Talk:Adolf Hitler

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cracker (talk | contribs) at 01:25, March 24, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Improvement Proposals

  • Due to vandalism, please post MAJOR improvement proposals here, in this section. Page is now unlocked for registered users.

I don't think "liberal" is a word most people would use in describing Adolph Hitler. --Dave3172 00:12, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Going by Conservapedia's definition of "liberal", for example the points about gun control, same-sex marriage, amnesty for illegal aliens, foreign treaties, increased power for labor unions, etc., I think we can all agree that Adolf Hitler was undeniabley liberal in every way that matters.
--Tooner440 01:09, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I don't mean to rain on your parade, but most of your claims are either partially or entirely wrong. Hitler did not promote same-sex marriage; in fact, the Nazis made an attempt to exterminate homosexuality[1][2][3][4][5][6]. So, we can remove that point from your argument. As for the others, we all know that the Nazi immigration policies were entirely race-based; they may've been friendly towards "Aryans," but not so towards anyone else, so I'm confused as to where the unsourced, blanket claim that they provided "amnesty for illegal aliens" comes from; at best, that's partially (significantly so) incorrect. The claim that Hitler was friendly towards labor unions is a mistake, though I think I know how (through faulty reading) you arrived at that conclusion; while Hitler pandered to labor while a powerless politician, when he gained power, he actually abolished all labor unions except the German Labor Front, a wing of the Nazi Party (this being a Fascist, not "liberal" move, and one designed to ingratiate him with industry)[7][8]. Finally, it should be noted that the Weimar Republic passed the first gun control laws in 1928[9]; this certainly doesn't mean that Hitler was (or wasn't) a fan of gun control, but it really leaves you, I would say, grasping at straws to say he was in any way a "liberal."
-- S. Ugarte 22:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Gun control is a phenomena of any dictatorship, regardless of political bent. Treaties have been signed by leaders on the left and right alike; they're not a "liberal" invention. And I'd hardly call beginning a continent-wide war and the attempted extermination of an entire people "liberal" qualities. The word is pointless here.--Dave3172 01:15, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Its certainly not pointless! Just because Hiltler was evil that means he can't be called liberal? He above all other examples shows what liberalism takem to its extreme can do!!! -- Earth6000 23:45, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Hitler had a liberal stance on same sex marriage? And amnesty for illegal aliens? Goodness. I'm more galled, though, by the "in every way that matters". Sure, mass genocide isn't a terribly liberal idea, but hey, look at the big picture! The man banned handguns! Rjohnson 07:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Um aren't you forgetting the stuff he's famous for? For example, mass genocide? I think his views on marriage pale into insigificance! Kahlua bridge

Also is there any research that shows Hiltler was possessed by satan or some sort of demon? I want to include that possibility in the article but I don't have a good source yet. Can anyone help? -- Earth6000 23:48, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Unfortunately you can't explain someone's actions by 'possession'. If we're going to understand how a whole country could follow a man's actions that led to the extermination of 6million Jews we have to kind of think beyond 'it was a demon wot did it'. Kahlua bridge 14:10, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

How can there be research showing Hitler was possessed by Satan or a "demon"? Regardless of whether this "research" exists, by Commandment 1 everything here has to be "true or verifiable". The existance of God, Satan or "demons" is faith-based, i.e. it is not possible to prove by a scientific method and has no place in an encyclopedia. This is not to dispute the veracity of these claims, I just do not see how something can be "verifiable" if we are talking about a matter of faith. You can believe it and it may well be true but to include it here is not readdressing Wikipedia-based bias, it's just plain wrong. --dropkickmejesus 11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)


A liberal? I doubt it. A totalitarian fascist dictator would be a more accurate description. A left wing or right wing view of his politics is irrelevant to the fact that he was responsible for the deaths of millions of people - something which surely all people from all sides of the political spectrum find horrifying.

Politics is a grid, not a line. Liberals are "Government controls economy, leaves morality alone", Conservative is "Government grows morality, leaves economy alone", Libertarianism is "Government leaves morality and economy alone", and Fascism is "Government controls economy and morality". Hitler was a fascist. Of course, the real world has millions of political ideologies, but cut it down to the broad four, and Hitler was clearly a fascist. Trying to fit people, especially people with extreme viewpoints, into an either-or political equation is folly. -Momoka (I appear to be having issues signing my name. Fah.)

