large expansion of these investments after about [[1860]] and with the economic and political instability of many areas of high investment (such as Egypt), calls upon the government for methodical protection became increasingly pronounced in the years leading up to the [[Crystal Palace]] Speech. After the more gentlemanly service sector of the economy (banking, insurance, shipping) became more prominent—possibly at the expense of manufacturing—the influence of London’s financial interest began rising precipitously.

Leto Atreides: some idiot has gone through and filled 'Early life' with swears.

J.A. Hobson, a British [[Political liberalism|liberal]] writing at the time of the fierce debate on imperialism during the [[Boer War]], observed the spectacle of the "[[Colonization of Africa|Scramble for Africa]]" and emphasized changes in European social structures and attitudes as well as capital flow, though his emphasis on the latter seems to have been the most influential and provocative. His so-called accumulation theory suggested that that capitalism suffered from under-consumption due the rise of [[monopoly]] capitalism and the resultant concentration of wealth in fewer hands, which apparently gave rise to a misdistribution of purchasing power. Logically, this argument is sound, given the huge impoverished industrial working class then often far too poor to consume the goods produced by an industrialized economy. His analysis of capital flight and the rise of mammoth cartels later influenced Lenin in his ''Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism'', which has become a basis for the modern neo-[[Marxism|Marxist]] analysis of imperialism. Thus some have argued that the New Imperialism was caused essentially a flight of foreign capital.

::I have seen said History Channel episode. The narrators themselves admit that this is just pure speculation. In reality, Hitler wanted to live until May 5 and die on the same day Napoleon did; he checked out on April 30 after he learned the Russians were too close. This is detailed in [[The Bunker]] and several other more reliable sources than sensationalistic tv documentaties. Also, [[Walpurgis Night]] - the holiday the History Channel refers by name to - is hardly a "Satanic holiday." --[[User:L.|L.]] 16:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

New Imperialism was one way of capturing new overseas markets. By the eve of the Great War, Europe, for instance, represented the largest share (27 percent) of the global "zones of investment", followed by [[North America]] (24 percent), Latin America (19 percent), [[Asia]] (16 percent), Africa (9 percent), and [[Oceania]] (5 percent) for all industrial powers. Britain, the forerunner of Europe’s capitalist powers, however, was clearly the chief world investor, though the direction of its investments underwent a striking change, becoming oriented less toward Europe, the United States, and India, and more toward the rest of the [[Commonwealth]] and Latin America.

==History==

During the post [[1870]] period the amount of foreign trade increased. For western European nations in [[1840]], 7.7 million pounds of its export and 9.2 million pounds of its import trade was done outside Europe; in [[1880]] the figures were 38.4 million and 73 million. Europe’s economic contacts with the wider world were multiplying, much as Britain’s had been doing for years. In these non-industrial regions (such as the [[Russia]]n and Ottoman empires), which were the principal sources of surplus French capital, and other overseas territories that lacked both the knowledge and the power to direct the capital flow, served to colonize rather than develop them, destroying native industries and creating dangerous political and economic pressures which would, in time, produce the so-called "north/south divide". The contemporary Dependency Theory, devised largely by Latin American academics, draws on this inference.

As far as I can see, this article is full of bias against Hitler. The man did many bad things, but in my belief, his WW1 war record was good, and he was well respected in the International Community up to around 1938. I do have Encylopedias around 1935, written in Englsh which speak very highly of him. Their perspective of History then was more accurate than now! In particular, his WW1 War record as stated here is patently false, and is the statement that he was despised by his fellow troops and that he "sucked up" to officers. Hitler was popular with the troops, and this was patently obvious in WW2 in Germany. I'm sure that many American Soldiers, spoken of so highly in Wikipedia also sucked up to their officers. I have attempted to change parts of his WW1 War record. But any attempts are immediately reversed out.

Some have criticized Hobson's analysis of over-accumulation and underconsumption, arguing it does not explain why less developed nations with little surplus capital, such as Italy, participated in colonial expansion. Nor does it fully explain the expansionism of the great powers of the next century — the United States and Russia, which were in fact, net borrowers of foreign capital. Opponents of his accumulation theory also point to many instances in which foreign rulers needed and requested Western capital, such as the modernizer Khedive [[Ismail Pasha]].

I have a particular interest in this, as my own father was given the white feathers during WW2. Someone else pointed out that he was badly wounded in the War, and the young ladies concerned immediately took them back. They said they were upset as their brother was killed, and they though my Father did not go. It is particularly hurtful to see when any soldier who went through what Hitler did in WW1 has his record unfairly denigrated. The people who do this have usually never fought in action themselves, and the dead cannot defend themselves.

===Immanual Wallerstein===

Contemporary World-Systems theorist [[Immanuel Wallerstein]] addresses these counterarguments without degrading Hobson’s underlying inferences. Wallerstein’s conception of imperialism as a part of a general, gradual extension of capital investment from the “center” of the industrial countries to an overseas “periphery” thus coincides with Hobson’s. According to Wallerstein, Mercantilism… became the major tool of [newly industrializing, increasingly competitive] semi-peripheral countries [Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, etc.] seeking to become core countries. Wallerstein hence perceives formal empire as performing a function "analogous to that of the mercantilist drives of the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in England and France." The expansion of the Industrial Revolution hence contributed to the emergence of an era of aggressive national rivalry, leading to the late nineteenth century "scramble for Africa" and formal empire. Hobson’s theory is thus useful in explaining the role of over-accumulation in overseas economic and colonial expansionism while Wallerstein perhaps better explains the dynamic of inter-capitalist geopolitical competition.

[[User:Leistung|Leistung]] 20:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I wholely agree with you; any good point about his past is countered with a cliche hidden motive (see WW1 record: "Research by Bernhard Horstmann indicates the blindness may have been the result of an hysterical reaction to Germany's defeat"). Research or not, how is it possible to know that? Very POV and it does not belong here. This only furthers the cartoonish view people have of him today. He could do no good, as far as those who edit anything I have edited in the past think. (granted, he did alot of bad..) -Karasu

===Counterarguments addressed===

Since the Scramble for Africa was the predominate feature of New Imperialism and formal empire, opponents of Hobson’s accumulation theory often point to frequent cases when military and bureaucratic costs of occupation exceeded financial returns. In Africa (exclusive of [[South Africa]]) the amount of capital investment by Europeans was relatively small before and after the [[1885]] [[Congress of Berlin]], and the companies involved in tropical African commerce were small and politically insignificant, exerting only a tiny influence on domestic politics. First, this observation might detract from the pro-imperialist arguments of Leopold II, [[Francesco Crispi]], and Jules Ferry, but Hobson argued against imperialism from a slightly different standpoint. He concluded that finance was manipulating events to its own profit, but often against broader national interests.

:::The hysterical blindness was postulated at the time and can be cited in Toland. I've read it in several other sources too, this is a widely documented PoV/possibility and the article clearly states... ''may'' have been the result... It certainly does is not a "cliche hidden motive" to include it and it does not reduce AH to a cartoonish view. So far as "denigrating" his WWI record, the Iron Cross award is mentioned and the only negative stuff are, again, widely documented quotes having to do with his illness at Pacewalk. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 01:43, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Second, any such statistics only obscure the fact that African formal control of tropical Africa had strategic implications in an era of feasible inter-capitalist competition, particularly for Britain, which was under intense economic and thus political pressure to secure lucrative markets such as India, China, and Latin America. In Britain’s case this process of capitalist diffusion had in many regions led it to acquire colonies in the interests of commercial security; France and Germany would later follow suit. For example, although the then inconspicuously moribund [[Czar]]ist Empire proved to be little treat to Great Britain following its stunning defeat in the 1905 [[Russo-Japanese War]], British Conservatives in particular feared that Russia would continue to usurp Ottoman territory and acquire a port on the Mediterranean or even [[Constantinople]]—a long touted goal of Orthodoxy.

