Difference between revisions of "Talk:Adolf Hitler"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Improvement Proposals)
Line 25: Line 25:
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. --[[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]]  11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
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. --[[User:dropkickmejesus|dropkickmejesus]]  11:10, 13 March 2007 (GMT)
:I have heard this claim before.  It's based upon comparing Hitler's actions and writings to current understandings of what occurs when someone is demon possessed.  While I would agree it would be inappropiate to say that Hitler was demon possessed, to mention that it is suspected would be within bounds. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
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.
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.)
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.)
It seems to me it would be inappropriate to classify Hitler as a liberal or a conservative.  Those terms would not seem to adequately define the mark that he set for himself in history. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)
== RobS and Order playing ping pong on German history ==
== RobS and Order playing ping pong on German history ==

Revision as of 01:36, 8 May 2007

Improvement Proposals

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

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)

I have heard this claim before. It's based upon comparing Hitler's actions and writings to current understandings of what occurs when someone is demon possessed. While I would agree it would be inappropiate to say that Hitler was demon possessed, to mention that it is suspected would be within bounds. Learn together 03:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

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.)

It seems to me it would be inappropriate to classify Hitler as a liberal or a conservative. Those terms would not seem to adequately define the mark that he set for himself in history. Learn together 03:36, 8 May 2007 (EDT)

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 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)


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)


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)

Yep, on the main page -- just like it is in the piece on Pinochet, where his murder and torture of thousands is treated as an "oh, by the way..."--PF Fox 11:06, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Well, I can't see a reason to have a section to critique the rest of the pages content. That is why we have this Talk section. Please feel free to make your own sub-header here, for any comments on the content. --~ TerryK MyTalk 11:24, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

The purpose of the separate "criticism" sections in most articles seems to be to trivialize content unflattering to someone the conservapedian likes by moving it into a separate section. To get an idea of how it works, imagine having an article on Hitler that touts his anti-Communism, his measures against homosexuality, his anti-abortion plank, his amazing highway program, etc., then having a section marked "Criticism" which begins with "Hitler's opponents maintain that he murdered several million people..." --PF Fox 12:42, 24 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)
  • It doesn't serve the site well to become overly-obsessive with this stuff. It alienates people needlessly, causes lots of work for other Sysops and Andrew in mollifying people, etc. So I would suggest more, quite a bit more, tact not only from the users, but Sysops. We have a talk page to discuss and we should all be using it before making large changes to entries. I WILL REPEAT AGAIN, I am of the opinion that although many will differ, we cannot, should not, include material here, on a personal page about Adolf Hitler, things that would be more appropriate for WW II and the Nazi Party pages. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 21:29, 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)
On the contray, from the day this site opened efforts were being made in numerous articles to spread the idea of a "gay holocaust"; to balance widespread misinformation like that is precisely why this site exists. RobS 22:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • One indent will do fine, okay? I have a 24" wide screen, and you guys with your constant indents create a scroll bar on even my monitor! The constant inserting of information about who is Gay, and who isn't, means nothing to the article, unless one is trying to imply Hitler was Homosexual. If he was, say it, and give the citations. If you have no proof, say he was a friend of someone who was Gay, and leave it. No need to say "close, personal, confidant and friend" to insert the thought he might be Gay. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 22:24, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
As this article [15] states,
the homosexual dimension of Nazi history is overlooked ...From the Judeo-Christian cultural context, however, the rise of homosexuality necessarily represents the diminution of Biblical morality as a restraint on human passions. Consequently, where Judeo-Christian ideals decrease, violence and depravity increase. ... the Bible was no longer accepted as God's divine and inerrant guide, it could be ignored or reinterpreted. By the time the Nazis came to power, "Bible-believing" Christians, (the Confessing Church) were a small minority. ...The schools were heavily targeted in order to de-Christianize the young. Mandatory prayer in schools was stopped in 1935, and from 1941 onward, religious instruction was completely eliminated for all students over 14 years old (ibid.:494f). ...From the early years, leading Nazis openly attacked Christianity. Joseph Goebbels declared that "Christianity has infused our erotic attitudes with dishonesty" (Taylor:20). It is in this campaign against Judeo- Christian morality that we find the reason for the German people's acceptance of Nazism's most extreme atrocities. Their religious foundations had been systematically eroded over a period of decades ... As Poliakov notes, "[W]hen moral barriers collapsed under the impact of Nazi preaching...the same anti-Semitic movement that led to the slaughter of the Jews gave scope and license to an obscene revolt against God and the moral law. An open and implacable war was declared on the Christian tradition...[which unleashed] a frenzied and unavowed hatred of Christ and the Ten Commandments" (Poliakov:300). There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. As we have noted, the ideas for disposing of the Jews originated with Lanz von Leibenfels. The first years of terrorism against the Jews were carried out by the homosexuals of the SA. The first concentration camp, as well as the system for training its brutal guards, was the work of Ernst Roehm. The first pogrom, Kristallnacht, was orchestrated in 1938 by the homosexual Reinhard Heydrich. And it was the transvestite Goering who started the "evolution of the Final Solution...[with an] order to Heydrich (Jan. 24, 1939) concerning the solution of the Jewish question by 'emigration' and 'evacuation'" (Robinson:25). Still, despite their disproportionate role, homosexuals did not cause the Holocaust. They, along with so many others who had lost their moral bearings, were merely instruments in its enactment. The Holocaust must be blamed on the one whom the Bible compares to "a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour" (NKJ:I Peter 5:8)....Yet, while we cannot say that homosexuals caused the Holocaust, we must not ignore their central role in Nazism. To the myth of the "pink triangle"-the notion that all homosexuals in Nazi Germany were persecuted-we must respond with the reality of the "pink swastika."