RobS and Order playing ping pong on German history

Adolf Hitler was not a liberal, not even by the list positions that define liberal. He neuterd gays, killed trade unionists, gave mothers who had more than 4, 6 and 8 kids a medal of honour (rank 3 to 1), implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities, madeit illegal for women to pursue a professorship, he killed and starved foreigners, broke disarments treaties and increased military spending. This just show that you don't have to be liberal to be evil. -- Order 13 March 2007, 22:22 (AEST)
implemented a maximun of 10% for female students at universities
How about "implemented a sex based quota for female students at universities"? RobS
I guess you just want to mock this site, don't you. --Order 18 March 2007, 12:00 (AEST)
Let's be clear and unambiguous as to what we are talking about. RobS 21:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Calling a 10% cap a quota is just plain wrong. They are different things. But since I assume that you know this, I conclude that you just want to slip in some outrageous claims, to make Conservaedia look like a project of a bunch of ignorants. It's called subtle vandalism. --Order 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
Is this the definition, Liberal = good guy, non-liberal = bad guy? RobS 16:37, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
No, look at the article on Liberal how conservapedia defines it. And there you find that liberal is defined as pro-gay, pro trade-union, pro-affirmative action, pro-gender equality, pro-foreign immigration, pro-disarmament, anti-militaristic. And he was obviously none of it. -- Order 18 March 2007, 10:22 (AEST)
Another article that needs improvement, it is after all, a work in progress. RobS 21:21, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Do you suggest to change the definition of liberal, such that it also includes fascist dictators? I am puzzled at your eagerness to cast history of the 3rd Reich in terms of current US politics. Either its just a trap to provoke people to say something stupid, or you are just fairly naive about the nature of third Reich.--Order 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
Actually I was just reading some of Hitler's enlightened reasoning. Seems his Socialist background gave us this piece of wisdom:
"Science cannot lie, for it's always striving, according to the momentary state of knowledge to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does 10 in good faith. It's Christianity that's the liar. RobS 21:53, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
First, science and socialism are not the same. Edward Teller e.g. was a great scientist, but certainly no socialist. That Hitler was critical of organized religion, and especially of Christianity is no secret, especially the peaceful variant of it. But for any anti-christian quote you can find, there exists dozens of theistic quotes of him, as well. Is it so hard to understand that Hitler doesn't fit well in your limited liberal vs conservative, christian vs atheist world view that define current US politics.--Order 18 March 2007, 12:40 (AEST)
(a) Science and "enlightened, rational" thinking, from which Socialism was born, certainly does need to be discussed here. (b) Yes, Hitler claimed Providence ordained him to his mission; however I think we can safely conclude his god was not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. (c) What limited view? Let me state emphatically, I reject the Left/Right Political Spectrum Theory. And like any theory, it is lacking in facts. RobS 23:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
(a) Just because socialism was one of the outcomes of the enlightenment, it is not the only one. The American constitution for example is another. You give, probably unwilling, to much credit to socialism. Socialism pretended to be scientific, but that doesn't means that it was scientific, and certainly not that science is socialist.
(b) There are also many quote where he refers to the Christian God. Its not the Abrahamic God's fault that he was claimed by Hitler, nor is it your fault, if you follow the same God. Hilter also claimed Martin Luther, and many others. Just because Hitlers view of the Christian God doesn't coincide with yours, doesn't mean that he is a socialist (which again is something different from being a liberal).
(c) Indeed. --Order 18 March 2007, 15:00 (AEST)
(b)(cont)-- Hitler didn't claim any God that I know, other than himself. The divisions in Germany are not traditionally East-West; it is North-South, Lutheran-Catholic. Hitler was from a Southern German state, Austria. And the majority anti-Catholic Lutherans til this day in Germany view Hilter & Nazism as what may happen when (secularized) catholics get in control.
Austria wasn't a state of Germany, until Hitler's Anschluss. An it isn't a state now. And indeed there is a north-south divide, but hat doesn't coincide with the Catholic-Lutheran divide, which is more a North-West South-East divide, not even that would be correst. Westphalia has, and especially in the Weimar Republic one of the centers of political catholicism. And Adenauer, the first Chancellor after the war was Catholic, and not from the South either. The majority of Germans view Hitler an Nazism as what can happen if an ideology gets into control. Also the Lutherans. Ask some Germans.--Order 18 March 2007, 17:00 (AEST)
You're using "state" it appears in the Anglo-Amrerican sense; Austria & Bavaria (Switzerland too) are southern German predominately Catholic states--more precisley Austria & Switzerland are predominatly Catholic nation-states, whereas Bavaria is a predominately Catholic state of the Federal Republic. All three states, together with the north German "Lander", share a common German culture. But the religious wars between Catholic and Lutheran are still deeply engrained in German concsiousness, trust me, even among Germans in the United States three generations removed from their immigrant great grandparants.
