Misplaced Pages

Talk:Adolf Hitler: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:38, 16 February 2006 editSimonides (talk | contribs)2,975 edits →Totalitarianism and Fascism← Previous edit Latest revision as of 21:27, 8 January 2025 edit undoFavonian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators287,685 editsm Reverted edit by 139.138.0.138 (talk) to last version by FavonianTag: Rollback 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{GA}}{{facfailed}} {{Controversial}}
{{controversial}} {{Not a forum}}
{{Round in circles|search=no}}
{{FascismProject}}
{{Calm}}
{{FAOL|Spanish|es:Adolf Hitler}}
{{British English}}
{{FAOL|Hebrew|he:אדולף היטלר}}
{{Article history
{{FAOL|Dutch|nl:Adolf Hitler}}
|action1=FAC
{{FAOL|Norwegian|no:Adolf Hitler}}
|action1date=02:26, 26 July 2005
{{FAOL|Portuguese|pt:Adolf Hitler}}
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Adolf Hitler/archive1
{{FAOL|German|de:Adolf Hitler}}
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=19612729


|action2=GAN
''An event in this article is a ].'' (may be in HTML comment)
|action2date=17:11, 19 December 2005
|action2result=listed
|action2oldid=31982874


|action3=GAR
----
|action3date=02:08, 22 April 2006
|action3result=delisted
|action3oldid=49509950


|action4=FAC
==Archives==
|action4date=16:41, 26 March 2007
],
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Adolf Hitler/archive2
],
|action4result=not promoted
],
|action4oldid=117993066
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],
],


|action5=GAN
==Back to the point==
|action5date=2007-05-20
From the article on ]:
|action5result=failed
|action5oldid=132235459


|action6=PR
:] defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition".
|action6date=2007-10-17
|action6link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Adolf Hitler/archive1
|action6result=Reviewed
|action6oldid=165201149


|action7=GAN
In what way does Hitler's regime not conform to this description? ]] 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
|action7date=2011-12-16
|action7link=Talk:Adolf Hitler/GA1
|action7result=listed
|action7oldid=466115580
|topic=World history
|currentstatus=GA
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes |class=GA|vital=yes|listas=Hitler, Adolf|blp=no|1=
{{WikiProject Austria|importance=Top |attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Bavaria|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject European history|importance=Top|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=Top |attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Death|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Jewish history|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Biography|core=yes|military-work-group=y|military-priority=Top|politician-work-group=y|politician-priority=Top|attention=yes}}
{{WikiProject Military history|B1=y|B2=y|B3=y|B4=y|B5=y|Biography=y|German=y|WWI=yes|WWII=y}}
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}}
}}
{{Press| subject = article | title = Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed | org = ] | url = http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23354613 | date = 18 July 2013 | archiveurl = | archivedate = | accessdate = 18 July 2013 |author2 = Josh Fjelstad |title2 = The 100 Longest Entries On Misplaced Pages |org2 = ] |url2 = http://www.buzzfeed.com/fjelstud/the-100-longest-entries-on-wikipedia#.opb19rX7o |date2 = 22 June 2011 |accessdate2 = 13 December 2014


| subject3 =
:Severe economic regimentation, I should think. Look at the availability of consumer goods and what a sham the German economy was - it was never prepared properly for war. ] 01:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
| author3 = ]
| title3 = Misplaced Pages acts as a check on Putin’s false view of history
| org3 = '']''
| url3 = https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2022/05/31/wikipedia-hitler-putin-lavrov/
| date3 = 31 May 2022
| quote3 =
}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes |1=
{{section sizes}}
{{Annual readership}}
{{All time pageviews|129}}
{{Annual report|], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]}}
{{Top 25 Report|Apr 19 2015 (23rd)}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 65
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive %(counter)d
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}
{{Archive box|auto=short|bot = lowercase sigmabot III|age = 14
|{{PrefixIndex|1=Talk:Adolf Hitler/H|redr=yes}}
*]
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive index|mask=Talk:Adolf_Hitler/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}}


== Mass murderer category ==
The definition cited already presupposes that Nazism is Fascism (otherwise it wouldn't include "race") but that it the contentious point. More on this next time. ] 00:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Should we add categories of German or Austrian mass murderers for Hitler? This is a very heated topic but is it necessary here or is that reserved for those who were directly in charge of concentration camps? ] (]) 15:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Another point: the "Is Nazism Fascism or Totalitarianism" debate is a valid issue to be included in Misplaced Pages but the article on Hitler is not the proper place (and least of all its intro). It should be dealt with under Nazism, Nazism and other concepts, Fascism. ] 00:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:I would say not, as (technically) he did not personally kill anyone. It will just ass slowness and words without any real benefit. ] (]) 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:No, while he caused mass death, he left the dirty work to others. There are lots of people who did that, we don't call them "mass murderers" either. '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 15:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::And I bring this up because other dictators who have been accused of mass murder have this category on their articles. ] (]) 15:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@] ] (]) 15:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::Such as? '''<span style="font-family: Arial;">] <small>]</small></span>''' 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Bashar Al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Fulgenico Batista, etc. I also added to their talk pages if you’d like to contribute there. ] (]) 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Maybe, but you need a better argument than other stuff, as I can also find examples where we do not. ] (]) 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::What constitutes adding that category? Why don’t we add it towards mobsters who ARE known to have murdered people in mass? ] (]) 16:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I also added to talk pages of several dictators accused of mass murder that don’t have the category as of yet. ] (]) 16:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::Well lets see, because some people actually take part in the killings, they do not just order them. Some people give direct orders as to who to kill, others give a direct order to kill. Different people have different histories. ] (]) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
:I think we should ] (]) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2024 ==
* I think the Oxford Dictionary definition is more accurate:


{{Edit extended-protected|Adolf Hitler|answered=yes}}
noun 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
Hitler killed 130000 max
Not 3 mil ] (]) 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> ] (]) 17:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024 ==
— DERIVATIVES fascist noun & adjective fascistic adjective.


