Talk:Adolf Hitler

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1


Contents

Improvement Proposals

  • Due to vandalism, please post MAJOR improvement proposals here, in this section.


I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--Stitch75 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

"Who And What He Was" needs to be edited severly. You don't make a article with just a quote and a sentence. Move the quote to a "quote section" and add actual nonquoted words to the section --Albertzhou 12:42 12 April 2012 (EST)

The introductory paragraphs make refense to Martin Luther being "severely mentally ill" towards the end of his life. I can find no reference to Luther being mentally ill besides suffering from intermittent bouts of depression throughout his life. I would like to delete the reference. Any feedback? CenterK 22:43, 3 July 2013 (EDT)

Path to power

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? User:Order 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:
Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. User:Order 31 July, 11:30


"Socialist" and his rise to power

This article is extremely historically incorrect. I'm a history professor (proud conservative, don't worry) and I really don't like the terms used here. First of all, he was not a socialist. The word socialist was put into the party name in order to rally workers to vote for the party. Hitler himself did that when he took control of the party in 1923. He was a fascist, plain and simple. Hypernationalism, racialism, etc. There was some state control of the economy, but for the most part, people owned private property, businesses ran by themselves, etc. He is not a socialist.

Regarding his rise to power, he did not do all of the tactics mentioned in the beginning of the article. He first attempted a bloody coup, which failed, then he turned to legal means. His party legally attained a plurality in parliament, and Hitler himself ran against von Hindenburg in 1932 for President, but lost. Once his party had a plurality, he was appointed chancellor. This was all legal and peaceful.

Other than that, the article is fine, and well written.

Jimmypeg 19:28, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for editing here professor! Read this article on Hitler/ socialism/ unions and tell me if correction to the page are needed. [1]--Jpatt 19:36, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a pre­war European importation ­ imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more price­fixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."
Actually, we already had this discussion, how the real anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Franz Leopold Neumann of the Frankfurt School of critical thinking and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.
And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy prior to WWI. RobS 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? User:Order 31 July, 11:26

So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by Josef Goebbels, the US Office of War Information, the Hollywood Screen Writers Guild or Franklin Roosevelt is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) why it happened. Sourcing, and the credibility of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. RobS 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
  • What has FDR to do with this matter?
  • I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?
  • I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.
  • The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.
  • And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? User:Order 31 July, 13:36
  1. FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
  2. We're actually not that far off on the political spectrum theory aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. RobS 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?
  • Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.
  • I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. User:Order 31 July, 15:00
One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.
Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the French Revolution, and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races, class hate and class war, and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form. RobS 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views must kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
  • I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of both the Enlightenment and Karl Marx, (and Darwinism, an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the Ancien Regime to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. RobS 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. User:Order 2 August, 12:26
Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century thought was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led Marie Antoinette to the gallows.
Can you point us to an atheist who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. User:Order 3 august, 10:00
I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in Mien Kampf, Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was The Monumental History of Mankind. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of Mein Kampf), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, et al. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." Rob Smith 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I 'did actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. User:Order 3 August, 11:35
You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. Rob Smith 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.User:Order 3 august, 10:00
  • Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
  • Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. RobS 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. User:Order 2 August 00:08 (AEST)
See above. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)


  • Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
  • The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts in the Erste Welt Krieg; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for God is with us." [2] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. RobS 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz, and you will find where you can buy them.
  • For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. RobS 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. User:Order 1 August, 23:58
Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?
Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances Hillary Clinton used to hold on the White House roof. Rob Smith 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
  • And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" User:Order
  • Thanks for proving my point. I said: I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach, but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. User:Order 1 August, 11:23
  • Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [3] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in Tischgesprache, 14th December 1941 Midday,
  • "Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] RobS 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
  • Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. User:Order 1 August 14:00
  • Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in Marxist rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the DNC does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") Rob Smith 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? Order 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. Rob Smith 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

contemporaneous corroboration

Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the Phoney War which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

From 1905 to 1940
The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement, and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. Without socialism, the war of 1939, Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.
The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution, the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.

And here is the Hayek quote:

"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

Analysis of comparison; while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the New International editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. Rob Smith 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the New International. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the New International. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. User:Order 2 august 10:00 (AET)
The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. Rob Smith 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. User:Order 2 august 18:00
A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). The New International quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." Rob Smith 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)


It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

  • The Beginning Of His Political Life: 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
  • Beer Hall Putsch: 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
  • Path to Power 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And one sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
  • Consolidation of Power: 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
  • Holocaust: 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
  • 1944 Assassination Attempt: 1 paragraph on facts and events.
  • Marriage : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
  • Death :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. User:Order 6 august 10:20

Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism do not represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a process who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.
Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. User:Order
The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. Rob Smith 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." Rob Smith 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. User:Order 6 august 11:30

