Talk:Adolf Hitler

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read this talk page discussion before making substantial changes. (This message should only be placed on talk pages.)

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

---

Contents

1 Archives 2 Hitler ordered the Holocaust 3 His funny little moustache 4 Hitlers death 4.1 Suicide or Shooting 5 Yleisradio archive's conversation tape 6 "Photographs like this were used to promote and humanize Hitler's populist-nationalist image" 7 Intro 8 Anon edit 9 POV tag 10 Alleged abuse by Alois 11 Nazi Economics

Archives

• Talk:Adolf Hitler/mentioning the (mis?)spelling Adolph
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 1
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 3
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 4
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 5
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 6
• /Archive 7
• /Archive 8

Hitler ordered the Holocaust

Anyone who thinks this needs to go research Führerprinzip, and Wannsee conference (wherin extremely vague discussions on the final solution occured, and Hitler did not attend). Would Hitler have approved of such measures had he known of them? I assume so. But do we have any reason to think he would have been notified of specifics such as that? I seriously doubt it, based on the style of governance they had. Subordinates painted rosy reports for superiors, sparring them the gory details. This telephone game of misinformation increased as it went up the chain of ranks, and Hilter was much less aware of the circumstances of daily operation than most world leaders of today. In any case, much like the death issue, there is far less evidence to cite than debate and conjecture. Sam Spade 23:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To expand a bit more, we know AH wanted and enabled it, we can presume he knew the broad truth of the camps, but we do not know specifically how Himmler received his own authority to conduct industrial scale murder. Whatever documentation there was likely got burned in the closing days of the war. To say Hitler directly ordered the Holocaust is not a documented fact. To say it happened and that AH was responsible for it, however, is wholly documented and reasonable to include in the article. Wyss 23:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"responsible for it" is an opinion. My point is he probably didn't know about it, at least the details. He knew Jews were being sent off, presumably to an unhappy death, or at minimum exile, possibly to work as slave labour. All of those would likely have been on his short "to do list" had he been micromanaging the concentration camps, but he wasn't. He was micromanaging the military, which is well evidenced by their spectacular defeat, despire being arguably the sole, or at least predominant world super power not too long before. Sam Spade 23:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will point out as a side note that according to Hitlers own words and Nazi doctrine, he was indeed accountable and responsible for all of what occured during his reign in office. I personally give him less credit than that, as do others, of course. However it should be pretty easy finding a reference, or even a quote from mein kampf suggesting his culpability, if you really think such an insinuation is needed. Sam Spade 23:48, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, to assert that the absolute (never mind micro-managing and anti-semetic) dictator of a highly developed, bureaucratic world power like Germany during the 1930s and 40s was unaware of the industrial scale slaughter of 6-11 million human beings in a vast network of railway connected camps managed by the SS is... unhelpful. Wyss 00:23, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"Nature is cruel; therefore we are also entitled to be cruel. When I send the flower of German youth into the steel hail of the next war without feeling the slightest regret over the precious German blood that is being spilled, should I not also have the right to eliminate millions of an inferior race that multiplies like vermin?" (Adolf Hitler, cited in Joachim Fest's 1975 "Hitler")

"Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows - at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example - as many as traffic allows.

"Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews." (Adolf Hitler, 1922) cited in Fleming, Gerald. Hitler and the Final Solution. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. p. 17

In Hitler's speech of January 30, 1939, he said:

"Today I want to be a prophet once more: If international finance Jewry inside and outside of Europe should succeed once more in plunging nations into another world war, the consequence will not be the Bolshevization of the earth and thereby the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe."

At a public speech in Munich, November 8, 1942, Hitler told his audience

"You will recall the session of the Reichstag during which I declared: If Jewry should imagine that it could bring about an international world war to exterminate the European races, the result will not be the extermination of the European races, but the extermination of Jewry in Europe. People always laughed about me as a prophet. Of those who laughed then, countless numbers no longer laugh today, and those who still laugh now will perhaps no longer laugh a short time from now. This realization will spread beyond Europe throughout the entire world. International Jewry will be recognized in its full demonic peril; we National Socialists will see to that."

As unhelpful as attepts at unneeded conjecture in an encyclopedia article? Sam Spade 05:46, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look who's talking :) (thanks for letting me needle you, pls don't take it seriously) AH was plainly aware of the camps, although I do agree that such a conjecture for an encyclopedia article is unneeded. For all I care, neither is it at all necessary to say he was responsible. When the facts are laid out not much is left to the imagination. Far more interesting to me is the lack of a paper trail documenting his (presumed) orders to Himmler authorizing the industrial slaughter of millions. I assert it's likely (but not certain) at least some documentation existed but was destroyed by German officers and bureaucrats during the closing days of the war. Funny thing (and this remark, of course, isn't directed at you Sam Spade), new information about that era still shows up now and then: In some attic somewhere there could be some verifiable evidence AH directly signed off on the whole thing. My only point in this thread, which is nothing more than table talk, has been to say more or less, "let's wait until something like that shows up before we say AH ordered the Holocaust but on the other hand let's not leave wiggle room for the possibility he didn't enable and encourage it, 'cause one way or another, he did." Wyss 11:53, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Can Sam show us the written orders signed off by Hitler for the invasion of Poland or the invasion of the USSR? Hitler's MO was not to issue signed orders. The quotations above, however, make clear Hitler's intention towards the Jews and the later quotations make clear he was aware of their externmination. AndyL 16:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See User_talk:Sam_Spade#AH for a continued discussion of this matter. Sam Spade 15:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His funny little moustache

A trivial topic of course, but is there any indication why he liked his moustache styled that way? Was it popular in Germany and Europe at the time?