{{edit extended-protected|Adolf Hitler|answered=yes}}
— ORIGIN Italian fascismo, from fascio ‘bundle, political group’, from Latin fascis ‘bundle’. ] 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 18:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Adolf_Hitler,_20._april_1945.jpg_(2).jpg This photo is from March 20, 1945, not April 20, 1945.
https://www.reddit.com/r/ww2/comments/sq01hc/adolf_hitler_march_1945/ https://twitter.com/ww2turkiye/status/1785209094082617803 https://www.hitler-archive.com/photo.php?p=33QYTKfe


The photo was clearly taken on March 20, 1945.
Keeping it brief, given the Oxford dicdef, which more accurately describes classic Fascism as it was embraced by fascists during the 1930s, AH's Nazism was far more totalitarian. ] 00:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:None of those are RS. ] (]) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)


:Photographs taken at the same place and location, at the moment when Hitler saluted the young soldier. ] (]) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::That is an incomplete definition. Str1077 is wrong that there is not a consensus among modern scholars that Nazism is a form of fascism as Giovanni has shown. This is a question of fact that can be easily proven. After it has been I suggest that the argument be settled in Gio's favor. ] 01:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:https://en.wikipedia.org/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Adolf_Hitler,_20._april_1945.jpg_(2).jpg https://www.hitler-archive.com/photo.php?p=33QYTKfe If there is no problem with vision, it can be understood that both were taken at the same place and time: March 20, 1945. ] (]) 13:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:The description of the photo on Misplaced Pages also says March 20, 1945, but let me explain further. April 20, 1945 is wrong. ] (]) 13:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
::An anonymous person changed the date on the photo at the Commons on Dec 23/24. I have changed it back, because that's what says. April 20, 1945, was Hitler's last birthday and his last visit to the surface. He gave medals to several young soldiers. That's what we are seeing in the photo. has an incorrect date, because it shows the same event, which took place on Hitler's birthday, and was his last public appearance. ] (]) 15:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
:::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHfAdKeXkQ&t=30s 0.30 Mark Felton, a master of historical research, also says it was March 20.
:::In fact, from the many photos I posted, Hitler's coat, Artur Axmman's stance, the bald man in the background, clearly showed that these photos were taken at the same place and time on March 20, 1945. ] (]) 17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::Now that I have a minute to get the books out, I can tell you that Beevor covers this in chapter 17 ("The Fuhrer's Last Birthday") of ''The Fall of Berlin 1945'',. The description of Hitler meeting Hitler Youth is on page 251. "That afternoon, in the ruins of the Reich Chancellery garden, the Fuhrer worked his way slowly down a line of Hitler Youth, some of whom had received the Iron Cross for attacking Soviet tanks."{{pb}}Evans, in volume III (''The Third Reich At War''), describes that part of Hitler's final birthday on page 722. "Hitler emerged into the open briefly to review a small detachment of Hitler Youth in the Chancellery garden..." ] (]) 05:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
:::It is not clear that the date written in the book is the same as that date. But the photographs I posted are clearly taken at the same place and time on March 20, 1945. https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanWW2photos/comments/ufvt7p/adolf_hitler_inspects_soldiers_of_hitler_youth/
:::Notice the white-skinned bald man in the back. ] (]) 17:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::https://en.wikipedia.org/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Adolf_Hitler,_20._april_1945.jpg_(2).jpg ] (]) 17:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::An anonymous person on Reddit is not a good a source for information on this topic. ] is the retired Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge, and ] is a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. ] (]) 22:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHfAdKeXkQ&t=30s 0.30 Master of history researcher Mark Felton says this date is March 20. There is no need to insist on the wrong date and give readers false information. ] (]) 08:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::Mark Felton Productions is a STRICTLY NON-POLITICAL history channel presenting films by leading military historian and author Dr. Mark Felton on a variety of fascinating historical subjects, with particular focus on WWII and the Cold War. Mark is a well-known British writer, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers Zero Night and Castle of the Eagles, both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. He has written extensively on Japanese war crimes, POW camps, Nazi war criminals, the Holocaust, famous escapes, Hitler and other Nazi leaders. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries. More information about Mark can be found at: www.markfelton.co.uk https://en.wikipedia.org/Mark_Felton ] (]) 09:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::: And Beevor has written, what is regarded as pretty much the definitive ] (and AH). Why would we ignore that in favour of a ''(relatively)'' unknown?] (]) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::You wrote in such a way that Mark Felton seems like an NPC passing by on the street. ] (]) 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Ok, I gave up. Let that article remain as a wrong date. Do whatever you want. ] (]) 15:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::http://markfelton.co.uk/2016/04/ ] (]) 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
::::::::One more source: ] was actually there in the Chancellery Garden that day, and he says it was on Hitler's birthday, April 20. '']'', page 598 of the 1971 paperback. Sometimes sources disagree on things; what we do in cases like that is go with consensus. So yeah, please drop it now, as consensus is against you this time. ] (]) 15:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::Felton's reputation far from of Beevor and even farther away from that of Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw; the latter who also writes the event occurred on Hitler's last birthday of 20 April 1945. See chapter 28 ("Extinction") of ''Hitler: A Biography'', pp. 922–923. And as Diannaa states we must go with ] consensus. ] (]) 19:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