  • Given that this site has a US roots, it is only natural to use state for part of a federal republic. Especially, if you talk about Bavaria, which is a state, and Austria, which is a country. Switzerland is a separate category altogether, even though it has a German speaking majority, it was never a "German" state or country, it is just a German speaking country. Austria indeed considered it self a German country, and considered in the 18 hundreds to join Germany. And also after WW 1, there voices in Austria that it should join Germany.
  • The religious wars are something different again. You kind of forget about the Rhineland and Westphalia, very catholic areas. Especially in the Weimar Republic, when the Zentrum party, who was in government most of the time, was catholic and not southern German, but with a strong base in the Rhineland and around. --User:Order
Fine, but don't expect Germans to think of themselves in the same way you think of them. Blacfkforest too; most of the states that border Catholic France are Catholic too.
Sure I don't expect them to think of themselves as I do. Afterall, there are 80 million Germans, other than me. Rhineland-Westpahlia, the biggest state even though it does not border France, is predominantly Catholic, too. --User:Order
Let me make an obeservation that shouldn't be too hard to figure out: of the nation-states of Europe, Germany is the most like American society. England is 90% Protestant with a State run Religion (i.e. no separation of Church and States); France & Poland are 97%+ Catholic, one highly secularized, the other not. Italy & Spain, virtually uniformly Catholic, whereas the Scandanavian and Low Countries are heavily Protestant. Germany, liket he US, is roughly 60/40 Protestant/Catholic, with the large Catholic minoroities constituting the single largest denomination in both countries. And the Protestant majorities are divided up among dozens of denominations. This is a big part of the unique relationship between germany and the United States. RobS 20:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
The Netherlands is by that account even more similar to the US than Germany. They even have a bible belt, something Germany hasn't. But what point do you try to make? --User:Order
Albert Speer has pointed out, the real hard core racist Nazi's like Hitler and Eichmann came from the former territories of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where Germans were a minority for a very longtime and held positions of privilege among people they looked down upon. With the collapse of their privileges in 1919 many left the former Austria-Hungry to reside within the territory of the old German Empire, and blamed the Jews for the collapse of both. But the racist attitudes were always a tuff sell among the Protestant North, which being secularized, embraced many Socialist doctrines. Even today, Angela Merkel, daughter of a Lutheran preacher who family was persecuted under the Communist East, embraces "market socialism", whatever that means. RobS 10:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • There were also core Nazis from Prussia. You might want to look at the election maps from that time.
  • Also to say that Germans were a minority in Austria-Hungary is a bit a funny view. Austria-Hungary was a patchwork of nations, and the German nation of Austria was the dominating one. Its like saying that the English were an oppressed minority in the British empire. And after the end of the Austrian-Hungarian empire, Austria just remained Austrian. Austria is within the bounds of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.
  • The racist attitudes were not to much a touch sell among Lutherans, mainly because Luther himself said very nasty things about the Jews. The a large part of the Lutherans, who later formed the "German Church", who were supporters of most that the Nazis did.
  • Angela Merkel is not supporting market socialism. What she supports is "soziale Marktwirtschaft", social market economy. And this has been the doctrine in the Federal Republic, ever since Erhard was minister of economy in the 50s.
  • It seems that 3rd generation German immigrants have sometimes a funny recollection of events and German culture. You got for example Octoberfests in to celebrate German heritage. The Oktoberfest is however a decidedly Bavarian event, and most German immigrants to the US will never have been at any "Oktoberfest". However their offspring does celebarte it. The most important fests in other parts of Germany are "Schuetzenfest", or "Kirmes", or "Karneval". --User:Order
Let's not confuse Prussian Officers with Nazi Party members, despite all the Hollywood garbage we've all been subjected to. Germans in Austria-Hungary were about 10 or 11% and mostly held all the Civil Service positions; Hitler's dad was a Customers Inspector. I know Lutherans who reject anti-Semitism casue they feel it's something Catholics would do. RobS 23:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Who was talking about Prussian Officers? I was talking about Prussians, as in inhabitant of the then biggest state in Germany. As in: inhabitant of e.g. Braunschweig or Wilhelmshaven, two hotbeds of Nazi support. Cities in then Prussia.
  • Surely there were Lutheran opposing in Hitler, see the "Bekennende Kirche" (Confessing Church), but you had the more numerous group of "Deutsche Christen". If there are Lutherans who blame it on the Catholics, then these probably try to close their eyes that Lutherans were as guilty of cooperating with Hitler, as was the Vatican.