That style of mustache was fairly common in Germany and elsewhere during the early 20th century... Anglo-Saxons have been conditioned to think it's "funny" a) 'cause it's rarer than hens' teeth these days (who wants to have a "Hitler mustache"?) and b) his mustache was extensively satirized in English language cartoons and movies throughout the late 1930s and 40s. Wyss 01:55, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Asian people will sometimes have one, they arn't quite so impressed w Hitler's nefarious legacy as are westerners. Sam Spade 15:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"During the war he had experimented with several types of mustaches and by the end of the war was wearing one that was fairly bushy and ran along the whole of the upper lip almost concealing it. During his training in propaganda and speaking, he thinned out his mustache and wore it close-cropped. Around this time he chose to clip the ends which made it narrower than the width of his lips. This type of mustache was more prominent among the British, but some German officers (like Ernst Rohm) and right wing "intellectuals" (Dietrich Eckart, Gottfried Feder, etc.) to whom Hitler had been exposed in his speaker training period, sprouted such clumps of hair over their upper lip. Hitler was undoubtedly attempting to emulate them". ([1] (http://smoter.com/astarpup.htm)) Some say (http://smoter.com/civilian.htm) it was the "symbolism of Chaplin". In The Enigma of Hitler (http://libreopinion.com/members/leondegrelle/theenigmaofhitler.html), SS General Léon Degrelle wrote: "The first thing anyone noticed when he came into view was his small mustache. Countless times he had been advised to shave it off, but he always refused: people were used to him the way he was." —Morning star 16:18, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

With Morning star's contribution thrown in, methinks we've enough here for a helpful wiki article stub called Adolf Hitler's mustache. :) Wyss 18:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The reason I have encountered before was because such a clipped mustache was common among veterans of the trenches of WWI as a way of minimizing lice. He kept it from those days. I can't give a source for this off-hand, but it seems possible.

Ben Bulben 20:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hitlers death

Please read "Hitler's death". There is nothing resembling clear evidence that events transpired as is suggested, indeed the current "concensus" is simply a bargain between the POV's of a number of historians, essentially none of whom buy into the compromise. I must insist that the narrative not claim he died by suicide, but rather that such is the general agreement. I don't want to dispute the neutrality, but I do insist that a thorough reading of hitler's death be made by anyone who thinks the current wording is acceptable. Sam Spade 20:24, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have read that article, and I prefere the current wording (without the "said to have"). Yes, there is an ongoing debate over whether he died from cyanide or a gunshot, or both. But we aren't disputing this or saying anything about it not being controversial by not having the "said to have" there. In either way he died of suicide, so the current wording is accurate. Shanes 21:02, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is no "bargain of PoVs". Several eyewitnesses (including the two who doused the bodies with petrol and lit them) repeatedly told the story of AH's suicide with Braun. Yes, eyewitness accounts are dodgy, yes, it's unlikely AH used both a pistol shot and cyanide, but these are details one would expect to be blurred and spun in the aftermath of Berlin's fall. The testimony, evidence and scholarly consensus are overwhelming and leave no room for qualifiers like "said to have died" or "believed to have died". The wording should remain as it is, or the article will have a big, docking, "Elvis sighting" gap of credibility. To put it another way, I have never heard of any scholarly, peer reviewed article or publication by any credible source giving any hint of plausibility to the notion that AH didn't die by suicide in the bunker under the chancellory as Red Army tanks rumbled nearby. Sure, I imagine there are loads of conspiracy and crank books around implying otherwise, skimming a bit of money off the still vast popular market for glossy, sensationalistic publications having anything to do with the Third Reich, but there's no evidence, no documentation, no AH post April 1945. Wyss 23:07, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you read the article then? [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler%27s_death#Autopsy.2C_controversy_and_urban_myth)? Stalin himself never believed the reports, and the soviets (russians) still won't let anyone examine that skull fragment. The article is unacceptable POV as it stands. Sam Spade 00:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As for Stalin, he spread lots of conflicting stories about AH's death/escape after the war. Stalin's historical reputation is even worse than Hitler's, never mind his known preference for disinformation and propaganda, so whatever he had to say about it isn't much of a citation. The documentation regarding AH and EB's suicides, partial cremations, sporadic burials and reburials culminating in their ashes being reburned and scattered into the Elbe by Soviet security personnel in 1970 is rather well-established. More telling, however, there is not a shred of evidence AH or Eva Braun were alive after April 1945. Lastly, the skull fragment is interesting but it's never been of much importance to the scholarly consensus of Hitler's 1945 suicide in Berlin. The Russians have historically been paranoid about a re-emergence of fascist extremism, and going back to Stalin, have been known to withold helpful evidence and spread disinformation regarding AH and his death to keep neo-fascists off balance on the topic and discourage the establishment of any shrines or whatever. Wyss 01:07, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