== Hatnote edit request ==
:::I don't think Giovanni has demonstrated that the use of Fascism in the intro to an article about AH would not mislead readers. Moreover, I don't think the Oxford definition is incomplete, though I do suspect it conflicts with popular misconceptions about the term. ] 01:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|Adolf Hitler|answered=yes}}
:I'm glad to see that Str1977 has incorporated one of my single word suggestions - "aggressive" (expansionism). Thank-you. I hope it will be accepted by others.
:As for the second definition, from the Oxford Dictionary, I would ask - in what way does "1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice." not describe Hitler's regime?
:I agree with Str1977 that this is not the article for a ''lengthy'' discussion of the similarities/differences between Fascism and Nazism - I merely propose the addition of the single adjective "fascistic" to the word "totalitarian". Otherwise, how do we differentiate between Hitlerian totalitarianism, and communist totalitarianism? One word - that's all I ask. ]] 00:55, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Please change the hatnote at ] from {{tq|<nowiki>{{see also|Hitler family|Origin theories of Adolf Hitler}}</nowiki>}} to {{tq|<nowiki>{{see also|Hitler family}}</nowiki>}}. The second link is redundant as it was redirected to the first in ]. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Georgia">]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]</span> 19:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
:<s>I'm ok with using both words in tandem. It would address both your concerns and mine neatly.</s> To answer your question, though, as I have mentioned, Hitler's regime was far beyond the classic examples of fascisim developed by Mussolini and perfected by Franco, in terms of economic control, loss of human rights and so on. ] 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
: done. ] (])


== Torturer category ==
::Sorry about that, I made a mistake. The intro is not the place to discusss the differences between fascism and nazism. ] 01:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


Would the torturer category be appropriate here? ] (]) 06:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
* I do think Str1977's addition of ''aggressive'' is helpful. ] 01:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:No. ] (]) 10:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

::Any reason for this? ] (]) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
:Oh well, I wish you hadn't decided that your comment was a mistake - it seemed to offer some way out... And yes, as I stated, the intro, and even the article itself, is not the place to "discuss the differences between fascism and nazism". I merely propose a one-word addition of the adjective "fascistic", to differentiate between Hitlerian totalitarianism and communist totalitarianism - the "better" definition you cited above, to me, fits almost perfectly Hitler's regime, while not fitting Stalin's. (Incidentally, and I don't want to get into a long discussion about this, but I disagree (and Str1977 seems to agree with me) that Franco "perfected" fascism). ]] 01:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
:::He personally did not torture anybody. ] (]) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I do want to find a solution to this, so I was a bit too eager to pounce on something that might work without thinking it through. My botch. ] 01:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What's weird about Nazism (as I was taught growing up), were its practical, economic similarities to communism. Of course, volkish nationalism had a concept of private property but ultimately this was at the whim of the state (Hitler and Bormann). There are also parallels in terms of the corruption that kept the wheels turning, so to speak. A russian once told me, "The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler thought he was saving the world. Stalin had no such illusion." In many political, economic and security respects, Nazism wasn't so different from Stalinist communism. As many communists will tell you today that Stalin was no communist, there are fascists who similarly distance themselves from Hitler. ] 01:28, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

:Yes, these anecdotes are interesting, but I still contend that your preferred definition of Fascism fits the ''stated'' ideology of Hitler, but not that of Stalin's communism. Hitler didn't go in for full-scale nationalisation (think of all the private companies that profitted from the Nazi regime - Krupps, IG Farben etc.), Stalin exalted the equality of all races (though of course, in fact, he was guilty of great-Russian chauvinism, he himself a ''Georgian''), Hitler exalted the nation and race, Stalin exalted the working class (officialy anyway). (Incidentally, Stalin very much thought he was saving the world, despite the anecdote).
:So that is why I'm holding out for the adjective "fascistic" to differentiate between the two.
:Lengthy discussions are not for the article, but we can talk till the cows come home on the discussion page, even if it is only over one word (though a very important word, IMO). Surely preferrable to endless reversions. ]] 01:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My position is that the definition of fascism does not match Mr Hitler's personal ideology (whatever similarities may have been drawn in the "marketing" presentation). Moreover, the large German corporations (some of whom originally thought they had bought and paid for AH), were ultimately bought and paid for by the Nazi leadership, which had total planning control over the German economy. There were, obviously, substantial differences between Stalinism and Nazism but the economic and political similarities are striking. Drawing a distinction between communism and Nazism is ok with me though, but not with the word fascism. Remember, I also think the intro is getting too long as it is. ] 01:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

:Fine, but I'm only proposing one word - "fascistic" - not "fascist" - hardly the last straw that will break the back of the intro. I contend that Hitler's regime fits your preffered definition, while Stalin's "totalitarianism" does not. I don't agree that the "political similarities" are striking at all - they are in fact, poles apart, as I described above. ]] 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

We haven't solved anything yet. I think using the word ''fascist'' in the intro will mislead readers and you think it will inform them. We've more work to do I guess. ] 02:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

:But I'm not proposing "fascist" - but "fascistic" - which implies (concisely) that Hitler's ideology and regime shared many of the features of fascism, while not being "classically" fascist. (Though the notion of "classical" fascism is itself contentious - it was all very new then). Please describe how Hitler's personal and public ideology does not fit in with ''your'' preferred definition cited above? ]] 02:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Nazism was volkish nationalism, an almost "metaphysical" notion of achieving ideal conditions for the German people, as defined mostly by their perceptions of "race" (although they were in practice, somewhat sloppy and unscientific in both their descriptions and motives along those lines). This intrinsic German destiny for a "chosen people" was the ultimate priority and Hitler's vision of implementation involved a ruthlessly efficient totalitarian government which introduced industrial genocide to actually alter the demographic characteristics of Europe. Class divisions were more or less de-emphasized and German volkishness implied a certain level of cooperative (or socialist) economic planning.

