Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

NPOV

Few people, including me, support Hitler, but this page has a major anti-Hitler bias. Someone needs to rewrite it as slightly more NPOV. -- Nintendorulez 21:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone? Since you seem so insightful, why dont you do it? --Ezeu 21:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Less sarcastically, if there are specific things that you can point out, if added or changed, would render the article more neutral, please do so. Remember, of course, that Hitler was a monster, and calling a spade a spade is neutral.--chris.lawson 21:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Which is to say, he used his positive qualities to essentially bilk a highly advanced country into the industrial slaughter of 6-12 million, then leave that country in ruins and partitioned for half a century. It's hard to read any reasonably neutral account of that and come away with a sympathetic attitude.

Could you please list here some of the specific points you think could be more NPoV? Wyss 21:23, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is lame. Compare it to those of other world-famous politicians where the list of achievements is presented in the opening section of the article in a very positive light. In dire need of some sprucing up. I've made a lovely edit to the first paragraph Ud terrorist 17:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't edit Wikipedia to make a point. Wyss 17:45, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

German Chancellor

I've removed him from the "German Chancellor" category until the categories name is changed to "Chancellor of Germany", calling him "German Chancellor" implies that he was German.

That's semantics, he was the German chancellor and besides that, a naturalized German citizen born within miles of the German border into a German-speaking, Austrian family. Wyss 01:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Misinformation?

and during the final days of the war Hitler committed suicide in his underground bunker in Berlin together with his newly wed wife, Eva Braun, and other high-ranking Nazi officials.

What other high-ranking Nazi officials? As far as I'm aware there was only one - Josef Goebbels. Eva Braun certainly held no rank in the Nazi party and neither did Goebbels' family. (Redzen 10:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC))

This is not misinformation (but may indeed be fuzzy writing). There were at least three or four others. Krebs definitely came back and killed himself along with one or two aides after meeting with the Russians and getting nowhere, so even with Krebs and Goebbels alone, and other high-ranking Nazi officials is at least nominally ok in the text. I can't remember if the number of bodies found in the bunker (aside from the 6 Goebbels children) was closer to 6 or a dozen but the Russians did find the uniformed bodies of several suicides and I have seen pictures of some. However, I think the syntax may be misleading anyway, so I'll try to clarify it. Wyss 16:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

...So I've removed the line in the intro pointed out by Redzen since, although it's accurate, is so vague as to chronology and circumstance it could and likely would mislead a reader who has never encountered the story before. Wyss 17:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

this needs to be added

Hitlers first racial hatred may have been directed at Native Americans [1]

grazon 22:45, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not quite true. He enjoyed playing "cowboys and indians" as a kid and later enjoyed the "cowboy" novels of Karl May. While there was what we would call a racist component to the average Austrian or German view of native Americans, it wasn't too different from the view held by many European-Americans and moreover, since there's no evidence AH had any significant contact with native Americans any attitudes he held towards them would have been based on an abstraction and likely unremarkable in relation to the views other Germans held. Therefore, it's interesting but largely irrelevant in the scope of an encyclopedia article and doesn't need to be added. Wyss 23:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

pooh you make some sense. lol

I'm going to have to think before I respond.

grazon 23:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

POV tag

I think that describing Hitler as a cartoonish villain is inappropriate for a respected encyclopedia.

• Descrition of the pic with the girl is a pure POV - "Photographs like this one were used to promote Hitler's populist-nationalist (Völkish) image".
• We should not write about the genocides on the intro. (war crimes like the American bombings during Vietnam war or the atomic bombing of Japan are not mentioned in the US presidents intros on wiki. not to mention that the death toll is not appearing there...)
• The text that was taken from Mein Kampf should be removed (Is it in the Public Domain?)
• The "six million myth" should also be removed. Even Yad Vashem admiting the fact that the real number is smaller (between 5.1 to 5.95 according to their website).

--Haham hanuka 16:50, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Hanuka, I don't see that the description is particarly cartoonish.

