Difference between revisions of "Talk:Adolf Hitler"

Revision as of 01:44, March 19, 2007

Improvement Proposals

Due to vandalism, please post improvement proposals here.

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)

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)

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)

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.)

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)

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)

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)