Fascism was an authoritarian, anti-socialist, statist system targeted at social stability and preservation of class structure. Instead of a "chosen people," the advancement of state itself was seen as ensuring ideal conditions for the population. Fascism was authoritarian, not totalitarian, and could accept a wider range of cultures and ethnic heritages.

These differences are significant enough that it is simply inaccurate to characterise Hitler's Germany as ''fascist'' or even ''fascistic''. It was ''Nazi'', ''volkish'' and ''totalitarian''. The similarities to fascism are obvious but it is worth noting, in extreme, over-generalizing shorthand, that Franco died in bed, ruler of a fascist country that became a member of the United Nations (1955) and a fairly well integrated member of the western European economic community. Although Franco suppressed certain cultural and ethnic minorities, there are reasons why vast swaths of Franco's Spain were peaceful and prosperous through the 60s and 70s, by which time Hitler's aramgeddon was the smoldering memory of a nightmare. Never mind that Hitler alienated and then slaughtered the German/Austrian aristocracy while Franco only temporarily supplanted the Spanish monarchy, preserving it and ultimately designating it his political heir.

You may argue that these are national differences, but I suggest they're symptoms of the very different goals and outlook of Nazism as compared to the fascisms of Spain and Italy. ] 05:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I should add one other point. On a certain level, it may even be appropriate to reserve the term ''fascist'' only for the government of Benito Mussolini, since the word has become a sort of epithet or insult for any political group which is characterised by its opponents as having an excessively authoritarian or undemocratic approach to government. It's sort of revealing that while there are many political parties in Europe and the Americas which advocate fascist solutions to government, I'm not aware of any which self-describe as ''fascist''. This indicates that the incendiary baggage of the word has rendered it undescriptive and disruptive, therefore unsuitable for most encyclopedic applications except in the most qualified contexts and IMHO certainly not in a general intro which cannot possibly discuss and lay out these historical meanings and vectors. ] 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It ''might'' be appropriate to reserve the term "fascist" for Mussolini's regime, but I'm not convinced. But if ''any'' other regime is to be described as Fascist, it is the Nazis. Hitler and Mussolini's regimes are generally considered to be much more of a kind than Mussolini's and Franco's - there is considerable dispute as to whether "fascist" is an appropriate term for Franco's Spain. Fascism with a capital "F" is a term which probably should be limited to Mussolini's Italy. But fascism with a small "f" is a term which most definitely includes Nazism. Any kind of comparative study of fascism starts with Italian Fascism and German National Socialism as its initial starting points, and a) tries to identify the commonalities between them, which are generally seen as a kind of fascist minimum; and b) tries to determine what other regimes and movement shares these features Every major study of fascism has included Nazism, and indeed has assumed that the term "fascism" includes the Nazis. This is not to deny that there are differences between Hitler's regime and Mussolini's, or between Nazi ideology and Italian Fascist ideology - notably, the racialist aspect of Nazi ideology is not found in Italian Fascism. But it is to say that there is a pretty solid scholarly consensus behind using the word "fascism" to describe Hitler's regime.

On the other hand, the alternate word preferred, "totalitarianism," is a ''highly'' controversial term. Most historians of Nazi Germany ''and'' most historians of Stalin's Soviet Union tend to avoid the term, which is generally seen to a) obscure the very major differences between Stalin's regime and Hitler's; and b) to be a highly politically loaded term, as it is frequently seen as a term used primarily by the right as part of an effort to identify Nazism with Communism. There is no way that the intro should use the term "totalitarianism". ] 05:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd add that the worst option is "fascistic" which is a term with no known meaning that is not in any kind of scholarly use to refer to the Nazis. Just "a fascist regime" is perfectly appropriate. ] 05:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible that both ''totalitarian'' and ''fascist'' are too loaded to be descriptively helpful in this intro? (Fair disclosure: I have frequently advocated a minimal intro length) ] 06:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but this time I have to disagree with John K.
*The intro talks about the nature of the regime and not any person's or party's idelogy.
*Studies on Fascism might include Nazism as well, but that doesn't necessarily mean that N. is a form of Fascism, only that it is worth including it for various reasons: that N. contained F. elements (meaning members, form and some parts of programme) and most importantly that it is often classified as F. and hence would be missing in such a study. There also might be a leaning of those scholars doing "comparative fascism studies" towards the Fascism viewpoint in the Fascim vs. Totalitarianism debate.
*"Totalitarian" might be controversial, but so is "Fascism" due to its overuse. Look at ] for this overblown use.
*Totalitarianism studies is often labelled as controversial and certainly had its ups and downs. It was popular during the 50s, in the wake of the cold war, when people were determined to fight the second totalitarian regime after having defeated the first. In the 60s and especially 70s Totalitarianism studies were declared anathema by left-wing trends in academia. It was claimed that it identifies Nazism with Communism (though the same coukd be said for those linking it with Fascism). Some might have done this but this is far from being the core of Totalitarianism studies, which is about comparison and classification (which necessarily involves some glossing over differences in the end) and not about identification (and BTW, ] is one of the most notable "Comparative Fascism" scholars.
*The nature of Franco's regime is off topic here and whether some regime is more or less Fascist than another of course must depend on one's view about what constitutes that Fascism -if I say that Spain was more fascist than Germany I am not saying that Spain was more brutal, or total or vicious, or aggressive.
*I oppose resorting to capitalisation issues.