• The girl image caption was discussed before. There certainly could be something better.
• Of course the genocide belongs into the intro. It's one of the major facts, if no the major fact about AH.
• I leave copyright issues to others, but that's hardly a POV issue.
• Come on: you call 6 million a myth and then point to 5.95 million? Six million is a round figure and it is the common figure. If you want to dispute this, use respectable sources.

Str1977 17:52, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• First, I believe that this article very helpfully does not portray AH as a "cartoonish" cartoon character of evil. Quite the contrary.

• Please list the specific items in the text which portray AH as a "two-dimensional token of evil."

• The caption "Photographs like this one were used to promote Hitler's populist-nationalist (Völkish) image" is not pure PoV, it is documented and supported fact. It also works against portraying AH as a cartoon character etc.

• Why should the text from Mein Kampf be removed? He wrote it, the passages are more than fair use, this is his biographical entry.

• Nobody called six million a myth and since it's one of the most significant things about AH's legacy it most certainly belongs in the header.

As I result, I find your reasons for a PoV tag contradictory, unexplained and possibly disruptive. I'm removing the tag until you can do better. Wyss 18:09, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• This article does not portary Hitler as a "two-dimensional token of evil" due to my work on the article. (rv PoV, adding pics and etc).
• I know that the girl image caption was discussed before but the dispute was not resolved yet.
• All the text in Wikipedia should be under the GFDL -"All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)."
• No one knows how many Jew were killed in the holocaust. The death toll was estimated from 5.1M to 5.95M [2]. What if 5.1M is the real number? instead of writing "6 million" we can change it to "more than 5 million".
• Pls do not remove PoV tags before the dispute is resolved.

--Haham hanuka 12:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• You have still not mentioned a single specific reason why anything about the article is PoV (unfortunately, I must strongly disagree with your first assertion, about the effects of your own efforts etc). Vague assertions of PoV without specifics, such as your reference to the picture caption (which by the bye is about as NPoV as one can be) don't have much meaning. You are mistaken regarding the copyright issue and it doesn't involve PoV anyway. If you restore the PoV tag without sufficient evidence of a legitimate dispute, I will remove it. Wyss 13:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason my edit was reversed?

Wyss reverted most (all?) of my edits to the Hitler article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adolf_Hitler&diff=25370843&oldid=25364807

I'm wondering why this happened. None of it is vandalism; only syntax changes to make more sense and flow better and a correction to the raparations figure for which I cited THREE sources! Isn't three enough? What else do you need? The Hitler oath is taken straight from my handouts from Social Studies and I think it works well there and has a point. What seems to be the problem with my corrections? Or am I ignorant of some law such as "any anonymous editing of controversial article = vandalism"? Thank you for taking the time to respond. 68.148.168.84 06:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any obvious reason for reverting them, and at the very least I think Wyss should have left an explanation in the edit summary. I see that he reverted rather far back, and it could have been that your edit just got accidentally lost in an attempt to get rid of some bad edits that had crept in. It happens from time to time.

Though, I would recommend you split your edits into smaller ones, especially in an article like this. Make minor syntax changes and copy-edits separate from edits where you add content. This makes your edits easyer to relate to, and in case there are any dispute on some part of it, we at the very least can keep the uncontriversial ones in the article.