Much of this material, and it's excellant sourcing, will find a convenient home in Conservapedia. RobS 15:57, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

  • You've lost me. Would you send me the series recap? I have never been into mini-series. --~ TerryK MyTalk 16:18, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
It's all there, with much of the sources. RobS 16:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Psssst....you need to explain. I have no idea of what it is you are wanting to do, or what it is you are supporting/fighting. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:05, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
All the material extracted above, it's sources, and other sources, will have it's proper place in all Nazi related articles in Conservapedia. That article is worth studying now, becuase most of its sources (and others) will be used later. As it says, There is no question that homosexuality figures prominently in the history of the Holocaust. RobS 17:28, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
So what you suggest is that Conservapedia is going to make the fringe position that the holocaust was a homosexual venture its own. Maybe you should discuss this with the other sysops first. I would be delighted if you could convice them that WW-2 was a homosexual endeavor, because it would then be obvious that this website is not to be taken seriously, that homeschooled kids in the US will grow up ignorant of actual history, and that I can spend my time more worthwhile than improving articles for Conservapedia. So, if you can get 3 other sysops to agree with you, feel free to make it an official Conservapedia position, this gay holocaust of yours.Order 25 March 8:30 (AEST)
  • Well, perhaps Rob. When you find another two or three scholarly sources for the material. Until then, it is merely a footnote worthy of no more than a mention, like all the Congressional and White House staffers, working for both Liberals and Conservatives, who were found to be Homosexual. Same for staffers and key aids for some of the most important evangelical ministers in America. Until I came here, I had never once heard anyone deny that many of the top Nazi's were Gay. It figures very prominently in the literature and even pornography. Pornography from the 1930's and 1940's. But to think the homo-erotic orientation of some German Nazi's had some broad policy implications, impacting on the Holocaust or Hitler's foreign policy, is nonsense. About as nonsensical as making that assumption about the Gays who worked for John Ashcroft when Governor of Missouri, or as Attorney General, or Ronald Reagan, or even on Billy Graham's staff. If we follow the path you are suggesting, then articles on noted religious leaders will be open to the same. I don't really think we want that, do we? --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:33, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
It exists in all the primary sources. Only recently has "the myth of the pink triangle"--to build DNC identity political coaltions arose in secondary and tertiary sources. This isn't a propaganda platform. Get used to, and roll up your sleves to research the original sources. RobS 18:44, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Ok, where in Churhills deposition on WW-2 does he promote the idea that WW-2 was a homosexual adventure? User:Order25 March, 8:50
Oh, I found a webpage arguing in favor of Churchill having homosexual connections himself. He was in on it. User:Order 25 March, 8:55
  • Obviously in your world, the words "cooperation" and "team work" have no meaning...your head is so in the books, you cannot recognize the broader implications of what you are proposing. :S --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:54, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Homosexuality ought not to be so prominent. It was a relatively minor portion of the Holocaust. MountainDew 18:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
This is about the homosexual roots of Nazism. It is necessary and factual in understanding how a complete society rejected traditional Judeo-Chritian morality and sanctioned wholesale genocide. Denying the fact that Nazism had its roots in a homosexual movement that regarded Christian teaching as a Jewish conspiracy designed to curtail their natural passions is itself a form of Holocaust denial. Moreso today, where we see the coordinated lie to paint American believers, Protestant and Catholic, as fascists, who allegedly wish to exterminate homosexuals. And we've seen efforts here on this very website already to promote exactly those falsehoods. RobS 20:45, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
If we would be busy to deal with you pushing fringe history in this article, we could go on an make some useful edits instead. Don't assume to know what we think about the holocaust, or what agenda we, the other editors, pursue. I doubt that anybody here wants to lie to the American public, but we all try to infrom them properly. And part of it is to inform them where the Nazis abused Christian teaching and imagery to push their ideas, and that there were decent Christians such as Niemöller or van Galen, who didn't buy this crap and spoke out, even risked their lives. Your obsession with gay roots is just plain negative. If the Nazi regime had such a simple cause it would never have flown an inch. Order 25 March 16:50 (AEST)