I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all classical liberals, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the Fairness Doctrine, which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the MSM and the DNC have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. Rob Smith 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

von Papen

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. Order 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? Rob Smith 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. Order 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? Rob Smith 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. Order 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. Rob Smith 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of Treaty of Munich that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. Rob Smith 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. Order 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. Rob Smith 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. Order 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes it did. The Treaty of Munich was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [4]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [5]
Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.
Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles
Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres
Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres
The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more GDP to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.
Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipeligo), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted Bolshevik methods. Rob Smith 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The Treaty of Munich happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. Order 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.
It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. Rob Smith 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. Order 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."
Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? Rob Smith 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. Order 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? Rob Smith 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry Bill Clinton. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. Order 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

OK. What's wrong with this text:
  • After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.
Seems to say what you want it to say. Rob Smith 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:

  • After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. Order 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. Rob Smith 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. Order 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. Order 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. Rob Smith 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[6]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. Order 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " et seqq [7]
Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [8]
Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany. Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."
So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. Rob Smith 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. Order 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to both you and Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this did not even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? Rob Smith 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the aggressive war. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. Order 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.
Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."
Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.
Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. Rob Smith 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
  • As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
  • It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
  • You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
  • Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? Order 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

  • where did I use Nazi rhetoric?
  • In the Nazi view, the Treaty of Versailles was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated who the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.
In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.
When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.
Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.
To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.Order 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.
So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Order (talk)
  • why should we care what Wikipedia says.
  • A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's did seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.
Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners after January 1933.
The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. Rob Smith 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. Order 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government with the Nazis, against the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against thier imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. Rob Smith 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.
So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing thier rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.
In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but also regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?
I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. Order 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? Order 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. Order 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was

  • a catholic
  • conservative
  • anti-communist
  • member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

  • Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
  • Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
  • Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
  • Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
  • Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.

He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. Order 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.
There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.
The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.
The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. Rob Smith 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

  • Where is there a crime in any of this?. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
  • How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
  • And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss. Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. Order 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

Path to Power (Continued)

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? Order 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. Rob Smith 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. Order 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. Rob Smith 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. Order 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."
So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since offenses against political morality do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. Order 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of Helen Scott, one of several Comintern opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union and was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal.

Care to collaborate on Helen Grace Scott Keenan? Rob Smith 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)


I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. Order 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

You will see on the Talk:Munich conference, for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [9], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.
So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. Rob Smith 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?
He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment explicitly states that he shares responsibility for that. Order 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." Rob Smith 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. Order 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

new img

Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. Rob Smith 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

The evolution of the Hitler article

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. Order 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)


The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". Order 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
    • Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. Cal05000 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

Hitler's wax effigy

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in London, England. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--TerryHTalk 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! Josephx

Improved the article

Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. Karajou 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:

  • Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
  • Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
  • Detailed info regarding his childhood

And it could use some good quotes. Karajou 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

First Sentence

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)Fantasia 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! Karajou 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. Fantasia 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. Karajou 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Thanks, I did. Fantasia 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. Karajou 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. Josephx 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

Hitler and against various christian groups

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp Conservative 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.Conservative 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

  • Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." Rob Smith 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)
Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? ScorpionVote for Pedro 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)
I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. Darkmind1970 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

Hitler was a Vegetarian

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.

Cause it's not really relevant to anything?AliceBG 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.AliceBG 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution

(re posted from earlier) The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of God's Divine Will. And what of the following gems:

For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. ii, ch. x
From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier

It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way? --Stirlatez 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. Bugler 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --Brendanw 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. Bugler 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --Brendanw 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
Evolution works with environmental selection and a [b]diversity of gens[/b], something that hitler definitely did not emphasize, this article undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DeSouza (talk)
You're not credible, Hitler apologist. You must discount the whole Nazi ideology to believe Hitler and Darwin were not connected in any way.--Jpatt 16:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The last paragraph about Richard Dawkins words “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question" is taken totally out of context and turned upside down. Here is the full context that should be given:

When asked a question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, his response was: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

Racism and anti-semitism existed long before Darwin's books. One only has to look at slavery in the 1700s, the First Crusade, and the Jewish expulsions from England and Spain. User:OneTruth

I've been told that Hitler banned Darwin's books. Does anyone know if this is true? --ConnieBooth 23:32, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Naziism and Homosexuality

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----PhilipV I Support our Troops! 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it. If he was, he kept it a secret, because homosexuals were one of the groups targeted in the holocaust. - OneTruth

Shouldn't Hitler be listed under liberal

Logically it only makes sense. hitler was a Nazi, or national socialist. socialism is a liberal ideology. therefor it is resonible to assume that hitler was a liberal. not to mention the fact that he had numerous traits in common with liberals--SayidR 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