PS, I agree the death article could use some cleaning up, it gives too much weight to the possibility that AH may have survived the war (and the oldest man in the world bit seems unencyclopedic to me). Wyss 01:17, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's something else. I'm somewhat familiar with Magda Goebbels' background along with her longtime relationship with Hitler which overlapped cultish fanatacism and strong personal feelings for him. I find it more or less unthinkable she would have asked an SS orderly shoot her (in suicide), never mind murdered all her children like chickens, unless she knew without question he was dead and saw zero hope. What's more, Eva Braun was a social creature, one way or another. Many members of her immediate family and several close friends survived the war and there is no doubt they were carefully watched for any possible contacts from her. The reason we've heard nothing whatsoever from or about Hitler and Braun since the fall of Berlin in late April 1945 is because they killed themselves, Red army tanks rolling nearly over their heads. I've read blood was found on the sofa in Hitler's sitting room by both Soviet and American investigators. The bodies of other suicides were found in the bunker under the chancellory and even immensely practical Martin Bormann took cyanide after having failed to escape central Berlin on foot (his body was found in 1972 near an old railroad switching area). Himmler took cyanide as well immediately after he was captured. Altogether, the implications are rather plain. There is no hint of a need to qualify Hitler's death in an encyclopedia article based on accepted standards of scholarhsip. Wyss 13:58, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Look, if were going to delve into original research here, I find the idea that any of these deaths were suicide unlikely. The reasoning why can be found in bulk at Hitler's death, Odessa, and copious books and sources on the subject (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/deathofhitler.htm). There is no one I expect less honesty from than one of Stalin's officers. The story is absurd, as any historian will tell you. for One reason or other, no one believes it in full. Admit the confusion, cite the sources, and leave questionable stances out of the narrative. Sam Spade 22:03, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is zero confusion on the basic fact of AH's suicide, and it's far from a "questionable stance." The documented evidence is overwhelming that AH killed himself with a pistol shot from his personal Walther PK pistol at around 3:30PM on 30 April 1945. Now... what original research? (This is a talk page, by the way) Further, the Hitler death article in WP clearly states he killed himself. The story of AH crunching a cyanide capsule while blowing his brains out is indeed absurd, but Stalin was behind that (seems Uncle Joe thought telling the world AH crunched cyanide would make him seem like a coward, not an "honourable soldier" or whatever). Witnesses did report smelling the characteristic aroma of cyanide when they entered the sitting room and found the bodies, but somehow nobody ever seems to dispute that Braun killed herself, with cyanide. Wyss 00:26, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sam, there were also a number of conspiracy theories suggesting that the execution of the Romanovs never happened or that one or more of the royals escaped (particularly the Tsarovich and/or Anastasia). Books were written, documentaries were made, some by serious journalists. Nevertheless the discovery of the Romanov graves put these theories to rest, as did the DNA testing of Anna Anderson's remains. Just because some people believe a conspiracy theory and allow their minds to string together plausible sounding arguments for them, doesn't mean they're true or even anything more than furtive imagining.

The strongest evidence that Hitler died in 1945 is the absence of any evidence whatsoever of his presence on this earth following the war. Unless you can show me something that suggests he was in such and such place in 1947 or lived somewhere else in 1953 there's no reason why anyone should pay any mind to the Hitler lives theory unless you want to write a yarn like The Boys of Brazil.AndyL 23:06, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is all a straw man, I'm not trying to say Hitler is alive, or put a question mark by his date of death, or any such thing. Rather I am presenting evidence that his manner of death is contested. Sam Spade 19:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suicide or Shooting

There is also an accepted theory that he led a final futile assault against the incoming Russians at his fort, who were under strict orders to capture him alive. As he was part of a small group attempting a sally forth approach, naturally he would have been mowed down.

Having to admit to your senior officers that you accidentally killed the man they stipulated you must capture led to the suicide theory and would also explain the attempted desecration by burning (to make unidentifiable) and the hiding of his remains.

This is a conclusion that many historians are begining to come to, which are reflected in quite a few books on World War II I have read over the past year or so in my general studies of it.

Jachin 21:29, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

His fort? Wyss 05:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yleisradio archive's conversation tape

Does anyone know where this recording can be found? A cursory Google search led me to nothing. --TriniTriggs

"Photographs like this were used to promote and humanize Hitler's populist-nationalist image"

Isn't editorializing in the captions a bit POV?

--Oipolloi 18:52, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Zero editorial. It's fact, NSDAP propaganda tactics are well-documented, photographs like that one were used to promote his populist image, where's the opinion in that? Wyss 18:57, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[personal attack removed] Wyss 23:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note: the Bush picture at right was posted by Oipolloi who pasted in the caption I used in the AH article. I thought that was unhelpful and removed Hitler's name from the caption of this Bush image. Both Hitler and Bush, in addition to having had their pictures taken with kids for political ends, are known to have traveled in automobiles... do these two points in common equate them morally? (Hint: no) Wyss 20:04, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There are many other similarities between Bush and Hitler but that is not rlevant to either article. Inclusion of photos with descriptive editorial comment should be NPOV. If it is good enogh for Hitler, it is good enough for Bush. If you feel that your own descriptve editorial captioning is factual, it should be good enough for the Bush article but you sought to delete it there? Why? Take your answer to the Bush Talk page. Thanks. And if you have issues suddenly with my edits to Clown article and are not just engaged in petty vandalism of my edits, use the Clown Talk page to explain your position. --Oipolloi 20:12, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are baiting, which I consider to be vandalism. Wyss 20:38, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are reverting legitimate edits without discussion on the Talk page which is vandalism. --Oipolloi 21:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I politely suggest you review Wikipedia's policies regarding vandalism and personal attacks. Wyss 21:41, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oipolloi, this is what Wyss is citing: "No Personal Attacks". This is considered policy, and contains the following line: "If you are personally attacked, you may remove the attacks or may follow the dispute resolution process or both. In extreme cases, the attacker may be blocked, though the proposal to allow this failed and the practice is almost always controversial." (Emphasis mine). So, he has the right to remove personal attacks - whether or not what you said was a personal attack, I may not agree. However, Wyss, I would say let this one slide - it wasn't a blatant personal attack. --Golbez 21:58, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