::::OK, fair enough. I had never read that, from what I heard before his WW1 service was excellent and something anyone would be proud of. I guess I feel that that section (WW1) should be expanded. The article is still too negative as a whole (not an apologist or revisionist BTW), but it has gotten better. -Karasu

These fears became especially pronounced following the [[1869]] completion of the nearby Suez Canal, prompting the official rationale behind [[Benjamin Disraeli|Disraeli]]'s purchase of the waterway. The close proximity of the Czar’s (territorially) expanding empire in [[Central Asia]] to India also terrified Lord Curzon, thus triggering the [[Afghan Wars]]. Rhodes and Milner also advocated the prospect of a "Cape to Cairo" empire, which would link by rail the extrinsically important canal to the intrinsically mineral and diamond rich South, from a strategic standpoint. Though hampered by German conquest of [[Tanganyika]] until the end of the Great War, Rhodes successfully lobbied on behalf of such a sprawling East African empire.

:::::His WWI service record, as a corporal, was by and large excellent. His dismal record as leader Germany tends to overshadow that and keep in mind, his service as a corporal during WWI was encyclopedic only so far as it relates to his biography in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how much exapnsion it needs... maybe a separate article, the main one is already quite long. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

===Bernard Porter===

In this sense, historian [[Bernard Porter]] argues that formal imperialism for Britain was a symptom and an effect of its relative decline in the world, and not of strength. Symbolic overtures, in fact, such as [[Victoria of the United Kingdom|Queen Victoria]]’s grandiose title of "Empress of India", celebrated during Disraeli’s second premiership in the 1870s, helped to obscure this fact. [[Joseph Chamberlain]] thus argued that formal imperialism was necessary for Britain because of the relative decline of the British share of the world’s export trade and the rise of German, American, and French economic competition.

::::::Alright then, someone more well-versed in the subject than myself should start one. - Karasu

== Age of Aggressive National Rivalry ==

Following the lead of Britain under Disraeli, even the once hesitantly imperialistic Bismarck was eventually brought to realize the value of colonies for securing (in his words) “new markets for German industry, the expansion of trade, and a new field for German, activity, civilization, and capital”. Examples of strategic competition following the passing of the scene of Bismarck, the era’s premier diplomat, that would intensify the drive to consolidate existing spheres of influence and grab new colonies, include the [[Moroccan Crisis]] of [[1905]], the [[Tangier Crisis]] resulting from [[Wilhelm II of Germany|Kaiser Wilhelm]]'s recognition of [[Morocco|Moroccan]] independence, an the second Moroccan Crisis, in which Germany sent its navy to Morocco, thereby testing the precarious Anglo-French Entente. The [[Entente Cordiale]], in fact, was a gentleman’s agreement between Britain and France to curtail further German expansion. The Entente Cordiale and the Franco-Russian alliances were also made because of a common interest.

: Hello Leistung. As I already told you on your talk page, you are welcome to edit the article and include the information from those encyclopaediae. In fact, if you have access to this sort of data, it would be great if you did! But you must remember to present the material in a neutral and factual way, without overstating things (see [[Wikipedia:Neutral point of view]]), and to [[Wikipedia:Cite sources|cite sources]]. This way you can help make Wikipedia an even better repository of knowledge. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 13:20, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The absolutist [[Central Powers]], led by a newly unified, dynamically industrializing Germany, with its expanding navy — doubling in size between the Franco-Prussian War and the Great War — were a strategic threat to the markets of these relatively declining empires that would one day consist of the Great War Allies. British policymakers feared the prospect of another German military victory over France, which could have reasonably resulted in a German take-over of France’s formal colonies, a sort of reversal of the actual outcome of the Great War, after which Britain occupied the vast majority of German and Ottoman colonies as "protectorates". This prospect was especially frightening considering that French colonies tended to be closely situated to Britain’s; [[Nigeria]], for instance, was surrounded by French territory, India was near [[French Indochina]], and so forth.

:The more wonted PoV is that he should be portrayed as a perverted cartoon caracature of pure evil. The article, while flawed, does a reasonable job of NPoV given the incredibly controversial and misunderstood nature of this individual (who was, btw, a genocidal sociopath who left Germany in ruins). Please bear in mind that in addition, this article is one of the most frequently vandalized and otherwise attacked on WP. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 14:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But those who disagree that imperialism was sort of a symptom of a gradual movement of surplus capital from a center to an overseas periphery, who contend that export of capital seems to have little direct connection with territorial expansion, point to the United States. Historian and imperial critic [[William L. Langer]], for instance, who emphasized the roles of nationalism and mass psychology in the rise of New Imperialism’s empire for empire's sake notes, "At that time [of American expansionism] the United States was still a debtor nation, importing rather than exporting capital." They also point to the expansionism of Crispi's Italy and [[Meiji]] Japan, which were, in many respects, following Britain’s lead although their economies had not yet grown so intrinsically dependent on overseas financial returns. The liberal nationalism Italian figures such as [[Giuseppe Mazzini|Mazzini]], [[Cavour]], and [[Giuseppe Garibaldi|Garibaldi]] strongly favored modernization, which was associated with the British. Italian, and to a lesser extent French imperialism was often motivated by the desire to catch up with Britain economically and culturally.

:: I disagree. No human being has been, nor can ever be, 'pure evil' or anything even remotely resembling that. Now, while there's no doubt that Hitler was a very bad man, I think it's necessary that he be represented as a human being (because anything else is POV). So, if Leistung has verifiable information he's willing to contribute, he should be given a chance to do so (as long as it stays NPOV). - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 14:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

American expansionism, of course, had roots in domestic concerns and economics, as in other newly industrializing nations. Therefore, Hobson’s conclusions, which were drawn predominately from analysis of the British economy, might not automatically pertain to the unique circumstances of the US. The United States was a newly industrializing nation, like Germany, where investments overall assisted and accelerated economic progress, aiding the creation of costly infrastructure, such as railways and other public works. The findings of the [[1890]] [[Census]], however, popularized by historian [[Frederick Jackson Turner]] in his paper entitled ''The Significance of the Frontier in American History'', contributed to fears of dwindling natural resources . The [[Panic of 1893]] and the ensuing depression also led some businessmen and politicians to come to the same conclusion as Leopold II, Ferry, Disraeli, Chamberlain, and Crispi had formulated nearly a generation earlier — that industry had apparently over-expanded, producing more goods than domestic consumers could buy.

:::I agree. If Hitler wasn't the führer he would have been no more than a casual racist, the likes of which are everywhere to be seen in this world. I'd even wager that if you gave a modern-day racist Hitler's power and influence, we'd have another holocaust on our hands. The fact that he was human shouldn't be lost sight of. --[[User:84.69.123.186|84.69.123.186]] 20:55, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Like the Long Depression in Europe, which bred doubts regarding growing strength of political resistance of world capitalism, the main features of this depression included deflation, rural decline, and unemployment (indicative of under-consumption), which aggravated the bitter social protests of the [[Gilded Age]] — the [[Populism|Populist]] movement, the free silver crusade, and violent labor disputes such as the [[Pullman Strike]]. Similarly, the post-1873 in Europe period saw a reemergence of far more militant working-class organization and cycles of large strikes. In fact, the rapid turn to imperialism in the late nineteenth century can be correlated with cyclically spaced economic depressions that adversely affected many elite groups. Like the Long Depression, an era of increasing unemployment and deflated prices for manufactured goods, the Panic of 1893 contributed to fierce competition over markets in the growing ‘spheres of influence’ of the United States, which tended to overlap with Britain’s — especially in the [[Pacific Ocean|Pacific]] and [[South America]].