On another note, it's interesting to comtemplate how socially progressive Germany elected a Catholic three decades before America ever did. RobS 01:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
30 years after Georg von Hertling, that would be Truman. Or 30 years after Fehrenbach. That would be eihter Truman or Eisenhower? --Order 19 March, 17:30 AEST

Fire in the Reichstag

This page is protected so you will have to edit it yourself. The circumstances of the fire in the Reichstag are still contested. Its not clear if the Nazis put it on fire themself or if Maarten van der Lubbe actually did it as the Nazis claimed. However the fire gave Hitler the opportunity to obtain dictatorial powers by an emergency law. You might want to say that this ended the Weimar Republic. But Hitler was already Chancellor at that point, and he wasn't president, yet. The statement that he put the Reichstag on fire to end the republic is way too simplistic. You either remove it, or give more background. Namely, that Hitler was already appointed chancellor, that the fire led to emergency laws which effectively made an end to parliamentary democracy, and that he later, when president Hindenburg died, also assumed the powers of the president. But the statement, as it is now, is simplistic can better be removed. --Order 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

Utilizing is a bit better than starting. What about exploiting? --Order 17:30, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
okay Geo. 02:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Looks good to me. --Order 17:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)
The definitive account of the Riechstag Fire is [10] To the Bitter End: An Insider's Account of the Plot to Kill Hitler, 1933-1944 by Hans Gisevius. RobS 22:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dutch hatred

I lived in the Netherlands for a substantial amount of time, and I know that the Dutch are not too fond of this guy. But this doesn't justify a subsection on "Dutch hatred". Hitler didn't care much about the Dutch, and the Dutch attitude towards him was probably one of his minor problems. there is no point to have a special section on the relationship with the Dutch. --Order 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

Well duh, the Dutch are Baptists pretty much,and Hitler & Nazism came from the Catholic territories of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Just as I said, Nazi racism was always a tuff sell in the north. (And yes, some do consider Nederland a German state, albeit somewhat Anglicized, also).
  • Well duh, the Dutch are Calvinists, or Dutch reformed, with a huge Catholic minority (40% in the 1970s before secularization set in, 31% percent now.)
  • Indeed you said repeatedly that Nazis were a though sell in the North, but that doesn't mean that it was true. They were popular for example popular in Schleswig Holstein, the Nothernmost part of Germany. In 1932, one year before Hitler came to power, Hitler won 52% of the votes in this state (vs 37% at the national level). Or the county of Gifhorn, in the Hanover area: 68% for Hitler, one year before he came to power. That's why I told you to take a look on the map. Still, Hitler didn't do as well in Prussia than in other states. And you know why? Because he did poor in the Catholic parts of Prussia. Do some research, rather than listen to anecdotal evidence from people you happen to know.
That definition of the Netherlands might do it well in a sports bar, where people are confuse "Dutch" and "Deutsch", but other than that it just nonsense. Sure the Netherlands used to be part of the Holy Roman Empire in the middle ages, but ever since their independence from Spain, they have been a separate entity with their own identity. --Order 16:30, 20 March 2007 (AEST)

Sozis

Sozis is just the German slang for social democrats. It doesn't belong in this article. The name of the party is SPD. And they were different from socialist and communists, who were represented by another party. Furthermore, Hitler was candidate for chancellor before that election, since he was the undisputed head of his party for years. There was nothing like a primary. And he didn't become Chancellor through an election, but he was appointed, about five week before that election. He then used these five weeks to pass an emergency law after the Reichtags fire. This law gave him the opportunity to imprison many opponents. The 1933 election cannot be considered as an open and fair election, anymore. The last fair election was 1932, when his party was backed by 33% of the electorate. --Order 16:50, 15 March 2007 (AEST)

Locked article version

This article is truly one of the worst at Conservapedia (not that Adolf deserves better). I counted no fewer than 16 errors in the current locked version, and many other statements that are distortions or oversimplifications of historical record. Particularly because AH was such a horrible person, it seems to me that an accurate article on him would be important here, but what we have is a 5th grade book report for history class. Boethius 22:54, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Rant in final solution.