It made no reference to article content and it sure wasn't a compliment :) As a veteran of the Sollog wars, however, I'd say I'm rather quick to revert personal attacks when I see 'em. Wyss 22:05, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I do think the allegations of "vandalism" on both sides are probably personal attacks, but deleting the conversation here was inappropriate. I think we should focus on discussing the image caption here, and discuss other concerns at WP:RfC, WP:AN, eacho thers talk pages, or whatever. Sam Spade 18:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I disagree but let's stay on topic and discuss the article please. I assert the caption is a well-documented fact. Wyss 23:04, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was uncertain, and taken aback, when I first read it. I didn't feel strongly enough to remove or debate it at that time, but it struck me as odd and inappropriate. I think a rewording is in order. Perhaps User:Wyss could provide an alternate version he would feel comfortable with? Sam Spade 12:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that photos like this were a part of the Nazi propaganda campaign. The question is, were they specific enough to Hitler to include them in the general context of this article? This could be the case if he was the only one to use them (obviously not) or the first one to use them (I don't know, but probably not). IMO, this picture is not a good illustration of the section where it appears (taking pictures with children was not the most central or peculiar feature of Nazi propaganda). It should be in Joseph Goebbels, Propagandaministerium or another article about the Nazi propaganda campaign. Another possible candidate would be a detailed section called "Cult of personality" or similar in this article. Zocky 13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they were. There was even a case of a little girl who had emerged from a crowd of admirers and was subsequently photographed eating strawberries and cream with him (her visits were later curtailed when it was discovered she was part Jewish). Women represented fully fifty percent of the electorate voting for Hitler. Modern readers tend to be given a one-dimensional picture of AH as someone of pure, almost cartoonish evil with no human face. In truth, tens of millions of Germans came to admire this charasmatic leader with a gift for oratory (never mind how coarse and direct it could be), only to realize too late he was a murderous sociopath bent on either ruling a Jew-free world (his take on "saving" it and his country) or dragging Germany into an armageddon. If this article is to educate and inform, then it might do to give readers the tools to recognize the next one who comes along, bouncing kids on his knee (which is also why I object so strongly to the Bush photo having been slapped onto this talk page... that was nothing more than a smearing political jab, never mind that however one feels about Mr Bush, this article isn't about him and any comparison here is unhelpful, to put it mildly). Whatever, readers can't be expected to click into a related article to read in detail how Goebbels masterfully executed this sort of propaganda and image making (like it or not, he pioneered many of the mass media political techniques we still see in use today). Plainly not all Germans, but a majority in the mid and late thirties, were more or less inspired to believe Hitler was their best hope and they didn't arrive at that notion by watching Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator (which Chaplin expressed regret over after the war, for reasons along these very lines). Is it deeply unsettling to see that picture with that caption? For me, yes it is and that's the pith of it. Wyss 14:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't post the picture. I only changed the original caption from Adolf Hitler with a German girl to something more informative (and accurate, too). Moreover, it appears in the Economics and culture section. Wyss 14:47, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see as any historians would disagree with the statement in the caption. And just including the picture with no explanatory text would be worse. (Note, also, that the caption does not say that Hitler didn't actually like small children, which, I think, the evidence suggests that he did). john k 15:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What I object to is "humanize Hitler's populist-nationalist image". This presents the POV the populism, nationalism, and of course Hitler were arguably inhuman. While Hitler is viewed as largely inhuman today, that simply wasn't the case at the time this photo was made, and particularly not in the voting bloc the image seeks to appeal to. Also, there is no need to "humanize" populism, which by its very nature reaches out to the ordinary citizen, speaking to him in his language, via jingoism, propoganda, rhetoric, or whatever you want to call it. In summary, the caption paints a factually inaccurate (hitler was seen as inhuman at the time the photo was made) and POV (populism and nationalism are inhuman) picture inappropriate for the image in the article. I think the image should stay (or be moved to another article, we do already have 1 picture of hitler w a young girl here...), the gist of the caption should stay, but the wording be changed to reflect these concerns. Sam Spade 15:37, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no PoV in the caption. AH consolidated power partly through a populist-nationalist image and electoral base. After he achieved absolute power, his true popularity continued to rise as propaganda was generated to appeal to that same, widening volkish base. This included ensuring that an attractive "human" face was put on a mass media figure who could truly be quite charming in small social settings (that's well documented, aside from this photo, which happens to exude it) as well as charismatic and hypnotic in sportsplasts. That's why the picture and caption are instructive and maybe a bit unsettling for some: He seduced millions, then he killed millions and for a decade had an impressive public image within the confines of Germany's tightly controlled media (for the most part newspapers, cheap radios and newsreels along with carefully chosen and orchestrated public appearances). Hitler was very human, which may be the most terrifying thing of all and talk about a sore loser. He killed himself in Berlin at around 3:30 in the afternoon on 30 April 1945, having left explicit orders Germany be burned to cinders in his wake. Wyss 16:39, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Readers asserting that a reference to AH's populist-nationalist image is PoV may wish to look at these two Google searches: Wyss 17:41, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Adolf+Hitler+populist&btnG=Google+Search&meta= (26,000+ hits)

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Adolf+Hitler+nationalist&btnG=Google+Search&meta= (73,000+ hits)

I agree with all of that, with the posible exception of tha last sentance "He killed himself in Berlin at around 3:30 in the afternoon on 30 April 1945, having left explicit orders Germany be burned to cinders in his wake". Personally I find it far more likely that he was killed by russian infantry or officers, who later feared reprisals and covered it up. That would be the simplest answer, and would explain all the weird and unbelievable stories. Anyhow, as far as this image caption... its not the suggestion that he was a nationalist, or a populist, or is today seen as inhumane. What I object to is the insinuation that he was seen as inhuman at the time, and that populism and nationalism are in need of humanizing. A much needed rewording of the caption is in order. I'll wait awhile longer for you (or someone) to take a stab at it, and then I'll reword it myself. Sam Spade 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We totally disagree on the death thing, I assert that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates that he died on April 30 1945 in Berlin, after which the Sovs found and identified the body. There is zero documented evidence of AH's existence as a living being after that date.