::::Yep. Genocide is a constant danger in our technology based "global village." [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:07, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

While Germany, the United States, Italy, and other more recently industrialized empires were under relatively less pressure to offload surplus capital than Britain, these nations would resort to protectionism and formal empire, once attacked by adherents to laissez-faire, to usurp Britain’s unfair advantages on international markets . Some politicians, such as [[Henry Cabot Lodge]], [[William McKinley]], and [[Theodore Roosevelt]], advocated a more aggressive foreign policy to pull the United States out of the depression of the second [[Grover Cleveland|Cleveland Administration]], known for a [[laissez-faire]] domestic (and foreign) policy that in some ways paralleled the policies of the [[William Ewart Gladstone|Gladstonian]] liberals. By World War I, the rise of US imperialism and militarism, however, would, in effect, save the Allies, the older, more established, and more liberal empires, albeit at a huge cost (literally), from the emergent threat of the absolutist and neo-mercantilist (Wallerstein) Prussians.

Sorry about that... I guess I wasn't clear enough! I was trying to say exactly what you said, [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]], spot on. If he's not portrayed as human, the article becomes unhelpful since there is nothing to learn from. Owing to his charisma, charm and political skills, few Germans had any clue as to how destructive (and inept) his career would be until it was far too late. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 14:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Just as the German Reich reacted to depression with the adoption of protective tariff protection in 1879 , so would the United States with the landslide election victory of William McKinley, who had risen to national prominence six years earlier with the passage of the McKinley Tariff of 1890. Britain’s economic threat from the United States, hence, was (at the time at least) intensified by America’s rise as a great military and political power after the [[American Civil War]], its adoption of such protective [[tariff]] protection, its acquisition of a colonial empire in [[1898]], and its building of a powerful navy — the [[Great White Fleet]] — under the slain McKinleys more "big stick" and militarist successor, Theodore Roosevelt. This course of events, ushered in by the Second Industrial Revolution — paralleled a similar trend in Germany, which emerged as a potential military power after its own unification, its adoption of a tariff in 1879, its acquisition of a colonial empire in 1884-85, and its building of a powerful navy after 1898. On the Pacific, since the Meiji Restoration, Japan’s development followed a similar pattern, following the Western lead in industrialization and militarism, enabling it to gain a foothold or [[sphere of influence]] in [[Qing]] China.

I'm confused. In this line it says ''Rather than have new presidential elections, Hitler's cabinet passed a law combining the offices of president and chancellor, with Hitler holding both offices (including the president's decree powers) as leader and national chancellor, a consolidation approved by 90% of the electorate in mid-August 1934.'' And then in the next few lines it says ''Having secured supreme political power without an electoral mandate from the majority of Germans, Hitler went on to gain their support by persuading most Germans he was their saviour from the Depression, the Communists, the Versailles Treaty and the Jews.''

Although US capital investments within the [[Philippines]] and [[Puerto Rico]] were relatively small (figures that would seemingly detract from the broader economic implications on first glance), these colonies were strategic outposts for expanding trade with Asia, particularly China and Latin America, enabling the United States to reap the benefit of China’s "Open Door" and [[Dollar Diplomacy]] under [[William Howard Taft]] — a sort of US variant of Britain’s informal colonialism. Such developments, whether in Germany, Japan or in the United States, hence disseminated fears that formal imperialism was necessary for Britain because of its relative decline of the British share of the world’s export trade. Imperialism for the United States, however, marked by the reaffirmation of the [[Monroe Doctrine]] (formalized by the [[Roosevelt Corollary]] to the Monroe Doctrine in [[1904]]), would thus herald the trend of the United States replacing Britain as the predominant "investor" in Latin America — a process largely completed by the end of the Great War.

How was that jump made? When the article says electorate, does it mean the cabinet or the public? I think the second sentance is extraordinarily important that many people in North America don't quite realize. Hitler didn't get voted in, etc.

== The Scramble for Africa ==

The late 19th century saw the transition from informal empire of control through economic dominance to direct control, marked by the scramble for further territory in Africa from the late 1870s in areas previously regarded as open to British trade and influence. The Berlin Conference (1884-85) regulated the imperial competition between Britain, France and Germany, defining "effective occupation" as the criterion for international recognition of colonial claims, codifying the imposition of direct rule, accomplished usually through armed force.

Try reading it again. The consolidation was approved by the electorate but subsequently the Enabling Act was authorized directly by an existing article in the constitution. Totalitarian power, already provided for under emergency clauses of the Weimar constitution, was assumed by AH without electoral approval because none was legally required under the circumstances. After the war this was pointed out as a huge docking flaw in the constitution and West Germany's post-war constitution closed the "loophole." [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 14:31, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

While some British colonies were already a century old, Egypt was occupied by British forces in [[1882]] (although not formally declared a protectorate until 1914); Nigeria, [[Kenya]] and [[Uganda]] were subjugated in the [[1890s]] and early [[1900s]]; and in the south, the [[Cape Colony]] (first acquired in [[1795]]) provided a base for the subjugation of neighbouring African states and the Dutch [[Afrikaner]] settlers who had left the Cape to found their own republics (see [[Boer War]]).

You'll have to forgive me because it's still not exactly clear. How many people were in the electorate exactly? What were the dates the law consolidating power passed by his cabinet and then by the electorate?

Formal empire in [[Sub-Saharan Africa]], the last vast region of the world largely untouched by informal imperialism and "civilization", was also attractive to Europe’s ruling elites for other potential reasons. First, insofar as the "Dark Continent" was agricultural or extractive, and no longer ‘stagnant’ since its integration with the world’s interdependent capitalist economy, it required more capital for development that it could provide itself . Second, during a time when in nearly every year since the [[1813]] liberalization of trade onward Britain’s balance of trade showed a deficit, and a time of shrinking and increasingly protectionist continental markets, Africa offered Britain an open market that would garner it a trade surplus — a market that bought more from the metropole than it sold overall. Britain, like most other industrial countries, had long since begun to run an unfavorable balance of trade (which was increasingly offset, however, by the income from overseas investments). As perhaps the world’s first post-industrial nation, financial services became an increasingly more important sector of its economy. Invisible financial exports, as mentioned, kept Britain out of the red, especially capital investments outside Europe, particularly to the developing and open markets in Africa, predominately white ‘settler colonies’, the [[Middle East]], the [[Indian Subcontinent]], [[Southeast Asia]], and the [[South Pacific]].

::Try reading [[Weimar Republic]]. The AH article isn't so biased. The challenge is showing him as human at all given the tens of millions he sent to their deaths (Jews, German civilians and military personnel, Allied civilians and military personnel... others). He tried to save the world by killing a significant proportion of the people in it and left the country he ruled in ruins. Even if you agree with his motives, he was so dockingly inept after 1939, an NPoV biography will make it plain one way or another. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 01:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Each of Europe’s major elites also found some advantages in formal, overseas expansion: mammoth monopolies wanted imperial support to secure overseas investments against competition and domestic political tensions abroad; bureaucrats wanted more occupations, military officers desired promotion, and the traditional but waning landed gentry wanted formal titles. Observing the rise of trade unionism, socialism, and other protest movements during an era of mass society in both Europe and later North America, the elite in particular was able to utilize imperial "[[jingoism]]" to co-opt the support of the impoverished industrial working class. Riding the sentiments of the late nineteenth century Romantic Age, imperialism inculcated the masses with ‘glorious’ neo-aristocratic virtues and helped instill broad, nationalist sentiments.

::I'm not disputing the facts or whether the AH article is biased or not. I was just curious about making the semantics more clear and figures, numbers, etc. Thanks anyways, though!

===Changes in African Society===

Capitalism, an economic system in which capital, or wealth, is put to work to produce more capital, revolutionized traditional economies, inducing social changes and political consequences that revolutionized African and Asian societies. Maximizing production and minimizing cost did not necessarily coincide with traditional, seasonal patterns of agricultural production. The ethic wage productivity was thus, in many respects, a new concept to supposedly "idle" natives merely accustomed to older patterns of production. Balanced, subsistence-based economies shifted to specialization and accumulation of surpluses. Tribal states or empires organized along precarious, unwritten cultural traditions also shifted to a division of labor based on legal protection of land and labor—once inalienable, but now commodities to be bought, sold, or traded.