The statement in the section final solution about what Lucy Dawidowicz thinks about it is complete pointless. Its noting more than a red herring. --Order 19 March 14:00 (AEST)

Dawidowicz isn't qualified? and the Simon Wiesenthal Center who quotes her is suspect? RobS 23:14, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't say that she wasn't qualified. But in a two sentence summary of the final solution, Lucy Dawidowicz opnion has no significance. If you would write a 10 volume histroy of the holocaust, you might want to spend a page on her and her opinons. You just put it here to discretit the Wiesenthal center, or make some other vague point, but not to tell people anything they need to know about the final solution. --Order 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
The mainspace reads, responsible for the deaths of millions of Jews, many disabled persons, and homosexuals. This cite, [11] which hasn't been fully qualified, states, "100,000 were arrested and 50,000 were serving prison terms... deaths of at least an estimated 15,000 ..." and gives a breakout in statisitcs * 10,000–25,000 homosexual men". I am inclined to believe this may be a valid citation. So the idea that millions of homosexuals were exterminated simply is lacking evidence.
Nobody claims that there were millions of homosexuals killed. You are simply putting up a strawman. --Order 19 March 14:00 (AEST)
  • My God! Are you implying the mass genocide was over-stated? --[[TK|TerryK<sup>([[User talk:TK|contact me]])</sup>]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Yesterday someone said "homsexuals at the same rate as Jews", this would mean something like 2 1/2 to 4 million homosexuals, because they were homosexual, in addition to all other races, groups, and classifications. Clearly a distortion -- and a pattern -- to create the aura of victimization for recruiting into contemporary identity politics. RobS 00:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Thats an issue of the person who said that yesterday. --Order 19 March 14:00
Then, I hope we can see the end of this attempted recruitment into contemporary identity politics with these distortions and exaggerations that some editors are working tirelessly to insert into several articles. RobS 23:33, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • If you can unlock these items on a person by person basis, I did a paper in college on this topic, and would be happy to take a stab at it.--[[TK|TerryK<sup>([[User talk:TK|contact me]])</sup>]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
I didn't lock it but I'll look into it. RobS 00:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, now no worry, as I can unlock it, lol. Anyway, I don't know if we can leave it open, as I have reviewed some of the old edits...nasty business it is. Imagine old Adolf must be laughing he is causing such a ruckus 65 years past his death! --TK 03:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes there are some problems. Wikipedia does have at least two good articles, and this is one of them, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism . The "Final Solution to the Jewish Question in Europe" does not refer to the "Final Solution to the Jewish, Gay, Gypsy, Jehovah Witness and others Question in Europe". I will make the correction right here and now. Hitler's intent, as the school of Intentionalism refers to, was to eradicate European Jews. Yes, indeed, others were systematically persecuted, rounded up, suffered, and murdered. But as to discussing the Holocaust, or Final Solution (and the appropriate subhead as well), let's not downplay it that Hitler intended to exterminate Jews.

The Minutes to the Wannsee Conference, where the Final Solution (or Holocaust) was planned, does not make any reference to homosexuals or other groups. So the issue of non-Jews must be dealt with in this article. However, what exists on the mainspace at this moment is clearly non-factual information. RobS 00:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Perhaps everyone is just getting too picky and technical? The point is, the bottom line is, anyone Herr Hitler took a dislike to was shipped off to the camps. Catholics, Lutherans, homosexuals, Jews, even the wine grower whose wine Eva or Himmler didn't care for, anyone and everyone who displeased someone in the Nazi upper echelons, was fair game. Hitler was charismatic in the same way Jim Jones was, and many, many others.....all were a cult unto themselves, a personality cult, run amok. I don't think we need to create issues where there are none, nor necessarily look for hidden meanings in quoting numbers. As a Christian, it makes me just as sick if one homosexual, Jew, Lutheran,or Catholic was gassed or worked to death, or if it was 100,000. No matter if they had accepted Jesus Christ or not, The Lord has commanded me to love them all, the same as if my own true brother, and judge them not, least the Lord judge me here and now, and strike me down hard, and that I shall (and everyone else should as well) endeavor to do. Certainly an article need not be exacting in numbers to convey to all the true Evil that he was. That is all we need do. --TK 03:51, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
No one denies any of this. But I'd encourage some understanding of Dawidowicz and the Intentionalist school. To say the Final Solution, or more properly the Holocaust was not primarily intended to eradicate the Jews of Europe is not picky and technical--indeed denying that can be considered Holocasut denial. Let's nip this in bud right here.
Yes, all "undesirables" and "asocials" were targets for enslavement and ultimately extermination, too. Let's write a clean historical record, and keep out efforts to build DNC coalition politics with false claims that alleged right-wingers and fascists, Republicans and nazis' all today are targeting the same victimized groups for extermination. That is precisely the kind of garbage that is rapidly destroying Wikipedia's credibility, and why sites like this have come into existence. RobS 10:21, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Well, hopefully you will find the changes on the page are more on target, focusing on who Hitler was......which, I think, is the whole point of a page labled with his name. ;-) --~ Terry Talk2Me! 10:27, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Help