] 09:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

* I endorse Str1977's summary. Especially his note that Fascism has become undesrciptive (overblown) from oversue (my main concern all along). Moreover the reluctance of some to compare the totalitarian aspects of Nazism and communism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV. I agree that Franco is off-topic, which is partly why I brought up the example and especially agree with Str1977's remark that (assuming it's appropriately applied) the term ''fascist'' does not imply increased brutality and so on.

* The somewhat conflicting dicdefs cited above, along with the lasting controversy on this talk page about using this term in the intro is a further indication that it is too undescriptive and potentially misleading to be helpful in the intro. ] 17:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

" 1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice."

:In the interest of brevity and concision, can I ask again that we just take the cited definition of Fascism above and describe, point-by-point, in what way it does not fit as a description of Hitler's ideology and regime?
:The main objection seems to be that Hitler's regime was more "racist". Are we really arguing that "classical" fascism didn't pre-suppose the "superiority" of the European/white "race"? Would Mussolini have gone along with the idea that all races were equal?
:I don't agree that the use of the term "fascistic" is un-scholarly. Definition from the American Heritage Dictionary : "fascistic - relating to or characteristic of fascism;". How is it "scholarly" to propose that Nazism and Fascism are identical? How is it "scholarly" to suggest that Nazism is quite distinct from Fascism, when it is surely, objectively, "related to or characteristic of fascism"?
:Whether the word "fascist" has become pejoritave is neither here nor there - we're talking about the historical Hitler here. I for one, am not in favour of protecting Hitler from "pejoritave" terms, especially when they can be shown to be wholly pertinent.
:<s>Can we just forget about Franco, please?</s>

:Regarding Wyss's "Moreover the reluctance of some to compare the totalitarian aspects of Nazism and communism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."
:I could easily say that the "reluctance of some to compare the fascist aspects of Nazism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."
:I for one, ''don't'' discount the totalitarian aspect of Nazism. Nazism is even more totalitarian than Mussolini's Fascism, but that's not to say that M's Fascism was not totalitarian.

:Why can't we use the good old wikilinking idea, for example : <nowiki>"a ] ] regime?"</nowiki> , ie. "a ] ] regime?"- thus pointing the reader to the article which describes the similarities and differences, with the addition of a solitary adjective to the introduction. Then the debate could take place there, a more appropriate location, as all agree. Surely this helps the reader? How can talking about Hitler's regime without referencing its similarities with fascism help the reader? ]] 17:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
::Hi Camillus. I appreciate your attempts at a compromise to allow the mention of Nazism as fascism (its really incredible to find it resisted here!), but I'm against the "fascistic" because it was not just fascisitic is was fascist. Saying fascistic would imply simililarity, whereas Nazism was the real thing in whole. ] 01:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


::Hi John K. Thanks for sharing your understanding,and I fully share your assessment. It does reflect the mainstream of modern scholarship on the question of fascism. The conflict here stems from a minority view of fascism that makes mistake so losing sight of the forest for the trees. In respect to the views of Str1077 and Wyss, some scholars do define fascism in such narrow terms, and some (a fringe view) even insist that the ideology is limited to Italy under Mussolini alone. This is not a widely accepted POV, and therefore this is not a reason to allow this view precedence in this article. It more appropriate to an article on the ideology of fascism.

::Most scholars agree that it is sufficient to capitalized the term as Fascism when it refers to the Italian movement specifically, but define fascism broadly to include many movements (including Neo-Nazis), but particular has always included Nazi Germany as a prime example and source of study. The fact that fascism isn’t necessarily Nazism, should not blind us to the fact that Nazism was fascism. Ofcourse there are differences between Italian Fascism and Nazi Germany, esp. noted are the latter's racialized theories. Infact it’s a study of the differences and similarities of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany that inform an understanding of fascism, and that has resulted in the modern consensus of the generic use of the term as fitting for both. Any study of fascism involves an understanding of the Italian and German fascist parties, their movements and regimes in historical and comparative perspective, identifying and analyzing the key political institutions and groups that supported Fascist and Nazi rule in the movement/party and regime phases, enumerating the key structural and ideological mechanisms which sustained Fascism and Nazism in gaining and maintaining power, and assess the theoretical debates concerning the development a heuristically sound and analytically useful concept of generic 'fascism'.

::For details see S. G. Payne: A History of Fascism 1914-1945 UCL Press (1995). R. Griffin: The Nature of Fascism Routledge (1993).

::To reflect this broader use of the definition, and it's acceptance in a modern understanding of the term, simply refer to any other encyclopedia or discussion about WW2 or Nazi Germany. This will show just how in a minority this view is (that Nazism is not a form of fascism). For example, take a look at Encarta’s entry on Germany’s national socialism, which I also note does not use that politically loaded word, "totalitarianism," that is best left to right-wing ideologues. It simply says in plain non-emotional language, “''…the government created an authoritarian state, known as the Third Reich.”'' See:
::http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761568245/Fascism.html Infact let me quote it:

:::"The only fascist movement outside Italy that came to power in peacetime was Germany’s National Socialist German Workers Party—the Nazis. The core of the National Socialist program was an ideology and a policy of war against Germany's supposed moral and racial decay and a struggle to begin the country’s rebirth. This theme of struggle and renewal dominates the many ideological statements of Nazism, including Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf (1925, My Struggle, 1939), speeches by propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels, and Leni Riefenstahl’s propaganda film Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the Will, 1935).