Hardly fringe and not a footnote. RobS 14:20, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The Herrenmensch was decidedly hetero. And lots of people died because if the Herrenmensch imagery. It was much more powerful that the pseudo-gay tendencies you spotted. Is it so difficult for you to understand that people can be evil, regardless of the sexual orientation. Why are you so obsessed with homosexuality as main cause? It just seems like you try to distance yourself from nazism by painitng them as homosexual cult. Why is it so hard to understand that you can distance yourself from nazism, because it is plain evil, homosexual or not. Order 26 March.
Truth is, it's not me obsessed with the homosexual stuff, it's those seeking to use this site as a forum to promote identity politics with a contemporary political agenda by deliberate distortions of fact that are obsessed with "homosexuality as the main cause". And what are they trying to achieve? Exactly this: the bald face lie that gays were the victim of "right-wing conservatives" who were predominately hetero-sexual, when in fact the moral depravity of the Nazi movement begins with persons who rejected God and consisted of many, many who embraced homosexuality. And those Nazi's who were heterosexual, for the most part, felt no moral qualms whatsoever about their society rejecting traditional conservative religion particularly in the area of an individuals choice of a "sexual identity". RobS 22:07, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Who promoted here identity politics? Count the time that you pushed your pink swastika, versus the time someone here pushed the pink triangle. Tell use where in the current article is the story told that they were hetero-sexual right-wing conservatives. You are the one who pharses everything in conservative versus liberal and terms of hetero versus homosexual.
  • Furthermore, you confuse your image of christainity with the Nazis image. They rejected your interpretation of Christianity (at least I guess that yours is incompatible) but they put in its place a distorted version of Christianity. They embrace so-called positive christianity whatever that may mean. And many, too many, Christian bought this crap, but fortunately not all of them.Order
  • Recap: here's the entry before this discussion began. [16] Obviously someone was promoting a myth of a gay holocaust with "millions" of victims; elsewhere in Conservapedia we had references to "at the same rate as Jews", etc. I beleive we have a workable solution now, so let's move forward.
Your recent contribs in the mainspace are very good. I would suggest, however, that we do begin using citations as to where some of this material is coming from. And as things progress, not just in this article, but in all Nazi related articles, the role of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, will also need closer scrutiny and discussion. Clearly many faith-based bible beleiving, conservative Christians were victimize, too, precisely for their uncompromising views. And yes, Christian-in-name-only types, including large denominations starting with the leadership at the top, were complicit, or at the very least negligent. This must be given fair treatment.
I didn't know how long the window of opportunity was for new edits. So I made a very quick and sketchy draft. Links will indeed have to follow.User:Oreder 27 March
Looks like we got our work cut out for us for the next few months. RobS 11:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, your so-called theory isn't new or unique. It has been argued, and rejected, by the community of scholars, decades ago. Aside from a few fringe articles, no historian of any standing has suggested that somehow homosexual stealth directed or minipulated the Nazi agenda. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:56, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry my friend, but I do not beleive you can provide a cite for what you just claimed above. RobS 21:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, how many articles or papers have you found to back up your assumptions? --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Assumptions? I haven't presented any assumptions. The one source we have reviewed thus far, Homosexuality and the Nazi Party by Scott Lively states,
"Our review of more than 200 history texts written since the 1930s suggests that a pink swastika is equally representative, if not more so."
I'm familiar with many, many of these texts. RobS 14:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You cherrypick the texts, sure. What about [17] which gives you some official documents showing the pink triangle part of history. But the important thing about the 3rd reich is, however terrible, the pink aspect is just insignificant in light of the other grave injustices that happened. Except for understanding the events surrounding the Roehm putsch. Order 26 March 2007 9:00 (AEST)