The current version has so many factual errors, I give up fixing it. Has somebody any suggestion to get this right. --Order 19 March 18:00

  • I have done some inital changes, and have re-locked the page. I intend to re-order and perhaps change the titles of some of the secondary headers, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then we can see about opening it, allowing editing. I want to get some input from those of you posting here, and A.S. This just might be one of a few pages that might need to be kept locked, due to the passions it brings out. If you have ideas or contributions you think might help, please post them in a new header, and we can talk about it. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 09:50, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Plagarism

The paragraphs before the Contents box is almost a word-for-word reprint of Elie Wiesel's essay on Hitler for Time Magazine in 1998. It needs to be pulled ASAP or properly sourced, if it can be.--Dave3172 20:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

do you have link? RobS 20:52, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Sure. [12] --Dave3172 20:54, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • The citation was lost in constant editing, but the proper way to handle these things is to simply add the citation, or contact the Sysop who made the changes, either on their talk page, or via IM, Dave3172, FYI. There isn't anything, that isn't lewd vandilism, that requires imediate (read as instant) action, is there?--~ Terry Talk2Me! 22:32, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, it looked like someone took Wiesel's essay and then added a couple of lines to make it look as if it was original. That's why I said it should be removed, or cited if possible.--Dave3172 23:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, I understood what you said Dave. However since you stated where it was from, I was confused as to your comment "it should be sourced, if it can be", since you stated right here the source! Sorry for the lapse in not checking and making sure the attribution was there. Now, after all this, do you find the page more on target than it was before? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, I do. Although it looks like a bit of an info dump, it is sourced. My hesitancy was that in its original form, it looked like someone took Wiesel's essay and added stuff into it, hence my hesitancy in wondering if it could be sourced. --Dave3172 07:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
  • So, since other information, sourced, was woven in and out, and you knew, instantly recognized, the source as Elie Wiesel's essay on Hitler for Time Magazine, you still went and made the headline here calling it Plagiarism? You do know some of the sysops here would have warned you for that... lol. Since you hadn't managed to contribute anything nearly as concise, organized or on topic, what's your beef? I'm gonna drop this now, but like I said, in the future contact the person first, like a big boy, rather than running around saying someone is dishonest, okay? It's the Christian way. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 08:08, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, next time, if you're going to use a source, don't add stuff to it. You can't source an article if you've added other material to it - but it still counts as plagarism. And frankly, I wouldn't call a multi-paragraph info-dump "concise." The main reason I don't write major things here is b/c the issues surrounding copyright here haven't been resolved. Trust me, if that is resolved I'll add a lot more. That said, in the future I will try to contact the individual in question first. --Dave3172 09:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I have been editing, writing for over twenty years, and I haven't the foggiest notion of what you mean by "Info Dump". This isn't supposed to be the Readers Digest. And yes, I can cite sources, with quotations, and interweave other material, in following paragraphs. What isn't you don't comprehend, about my posting here I was working on the page? Is there a time limit, set in your own mind, that I have exceeded? I see lots of back-seat drivers, and plenty of people willing to argue on the talk pages, and darn little constructive ideas offered.........--~ Terry Talk2Me! 09:52, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Beer hall incident

This entry is just unreal. Sure Hitler and Ludendorf planned the coup in a Beer Hall, but weren't caught when planning, but during the actual coup attempt. And a lot of people got wounded and survived armed confrontation in the streets of Munich. Order 20 March (11:40 AEST)