:::All of the Nazi government’s actions served this dual purpose of destroying the supposed sickness of the old Germany and creating a healthy new society. The government abolished democratic freedoms and institutions because they were seen as causing national divisions. In their place the government created an authoritarian state, known as the Third Reich, that would serve as the core of the new society. The Nazis promoted German culture, celebrated athleticism and youth, and tried to ensure that all Germans conformed physically and mentally to an Aryan ideal. But in order to achieve these goals, the Nazi regime repressed supposedly degenerate books and paintings, sterilized physically and mentally disabled people, and enslaved and murdered millions of people who were considered enemies of the Reich or "subhuman." This combination of renewal and destruction was symbolized by the pervasive emblem of Nazism, the swastika—a cross with four arms broken at right angles. German propaganda identified the swastika with the rising sun and with rebirth because the bars of the symbol suggest perpetual rotation. To its countless victims, however, the swastika came to signify cruelty, death, and terror."

::The same is true if you look up WW2: ''“Adolf Hitler, the Führer (“leader”) of the German National Socialist (Nazi) Party, preached a racist brand of fascism.”''

::Again, there are differences, no one disputes that. Besides the racialist differences in emphasis, Italian Fascism produced a less effective, less repressive, and, hence was less socially destructive. The Italian army never enjoyed the unique position nor gained the reputation for efficiency that the German army has. Add to these social differences the industrial capacity of the German state, the effectiveness of its bureaucracy, and the sense of national frustration over defeat in the world war, and the differences in the real power and the public attitudes existing in both countries and we account for much of the differences notwithstanding the same political programme that is best described as fascism.

::I also want to say that its no accident that those who are against a generic broader use of fascism also embrace the theory of totalitarianism, or that these advocates (esp. Wyss) invoke comparisons with authoritarian “communist states. I think this betrays a lack of understanding of fascism, and at best represents a minority conservative view. The commonalities can only be seen on a very superficial level that ignores the opposite historical intellectual foundations for the respective movements.

::Fascism was a reaction to the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution. Best known for crystallizing these in modern theories being Rousseau, challenging social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. These enlightenment intellectual conceptions produced modern liberalism, democracy, Marxism, socialism. That is why fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity." Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, share varying degrees, the same hallmarks (I need not list them here, again).

::'Fascism' is derived from the Latin fasces, which means a bundle of rods with a projecting axe – the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was first used by an Italian anti-socialist militia, the Fascio di Combattrimento, in 1919, and was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922.

::The ideological basis of the movement was rabid anti-Communism and anti-liberalism. Communists were seen as unpatriotic traitors and liberals as weak meddlers. Fascists praised the strong bellicose leader, exalted in dreams of national glory and had a nostalgic vision of the past. Although some elements had anti-capitalist prejudices, especially focusing on decadent rich people, the ideology was not opposed to private property, and is compatible with capitalism, albeit of the more state variety. But, all this can be glossed over by avoing the fascist label and instead using "totalitarian," pushing the fringe POV that its on part with the authoritarian Communist regimes. ] 01:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:::In short, and to paraphrase Wyss:
::::"the reluctance of some to condiser the fascist aspects of Nazism leads me to suspect potentially misleading PoV."
:::I would also ask Wyss - who has said that there are not similarities in Nazi totalitarianism and Soviet totalitarianism. Hence, where is the "misleading PoV"?
:::Here's what Britannica has to say:
:::"Fascism arose during the 1920s and '30s partly out of fear of the rising power of the working classes; it differed from contemporary communism (as practiced under Joseph Stalin) by its protection of business and landowning elites and its preservation of class systems. The leaders of the fascist governments of Italy (1922–43), Germany (1933–45), and Spain (1939–75)—Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, and Francisco Franco—were portrayed to their publics as embodiments of the strength and resolve necessary to rescue their nations from political and economic chaos."
:::So Misplaced Pages is obviously out of line with Britannica and Encarta.
:::Those who reject the description of Hitler as a fascist (or even "fascistic") have not demonstrated that their view has credence in reputable scholarly circles. There is still a failure to show how the "preferred" dicdef cited above does not fit Hitler.
:::There is not even a majority ''here'' who deny the fascist features of Hitler's ideology.
:::To use the argument that the term is ''now'' pejorative is unacceptable, in my opinion, for two reasons: 1. we are talking about the historical Hitler here 2. since when does an NPOV disclude terms which ''some'' may see as "pejorative" when they can be demonstrated to be wholly pertinent? Wyss in particular seems to have set herself up as a protector of Hitler from terms which ''some'' may see as uncomplimentary.
:::To repeat Giovanni's comment - to talk about Hitler without any reference to fascism (not even a single word!) is inexcusable. ]] 01:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Well put, Camillus. That Nazism is a form of fascism is not in dispute in the mainstream, as is clearly reflected by other mainstream sources of reference. The fringe view that restricts the term to only its creator (Mussolini) does in effect obscure an understanding of fascism; the label of totalitarnism serves the same POV function. That fascism is seen as negative reflects the POV of most people, as does the very association of Hitler--even his name. Does that mean we can not use his name when its called for by facts and modern scholarly consensus? Nazi is also used as a pajorative smear word in the same fashion. Does that mean we can't call the real thing, Hitler, a Nazi? We can begin to see the absurdity of Wyss's logic in her objections to calling the Nazi regime fascist. I think we should rely on the mainstream scholarly understading here. Wyss is best off pushing her POV for inclusion in other articles such as ideologies of fascism, which do have space for such fringe views. ] 01:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to endorse everything that Giovanni says, and just repeat for emphasis that all generic studies of fascism are essentially based around discerning the common elements between Nazism and Italian Fascism, and that, thus, Nazism is almost definitionally defined as a "fascist" movement, and the Third Reich as a "fascist" state. Obviously, the term fascist has been overwhelmingly overused. But, other than those who say that, because of this, we should only use the term to refer to Fascist Italy (who are, I think, in the minority), I have never until now heard anyone dispute that Nazism should be seen as fascist. In terms of totalitarianism, I would just like to note that I can't think of a single historian of Nazi Germany who has found the totalitarian paradigm particularly useful for discussing the Nazi state - my understanding of the consensus is that most historians of Germany feel that the term obscures the essential dissimilarity between Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union. The term has always been one which has mostly been used as a way to understand the Soviet Union. As such, it seems inappropriate to use a term which actual scholars of Hitler would not use in the intro to his article. ] 16:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::We're talking about the intro, which, with all due respect to these editors and their obvious good faith, should not be accidently spun into PoV by this exagerated and somewhat mistaken argument. ] 16:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Wyss, I don't understand what you're saying here. At any rate, as fascism is somewhat tangential to an article on Hitler personally, I'm willing to have it not be in the intro, so long as totalitarian is not in there as well. Alternately, perhaps we could say that he "established an authoritarian regime which has alternately been described as ] or ]," or something along those lines - a bit weaselly, but undoubtedly true and not asserting opinion as fact. ] 21:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::John, that might be a possible solution. Either nothing (though I think it's lacking something without the regime sentence, or give both views, since "authoritarian" is too weak on its own. ] 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::I'm ok with saying AH established an authoritarian regime in the intro, by the bye. ] 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::I think discussing the terms ''fascism'' and ''totalitarian'' as they relate historically to AH, along with mentions of the controversies, would be helpful in the main text of the article (I said this below a couple of min. ago but wanted to respond here too). ] 22:20, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::I am only in favour of saying in the intro that AH established an authoritarian regime, if this is followed up by a note along the lines of John K, that is "has been described as fascist or totalitarian". Authoritarian is to weak on its own. ] 22:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I would reluctantly be ok with that but much prefer leaving all these (forgive me) loaded terms out of the intro. ] 22:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