However, thank you for clarifying your concerns about the caption. I accept that the word humanize appears in a way that could be misinterpreted. I'll remove the word. Thanks. Wyss 18:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't believe this has generated a discussion. The comparison between Bush and Hitler is totally absurd and offensive to the sixty million people who perished during the Second World War and their families. Oipolloi's comments on the talk page deserve no serious response beyond that, and any edits to either the Hitler or Bush article making such a comparison should be reverted on sight as vandalism. If the editor persists, block him. 172 18:51, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let us all discuss issues like intelligent people and not call for censorship of others just because we might disagree with them. I questioned Wyss's caption in good faith but did not edit it nor did I ultimately disagree that it is NPOV to caption the photo of Hitler and innocent girl with the phrase "Photographs like this are used to promote and humanize the image of a politician". I thought it was rather arrogant to assert as fact without providing evidence but Wikipedia is populated by all types of editor, some more capable than others. So I let it go. It should be recognized that Bush uses the same image management tactics as Hitler. The White House disseminates photos like this to soften his image among his followers showing him being adulated by rapt audiences and coddling innocent children. The NPOV policy requires that the treatment of Hitler be equivalent to the treatment of Bush. That some users object to this reflects either that Hitler is being vilified in a way that is unacceptable or that followers of Bush are unable to maintain a NPOV approach to editing this encyclopedia. If it is appropriate to caption a photo of Hitler in a way that describes how politicians manipulate the media and public, then it is just as appropriate to show caption similar photos of Bush in the same way. It doesn't matter whether you agree or disagree that Bush and Hitler are both bloodthirsty evil fascist monsters who should burn in hell forever and ever. The issue is whether the encyclopedia is NPOV. To be NPOV, both Bush and Hitler should receive the same non-judgemental treatment. I would never suggest that an editor be blocked from editing for diagreeing with me about the content of an article. That any editor would suggest that a fellow Wikipedian should be blocked on the basis of disagreement over content reflects a blatantly fascistic approach because fascism is defined as an intolerance for opposing or dissenting points of view. --Oipolloi 02:29, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for making these kinds of comparisons. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. 172 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oipolloi, I strongly suggest you take some time to thoroughly re-read Wikipedia policy regarding these issues. Wyss 09:42, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

---

For the record (and I have already mentioned this to User:Wyss), I think the current image caption is excellent, and I applaud him for his high quality compromise. For me at least the issue is resolved. I again suggest that issues not directly related to this page (Discussions of Bush image management tactics, user conduct, wiki policy etc...) be conducted elsewhere. Cheers, Sam Spade 18:50, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I posted as a suggestion "Photographs like this were used to portray Hitler as a kind and loving person". I guess that was the main purpose of such photos, the reality is known and given in the entry. I think that's enough to make the point. Str1977 19:30, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's true enough the photo promotes "kindness and love" but it contains many other details which act as strong cues for the volkish style of populism and German nationalism they used as their public image during the 1930s. Wyss 19:59, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, it reminds me of Hitler having walked into a fairy tale. Sam Spade 21:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Something tells me someone in the propaganda ministry building back in the 30s thought the same thing. Wyss 22:51, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry guys, but I can't see how this picture promotes "Hitler's populist-nationalist image".

What other details? The Bavarian dress of the girl, the grain in the background?

The focus is on Hitler and the girl and IMHO it promotes him being kind, loving, fond of children - all features NS propaganda considered to be essential to the "model of a leader of the German people" - other example his public appearance as being single and only married to Germany. Reality in all these cases of course was quite different.

This all might be summed up as populist (i.e. pandering proximity to the people), but if one reads the current caption one might ask, what this "populist-nationalist image" actually was.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thing to you guys.

Str1977 09:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lots of Germanic Europeans were asking a similar question by 1942. Wyss 10:44, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What question? Str1977 21:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The "one might ask..." question towards the end of your post. Wyss 22:47, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Intro

I think the numbers of the victims shouldn't be here. For example imagine that in the intro of the article about George W Bush the following text would be written "Bush directed the war on Iraq and the War on afghanistan, he led to the death of X Iraqi citizens, Y Afghan citizens and Z American soldiers" --Haham hanuka 09:42, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This article isn't about George Bush. Otherwise, Mr Hitler is notable for lots of stuff, including having precipitated one way or another the deaths of tens of millions. Wyss 10:41, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Anon edit

An anon changed " In the September 1930 elections the Nazis suddenly rose from relative obscurity to win more than 18% of the vote along with 107 seats in the Reichstag, becoming the second largest party in Germany." to 38%. (emphasis mine) which is correct? --Golbez 07:56, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

The anon was wrong. Though in July 1932, NSDAP received almost 38% (37.2%), so I guess the anon just got those two elections mixed up, or something. Shanes 08:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Btw, see here for the election statistics for NSDAP here on wikipedia Shanes 08:48, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