:::Maybe it's ironic that the article gives that impression... What they did was rather clever, deeply threaded and tricky. AH had substantial help and support from the establishment, which was generally terrified of democracy (Weimar was Germany's first attempt at it). A backdoor "safety valve" had been built into the constitution in 1919 which allowed the government to approve sweeping, dictatorial "emergency powers." The consolidation made the subsequent high level application of the "Enabling Act" possible. Combined with AH's rather brilliant, multi-level marketing of fear (of jews, communists, "degenerates" etc) and a uniquely German form of cultural national-socialism, nudged along with the intimidating street tactics of the SA, he was able to legally slip into the role of absolute dictator. There was some corruption involved in "buying" loyalty along with his public charisma and image. He consolidated and re-armed Germany for six years, then set out to remake the world in his image. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:04, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

===The Congo Free State===

As an aside, it must be noted that the integration of traditional economies in Africa within the framework of the modern, capitalist economy was also particularly exploitative. Leopold’s fortunes, ploughed back into monumental buildings in [[Brussels]], for instance, was made mainly on the proceeds of [[Congo]]lese rubber, which had never been mass-produced in surplus quantities.

I don't think this article is remarkably unbiased. If you want a biased article check out the article on Pinochet. Actually Pinochet appears worse than Hitler

Exploitation of the [[Dutch East Indies]], French Indochina, [[German Southwest Africa]], [[Rhodesia]], and South Africa paled in comparison to that of the [[Belgian Congo]]. The most infamous example of this is the [[Congo Free State]]. The fortunes of King Leopold II, for instance, the famed philanthropist, abolitionist, and self-anointed sovereign of Congo Free State (1885) — 76 times larger geographically than Belgium itself — and those of the multinational concessionary companies under his auspices, were mainly made on the proceeds of Congolese rubber, which had historically never been mass-produced in surplus quantities. Between 1880 and 1920 the population of Congo thus halved; over 10 million "indolent natives" unaccustomed to the bourgeois ethos of labor productivity, were the victims of murder, starvation, exhaustion induced by over-work, and disease.

== Legacy ==

Is there an error with the quote by his sister?

Shouldn't it be became instead of become or did she just say it grammatically wrong?

"...if he'd [had] ...become..." not became. It's correct. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:11, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

==FK edits==

Hi, I have just now included material . I agree with a lot you say Wyss, but I hope that that which you analyse will allow for the parallel involvement of the Church . I have tried not to over-step the historical mark , and very much hope you will support the inclusions . I do not in any way dispute your analysis of heavy industry-right wing connivance, as you know . I have simply not had the time to join further with you in that .

I am planning to include material elsewhere to show just how un-exceptional Hitler's anti-semitism was , as well as his sense of germanity and its special nature . Thanks [[User:Famekeeper|Famekeeper]] 07:50, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

::I'm not so sure the anti-semitisim was unexpected- it was part of the culture already. What was not expected was the industrial genocide. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:13, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

== Hitler's Illegitimate Son ==

Late in World War One, while serving with the occupation forces in northern France, Hitler apparently begot a son on a young French woman. The son had an undistinguished life, working as a mail carrier, as I recall. He was fifty-seven years old when the world discovered who his father was. His wife left him. It may take some time for me to track down the published reports on the subject. Anyone else who wants to, feel free.[[User:J S Ayer|J S Ayer]]

That's an old, untrue rumour. It's also been discussed previously on this talk page. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I missed that the first time around. I may look into it further.[[User:J S Ayer|J S Ayer]] 01:57, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know where it first popped up (likely during the 30s) but there is zero evidence AH had any kids. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

== A German Painter ==

This article is linked to the category "German painters" - I removed but it was restored. I will let it stand for now, but it's still odd:

*Hitler numbered among Albrecht Dürer and Caspar David Friedrich etc. is quite odd - they are all famous for their paintings, while Hitler isn't

*Hitler never was a real painter - he wanted to be one but was rejected at the academy twice - what he really painted, actually drew was picture postcards - is anyone fond of drawing a painter? I am fond of this too - am I a painter? I don't think so.

*The issue of whether he was German: I don't want to draw distinct lines between Austria and Germany during that time, but it's cute that I had some time ago some dispute about whether to include Mozart in a listing of German composers. Why is it that no one disputes Hitler's Germanness here, especially since his post card drawing times were in his Vienna years.

Please consider this.

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 22:02, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:I agree with you. I find it odd to have him in that category, listed among all the "real" painters. He would never have been in that category (or mentioned at all in wikipedia, for that matter), had he not turned to politics. I feel that the painters category should be reserved for people who have an article here based on their painting merits. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 22:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, I'll remove it. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:: That said, he painted ''thousands'' of items and sold many in the form of small paintings and postcards, some of which were produced in Munich before he enlisted in the Bavarian army. He also did some painting during the great war. His strength was architectural subjects (although I personally agree with those who say he had real trouble with human figures). I've been told by a number of painters (privately, sometimes rather adamantly) that he did have talent. I've likely seen photographs of a few hundred of his paintings, plus a few in life. I'd say that on balance I don't personally care at all for his work, but he did some paintings which, if I didn't know who the artist was, I guess I wouldn't mind looking at. A couple of still lifes of flowers and a few paintings of buildings come to mind. On the other hand, my great grandmother once did a rather amazing still life of apples with a landscape in the background which I would vastly prefer over anything AH ever did and she isn't mentioned in WP. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:35, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:::Yeah, it's a borderline case of who to include in a category and who not. Since he did make a living as a painter for a (short) while (and is famous), it could be argued that he should be included. But that he never became even remotely notable as a painter I feel is a stronger argument for leaving him out of the category. There have been many people selling paintings in the city streets through history. Most of them, I bet, have received compliments for being talented. But a very small part of them will ever make it big enough to get a wikipedia-entry that passes VFD. Making it as a painter is hard. As Hitler himself found out. And I feel that the category should be reserved for those who did make it (before or after they died). But I'm not at all fanatic about it. Maybe it could be left for the people on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts|Visual arts project]] to decide, or something. If we care enough to make a big deal out of this. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 23:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Only people who are notable ''as painters'' should be in a painter category. [[Winston Churchill]] also painted, as I recall - should he be in [[:Category:British painters]]? [[User:John Kenney|john]] [[User_talk:John Kenney|k]] 00:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt it, likewise Paul McCartney. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 12:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

While I agree that to include Hitler amongst the ranks of individuals notable solely as painters might seem unwise, it should be considered that Hitler's initial popularity would have had the same kind of effect upon his paintings as it did upon Mein Kampf. Therefore, he could be considered a notable German painter, at least within Germany and for that period of time. [[User:84.69.40.222|84.69.40.222]] 17:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

No, 84 ..., it doesn't work out.

First of all, Mein Kampf was a political work and not some volume of literature. And many bought it (or frequently got it as a present after 1933) but few read it ... unfortunately.

And Hitler's paintings? They don't exist. Hitler wanted to be a painter. He was rejected twice at the Academy in Vienna. Apart from this he painted postcards of the notable sights of Vienna. That's hardly enough to be counted as a painter.