And, no, there is no rule against editing this article without loging in, although the great majority of edits here by unregistered users are indeed vandalism. But you don't have to sign up an account to edit wikipedia. But it is highly recommended. I don't think there are any good reason for not doing it. And it makes you more anonymous, not less. For one, you don't reveal your IP-number to everyone if you pick a username to edit under. Read more on Wikipedia:Why create an account? Shanes 06:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I didn't create an account because I didn't intend to make edits; they had just accumulated by the time I'd finished reading the article. I may in the future. I will also heed your advice and try to make smaller edits. Would you suggest I go through and put them back in, should I wait for Wyss' reply, or should I not bother with it at all? 68.148.168.84 06:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and edit! Everyone is encouraged to be bold in updating pages, it's what makes this thing work ;-). If Wyss or anyone else don't like some part of your edit, the'll hopefully explain it and you can discuss them here if that is the case. It hapens all the time. But go ahead now! Make improvements as you see fit and help make wikipedia better! Shanes 07:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember. The article had been hit with several instances of vandalism and the edits referred to above had (unfortunately) appeared in the midst of that, widely scattered and had minor (but not big) problems. The anon ID didn't help. Please feel free to edit and yes, I too suggest getting a username for editing a controversial, high profile article like this and if you can, please do the edits in small clusters so as to make them more manageable to follow. Wyss 12:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, but what problems are these? I'd be glad to correct them if I go through and re-edit the article in the future. (Sorry about different IP address; in school right now.) I will also try to divvy the edits into smaller pieces. Thank you for your advice. 199.185.81.242 18:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

If you make the edits in small pieces we can discuss them if there are truly any problems. Thanks for your patience! Wyss 21:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

My recent reversions

I've reverted Toya twice, and I don't want to be confrontational, so I'm making the second revert into a "move to talk page" rather than a simple revert. I've reproduced the paragraph below, in italics. The bit I took out is also in bold.

Adolf Hitler's father, Alois, was an angry man who inclined to violent angry outbursts, smoke a lot and a drinker who didn't liked the time in the house full of kids and preferred on tham his hobbies, beekeeping or drinking beer with his friends. Because of Alois Hitler's profession his family moved frequently, from Braunau to Passau, Lambach, Leonding and next to Linz. As a young child, Hitler was reportedly a good student at the various elementary schools he attended; however, in sixth grade (1900–1901), his first year of high school (Realschule) in Linz, he failed completely and had to repeat the grade. His teachers reported that he had "no desire to work."

If we decide to keep this addition, it will have to be changed into a more native-like English. However, even apart from that, I wonder how relevant it is, and also how NPOV it is. Any comments? Ann Heneghan ^(talk) 16:25, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

This is already covered, in encyclopedic terms, in Alois Hitler. Wyss 16:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I was about to remove it myself, Ann. It's nearly completely POV and full of opinions. My vote would be for just keeping it as it is, what's in Alois Hitler is sufficient I think. chowells 16:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Origin of Hitler Name

'Hitler'...variant spelling of 'Heidler' ('One who lives on the heath'), or in English, simply 'Mr Heath' (Honest!). (See Heath (habitat) and switch to "In other languages / Deutsch" to go to "Heide - Landschaft" (Heath - Landscape).

In German, the second vowel is sounded. "Hiede" (pronounced "Heed" is meaningless, but "Heide" (pronounced "Hide") is "Heath". So "Hideler" ("Hitler") is a version of "Someone who lives on the heath". ChrisRed 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear 65..., I don't think Hitler can be a variation on "Heidler", which would be related to Heide (=Heath). The versions of the name I know of (see the name of his supposed fathers) are "Hiedler" (and not Heidler) and "Hüttler". The latter seems to me like "someone living in a hut".

The parallel to Mr Heath is funny, though IMHO inaccurate: Heath (or Heather) is Heide, so Heidler would be "Heatherner" or the like. But it was worth the laugh. There are other parallels of that kind, e.g. Thatcher and Schindler.

Str1977 08:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The 'er' ending doesn't always happen in English with 'He who lives at/on/by' type names, so 'Wood' not 'Wooder' and 'Hill' not 'Hiller' etc. The 'Thatcher' example applies to names from occupations, i.e. 'One who thatches'. ChrisRed 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read the hut etymology several times, never the heath. Wyss 09:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Strange, I've never seen the 'Hüttler' theory anywhere else but here. Question: How would an illiterate 19th century Austrian pronounce 'heidler', and how would you spell it if you were an official writing it down?. ChrisRed 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