I want to put here this tag because the intro of this article is too negative. Blaming Hitler as the responsible to the death of 11 million people is totally wrong. In addition I think that all the "good" stuff about Hitler and Nazism are not mentioned here (e.g. social policy, welfare, green policy, VW and etc). --Haham hanuka 14:27, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let's have an actual discussion first before you add the totallydisputed tag. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 14:32, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

He has a point, but on the other hand, out of all 601,581 articles, this is perhaps the least likely to achieve NPOV ;) Sam Spade 14:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It's still not true to say it's "totally disputed". That implies it's a completely ludicrous opinion that absolutely no-one holds - clearly not the case. Ben Bulben 14:45, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The opening is not "totally disputed", even among WP editors. AH appeared to be doing some good in the 1930s, however, stuff like the autobahn, the VW (the list is long), even the positive elements of ethnic German nationalism weren't created by him from a void but rather taken from pre-existing elements of German technology and culture. His public image was mostly the result of expert, modern propaganda techniques and ruthless tactics by various internal "security" groups controlled by him. One of the most significant characteristics about him (and this can be gleaned even from his own sometimes- but not always- cryptic remarks on the topic during the early 40s) was his obsession with what he called "International Jewry" and his efforts to "save Germany and the world" by exterminating "it" along with other social and racial impurities as he perceived them. This, one way or another, resulted in the deaths of over ten million people through a program of industrial genocide with few precedents as to scale and method in history and is central to his legacy. The evidence (his last conversations, his political will and testament and so on) indicates he would have largely agreed with this and blew his brains out not from shame, but from the realization of a rational although drug and illness impaired individual that the game was up and the remainder of his life was likely to be short and rather brutal in its suffering. IMO the article begins with an apt and accurate summary for all, even those who might support what he did. Readers are also reminded that he left Germany in ruins, with tens of millions dead including a high proportion of German youth, which is to say (only making a point here), even an extreme, racist German nationalist should be aware of the breadth and depth of Adolf Hitler's catastrophic incompetence and failure as a national political leader. Wyss 14:57, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think they are well aware of his failings. If you look into the NPD, they by no means mirror the fuhrerprinzp and leader worship of the NSDAP. Anyhow, I would ask mr. hanuka to make the needed edits emphasising the good deeds of hitler, rather than putting an ugly dispute header up. Lets do whats best for the reader, they want to read an excellent article, not become aware of the extent of our editorial disputes ;) Sam Spade 15:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The last line of AH's political will and testament essentially exhorts the world to continue exterminating jews. He didn't even see it as a "negative", so I don't fully grok how Haham hanuka, who in the past has promoted edits depicting AH as a one-dimensional characature of evil, has now decided that mentioning genocide in the opening is "too negative" and "totally wrong." ;) Wyss 15:35, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I was quite taken aback as well; I wondered if his account had been hijacked. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alleged abuse by Alois

I reverted an edit likening Alois' discipline of AH and his siblings to that of a concentration camp. Tacitly transferring responsibility for the deaths of millions over to his father is not only rash (gross speculation), but unsupported by the evidence. Paula Hitler, for example, when debriefed by American intelligence agents after the war, made no mention of receiving abuse from her father and while she did say AH was punished frequently for misbehavior such as tardiness she gave no indication it was excessive or unusual for the circumstances in that time and place. Wyss 13:18, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've always heard the abuse was severe, but I believe thats interpretive. Hitler himself suggested he often recieved a beating, but also seemed to feel it was deserved and appropriate. He had a quote to the effect of "I loved my mother, but I respected my father". Sam Spade 17:19, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's rather the same sense Paula seems to give in the transcript of one of her OSS debriefings. Lots of biographers have tried to characterize Alois' treatment of young Adolf as harsh physical and psychological abuse but the primary sources don't support it. For example, there is zero evidence these "almost daily thrashings" were pummelings or woundings. The vocabulary must be taken in the context of the time and place (and by the bye I've never read in any scholarly source that Alois ever thought he might have killed the boy, as one editor recently asserted). To make a point, throughout history lots of stern, slapping fathers have created problems for their sons, most of whom didn't go on to choose careers in industrial genocide. Wyss 05:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nazi Economics

from [3] (http://reason.com/9908/bk.mm.nazi.shtml)

Nazi Economics

By Michael McMenamin

Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris, by Ian Kershaw, New York: W.W. Norton & Co., 845 pages, $35.00

Adolf Hitler was "wholly ignorant" of economics, Ian Kershaw boldly writes in his excellent new study, Hitler, 1889-1936: Hubris. What the dictator did know was politics and how to achieve public support--Hitler was an immensely popular leader with approval ratings even Bill Clinton would envy--and early on, he made it clear that economics would be subordinate to politics.

One odd result of Hitler's decision is that few of his biographers have paid much attention to his economic policies prior to the Nazis' first overt military act, the reoccupation of the Rhineland in 1936. Indeed, if they pay any attention at all to the subject, most merely accept Nazi propaganda claims of Hitler's "economic miracle" in restoring Germany's prosperity. Kershaw's book is a welcome exception to this tendency.

The general view that Germany's shattered economy surged to life in the first few years of the Nazi regime is typified by Sebastian Haffner, a German writer whose short book The Meaning of Hitler (1979) received extravagant praise in John Lukacs' recent The Hitler of History. As Haffner put it, "Among these positive achievements of Hitler the one outshining all others was his economic miracle....In January 1933, when Hitler became Reich Chancellor, there were six million unemployed in Germany. A mere three years later, in 1936, there was full employment. Crying need and mass hardship had generally turned into modest but comfortable prosperity.