As I recall, only Hitler & Ludendorf survived of the all the Party members walking down a narrow street with arms locked. Hitler & Ludendorf stood next to each other in the middle of the first rank. What this means is when the order was given by machine gunners atop the parliament building, they were ordered to shoot everyone but Hitler and Ludendorf.
At the time Hitler was a relative unknown, but Ludendorf was a war hero, so they couldn't kill him. And Hitler surviving this close encounter with death (as also surviving WWI since he was at the front in the first 60 days of fighting) is what gave Hitler a popular mystique of being invincible, constantly survivng against all odds. This was revived after the July 20 plot. And ultimately in the end, Hitler took his own life. RobS 22:49, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you know some of the particular, why is you entry then so bad and misinfomred? Order 20 March (15:40 AEST)

Huh? RobS 01:11, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


Your latest, already improved entry reads:

Hitler joined Erich Ludendorff in Munich. Ludendorff was planning a revolt against the provincial governor in a small beer hall. In the ensuing fight with the Army, Hitler and Ludendorff were the only two who escaped being shot.

Compare this with what a British school project made of it [13].

You will notice

  • Your small beer hall had room for 3000 Bavarian officials.
  • It was a prime minister of a state, not a governor of a province.
  • The shooting took place the other day.
  • No mention of tripping.
  • Goering survived. A third person surviving?
  • Ludendorff didn't escape.
  • Hitler was caught a few days later.

And what even they fail to mention, is that the Bavarian PM did only pretend to collaborate, because that night he made an Radio announcement denying any support. At least 7 factual errors in 3 sentences. An achievement. Order 20 March (16:50 AEST)

Faulty information

These three entries,

  • German Wortkers Party, an anti-Semitic, nationalist group.
  • Hitler escaped being shot, because he tripped and fell right before soldiers opened fire.
  • In 1937, a fire occurred in the Reichstag building

all probably need a little closer scrutiny. RobS 22:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

    • Rob, you are a Sysop...you can unlock the page and add the foot notes as well as any of us. I added the citation to the fire commentary, how many would you think are needed? Just let me know, or add your own. No one, especially me, took ownership of this page, other than my attempt to focus the article not on minute trivia, but on the man whose name heads the page. I will repeat once again, it is far easier to just use direct contact about these things. It stave's off "misunderstands" as to ones intent. ;-) ..--~ Terry Talk2Me! 22:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
You mean IM? I still haven't figured out how to use gmail's IM. RobS 23:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Not really; I work out of a library here so I don't think I can install it permanently. RobS 23:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, that is why I gave you the link. The web-based IM client doesn't require any install. Oh well, it was just a thought, since you just seem to involved and busy here. I thought since I will be revising and checking several hundred articles, it would be a better way to keep you in the loop. But then, since you are checking most of the site everyday, it might not be a problem.....--~ Terry Talk2Me! 01:30, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

1933 Election

This should be cleaned up to show that Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg in January of 1933 at the insistence of von Papen and others since the Nazis were a minority. Then in March, after the Reichstag Fire, Hitler called another election where the Nazis and DNVP achieved a majority. He didn't really "stand" for election to Chancellor - he had already assumed the office prior to the second election. --Dave3172 11:44, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"Criticism" Section

Shouldn't there be a "criticism" section added, for consistency's sake? --PF Fox 15:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Where? On the main page? Or here, in Talk? --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 18:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Roehm and Hitler

Ernst Roehm is an interesting figure in the rise of the Nazi. If we want to discuss him, I would suggest to do it when we get to the Roehm putsch, which happend when the Nazi where in power. In a move to consolidate his power Hitler had the entire top of the SA executed, among them Rhoem, leader of the SA, and a close friend of Hitler. Order 24 March, 11:00 (AEST)