When Alois had his birth legitimized, the parish priest wrote down the name as Hitler, likely because of the pronunciation used during the oral testimony of Alois and his witnesses. Also, at the time there was an effort across the Austrian civil bureaucracy and Catholic church (which was largely responsible for birth registries) to standardize the spelling of family names. Wyss 12:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

:::I'm sorry if I have introduced a 'falsehood'. I only speak 'school' German, but I was told this (rightly or wrongly) by a native German speaker (my German - or rather Austrian - teacher, Frau Schneller - who married an Englishman) who grew up quite close to Braunau, where apparently the Heidler 'myth' is common knowledge. Her joke was that the name meant 'of the heath', when the British Prime Minister at the time was called Edward Heath. She meant to dispel some of the 'fearsome' sounds of German (where, for example 'Luft Waffe' means 'Air Force'...what else could you possibly call it :-)

If a native German speaker thinks that this is totally false, then please delete this entire section, to avoid creating another 'false myth' about Hitler. ChrisRed 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)''

That's all right, Chris. And kudos to you for admitting your mistake. (And now I know why you deleted it). The "Heidler" version first and foremost doesn't work because no one in AH's family was named like that, the versions were "Hüttler" and "Hiedler". "Heidler" seems to be a typo or misspelling from which the "Heath myth" than sprung. This misspelling can happen very easily, so no one to blame (but the one who based something on that error). I remember some years ago there was an English TV show, in which a German air force pilot crashed in England and secretly lived in an English family. And the grandmother of that family constantly said: "It's all the fault of that Hilter!" (PS. She really did say "HILTER", so the misspelling is intended. Str1977 09:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll delete this again soon and lay it to rest. Now perhaps we can concentrate on more burning questions...like "Just where IS Hitler's missing left testicle?" :-)

BTW, OK on the 'ie'/'ei' mis-spelling. Us Island Apes often mis-spell even our own English words which include these letters, (as you know, it doesn't change the pronunciation as much as it does in German) ChrisRed 10:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Some say, it's in the Albert Hall, but I think it was burned in 1945 with the rest. ;-) Str1977 10:34, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hitler's associates

I'm just wondering why Rommel is listed as one of Hitler's associates.. doesnt seem right, since Rommel was part of the failed conspiracy in '44.

And by the way, Hitler didn't survive the attempt because he left early, as was indicated in an above posting. The only reason he survived is because incidentally someone decided to take a seat where a briefcase (with a bomb in it) had been placed. Noticing the briefcase, he found it to be in the way of his feet or something, at least he probably found it to be a nuisance, since he decided to move it to the very opposite end of the table from Hitler. This placed the bomb exactly behind a foot of the table. This very unfortunate event is the only reason why Hitler survived, and why the war didnt end in 1944.

Erwin Rommel is one of those people who (had he survived to testify at Nuremberg) would have been acquitted from all blame as a 'common soldier', who was genuinely 'only following orders' and serving his country. Rommel was a German, but whether or not he could have been counted as 'an associate of Hitler' is very dubious. Rommel commands as much respect from the British as he does from the Germans. ChrisRed 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, ofcourse he would have been acquitted. Anyone who was so opposed to Hitler that he even took part in an attempt to assassinate him can hardly be regarded as an associate of Hitler, or a war criminal. XXX

Some comments:

• Hitler survived the attempt in 1939 (Georg Elser) because he left early. In 1944, the main reason was that the meeting took place not in the bunker of the Wolfschanze but in a shed (as it was a hot day). Yes, someone placed the briefcase on the other side of the big wooden table, and yes, Stauffenberg used only half of the explosives he had intended (probably due to time constraints), but neither would have saved Hitler if the meeting had been held in the bunker. No one would have survived the explosion.