"Almost equally important: helplessness and hopelessness had given way to confidence and self-assurance. Even more miraculous was the fact that the transition from depression to economic boom had been accomplished without inflation, at totally stable wages and prices. Not even Ludwig Erhard succeeded in doing that later in post-war Western Germany."

Haffner is hardly alone in his glowing evaluation of Hitler's supposed economic miracle. In his highly influential Origins of the Second World War (1961), British historian A.J.P. Taylor similarly gave the Nazis credit for creating widespread prosperity, concluding, "The Nazi secret was not armament production; it was freedom from the then orthodox principles of economics. Government spending provided all the happy effects of mild inflation; while political dictatorship, with its destruction of trade unions and rigorous exchange control, prevented such unfortunate consequences as a rise in wages, or in prices."

Kershaw's version of things more accurately reflects what was really happening in Germany from 1933 through 1935. Hitler's economic policies were systematically wrecking the German economy and were rapidly painting him into a corner where his only choices were war or a loss of power.

Hitler, argues Kershaw, was deathly afraid of inflation and a repetition of the early 1920s. Nevertheless, he had to reduce unemployment or he wasn't going to last long enough to begin rearming Germany, a public goal of his since the '20s. Increasing exports was not a possibility since, unless the German government devalued the mark (as Britain had done with the pound and the United States with the dollar), German exports couldn't compete in a way that would add new jobs or bring needed foreign exchange. Hitler nixed devaluation because he thought it was a step on the road to inflation. Tax cuts were also out of the question because he believed they led to less revenue not more growth.

Hitler's solution for both the rearmament and unemployment problems was the same: massive deficit spending. In fact, by Kershaw's account, the Nazi government guaranteed some 35 billion ReichMarks to the German armed forces alone over an eight-year period, along with massive road building, subsidies to the auto industry, lots more bureaucrats to enforce all the new controls and regulations, and bribes to women to get married and stop working.

Did such policies reduce unemployment from 6 million in 1933 to 1 million three years later? Not exactly. Statistics from Dan Silverman's Hitler's Economy (1998) show that unemployment was reduced in Germany from 34 percent or about 6 million people, in January 1933, to 14 percent, or 2.5 million people, in January 1936. That's a dramatic reduction, to be sure, but hardly full employment. Even the 2.5 million number is extremely unreliable, as Stephen Roberts, an economic historian at Australia's University of Sydney who lived in Germany in the mid-'30s, explained in his 1937 work, The House That Hitler Built.

The "official statistics naturally tell only part of the story," wrote Roberts. "They do not take into account the Marxians, Socialists, Jews and pacifists who have lost their jobs and are cut off from relief; such persons do not appear in the official figures of unemployment. The refugees are ignored. In addition, at least a million people have been absorbed in the army, the labour-service camps, the Nazi organizations, and various partly-paid forms of labour on public works. Half a million women have been taken off the labour market in the last four years by means of the marriage allowance paid by the Government to entice them away....What they have done has been to introduce a series of emergency steps which have drastically reduced the number of unemployed; but such steps, by their very nature, are in many cases temporary. On the other hand, the reduction [in unemployment], however artificially it may have been achieved, has had a tremendous propaganda value for the Government, and there is the fixed belief of most Germans today that Hitler has achieved wonders in providing employment."

Hitler paid for his economic "miracle" partly by depleting his nation's gold reserves, which he used to import critical raw materials for the manufacture of weapons. When he took office, the Reichbank had reserves totaling 937 million ReichMarks; four years later, that figure was down to only 72 million ReichMarks. Massive government borrowing financed the rest of the government-driven economy. As Roberts put it, "The Nazi state is being financed by short-term [90 day] loans--up to 15 billion Reichmarks by the end of 1936....In short, Germany is going round and round. She can get nowhere until she returns to normal economic conditions, but she is afraid to try and get back to those, because she fears economic collapse and social upheaval if she does so."

Kershaw makes the same point and suggests that it was this fear of social unrest, heightened by serious food shortages in Germany during the fall of 1935--themselves largely the result of government policies--that played the major role in Hitler's decision to reoccupy the Rhineland in March 1936. Keep in mind that Hitler's reoccupation of the Rhineland was considered one of his "brilliant" strokes precisely because it was so unexpected--Germany was unprepared militarily or economically to carry out any extended effort in support of what even Hitler conceded to intimates was nothing more than a bold bluff.

Conventional wisdom holds that Hitler moved on the Rhineland when he did because the world was distracted by Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia. Kershaw allows that motive as a contributing factor but contends that turmoil in Germany occasioned by the food shortages is the real key to the timing of such a risky initiative. Indeed, he argues that Hitler invaded precisely because he knew it would be extraordinarily popular within Germany and divert public attention from his domestic difficulties.

Contrary to A.J.P. Taylor, by late 1935 Germany was experiencing anything but the "happy effects of mild inflation" and "freedom from orthodox principles of economics." As Kershaw writes, "A summary of price and wage levels prepared for Hitler on 4 September 1935 showed almost half of the German work-force earning gross wages of 18 ReichMarks or less per week. This was substantially below the poverty line...Wages, then, remained at the 1932 level--substantially lower than the last pre-Depression year of 1928 in the much-maligned Weimar Republic. Food prices, on the other hand, had risen officially by 8 per cent since 1933. Overall living costs were higher by 5.4 per cent. Official rates did not, however, tell the whole tale. Increases of 33, 50, and even 150 per cent had been reported for some foodstuffs. By late summer, the terms `food crisis' and `provisions crisis' were in common use."