Having a Landsberg section is to much. It was important, but not important enough to justify a subsection. The most important bit about it that he wrote Mein Kampf there. No it just looks that you want to slip in the unrelated facto that Hitler had a openly gay supporter (although he wasn't openly gay, it was a widely known secret, used in the onset to the Roehm putsch). Roehm, and his orientation are important when we get to describe how Hitler consolidated his power, after he came to power. Order 24 March, 11:00 (AEST)
The business about Rohm is extremely important, for this very reason--because of all the misinformation out there about Nazism & gays. RobS 20:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Roehm being gay, I agree with Order. However, I do question the direction the material is taking. This page is about Adolf Hitler, while most of the additions have to do with WW II, or perhaps should be on a page titled "Nazi Germany" or added to the "Germany" page as history. I don't think we can make some intellectual argument that the entire history of the Nazi Party should fall under Hitler's personal page, nor should the history of WWII. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This is all going to be important material to this article. Walter Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler, 1972 cites Hermann Rauschning, who "reports that he has met two boys who claimed that they were Hitler's homosexual partners, but their testimony can hardly be taken at face value. More condemning," adds Langer, "would be the remarks dropped by [Albert] Foerster, the Danzig gauleiter, in conversation with Rauschning. Even here, however, the remarks deal only with Hitler's impotence as far as heterosexual relationships go, without actually implying that he indulges in homosexuality. It is probably true that Hitler calls Foerster 'Bubi,' which is a common nickname employed by homosexuals in addressing their partners. This alone is not adequate proof that he has actually indulged in homosexual practices with Foerster, who is known to be a homosexual" (Langer:178). However, writes Langer, "Even today, Hitler derives sexual pleasure from looking at men's bodies and associating with homosexuals" (Langer:179). Too, Hitler's greatest hero was Frederick the Great, a well-known homosexual (Garde:44). [14]

But there's even much better sources than these. RobS 20:45, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


  • TerryK, Roehm is interesting in relation to Hitler, when it comes to the Roehm putsch. Because it shows that Hitler was so eager for power, that he even had close friends executed. In the Beer Hall Putsch it is just at its wrong place. But RobS really want's to put his statement that Hitler was friends with a gay (woohoo), and he can't wait for the appropiate place. Order 20:34, 23 March 2007
I agree. It is too easy when dealing with major historical figures to try and cram every event that occured on their watch into their page. But the Night of the Long Knives was critical to Hitler's rise to power. And since Rohm' sexuality was critical to its initiation, it does deserve a mention in relation to that event.--Dave3172 20:49, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
"While Adolf Hitler is today recognized as the central figure of Nazism, he was a less important player when the Nazi machine was first assembled. Its first leader was Ernst Roehm. Homosexual historian Frank Rector writes that "Hitler was, to a substantial extent, Roehm's protegé" (Rector:80). Roehm had been a captain in the German army. Hitler had been a mere corporal. After World War I, Roehm was highly placed in the underground nationalist movement that plotted to overthrow the Weimar government and worked to subvert it through assassinations and terrorism. In The Order of the Death's Head, author Heinz Hohne writes that Roehm met Hitler at a meeting of a socialist terrorist group called the Iron Fist and "saw in Hitler the demagogue he required to mobilize mass support for his secret army" (Hohne:20). Roehm, who had joined the German Worker's Party before Hitler, worked with him to take over the fledgling organization. With Roehm's backing, Hitler became the first president of the party in 1921 (ibid.:21) and changed its name to the National Socialist German Worker's Party. RobS 20:52, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
So you want conservapedia to become a place for homosexual history writing, rather than conventional history writing? Order 11:44, 24 March 2007
RobS Can you stop editing the main article. You don't like it when Hitlers gays friend is not mentioned, you don't like it, when it is properly put in context. You just want to have this litlle fact, and nothing more, that Roehm was gay in there. Why? Order 11:44, 24 March 2007
Indeed it is not a little fact, it is integral to what Hitler & Nazism is. RobS 21:08, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
A query here: are you, RobS, implying that Hitler, et al and Nazism were, at their heart, a homosexual cult? --Crackertalk 21:25, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • You two walk away, cool down, and leave it alone for a day. Don't make me call the teacher!! ROFLMFAO! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:12, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
The intial reference basically was cut and pasted from Wikipedia; now we see the problems with it. Other sources say Rohm was not Hitler's deputy, rather his boss, as early as 1921. The wiki enrtry says they met in 1923. It's been many, many years since I've directly dealt with this stuff, but I am intimately familiar with the primary sources, and will establish a definitive account. RobS 21:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What made Roehm critical to the early growth of the Nazis and the rise of Hitler was his connections to the Army. They controlled Bavaria and Roehm was able to use his influence to give Hitler and the Nazis a level of protection from the authorities. His being a homosexual was irrelevant at that point and time.--Dave3172 21:22, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Adolf_Hitler&oldid=61447"