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] is mistaken, AH's paintings do exist, they numbered in the 2-3 thousand range, many were postcards (which he sold), many were canvases. He was a painter, and a professional one for almost a decade, before he joined the Bavarian army. The only question here is whether or not he would qualify as a "notable" German painter on the merits of his work. He was a competent talent but no, I don't think he really qualifies as notable in that field. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 20:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

What I meant was not that they do not (or did not) exist physically, but that they don't constitute an "ouevre" as with Van Gogh or Picasso or C.D. Friedrich. Yes, in a way he was a "professional" but that's only because he had nothing else to do. Also, I'm not doubting a certain artistic talent. Naive drawings have their value too and I'm not sure whether I like some "abstract" stuff better. Anyway, the main thing is that we agree that it doesn't merit his inclusion into the category. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 20:51, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

He had other stuff to do, he wanted to paint, that's all. Later his wartime experience and nationalistic passions took him elsewhere. Anyway first you say his paintings don't exist, then you say he had nothing else to do. Then you remark his paintings were "naive" but I think perhaps less naive than flippant comments like "they didn't exist"... or "he had nothing else to do."

Reducing Mr Hitler to the level of a cartoon character bum is unhelpful to folks who need to have sufficient background and information to spot the next charismatic, politically talented and ruthless sociopath who comes along to sweep a nation off its feet and into the arms of armageddon. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I think I have explained what I meant be "don't exist". I don't want to pick a fight on this. As for your "concern": start by reading someone's political programme. It would have helped in AH's case. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 18:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

::I didn't use the word ''concern''. Why did you say I have a "concern"? Why did you put it in quotes? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

::Sorry, I should have been clearer. With Concern I meant your passage "is unhelpful to folks who need to have sufficient background and information". I called it concern because it showed concern about another "sociopath" coming along. Because you didn't actually say concern I put it into inverted commas, but didn't think about that it could be taken as indicating a quote. Sorry. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 20:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

== bisexual Hitler loved the circus ==

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/hitleross1.html

Be careful about taking these old OSS reports too seriously, they were the rawest sort of intelligence, replete with misinformation from sundry AH enemies (this one's even written in the first person)... like going to the circus almost every day during the summer of 1933? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 05:50, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

== Schleicher-Papen coup ==

Wyss, you reverted my edit, saying

"The road to power - Schleicher asked for lawful emergency powers, not a coup"

What is meant by coup is that parliament should be disbanded again but this time without calling new elections (at least temporarily). This would have been against the constitution which said that after the disolution there would be elections within soandsomany days. This is commonly referred to as the planned coup d'etat (Staatsstreich in German). The term is used in historiography and it was used back in the days (the Centre Party always accused Papen of such plans and they were right)

Papen proposed this coup after the second election in 32 brough no majority and plans of Nazi inclusion failed. Schleicher was with him on this, but just before the presentation of the plans how to implement this in the military field (a civil war was feared, and the Reichswehr were only 100,000 men vs. 3 million SA and I don't know how many Communist paramilitary - hence there was a conference involving military and police leaders), immediately before this Schleicher turned on Papen and opposed the plan. The military leaders followed him in this and Schleicher convinced Hindenburg to appoint him Chancellor instead of Papen. Hindenburg initially was won over for the coup but now he followed Schleicher. Schleicher tried his Querfront policy but failed. After this made proposals for the same coup himself (January 33), but Hindenburg now adamantely opposed the plans (I mean, it really does look like fooling around) and dismissed Schleicher. And the rest is history (too).

Consider this. What dost thou say now? [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 22:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:I tend to be sort of wary about using terms like that, since they frequently originate in opposition polemics meant to polarize the issues and it seems to me the Centre party was using the phrase in that way. Besides, Schleicher asked for emergency powers, not a coup d'etat, so calling it a coup would be PoV (although a logical one). We all know those people didn't trust (or were ambivalent about) democratic processes, but I think it's helpful to separate the rhetoric they used from what they in truth did. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the term is used in historiography. But maybe we could just state what he wanted (or, if that has already been done under Papen, just state that he wanted the same). I have not heard he wanted emergency powers (apart from doing away with parliament) - and what he asked for was objectively a coup d'etat, even if the claim by Papen that it was only temporarily were true (we don't know). Emergency powers of permament dismissal I would not consider to be part of the "democratic process": [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 22:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Reverted again and clarified Papen's plans. You wrote:

"Schleicher asked for lawful emergency powers, not a coup"

There are only two forms of lawful (or constitutional) emergency powers: either the one of the President under § 48, with which he can back his chancellor, or an Enabling Act voted for by parliament. The second was impossible, since Schleicher's Querfront failed. You are probably referring to the first one, but that is simply Hindenburg's refusal to back Schleicher anymore. Without presidential decree he could do nothing, as he had parliament against him. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 22:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

:That's the ambiguity I'm referring to. What Schleicher asked Hindenburg for was emergency powers [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Schleicher+emergency+powers&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]. He also wanted to dissolve parliament (legal) and delay elections (legal) indefinitely (not legal). Whether or not some historians have used the term, I think it's rather a stretch and don't really see a need to add the interpretive spin. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I still feel uneasy about the "authorized by the constitution" bit. Do you insist on including it? Had Schl. prevailed it would have been a carte blanche from Hindenburg but not any legal transfer of powers. Just the red folder, I think. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 23:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I took it out then, since a) they ''were'' trying to undermine the constitution and b) the article doesn't need that level of granularity (it's too long already). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

==AH was a vegetarian==

I know this makes some vegetarians gnash their teeth, but it's true. It wasn't because of Geli, either, but likely more because of his fear of cancer and other stuff (he and his sister Paula watched their mother Klara die a particularly painful death from breast cancer when he was 18... they both took care of and spent much time with her during this period, although he became a vegetarian much later).

Sources confirming his vegetarianism abound, here's a helpful summary of them [http://www.geocities.com/hitlerwasavegetarian/].

Bormann even built a greenhouse at Berchtesgaden to ensure a steady supply of fresh veggies to AH, I've seen pictures of Bormann's kids inside, tending it or whatever. Last I heard/read (last year I think), the foundation of the greenhouse was still visible.

Along with being a genocidal sociopath and charismatic German nationalist, AH was also an avid non-smoker. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 00:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:Hitler was a typical vegetarian, in that he made a big fuss about it, but in reality wasn't a (literal) vegetarian at all. [http://www.veg.ca/newsletr/mayjun96/hitler.html Exceptions were his rule], by all accounts I have read. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 02:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

::With all due respect, I don't think the literature supports either of those assertions. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 02:39, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Well, w all due respect, I can go on citing examples of people claiming he was vegetarian, or critical of meat consumption, as well as examples of him eating various meats intentionally or unintentionally, for the forseable future. Its a fun subject, and one which has found its way into copious works. Their is no lack of citation, I meerely gave you the first link, [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=Hitler+Vegetarian&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off here are another 80,000]. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:34, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

::I can cite sources claiming he retired to Antarctica, too [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Adolf+Hitler+Antarctica&btnG=Google+Search&meta=] :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

::Yeah, ain't the Internet great. Let's find out if he was Homosexual, as well. [http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&as_qdr=all&q=Hitler+Homosexual&btnG=Search yep, 230,000 hits]. Queer as a three mark bill. Seriously, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning (say, in a footnote) that his vegetarianism has been questioned if there's a good reference we can cite for the claim. [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 16:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a trivia item in the article... there aren't too many reliable references "questioning" it... however the reliable sources usually mention plainly that Mr Hitler wasn't a vegetarian until some time during the early 30s. One must also remember that AH is (likely deservedly) one of the most smeared people in history. Lots of people made up all sorts of negative and untrue stuff about him, as if the truth wasn't scary enough, more so IMHO. The wartime OSS reports are full of that sort of thing, as was the popular press. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

:We're mentioning it in the "The road to power" section as well. But, yeah, if we were to mention and then question every strange fact written about him, the article wouldn't be very encyclopedic. I actually think the article is very good now. How are the prospects of it ever becoming featured? [[User:Shanes|Shanes]] 17:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Given how controversial, misunderstood (in terms of detail) and polarizing the subject is, how about a snowball's chance on Venus? If it ever is featured, the numbers of kooks, vandals and PoV warriors attracted to it would likely be overwhelming and it's already one of the most vandalized articles on WP (only giving my thoughts though, one way or another I think it'd be helpful to feature it). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:44, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