These facts were well known at the time, both within and without Germany. Roberts and others had written about them, attributing the food shortages to Hitler's centralized agricultural policy, which had virtually eliminated food imports while implementing government controls. The predictable result: Germany produced less food, causing both shortages and price increases. According to Roberts, wheat went up 15 percent, eggs 50 percent, butter 40 percent, potatoes 75 percent, and most meat 50 percent--all despite "official" and ineffectual price controls which Hitler for appearances' sake refused to lift. Well into Hitler's "miracle," Kershaw notes, "poor living-standards, falling real wages, and steep price increases in some necessities...[were] the dismal reality behind the fine facade of the Third Reich."

At the same time, a ferocious economic policy battle was being waged over foreign exchange reserves: Should they be used to buy food imports or raw materials for armament production, the latter being Hitler's primary purpose since he first took office? Hitler appointed Hermann Göring (who knew less about economics than Hitler) to mediate between Economics Minister Hjalmar Schacht, who wanted to purchase raw materials for armaments, and Agriculture Minister Walther Darre, who wanted food to cover up his failed policies. Schacht, a social friend of Göring's, expected a rubber stamp in favor of raw materials for arms. To everyone's surprise, except Hitler's, Göring chose food, an answer that set Germany on the road to foreign conquest.

As Kershaw sees it, Hitler gave priority to food imports because the "immediate prime need was to avoid the damaging psychological effects of the only alternative: food rationing." But this decision, in turn, adversely affected German rearmament. "By early 1936," says Kershaw, "available supplies of raw materials for rearmament had shrunk to a precariously low level. Only one to two month supplies were left. Schacht demanded a slow down in the pace of rearmament....As Hitler entered his fourth year as Chancellor, the economic situation posed a real threat to rearmament plans. At the very time when international developments encouraged the most rapid expansion possible, the food crisis--and the social unrest in its turn--was sharply applying the brakes to it....Any slow down in rearmament...would inevitably bring increased unemployment in its train...[Hitler] saw this as all the more reason to hasten expansion to gain `living-space.'"

In other words, if Hitler had to spend foreign exchange reserves for food to keep the people happy, he would have to get the raw materials for armaments by taking them. Otherwise, there would be more unemployment when the arms workers were laid off due to a lack of raw materials. Hitler knew he couldn't survive both food shortages and a resurgence of unemployment.

Commenting in early 1937 on Göring's Four Year Plan for economic self-sufficiency, Roberts had presciently predicted the inevitability of either war or Hitler's fall from power. "There are 34 vital materials without which a nation cannot live, and unfortunately, Germany is worse off than any other great state insofar as these are concerned," he observed. "Whereas the British Empire is largely dependent on outside sources for only nine of these, Germany has only two in ample quantities--potash and coal. That means she must turn to the foreigner for all of her supplies of 26 of these and for part of six more. Yet this is the Power that sees fit to launch a plan for complete self sufficiency. It is ludicrous, unless she looks forward to obtaining control of the vast raw materials of central Europe or the lands beyond the Ukraine by some adventurous foreign policy....That is [Hitler's] basic dilemma. If he persists in the [economic] policies he has enunciated, he plunges Europe into war; if he abandons them, he can no longer maintain his position within Germany."

It's not that Hitler lacked contrary advice. Kershaw tells us that in October 1935 Price Commissioner Carl Goerdeler sent Hitler in October, 1935, "a devastating analysis of Germany's economic position." According to Kershaw, Goerdeler "favored a return to market economy, a renewed emphasis upon exports, and a corresponding reduction in the rearmament drive--in his view at the root of the economic problems....If things carried on as they were, only a hand-to-mouth existence would be possible after January 1936." But Goerdeler was ignored and later dismissed. Instead, Germany reoccupied the Rhineland, to widespread popular acclaim, and Göring unveiled his Four Year Plan, putting the economy firmly on a war footing.

Hitler himself apparently never had a clue that the economic policies he had followed for the first three years of his regime were responsible for his production problems. By 1936, Kershaw makes clear, Hitler believed his own press clippings regarding his economic acumen. Thus, for Hitler, the food crisis only confirmed his preconceptions. In the secret memorandum on which Göring's Four Year Plan was based, Hitler wrote, "We are overpopulated and cannot feed ourselves from our own resources. The solution ultimately lies in extending the living space of our people, that is, in extending the sources of its raw materials and foodstuffs." That is, the problem is not my fault and the answer is war, not economic reform.

Hitler's fears of losing power were not without foundation. His great nemesis, the Soviet Union, found that out 50 years later. In the 1980s, it could not keep up with increased U.S. defense spending and sustain what William E. Odom in The Collapse of the Soviet Military (1998) terms "a permanent war economy" in which 20 to 40 percent of the gross domestic product went to the military. The Soviets faced the same choice as Hitler: economic reform or war? Thankfully, the Soviet leaders chose economic reform, even though it didn't save them or their regime. Freeing yourself from orthodox principles of economics can be a tricky thing.

Contributing Editor Michael McMenamin is a lawyer in Cleveland and a regular contributor to Finest Hour, the quarterly journal of the Churchill Center. Additional research for this review was provided by Patrick McMenamin, a history major at the University of Rochester.

(end of article) 4.250.132.180 21:52, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've been told that for many intellectuals (including economists), during the 1930s "the writing was on the wall" Hitler was gearing up for nothing else but war. His lack of economic understanding is widely documented (although this could be said of many economists too). However, I'm not sure I'd ever go so far as to say AH believed his own press clippings about anything. Wyss 04:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)