Rommel certainly was an associate of Hitler, on among many, not the closest, but he was one. Whether he was a war criminal is another matter. But his knowledge of the attempt (he wasn't part of the plot, he only knew of it and was willing to play his part after Hilter's death) wouldn't have saved him in the trial. It was after all a fair trial of the defendants. Maybe some politics would have spared him from being accused, but if he would have been accused and found guilty he would have got his verdict. Str1977 21:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I disagree (I am British, by the way). Rommel was a respectable German soldier - a great military commander of the old tradition, and served his country brilliantly in that capacity. (We call him 'The Desert Fox'). When he was first made aware of the v.Stauffenberg conspiracy, he was horrified at first ('My country - right or wrong') but changed his mind to think the unthinkable - would a post-war Germany 'without' Hitler be better than one 'with' Hitler.

Feldmarschal Erwin Rommel was not a politician, he was a soldier. Whether he was aware of the more unsavoury aspects of nazism is debatable. Perhaps, given his senior position, he could have dug deeper and found out about what was going on in the concentration camps etc. but he was not at Wannasee, and played no part in what was decided there. Like most Germans at the time, he probably preferred not to believe that such an unspeakable evil was possible, and reassured himself that it was no more than allied propoganda. When asked to make the choice between being a German patriot or a Nazi, he eventually came down on the side of Germany, and paid with his life.

The great liberal democracy that Germany has become since proves that he was right, and he should be honoured as such by the Germans, in the same way that he is (despite giving us a bloody nose :-) by the British. It is a great shame that he did not survive the war to tell us his story. I think that many old British North Africa veterans would have actually liked to shake his hand. ChrisRed 22:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Chris, I don't think we disagree here (and I'm German BTW). Rommel, at the start of his career, had some sympathies for Hitler, but that was mainly because he came from rather modest origins, just like Hitler, and disliked the aristocratic attitude of other military leaders. But that doesn't mean he liked the atrocities - he was even involved in saving the Jews among captured British soldiers by letting the incoming order disappear. And you already mentioned his resistance contacts. However, he also was a national hero at this time and I think it is justifiable to number him among Hitler's associates. Str1977 14:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the Hitler's associates section wontedly misleads, as above. Wyss 16:34, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems a little unfair to list Rommel and other legitimate military men in the same way as more sinister men like Himmler and Heydrich. Perhaps we could consider changing the list heading to something like 'Other Notable figures from the Third Reich'. We couldn't divide the list into 'goodies', 'baddies' and 'not so baddies', because it would be a matter of opinion as to who belonged in each list. ChrisRed 20:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You say that Rommel wasnt part of the '44 attempt? If so, then why was he killed (actually, he commited suicide like many other conspirators)? I agree, he should be listed as 'other notable figures from the third reich' rather than an associate of Hitler. However, should there be such a list, many others might be mentioned there.. for example von Manstein and Heinz Guderian, the prominent generals who were the originators of Blitzkrieg warfare. 10:48, 31 October 2005 80.208.231.135 - please sign your post next time

Two thoughts:

1) maybe H's associates should be classified into personal (Eva Braun, Hofmann), political (Himmler, Goebbels) and military. Of course there are "double membership", e.g. Speer (political and personal) or Keitel (military and political). Maybe Nazi party and government/military would be better.

2) the question is, 80..., what you mean by "was part of it". Rommel knew about it and this was reason enough for Hitler to want to have him dead. Even some who opposed Stauffenberg were executed, most notably General Fromm, who was essential in thwarting the coup.

Str1977 11:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Template

The template at the top of the page containing Hitler's vitals and pic is too wide for 800x600 displays; could it please be tweaked. I changed the margin-right to margin-left. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 00:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

"close to sunset"

What is the significance of someone insisting on inserting that Hitler was born close to sunset? Is this some sort of astrological thing? User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I can see you read my edit summary. Since your not disputing its acuracy, and you clearly understasnd how it is notable and significant to some, why did you delete the info a 2nd time w an edit summary describing it as "nonsense"? Sam Spade 16:48, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Why is the purported time of day of any significance, any more than the phase of the moon? Where is this documented? And why did you not address its significance? User:Zoe|^(talk) 22:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