How is it that you cite a geocities article, and then dismiss 80,000 google hits, many of them vegetarian publications? This information could be discussed in a trivia section, along w tales of his escape to antartica, or his purported sexual fetishes. It is not however appropriate under "road to power", nor are speculations regarding his niece. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 15:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:No, the geocities link is replete with reliable citations and sources, which is why I chose it. As for the pitfalls of citing raw quantitative Google stats, the phrase ''Hitler saved the world'' gets over half a million hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hitler+saved+the+world&btnG=Google+Search&meta=], and ''Hitler was Jesus'' gets almost a million [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hitler+was+Jesus&btnG=Search&meta=]. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

We do agree that speculations about Geli are unhelpful for the article, although mentioning her suicide is IMO encyclopedic. However, mentioning wholly unsupported stuff about fetishes and retirements to Antarctica is not encylopedic, since including all the nutty things ever said about Mr Hitler would fill several books and be way detached from reality. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, another remark about all those veggie publications trying to downplay (or discredit) AH's vegetarianism. Can you imagine a full page magazine ad of a contented looking Hitler with the natural, mountainous beauty of Berchtesgaden in the background, captioned, ''All sorts of interesting people are vegetarian!'' This sort of truth in advertising would be unlikely to help these websites and publications sell whatever it is they peddle. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sam, dear Wyss, if I may weigh in on this: it is an undisputed fact that Hitler was a vegetarian in practice. Sometimes he is quoted uttering disdain for "carnivores" but then these quotes are usually rather dubious. On the other hand, I have heard it too that his eating habits were for medical reasons and not so much his free choice. Maybe a compromise would be to include his vegetarianism but also state that some allege this to be for medical reasons. (Other Nazis however were fully fledged vegetarians, e.g. Rudolf Heß.) [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 20:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:Adolf didn't drink alchohol either, but I'm sure we all knew that--[[User:Xiphon|Xiphon]] 11:06, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

::There is some evidence he now and then drank champagne (the post war interrogations of Linz and Gunsche in the USSR) and very small, infrequent quantities of beer and/or wine. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 05:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

From the early 1930s AH was a vegetarian. I know this makes some vegetarians uncomfortable and there seems to be a revisionist movement afoot which claims he "cheated" (these stories are usually confounded with accounts from the 1920s when he did eat meat) or to retroactively "change the definition" of what vegetarianism is in order to exclude him and so on but Hitler's vegetarianism is widely documented. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 05:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

==Removed passage==

The passage I removed places an undue emphasis on just one element, one influence of Austrian culture at that time. Especially Upper Austria was heavily nationalist in the German sense. It is reported from Hitler's childhood and he never identified as a Catholic, except for propaganda reason. We need not continue his propaganda here, do we? [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 21:02, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

First, they (his family) were all Catholics (nominally or otherwise) and second anti-Semitism was indeed deeply ingrained in early twentieth century German-Catholic culture (which included the border areas he grew up in). AH's anti-semitism did not arise from a void, nor was his amplified and contagious take on it received in one. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 23:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

No, of course it did not spring from a void, but the way it stands now places the focus entirely on "Catholic culture" (whatever that is) connected with the very strong "deeply ingrained" while it leaves out German nationalism completely. Note Hitler's sympathy for the "Away-from-Rome movement" and schoolboy Adolf's selection of his classmates into Germanics and non-Germanic (I'm saying Germanic to somehow illustrate in the English language what he said in German: "Du bist kein Germane!" - He didn't say "Du bist kein Deutscher!" This difference gets lost in translation. In a way, German nationalism in the Habsburg monarchy was akin to a "traitorous philosophy" not any less than other nationalisms and Hitler subscribed to it radically - this is why he dogded the Austrian military but volunteered in Bavaria.

To sum it up: my concern is a unbalanced wording, not the passage in itself. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 09:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Adding a phrase about German nationalist influences during his childhood is ok by me. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:53, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Hitler made it clear that his anti-semitism came late, based upon pamphlets and political newspapers he read. It had nothing to do with him being catholic, or german-catholic culture he absorbed in his childhood. He insisted that he opposed anti-semitism as religious persecution, until he saw what I assume was a hassidim, and said "could this be a german too?", whereupon he decided Jews were a foriegn, non-german race, and thus acceptable to persecute. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Again, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]], documented history and the work of many peer-reviewed historians does not support your assertion that AH's anti-semitism was not influenced by his childhood environment. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 14:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:Is that your way of saying you disagree w me? Please, don't refer to postulated sources, cite them. I am citing Mein Kampf, chapter II:

::"There were very few Jews in Linz. In the course of centuries the Jews who lived there had become Europeanized in external appearance and were so much like other human beings that I even looked upon them as Germans. The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that the only external mark which I recognized as distinguishing them from us was the practice of their strange religion. As I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism."

::"Once, when passing through the inner City, I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz. I watched the man stealthily and cautiously; but the longer I gazed at the strange countenance and examined it feature by feature, the more the question shaped itself in my brain: Is this a German?"

:[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 15:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

From the above passage...

''my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism''

...these words plainly show he was familiar with anti-semitic remarks (how else could he have developed an "aversion" to them) and did not regard the anti-semitism he'd been exposed to as ''systemic'', a spot on description of the typical, everyday anti-semitic attitudes he grew up with. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it shows he was familiar. But how can he phrase without suggesting that Hitler's anti-semitism flowed from the traditional religious anti-semitism, when this quote tells us that it didn't. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 20:07, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:The quote says no such thing- perhaps you're confusing absence of evidence with evidence...? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 15:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

:I have no wish to stir things up again, but I took the passage

:"The reason why I did not then perceive the absurdity of such an illusion was that '''the only external mark''' which I recognized as '''distinguishing''' them from us was the practice of '''their strange religion'''. As '''I thought that they were persecuted on account of their Faith''' my aversion to hearing remarks against them '''grew almost into a feeling of abhorrence'''. I did not in the least suspect that there could be such a thing as a systematic anti-Semitism."

:I read Hitler to say he at first was no anti-Semite since others hated the Jews on religious grounds and he rejected religion as a basis for hatred. Until he found out about "systematic anti-Semitism" (i.e. based on racial grounds), he found it difficult to be an "intellectually fulfilled anti-Semite".

:I think that's what the passage quoted by Sam are tryring to say, with the "man in the caftan" used as a catalysator. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 09:37, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

==raw Google==

Here are four keyword searches... which do you think is the most true?

''Hitler was Jesus'' - 889,000 hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hitler+was+Jesus&btnG=Search&meta=]

''Hitler loved the jews'' - 241,000 hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hitler+loved+the+jews&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]

''Hitler hated the jews'' - 165,000 hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hitler+hated+the+jews&btnG=Search&meta=]

''Hitler was a genocidal sociopath'' - 438 hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Hitler+was+a+genocidal+sociopath&btnG=Search&meta=]

[[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:Try using "quotes"

::"[http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Hitler+was+Jesus&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off Hitler was Jesus]" - 25 results

::"[http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Hitler+loved+the+jews&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off Hitler loved the jews]" - 35 results

::"[http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Hitler+hated+the+jews&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off Hitler hated the jews]" - 1,090 results

::"[http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Hitler+was+a+genocidal+sociopath&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=off Hitler was a genocidal sociopath] - none

:[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 20:41, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

::Did you? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:39, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

"Hitler was a vegetarian" - 5050 hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Hitler+was+a+vegetarian%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=]

"Hitler was not a vegetarian" - 771 hits [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22Hitler+was+not+a+vegetarian%22&btnG=Search&meta=]

However, a raw Google search for a phrase, even one which seems to support my edits on this topic, is unscientific in the extreme, shouldn't be relied upon and never be used as a cite. I've posted all these examples only to show (as gently as I can) how meaningless your remark about "80,000" Google hits was. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

*I guess I should note that most of those "not a vegetarian" hits seem to be on pages which actively promote vegetarianism (hardly unbiased sources etc). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 11:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

== Speech Platform ==

I'm pretty sure that most of Hitler's early speeches were delivered in the beerhalls, not on street corners, as the article says under ''Early Nazi Party''--[[User:Xiphon|Xiphon]] 20:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC).