== Changes ==

"Hitler's racial policies had culminated in deaths of about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust."

I've changed it to:
"Hitler's racial policies had culminated in a genocide now known as the Holocaust."

This number of "six million" is disputed.
I also want to remove the link to YadVashem because it considered a propaganda website. (at least to me).

Leave your comments here. --] 17:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Haham, I reverted it exactly because it is not a myth but a fairly accurate number. ] 09:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:No it's not, who can it be a "fairly accurate number" if even YadVashem admiting that the real number was smaller? In Hitler's entery on columbia encyclopedia even the words "Holocaust" or "genocide" are not written there (in the whole article).

:"As the tide of war turned against Hitler, his mass extermination of the Jews, overseen by Adolf :Eichmann, was accelerated, and he gave increasing power to Heinrich Himmler and the dread secret :police, the Gestapo and SS (Schutzstaffel)." --] 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

== The Small f ==

This is like with Lacan and the ''petit a'' (a silly joke - never mind.)

*As someone else noted above, Fascism as a state ideology is different from fascism as a set of characteristics that are revealed after the fact, ie after the fascist government in question takes control and does stuff that has little to do with the nominal ideology (democracy, communism, etc). In this sense it is correct to label the Nazis a fascist regime, as was Franco's regime, etc - see Robert Paxton's recent book on the same (''Anatomy of Fascism'', if I remember the title correctly). However, it is a 'loaded' word that only entered general use after the WW2 period, so I would avoid it if possible. It clearly connotes the Italian regime and since we are talking about the Nazis, who became nearly synonymous with the Fascists in their opposition to the Allies, it's best to avoid any potential confusion for the general reader. In the header the word totalitarian more than serves its purpose.

*Totalitarian is not a loaded or connotative word at all. It's like the common words autocratic or despotic or oligarchic - it's a very general word that can be applied to any context that has a certain common set of characteristics (strict censorship, crushing of dissent, etc) - it only becomes loaded in debatable contexts like with the current state of the USA (is the USA now totalitarian or not? Clearly most Americans would disagree though it fits the bill in many ways). However, the totalitarian nature of Nazism has never been disputed seriously.