You know what? If you cited a source for it, and included a section on its significance to astrologers, I wouldn't have any problems with it. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think I would still have a problem with it. If Hitler had significant connections with the practice of astrology, or he was generally guided by his horoscope in deciding his major actions, his birth time might have some relevance to his article, in which case an explanation of his astrological beliefs and practices would also be included. But that's not the case, Karl Krafft notwithstanding. If our general practice was to include time of birth and death in biographical articles, this would be fine. But we don't do that, so there's no justification for an exception in Hitler's case. JackofOz 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Esoteric Hitlerism. Sam Spade 03:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

From which I quote, emphasis added:

"High ranking Nazi officials such as Heinrich Himmler, Rudolf Hess, and R. Walther Darré are known to have been interested in mysticism and the paranormal. Hitler himself seems to have had considerably less interest in this topic."

While we're on the topic, wouldn't his astrological sign be a lot more important to this discussion than the specific time he was born? Then again, I don't know jack about astrology...--chris.lawson 04:12, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm Jack and I know a bit about it, but that's not really the issue here. Dates of birth and death are considered to be significant facts about a person's life, which is why we include them. Times of birth or death are not normally considered significant, unless there is a special context that makes them so. There is no special context in the Hitler article. There is no mention of astrology in the article, so this whole astrology debate seems to be a red herring. The time of birth was inserted as a bald fact, without any connection to anything else. Unless there is a demonstrable reason why this should stay, it must be considered less than trivial and should go. Why not mention his birth weight, his first words, the date on which he took his first steps, etc?? Sure, these facts would interest his Mum, but not our readership. Oh, BTW, I don't think that mentioning Karl Krafft does add weight to your argument at all. Krafft was connected to the Nazi regime, but not to Hitler personally. And no, Chris, I do not think that inserting birth signs would do anybody a favour. Do it for Hitler, and you'd have to do it for everybody. Those with an interest in knowing an individual's Sun sign or whatever can easily find it out, or work it out. JackofOz 04:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree w much of what has been said, but can't find any credible sources for the sunset thing, so i agree w zoe that it should stay out until such time as they are produced. Sam Spade 21:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I know his exact birth time and have seen various analyses of his horoscope based on that birth time. But I would still not agree to its inclusion in this article, for the reasons stated above. The mere possession of a fact does not make that fact significant or relevant to the context. JackofOz 02:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello everyone -- this information is accurate, it is from here. This info can be found directly below the circular natal chart on the webpage, but I'm copying/pasting it here just for kicks...

Its not the accuracy, its the relevance that is in question. --Ezeu 01:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Birth Data

Birth Name: Adolf Hitler

Birth Date: 04/20/1889 (April 20, 1889)

Birth Time: 18:30 (06:30 PM) LMT

Birth Place: Branau am Inn, Austria

Latitude / Longitude: 48 N 15 / 13 E 02

Rodden Rating / Source: AA / Quoted B.R. (birth record)

Source Notes: Zenit 11/1933 quotes B.R. British Journal of Astrology same "from a gentleman acquainted with Hitler's sister-in-law," 7/1938 (The Editor of BJA, 4/1932, rectifies to 6:17 PM. Sabian Symbols No.462 gives 6:14 PM) In 6/1989, Claudia von Schierstedt confirmed the data to LMR, from research of archives. Austria at that time did not have the time of birth on the certificate but Heinz Noesselt, a co-worker at "Zenit," asked at the rectory, as the church did keep a notice of the birth and christening, and published the information in Zenit 11/1933, p. 431. "Hitler was born 20 April 1889 6½ in the evening, at Salzburger Vorstadt 219, Branau."

This site has software that is based upon the whole idea of accurate birthdays, birth-places, and ESPECIALLY precise birth-times -- they give birth-times different ratings based upon their validity, and Hitler's birth-time has a rating of AA, which means: "AA -- Accurate data as recorded by the family or state." More info regarding the rating system can be found here.