::That's mostly true and truth be told, I've never been comfortable with that "street corner" characterization... although he did do a few speeches on what amounted to street corners during the early 1920s. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 20:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I've changed it to ''beer hall oratory'' and am (for myself at least) much happier with a phrase which has long nagged at me, thanks [[User:Xiphon|Xiphon]]. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:30, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree. "Beer hall" I think is not only more accurate placewise, but also IMHO it captivates the "atmosphere" of the early Hitler speeches much better. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 21:48, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

:He did distribute pamphlets on street corners (and later a newspaper I think, does anyone know?), which might have led to the initial confusion.--[[User:Xiphon|Xiphon]] 09:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

::I've seen a couple pictures of him in freezing outdoor weather while ranting away to basically anyone who would listen. This would have been sometime 1920 to 1923 I think. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 10:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

==declaration of war==

If the Japanese treaty so unequivocally called for it, why is there dispute at all about this declaration?

Some say (S. Haffner) it was because Hitler was already certain Germany would be defeated and wanted it to perish.

Others say Hitler considered it only a ratification of an already existing, though undeclared, state of war with the US.

Why these discussion if the situation is so clear?

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 08:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

It's usually mentioned because AH may not have declared war on the US if the treaty didn't exist. Although the German high command didn't take the US military too seriously in late 1941, they knew declaring war on the US was risky and some saw it as a further slide down the slippery slope. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 08:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I misread you. Since the edit says "arguably" it's ok. by me. It was late yesterday and today I was looking too much on the edit summary. All right? [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 08:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::Ok! Btw, I didn't write that line (I don't think I've ever even tweaked it) but do agree with it. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 08:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

== Geli Raubal and vegetarianism ==

I give up, I fully admit it not important or worth worrying over, but for the record many dispute the extent of his vegetarianism, and the idea that Hitler molested his niece (forcing her to pee on his face from the account I read), while conceivably notable, is low quality hearsay worthy only of a conspiracy theory or trivia section of the article. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 16:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

*There is zero evidence AH ever peed on Geli Raubal's face. The OSS got fed lots of nutty "intelligence" reports by certain deeply alienated Germans. It's an old rumour with no historical support, none, goose eggs.

*He likely ''was'' intimate with his niece (but we don't know for sure), like his father Alois was with ''his'' niece (who happened to be Adolf's mum). It's not even close to conspiracy theory, Geli blew her heart out in his apartment with his pistol. He was seeing Eva Braun by then. That's all documented history. Putting someone's suicide in a trivia section is, uhm... unencyclopedic IMO.

::Just for the record: AH was not dating Eva Braun during Geli's lifetime. The background to her súicide is that he went on campaign or other political stuff and left her alone in the Munich appartment, placing an SA man to guard the door. So she shot herself. It was only after Geli's death that AH came to Eva Braun as a replacement. And with her it was the same all over again. EB tried to kill herself twice though unsucessfully (though this failure might very well be planned) to force AH to stay closer to her. She succeeded in this and ended up on the "Berghof". [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 19:13, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

*AH's vegetarianism is widely documented, as I have cited and discussed above. It drives some vegetarians bats, which causes me to sigh and bow my head, mostly. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:01, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

*There is no documented connection between Geli and AH's vegetarianism, that's another (but slightly more recent) rumour.

*I've heard all sorts of wacky stuff about AH. Some of it's in the article. Most of it is unsupported and would fill books (and the debunking would fill more books). This is an encyclopedia article, not a 6 volume historical tabloid bio. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[[Wiki is not paper]], but again, I'm not going to fuss over the inclusion of this stuff. I suppose someone should start a [[Adolf Hitler cryptohistory]] page. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 17:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wyss, I'm not so sure whether it is right to take out Geli alltogether. After all, he was very close to her and her death did not got unnoticed. After all, this article is about the whole person A.H. Focus on political stuff is understandable but the death of his niece is noteworthy, IMHO. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 13:58, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Please note, whether included or not, her name is "Geli" (short for Angelika). Geili has some connotations (let him who knows German understand) and we shouldn't do this to anyone to ended so tragically. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 18:42, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::I've put it back where it was originally, less the speculation and reference to unsupported rumours. I agree btw, whenever I hear some of this stuff I shake my head in disgust, by all accounts she was bright and independent-minded. This was a tragic suicide. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::Yes, Wyss, I agree. I don't like this sart of thing included as well. I wouldn't want my medical record covered on the net either. But I think the Geli suicide story (and I was referring exclusively to this) deserves balanced and sympathetic coverage. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 19:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

:::PS, re the "Geili" that was my typo in an edit summary and I duly shuddered when I saw it flash by, then Sam Spade innocently picked it up and used it on the talk page, it's never been mis-spelled in the article so far as I know. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Yes, I thought it was only a typo. Her surname I think is "Raubal", but at least that bears no connotation. From your last comment I take it you are from the German speaking part of Switzerland - if the flag on your page suggests that you are Swiss. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 19:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

::Another careless typo (argh), but happily it was always spelled ''Geli Raubal'' in the article, no fix needed there :) [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:54, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

==Living places: House in Muchen, Obersalzberg, Wolf's Lair, Vinnitsa ==

I think we should mention were Hitler stayed and lived. I know the following

*He had a house in Munchen

*He has a house at the [[Obersalzberg]] near (not in) [[Berchtesgarden]] that was expanded and the nazi clique built house there too.

*I guess he lived in the Reichskanzlei after he 1933

*[[Wolf's Lair]] near Rastenburg

*Hitler moved on 25 August 1942 from the Wolf's lair to [[Vinnitsa]] and stayed there the rest of the year. (source Alan Clark's ''Barbarossa'' page 218

*And of course, he lived in the [[Fuhrerbunker]], near the Reichskanzlei.

[[User:Andries|Andries]] 21:06, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep in mind he spent vast periods of time at the [[Berghof]] complex at [[Berchtesgaden]] from the time ''Mein Kampf'' became a best seller until around 1944. Any mention of his residences should make it clear that the Berghof was "home base" for him. Also he had an apartment in Munich, not a house (although he bought Eva Braun a villa there after her first suicide attempt). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:42, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

== Attempted Assassination of Hitler ==

In 1938, some disgruntled German guy (name?) attempted to assasinate Hitler at a beer house where he was giving a speech. However, Hitler left early, and the bomb that was planted exploded killing several NAzis, but not Hitler. He was killed in Dachau in 1945. I was wondering if anyone knew his name. it's an interesting historical tidbit. i learned about him at dachau and at the topography of terror in berlin. XXXX

Have a look at [[Georg Elser]]. And please sign your posts using four tildes. [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 17:18, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

==Lossow and Seisser==

Dear Wyss, thanks for your corrections on my edit. However, I have decided to leave out the names of the two individuals from here (but they are still at [[Gustav von Kahr]]. I also have worded the sentence in another way. If the wording is still akward, don't hesitate to correct it.