Langer Report

Look at this excerpt from the Langer's Report:

...during the early days of the Party many of the inner circle were well-known homosexuals. Roehm made no attempt to hide his homosexual activities and Hess was generally known as "Fraulein Anna". There were also many others, particularly in the early days of the movement, and it was supposed, for this reason, that Hitler, too, belonged to this category.
In view of Hitler's pretense at purity and the importance of his mission for building a Greater Germany, it is extraordinary that he should be so careless about his associates. He has never restricted them in any way except at the time of the Blood Purge in 1934 when his excuse was that he had to purge the party of these undesirable elements. At all other times, he has been liberal to a fault. Lochner reports:

"The only criterion for membership in the Party was that the applicant be 'Unconditionally obedient and faithfully devoted to me'. When someone asked if that applied to thieves and criminals, Hitler said, "Their private lives don't concern me." [18]-- RobS 21:38, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Just like the entire top of the Republican Party is liberal. Order 25 March, 16:30 (AEST)

  • The fact that Hitler was a drug abuser, and obviously was mentally impaired, had nothing to do with it? ROFL! --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:58, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
hmmm...let's see...abused drugs...rejected Christ...was liberal to a fault.....what people did in thier private lives was nobodies business....and this guys conservative, huh? RobS 22:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
You said a few time that you eject the notion of a one political spectrum with only conservatives and liberals. However, you always argue if liberal vs. conservative is the only thing that matters. Why is it so hard to understand that Hitler wasn't liberal, and that he wasn't conservative. He was fascistoid with his own ecclectic mix of opinions. Order 26 March 8:50 (AEST)
  • Who? Hitler? Who in the hell said that? ROFL! --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:37, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

You know it was Hillary that started the "what people do in thier private lives is nobodies business" appology for Bill; now we know who it can be cited to. RobS 22:50, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Death by association? Liberals would love to have this be a guiding principle of Conservapedia, because it always backfires on the one who uses it. Or didn't you try to introduce Nazi myths, such as the myth Hilter was the last man standing in the Beer Hall Putsch, into this article. --Order 25 March, 16:30 (AEST)

Myth? There are several versions of the event; the one that exists in the article now is challengeable. RobS 14:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
And none of the different versions coincides with your version of the article. But you didn't answer why you wanted to have the myth of a heroic Hitler in it? Order 26 March 8:45 (AEST)

Heroic? To understand why Hitler gained such a large and dedicated following, examining how Goebbels & the Ministry of Propaganda's created distorted perceptions among the public may be helpful.. Shouldn't be to difficult to notice since we a see many identical myth-making practices within Wikipedia. RobS 20:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

You explain it by discussing how the Nazis twisted the events in their favor, not by reiterating the distrotions. Order 26 March 8:45 (AEST)

