Talk:Adolf Hitler

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)

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)

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)

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)

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, [10] 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 strawman into this discussion. --Order 19 March 14:00 (AEST)

• My God! Are you implying the mass genocide was over-stated? --[[TK|TerryK^{([[User talk:TK|contact me]])}]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

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^{([[User talk:TK|contact me]])}]] 23:46, 18 March 2007 (EDT)