What the sentence tries to say is: had the coup been a success, a government would have been formed comprised of Ludendorff, Hitler, Lossow and Seisser. This is shown on proclamations posted in Munich at the time of the coup. You can see such a poster here: [http://www.vulture-bookz.de/imagebank/Dokumente/pages/1923-09-11~Hitler-Ludendorff-Putsch.html]

[[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 12:12, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Str1977, I'd never seen that poster and smirked when I saw AH had made sure Ludendorff's name was on top of the list. Btw that's what I thought you wanted to say and yeah, IMO Lossow and Seisser's names don't need to be in this main article. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for your effort. I had only put them in after editing "Gustav von Kahr", where they are mentioned anyway, as members of a triumvirate, but since their articles do not exist, I think it's enough to merely say "military head, police head". [[User:Str1977|Str1977]] 17:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

== More pictures ==

This page probably has enough pictures as it is, but if you need more pictures, the German version of this page has some interesting ones already uploaded. Check it out. [[User:FranksValli|FranksValli]] 01:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone tried to change AH's baby photo to the famous school photo taken in Linz when he was a pre-teen, and put a PoV caption on it. Most historians have noticed AH's demeanor in that photo and attribute it to severe adjustment problems he had after enrolling in a much larger school in a larger town, when only a year before he'd been a popular small-town kid described as a "ring leader" among his friends (by all accounts he was miserable at the new school). Using a single photo (with a facial expression captured in a fraction of a second) to characterize someone's psychological state during late childhood is IMHO unsupportable and not encyclopedic. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 18:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

==Decimate==

Yes, while 2000 years ago it had a more limited meaning, documented usage has since changed, see [http://dict.die.net/decimate/] and [http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=decimate]. However, the anon editor who altered this to ''devastated'' seems to be part of a significant minority, in the latter cite there's a note implying (but not stating outright) 44% of that dictionary's usage panel preferred the anon's take on the word. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

== Categories including Hitler ==

[[User:Haham hanuka|Haham hanuka]], I noticed you removed Hitler from Category:Mass murderers. Please explain. I'd also appreciate if you'd:

# use the edit summaries to explain your edits

# put something on this talk page.

Thanks. -- [[User:Dave Cohoe|Dave C.]]^{[[User_talk:Dave Cohoe|talk]] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">Esperanza</font>]]} 19:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

He was not a mass murderer. Mr Hitler was a genocidal sociopath. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 19:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

:I see there is a section of [[mass murder]] called [[Mass_murder#Mass_murder_by_a_state|mass murder by a state]]. Hitler was the head of state and was the driving force behind the [[final solution]]. I'm not comfortable with the logic that since Hitler didn't kill all those people on his own, that he is not a mass murderer.

:The category '''totalitarian dictators''' doesn't imply mass murder or genocide, i.e. although Mussolini and Castro are not known for being genocidal, they are listed alongside Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Milošević. The Mussolini article states ''Mussolini has been said to have saved more Jews than even Oskar Schindler.'' I would like to see a category leaning towards genocidal war criminals. As a compromise, I've added a note about '''totalitarian dictators''' on the the '''mass murderers''' category page.

: If this has been discussed previously, can someone point me to the thread? I'm having trouble finding it. -- [[User:Dave Cohoe|Dave C.]]^{[[User_talk:Dave Cohoe|talk]] | [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="#339900">Esperanza</font>]]} 01:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, while there may be "some" political scientists who do not regard the Nazi regime as totalitarian, as long as there are several reliable sources who do, I don't think it's appropriate to continue removing that category.--'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.]][[User talk:Clawson|lawson]]''' 21:56, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

:Many social scientists dispute the entire concept of totalitarian, saying that it lacks historical explanatory power. I'm not making that argument myself, but saying that it's one that Wikipeidia editors have no business getting into, given the NPOV policies and the policies against original research. To avoid making the call one way or another, Wikipedia editors can stick to terms that are not disputed. [[User:172|172]] | [[User talk:172|Talk]] 22:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of category cruft, placing Hitler in the category of "LGBT right opposition" seems, well, pointless. We might as well put him in a category of racists, or a category of bigots, or a category of white supremacists. And what's "Nazi architecture" doing down there? Hitler wasn't an architect.--'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.]][[User talk:Clawson|lawson]]''' 22:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

From a scholarly perspective the term "totalitarian dictators" is hopelessly amateurish, journalistic shorthand. Given the structure of the government AH led, it's misleading and not helpful. "Fascist dictator" is closer, "fascist leader" is spot on. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 22:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

==Reference request==

Could John Kenney, or whoever else is supporting the vegetarian claim, provide a reputable source for the claim that H was a vegetarian, as opposed to someone who tried to reduce his meat intake? I can see only links to Google searches above, but we need a proper reference for this in the article; without one, please stop reverting. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 06:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

:Read [[Vegetarianism of Adolf Hitler]]. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 07:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

::I have. Even the biographers who say he was a vegetarian (the ones who are quoted) say he ate meat from time to time, which means he wasn't a vegetarian. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] ^{<font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font>} 08:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

That's because agenda-pushers put together the original cites on the List of vegetarians page. Traudl Junge, his secretary, told lots of people (including the BBC) he didn't eat meat. Bee Wilson, a food writer for the Guardian, is cited in the article but nobody seems to bother to read the link to her article, where she describes his strict vegetarian regime (and ends with a "gotcha" anecdote about someone slipping bone marrow into his soup without his knowledge). [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 12:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

Few people, including me, support Hitler, but this page has a major anti-Hitler bias. Someone needs to rewrite it as slightly more NPOV. -- [[User:Nintendorulez|Nintendorulez]] 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

:Someone? Since you seem so insightful, why dont you do it? --[[User:Ezeu|Ezeu]] 21:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

:Less sarcastically, if there are specific things that you can point out, if added or changed, would render the article more neutral, please do so. Remember, of course, that Hitler '''was''' a monster, and calling a spade a spade ''is'' neutral.--'''[[{{ns:2}}:Clawson|chris.]][[User talk:Clawson|lawson]]''' 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

:::Which is to say, he used his positive qualities to essentially bilk a highly advanced country into the industrial slaughter of 6-12 million, then leave that country in ruins and partitioned for half a century. It's hard to read any reasonably neutral account of that and come away with a sympathetic attitude.

Could you please list here some of the specific points you think could be more NPoV? [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

==German Chancellor==

I've removed him from the "German Chancellor" category until the categories name is changed to "Chancellor of Germany", calling him "German Chancellor" implies that he was German.

That's semantics, he was the German chancellor and besides that, a naturalized German citizen born within miles of the German border into a German-speaking, Austrian family. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

==Misinformation?==

''and during the final days of the war Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker in Berlin together with his newly wed wife, Eva Braun, and other high-ranking Nazi officials.''

What other high-ranking Nazi officials? As far as I'm aware there was only one - Josef Goebbels. Eva Braun certainly held no rank in the Nazi party and neither did Goebbels' family.

([[User:Redzen|Redzen]] 10:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

This is not misinformation (but may indeed be fuzzy writing). There were at least three or four others. Krebs definitely came back and killed himself along with one or two aides after meeting with the Russians and getting nowhere, so even with Krebs and Goebbels alone, ''and other high-ranking Nazi officials'' is at least nominally ok in the text. I can't remember if the number of bodies found in the bunker (aside from the 6 Goebbels children) was closer to 6 or a dozen but the Russians did find the uniformed bodies of several suicides and I have seen pictures of some. ''However'', I think the syntax may be misleading anyway, so I'll try to clarify it. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

...So I've removed the line in the intro pointed out by [[User:Redzen|Redzen]] since, although it's accurate, is so vague as to chronology and circumstance it could and likely would mislead a reader who has never encountered the story before. [[User:Wyss|Wyss]] 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

== "Charismatic leadership" ==

[[User:64.12.116.201]] is constantly changing "Under Hitler's [[leadership]]..." to "Under Hitler's [[charismatic leadership]]..." despite being reverted. This smells slightly of POV, <s>but I also don't think "charismatic leadership" should have its own article</s>. [[User:JIP|&mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 12:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

*Having read [[charismatic authority]], I retract the latter part of my comment, and stand solely by the POV comment. [[User:JIP|&mdash; <font color="#CC0000">J</font><font color="#00CC00">I</font><font color="#0000CC">P</font>]] | [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 12:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)