I don't know that I explained anything. Often times there are no less than four tellings of an event--The Nazi version, the Soviet version, the Hollywood version, and the post-1945 German version. And one thing is absolutley certain, the Nazi version is no more definitive than the Hollywood, Soviet, or post-1945 German version. RobS 21:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I didn't mean you as in RobS but you as in conservapedia editors. We should reiterate myths but explain their distrotions. And you did reiterate amyth rhather than explain it. Order 26 March 14:45 (AEST)
  • By all means bring back Lynchings. Great PR move. --~ TerryK MyTalk 17:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Huh? What is that supposed to mean? RobS 18:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • You're a bright guy, figure it out.  ;-) Sometimes one needs to turn loose of fixations, and give time a chance to do its job of enlightenment. Your style is getting more like that of some other Sysop, which is a big change for you..... --~ TerryK MyTalk 18:31, 25 March 2007 (EDT)\
Not a good response, and the reference to "lynching" I take with offence. RobS 20:40, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Nevertheless, it was my response. I did not mean personal offense, and am sorry you took some. The insistence of being right, and everyone else wrong is not scholarly. The conclusions you have taken, and the leaps of logic you espouse, are not warranted by the little information out there, which is why your conclusion has been rejected by 90% of all historians and scholars who have spent lifetimes specializing in the study of Hitler and the Nazi's. I am not seeking confrontation with someone whose work I have come to admire. You can always email me, since you have it, rather than continue the Wiki dialog way, which I am not schooled in, nor comfortable with. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:05, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
You've said it twice, and offered no evidence for the conclusion. "conclusion has been rejected by 90% of all historians and scholars who have spent lifetimes specializing in the study of Hitler and the Nazi's." Count me among that number. In the later 80s I was focused on Soviet history. Since 1991 Islamic & Chinese subjects. Since the wiki era, however, I was asked to reaxamine Comintern activities & the Venona project, which has brough me back into those decades, the 1930s & 40s. And like riding a bicycle, it's no problem fro me to pick up Ernst Roehm once again 1919 or 1921. I know the character well. RobS 22:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I do not subscribe to the theory that Gay activists use to promote their cause. I do not subscribe to the theory that the Nazi's were advancing some homosexual plan to take vengeance. There is a most unscholarly trend these days to try and deconstruct history to knock the pillars out from things Liberals and Evolutionists use to support their modern day babble, and that is certainly one thing that alarms me. The motivations of each individual player in that sick tableau we commonly refer to as "the Nazi's" are many and varied. I still continue to believe that much of this material doesn't belong on this page. It more rightfully should be on the Nazi entry. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:36, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Let me be clear--I agree with that. I'm just saying let's put the material in where appropriate in all Nazi-related articles, deal with the real gay victims of Nazi's justly and fairly,and keep out the blatant distortions by propagandists serving a contemporary political agenda. RobS 23:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, I can totally agree with that. Some of your references seem a bit energetic in getting that point across, was, and is my only objection, dude. --~ TerryK MyTalk 22:23, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


Hi RobS. Why are you so keen to put something on Doenitz in it. This is a little factoid, but not really worth mentioning. Hitler felt betrayed by almost everybody, in particular by the German people as a whole. He famously said, that the German race had prove to be weaker than the Slavic race, and deserved to be wiped out. That's a sentiment. Hitlers feeling about the different parts of the armed forces are in comparison irrelevant. The entire Doenitz episode is nothing more than a footnote. The importsnt bit is that the armed forces uncondionally surrendered a few days later.User:Order 5 April, 1:20 (AEST)

I agree totally. But when I tried to clarify Doenitz's role, somebody was intent upon defaming him as a Nazi. Point of fact is (1) I do not believe he ever was a party member, (2) he never asked for the job, (3) he got sentenced to 10 years simply because Hitler appointed him sucessor.
And the Doentiz incident is revealing of several factors, primarily Hitler's delusion and lunacy at the very end, feeling betrayed by Goering (Luftwaffee) Himmler (SS) and the the Wehrmacht who trid to kill him in 1944. Hitler's thinking was the Kriegmarine was the only fighting force left,and he wanted them to continue the fight, despite not being around to lead them. And the only reason the Kriegmarine was available is because the U-boats were moreless bottle-up in harbor cause anti-submarine warfare was so effective.
To show his delusion, I personally like his statement about the proven racial supperiority of the people of the East better. He really believed this stuff. And his ideas about the miracle weapon, could also be discussed, to show that he lost his grip on reality. But that should be done before he dies. We could describe that he was sitting in his bunker, delusional and deserted, making grandiose plans for the time after the final victory. And then he comitted suicide. Order 5 April, 2:25 AEST
And although, not in this article, but elsewhere, Doentiz case is illustratative of other points that can be discussed regarding the treatment of some Germans by the allies in the post-war period. RobS 11:48, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Sure, Doenitz was from the armed forces, and they tried to keep a distance to the Nazis. The relation of Hitler and the military is an interesting one. It might be something for an extra section, because it explains a bit about the person Hitler. But in the context of the last few days of the war it is irrelevant. My suggestion for this entire bit would be to the second part simply by:

After his death, the armed forces agreed to sign an unconditional surrender ...

Or something similar to that effect, without giving names. Jodl, Keitel, and Doenitz are not too important. That they signed was. Order 5 April, 2:10 AEST

Agreed. Yes, the point to be made doesn't need to bloat this article.
There is something however I'd like to raise regarding this incident that needs to be included whereever it ultimatley finds a home in Conservapedia. And I know I am about to say something controversial--criticism of the Nuremberg Tribunal. But enough time has elapsed, and what happened there did set a precedent that we felt as recently as 2003. And to further disclaim what I'm about to say, yes, the judges and prosecutors perhaps were justified in doing what they did to Doenitz at Nuremberg, given public pressures at the time, but it nonetheless had unfrotunate reverberating consequences.
Clearly Doenitz did exactly the opposite of what Hitler appointed him to do, he facilitated the surrender, and spared the contiuous spilling of needless blood. It was a case of military man called upon without any prior consultation to perform a politcal action, and retrospectively, he performed heroically. Now, why this is an issue, let's examine a basic theory of war and how it has been applied in three wars, WWI, WWII, and the Iraqi War of 2003.
Clauewitz says (Book I, Ch. I, Sec. 4) the ultimate "aim is to disarm the enemy"; on the NSDAP page we have,
Adolf Hitler exploited the myth of the “Stab in the Back",[19] and on the Hitler page we have this,
The German military had felt it had not been defeated, indeed the German Army stood on foreign soil when the Armistice was signed November 11, 1918 and not a square inch of German soil had been occupied. The Army felt they had done their job, and the nation had been "stabbed in the back [20]
In other words with the signing of the Armistice, 11 November 1918, the German military had not been disarmed giving birth to the myth of the "stab in the back", or "big lie" as Hitler called, that Germany had been defeated. Having not beeen disarmed on the battlefield in 1918, and the troops remaining in paramilitary groups like Rohm's, the German miltiary lived to fight another day. In 1945 however, no chances were taken, and this time the German miltiary was absolutely and thoroughly defeated, and disarmed, on the battlefield. And what did Doenitz get for his part? Tried as a Nazi and sentenced to 10 years.
Professional military officers the world over have always taken note of this, and in 2003, after Saddam's command and control was decapitated, no one stepped forward to urge the troops to lay down thier weapons and give up the fight. They all ran away. Iraq needed an Iraqi version of Doenitz to encourage the troops to give up resistance and stop needless bloodshed, but professional commanders remember what happened to Doenitz. Iraq had universal military service under Saddam--all insurgents today recieved training under Saddam--but not having been fully disarmed in 2003, they have survived to fight another day. RobS 12:46, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
What about a brief article about Doenitz? Rather than putting it into the hitler article. User:Order 5 April 9:50 (AEST)
Yah it'll get in eventually; I think "He named Grossadmiral Karl Doenitz as Fuhrer in his last will and testament" is sufficient. Have you been able to edit the mainspace? RobS 19:51, 4 April 2007 (EDT)

Final solution/holocaust is all mixed up

The section on the final solution and the holocaust is a mess. It starts with the final solution, a policy that became official in 1942, iirc. The night of broken glass was in 1938. And the story about the Grynspans may be neat, but is, however terrible for the people involved, really not relevant for this article. User:Order 5 April 1:40 (AEST)