I'm going to go ahead and reinsert "close to sunset" in the article, but if you all would like to get more specific we can just say "born at 6:30 PM LMT." There are some rectifications that have been done, but they all hover "close to sunset." 152.163.100.5 01:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

You still seem to be missing the point, my friend. The accuracy or otherwise of the time of birth is relevant only to people such as astrologers who make use of such information. Wikipedia is not a resource for the use of astrologers (which is not to say astrologers don't read it). You can find Hitler's accurate birth time down to the second, but it's still not information that has any place in these pages. Your options are: (a) include some information in the article that directly links Hitler's birth time with some important information about him, such as him basing some important decision (eg. to attack Russia) on his astrological chart, and provide references for that information; or (b) remove the birth time. JackofOz 01:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It is these tidbits of information that make Wikipedia interesting, otherwise someone could just go to a boring ol' paper-and-glue (and FULLY reliable) encyclopedia to get all of the same standard information; same old, same old. You are correct though, there is absolutely no need to have it perfectly exact, like "Hitler was born at 6:29:17 PM LMT on April 20th, 1889...", but it is a good thing to have these morsels of information that really aren't found anywhere else all in one place, and "close to sunset" is reasonable enough to include. 152.163.100.5 01:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Therefore you have just shot down your entire argument for including the precise birth data in the first place. You can't on the one hand say that the data has now finally achieved relevance because it is accurate to the minute, but on the other hand say you only need to have some vague sentence about "close to sunset". Take a stand, man/woman. Argue your case. And then accept defeat. It's all about letting go of cherished desires to have some special bit of knowledge up there for all to see. We've all had to accept the consensus view about our own special bits of knowledge. Now it's your turn. You'll be a better person for it, I promise you. Thus endeth today's lesson. JackofOz 01:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't all this astrological twaddle belong on the "Mysticism in Nazi Germany" page?. Also, if Adolf was born 'close to sunset', the the sun must have set very late that day, as Alois was called home from the border post with 'the good news' in the early hours of the morning. ChrisRed 08:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"A Child's View of Hitler"

I actually find this very interesting in its own way. Many factual inaccuracies here and there, but written from the heart and far better than I could hope to write when I was a 'child'. Perhaps we could put it somewhere else and add a link to it as 'another view', rather than just pompously dismissing it out of hand as worthless?. At least it shows that there are young people around who still have an ear for the warnings from history. In a very different league, obviously, but remember 'The Diary of Anne Frank' was also written by a child. Wikipedia can be written by anybody. ChrisRed 09:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

What is going on here with all this vandalism to this page today??? XXX

Vandalism? There isn't any. I just deleted a section (which I started myself) which turned out to be a load of old ......... I'll do it again tonight, as it has been totally discredited as no more than a myth, and adds nothing to the article. It serves no purpose to leave it in when this page is already over-long. ChrisRed 15:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Chris, please don't delete sections from the talk page. Yes, your evaluation of its merits are correct, but this doesn't matter. It was discussed and is now settled and will subsequently be archived. The only posts to be deleted are personal attacks, spam and aggressive flood posting (of which I had my experiences). Str1977 18:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Illegal?

"Hitler further strengthened his parliamentary basis by detaining Communist deputies and (illegally) excluding them from parliament."

Is this sentence true? Im afraid everything was legal and in harmony with the legislative process (incl. decrees). I dont think it was arbitrary.

Ksenon 14:37, 07 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ksenon, to satisfy your curiousity: Under the Reichstag Fire Decree it was legal to detain anyone, including the Communist deputies. It was however illegal to deprive them of their membership of parliament. This was only the beginning of the Third Reich. One of the characteristics of that regime is its dual nature: on the one hand the legal-administrative state continued to exist though of course more and more laws were brought into line with Nazi thinking (most famously the Nuremberg laws), on the other hand there was the arbitrary exception state in which all norms or laws were done away with. Part of this were the concentration and extermination camps or Hitler's squashing of the S.A. leadership or the euthanasia. Acts of the latter category were illegal under German laws (even nazified laws), but they were still part of the regime. Str1977 13:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)