Proof He's An Atheist

What proof is there that he is an atheist? In Mein Kampf, he actually seems to be a believer. [10] Jwilhem 13:04, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an athiest would do that. Hitler was a socialist which is an atheistic philosophy--SayidR 13:18, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe you should read the article on Evolutionary racism - Hitler's only religion was Darwinism, and he took his Darwinist beliefs to their natural conclusion. BobCharlton 13:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
SayidR, you are jumping to quite extraordinary conclusions. I'm not saying that he's a Christian, I'm saying that he said himself he believed in God. He could believe in evolution and believe in God. Many bishops do. --Jwilhem 13:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not so, no Christian would do such a thing because Christianity is based off of truth and love while Naziism is based off of deception and hate--SayidR 13:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I didn't say he was a Christian. I'm just saying that he himself believed in God, as shown in Mein Kampf. You can dodge questions like a liberal, or be a true open source conservative and see the facts. Jwilhem 14:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe YOU should remember the 90/10m rule against talk talk talk and keep your pointless arguments to your self--SayidR 20:17, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Okay. Jwilhem 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
I have to say, it does seem as if Hitler believed in God. NOT as a Christian. There are things that point to him being a BELIEVER, not a "true" CHRISTIAN. I'm a Christian myself and agree that if any Christian had actually read the Bible, he or she would not do something like Hitler did. I'd say that Jwilhem brought up a fine point, and Jwilhem never claimed that Hitler was a Christian. SayidR, Jwilhem was merely presenting a point. You jumped to a conclusion. Problem solved. Now, can we please get on with this discussion? VenkuTurMukan 14:33, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." Adolf Hitler So either he was posing as a Christian trying to rally support or he was actually and atheist in disguise attempting the same. --UofGuelphStudent 00:32, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Hitler was well known to be fond of Arthur Schopenhauer's philosophy. Schopenhauer, as you might know, was an atheist who thought the world was made purely by will and said such wonderful things like "life is a mistake, that should never have been." I don't see anything Christian about a man who makes use of history's greatest pessimist in his speeches... or basically everything Hitler did. Think about it, "Triumph of the Will" was a film made about Hitler's rise to power, with Hitler himself seeing his will as the triumphant victor over the world. He could literally quote entire passages of The World as Will and Representation if given the opportunity. I, and every other Christian, think Schopenhauer was incurably evil and insane and a good example of what kind of nihilism Atheists ultimately find. So Why is Hitler quoting him and reading him again and again if he was a Christian?--Speaketh (EDT)

You make Hitler sound like an intellectual. You have a source for that? Rob Smith 15:31, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
And secondly, Hitler may not hace beleived in the Judeo-Christian God (Jahovah), if that's how atheism is defined; but I think there is evidence Hitler's did beleive in some supernatural higher power. After the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, for instance, in a state of confusion Hitler, Goebbels, and few others were discussing what to do next. Goebbels convinced Hitler his surviving the attempt was the intervention Providence, and he had a mission to fulfil. And I don't think Goebbels was just brainstorming propaganda spin, but I may be wrong. Most of the narratives concluded Hitler felt endowed with a mission fom Providence. Rob Smith 15:37, 3 August 2011 (EDT)
Yes, read Hitler's Private Library: The Books that Shaped His Life. He himself admitted Schopenhauer to be his largest influence. Most historians tend to overestimate the influence of Nietzsche on Hitler, but underplay Schopenhauer. To be perfectly fair, Nietzsche was no Anti-Semite and would have despised National Socialism. And while Hitler was no intellectual in the normal sense of the word, he was brilliant. Uncurably evil and insane, but absolutely brilliant. He admitted to reading The World as Will and Representation again and again as a soldier in World War I. He also used direct quotes from Schopenhauer on multiple occasions, like the Jew is the "great master of lying." Christianity and Schopenhauer's ideas pessimism and will are direct contradictions to everything about a Christian worldview. --Speaketh 13:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)
Look at that source: it says, "the claim becomes even less credible when Hilter could not spell the philosopher's name." Rob Smith 15:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Re: Hitler's sexuality and religion

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality and religion requires some sophistication in terms of historiography. Therefore, I suggest using the below framework:

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[11]

Here is a link to the Google book, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought: http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought&source=bl&ots=uFc1bbRwU9&sig=BwjV0u_94Zt0r6Hx-dHDTXHEzZM&hl=en&ei=8IXFTKu1AoaglAeX5eEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Hackett Fischer's 7 basic rules for determining the answers to historical questions:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants.

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic. conservative 09:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)


Fascism

I'm confused as why this article claims Hitler to be a socialist when he was a fascist. They are two different ideals one being right wing authoritarian and the other being a left wing economic policy. Quite different...

I suggest this be fixed as to not cause confusion.

Thanks --UofGuelphStudent 00:40, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Try reading National Socialism first. Karajou 00:45, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Or you could read this [12], if it's any easier. Direct quotes from the "paper-hanger" himself. Karajou 00:58, 27 May 2011 (EDT)
Hitler's socialism and fascism were not much different from the socialism and totalitarianism of communism. All are based on centralized control of society. Hitler (called a right-winger by the "left") was just as much a mass-murdered as the Communists.
Please, dear contributors, remember that murderers are liars. --Ed Poor Talk 16:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
Personal tools