I don't much care for the duel conventions; I think we should adopt one (Holocaust), and refer to "Final Solution" as a mere technical term when discussing specific documents, etc. RobS 20:01, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
It should probably have three paragraphs. One on the race laws and presecution including the night of broken glass, a second on the final solution, and third one on what the allied forces found at the end, and the death marches. But it will take some effort to get it right. User:Order 5 April, 10:10 (AEST)
Let me state categorically, I'm of the Intentionalist school. It was Hitler's intent, and it indeed became more of a priority than winning the war in the later stages. Resources such as trains were allocated for transport to camps rather than the retreating military, for insstance. This is undeniable. RobS 20:23, 4 April 2007 (EDT)
That why I would be inclined to mention the death marches at the end of the war, when the killing machine came to a stand still. They had no purpose other than making the prisoners die from exhaustion. User:Order 6 April, 13:15 (AEST)

Degree of villainy

The intro says:

His dictatorial rule of Germany, which led to the deaths of millions before and during World War II, has placed him among history's most hated villains.

This is too mild. His rule did not "lead to" the deaths of millions; rather, he ordered the murder more than six million civilians. --Ed Poor 12:02, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


Hitler emerges from the Brown House in Munich (headquarters of the Nazi party during the last days of the Weimar Republic) after a post-election meeting in 1930.


I've unprotected the page per User:Order's request. RobS 13:55, 4 April 2007 (EDT)


  • street violence between various pro and anti-democratic militias, and an inability of the democratic parties to cooperate. This resulted in a rise of both ends of the political spectrum; communists on one side and national socialist on the other.

This wording will not work It implies that one side or the other, either communists or national socialists, are pro-democratic and anti-democratic. This section will be removed pending discussion. RobS 13:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

How do you think it could be reworded to make it clear that neither the Communists or the Nazis were pro-democratic, and at the same time make it clear that there were both pro and anti-democratic paramillitary groups?--Steve 13:19, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
How's this,
  • street violence between various extreme groups, and an inability of centrist democratic parties to cooperate. This resulted in a polarization of extremes, Comintern activists on one side and national socialist RobS 14:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
That might work. But part of the problem is that even the centrist democratic parties were forming millitias and turning to violence, even if it was only in self defense. I'd also suggest, instead of using "Comintern activists", use "Communists" Even though the KPD was part of the Comintern, and dominated by the Soviet Union, the members of the paramilitary groups were German Communists. Saying something like "Comintern activists" seems to suggest that there was some sort of international Communist participation.--Steve 15:58, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, that is exactly what it was. Note, according to this article, the guy who burned down the Riechstag was not a German Communist, rather a Dutch Communists. Both KPD and the Dutch Commie Party (whatever it was) were Comintern organizations. As to violent democrats, they's be considered an "extreme group", and the "centrist democratic parties to cooperate" doesn't really refer to violence, but more importantly it separates commies and nazis from the inference one was democratic and the other anti-democratic. RobS 16:39, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Van der Lubbe was Dutch, sure and he did come to Germany to help the Communists there, but there's no evidence I know of that when he burned down the Reichstag, he did it under any orders from above. In spite of what the Nazis claimed, he seems to have done it entirely on his own.--Steve 17:28, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Hans Gisevius, To the Bitter End: An Insider's Account of the Plot to Kill Hitler, 1933-1944 [21] is usually considered the definitive account on this, however it will always remain the domain of conspiracy theorists. RobS 17:45, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
I'll have to read it. But doesn't that conflate two questions? First, whether there was really some international Communist plot to burn down the Reichstag, after Hitler came to power (which, apparently, Gisevius agrees with, if I read you correctly), and second, whether there was an international component to the Weimar era Communist gangs. It's just a minor point, of course, and not really woth disputing. I just want to make sure it's accurate (and perhaps I'm nitpicking).--Steve 18:09, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
This requires some understanding of what Communism, and the Communist Party is. The KPD didn't exist in a vacuum, it wasn't purley localized and homegrown. It was subservient to Moscow and the Workers World Revolution. If it wasn't for the Comintern, you probably never would have heard of Adolf Hitler. RobS 20:12, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Is it your opinion that the Nazi claims about a planned Bolshevik bloodbath in the wake of the Reichstag were true? Why, then was none of the promised evidence for this conspiracy offered? --PF Fox 15:10, 2 May 2007 (EDT)