Changes

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Path to power ==

== Path to power ==

:::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

:::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

::"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."

::"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."

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]]

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]]

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

:Okay. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:Okay. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

== Re: Hitler's sexuality ==

::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? [[User:VenkuTurMukan|VenkuTurMukan]] 14:33, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

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

"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. --[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:32, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

"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."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

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?--[[User:Speaketh|Speaketh]] (EDT)

:You make Hitler sound like an intellectual. You have a source for that?  [[User:RobSmith|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.  [[User:RobSmith|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. --[[User:Speaketh|Speaketh]] 13:10, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

::Look at that source: it says, "[http://books.google.com/books?id=VZY6CB_9IGAC&pg=PA104&lpg=PA104&dq=hitler%2Bschopenhauer&source=bl&ots=qURoWO_7J7&sig=MfTsTr1DEUL_2T-9bsVaumVZbSc&hl=en&ei=zI1BTvf5F8qmsQKyzoCzCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CD0Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=hitler%2Bschopenhauer&f=false the claim becomes even less credible when Hilter could not spell the philosopher's name]."  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 15:46, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Here is a link to the Google book: http://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=david+hackett+fischer+rules&source=bl&ots=JpHknfCTV_&sig=nEUWXR5PQQ11VkzkyLVKtFA2a2Q&hl=en&ei=TITFTIbaAoOdlgeGx5X_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

== Re: Hitler's sexuality and religion ==

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality and religion requires some sophistication in terms of [http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html historiography].  Therefore, I suggest using the below framework:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality 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."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

"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."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

Here is a link to the Google book: http://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=david+hackett+fischer+rules&source=bl&ots=JpHknfCTV_&sig=nEUWXR5PQQ11VkzkyLVKtFA2a2Q&hl=en&ei=TITFTIbaAoOdlgeGx5X_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

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:

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

(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.

(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.  

(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.

(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.

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

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic.  [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:23, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

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

 

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

== '''Fascism''' ==

"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."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

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...

Here is a link to the Google book: http://books.google.com/books?id=VIvNG8Ect6gC&pg=PR17&lpg=PR17&dq=david+hackett+fischer+rules&source=bl&ots=JpHknfCTV_&sig=nEUWXR5PQQ11VkzkyLVKtFA2a2Q&hl=en&ei=TITFTIbaAoOdlgeGx5X_CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CCcQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

I suggest this be fixed as to not cause confusion.  

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

--[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:40, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

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

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

:Or you could read this [http://www.individualism.com/?p=310], if it's any easier.  Direct quotes from the "paper-hanger" himself. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:58, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

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

: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.

(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.

:Please, dear contributors, remember that murderers are liars. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 16:29, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

== Suggestion for formatting of page. ==

 

(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.

The first top 5 paragraphs should be reorganized into specific sections. It is usually a preferable format to have a single paragraph in an introduction, which leads into the menu, and then the rest of the page. [[User:Humanperson|Humanperson]] ([[User talk:Humanperson|talk]]) 18:20, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

:Actually, up to four paragraphs in a lede is acceptable for an article, especially one such as this. I do agree it could use some copy edit work. --[[User:JohnJustice|JohnJustice]] ([[User talk:JohnJustice|talk]]) 21:54, 19 September 2015 (EDT)

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:23, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

Hitler didn't live that long after the 1944 assassination attempt. I doubt a 57 year old man could have recovered fully from tbe injuries he recieved to continue abusing drugs "long after". Besides, there is evidence and statements from aides Hitler recieve methamphetamine injuctions from a Dr. Feelgood (I forget his name) throughout the War. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]^{[[User talk:RobSmith|Make Exxon Great Again]]} 18:06, 21 January 2017 (EST)

::::It really is a great movie. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 23:15, 21 January 2017 (EST)