I have edited the paragraph to keep it concise (ex. deaths of 11 million people --> 11 million deaths; it's understood we are talking about people and not flora and fauna) and retain almost every point that (I think) was key before all this other stuff cropped up. -- ] 01:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::The very conceptual model of the theory of totalitarianism is disputed, which makes it unacceptable in an encyclopedia article unless the term is itself subject to discussion. As an objective label its best avoided for its charged ideological usage, and its failure to provide any meaningful understanding of the nature of the movement it purports to describe other than a superficial identification of features that the labels Nazism and fascism already connote. ] 01:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:Simonides, how does making no distinction (in the article) between Nazi totalitarianism and Soviet totalitarianism help to "avoid potential confusion for the general reader"?
:What is your response to the fact that Misplaced Pages is currently out of line with both Encarta and Britannica (cited above) in its failure to record, with even a single word, the fact that Hitler's regime was Fascist, or even "fascistic"? While rejecting the term, you yourself give two notable reasons why it should be accepted. ]] 01:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The word totalitarianism is very broadly in use and can be applied to almost any state that employs certain methods, without any reference to ideology, which is the whole point of using it in the header - as objective language as possible. There is no confusion with Soviet totalitarianism because it's a word like 'monarchy', describing a state of affairs rather than an ideology (the ideology is sketched with the references to anti-Semitism, nationalism, etc.) As I already stated the word ''fascist'' can lead to confusion with ''Fascism'' which is a particular ideology rather than a mere state of affairs (like totalitarianism, oligarchy, monarchy etc) though I certainly don't disagree with its applicaton to the Nazis; we are simply trying to inform the general reader here with as much clarity as possible. -- ] 01:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:You say that you "certainly don't disagree with its application to he Nazis", but in practice, remove any mention of the "fascist" nature of Hitler's ideology from the article, not even just the the introduction. The general reader may well be confused when he goes to Britannica and sees Hitler described squarely as a Fascist, with a capital F, and then comes to Misplaced Pages, and sees not even a ''single word'' mention of the fascistic nature of Hitler's ideology. Any number of reputable books also describe him as such, yet Misplaced Pages shys away as it may be seen to be "pejorative". Poor Hitler! In Giovannis' word: inexcusable. ]] 02:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::The good news is that most editors will favor its inclusion in keeping with the majority view and Wikipeadia will be kept up to the high standards of the other non-free encylopedias. And, I disagree with Simonides equating the well accepted descriptions of a ], which is form of government in which one person has the hereditary right to rule as head of state during his or her lifetime, with the theory of totalitarnism, which contrary to what he says also involves a description of ideology. In my view, the organic, idealist conception of the State that this theory rests on is deeply flawed. ] 02:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:It seems you missed my comments below and are new to this Talk page. As others will attest I am no defender of Hitler and to the best of my knowledge there are no 'camps' on this page. My only concern is for clarity - most Americans didn't even know where Kabul was until the Afghanistan invasion started, so (without meaning to be superior or condescending in any way) I think we are overestimating the understanding of the average individual who does their research online, by relying on their knowledge of modern scholarship to distinguish between fascist and Fascist. As Giovanni himself noted (or was it someone else) and I repeated, the small f word only entered general use after a study of these regimes, which reinforces my point about confusion between ideology and a state of affairs. Totalitarian itself has been around only slightly longer, since about the 20s, and it was a word made popular by the Fascists themselves, but please note that while the word does include the use of ideology it does not connote any ''specific'' ideology which puts it in a different category from words like Nazi, Fascist etc. -- ] 02:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:I presume the above post was directed to me, and not Giovanni? I have never accused you of being a defender of Hitler - far from it! And I have never used the word "camps" - there appears to be a "group" of editors in favour of a mention of the "fascist" nature of Hitler's ideology, and a "group" against such a mention, but I do not believe in cabals, and I don't go "investigating" other editors to see what other edits they have made. I am perfectly aware that people can come from quite disparate viewpoints, and yet agree on particular issues. While I may be new to this talk page, I wasn't born yesterday either ;)
:I suggested above that it would be helpful to include some mention (even a single word!) of the Fascist/fascist/fascistic nature of Hitler's ideology and wikilink it to the section describing the similarities/differences in the ] article. I can't see how this wouldn't help the reader. You yourself say that "totalitarian" does not connote any specific ideology, so how does this help the reader, if we only use it in its non-specific meaning, without any distinction? I have no problem with the use of "totalitarian" in the article, as Hitler's (and Stalin's) regime were the epitome of the term. But can't we make a distinction?
:Could you please respond to my question regarding how WP is currently out-of-line with Britannica, Encarta and many other reputable sources with its failure to mention, even in passing, Hitler's brand of "fascism"? ]] 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I was addressing both you and Giovanni. Let's make this very simple:

*Totalitarianism has variants, one of which is fascism. Totalitarianism is the 'higher' category however because its usage is broader, and more appropriate over here (explained below).
*It is not merely a 'theory' or a 'concept' - it pretty much describes a certain state of affairs or set of methods - basically, ''total'' control, ie of every aspect of life. (Although of course there are various theories which are ''about'' totalitarianism, or totalitarian in nature, or the products of totalitarian regimes, etc.)
*Most readers, and the Misplaced Pages article itself, don't clearly distinguish between fascism and Fascism. The current wikilink takes us to ], a single article (not two - Fascism vs fascism), which itself makes the word synonymous at some points and comments on differing definitions. I fully acknowledge that fascism in current scholarship has a broader definition than Fascism and includes Nazism, Franco's rule, Pinochet's rule, etc but my only contention is that we want to make things easier for the reader, not tougher. We make it tougher by allowing for the potential confusion between Mussolini's regime and the accepted scholarly usage. The word has not yet reached the point where people can distinguish between the two usages as they might be able to between republican (in the 19th century French usage, for ex.) vs Republican, or democratic and Democrat, etc.
*Misplaced Pages (which I'm highly critical of, btw - you'll see some links to debates on my Talk page) doesn't follow the same standards as other, non-💕e. It tries to set ''equally high'' standards, but not the same ones (which can be very frustrating.)
*By not connoting any specific ideology, we make specific reference to Hitler's methods and not just his beliefs. His beliefs/ideology are also mentioned separately in the references to nationalism, anti-Semitism, militarism etc. Basically, we are able to round out a description of Hitler's rule without being redundant (by explaining its various aspects to readers) instead of just sticking the label fascist (which overlaps with stuff that is already stated) and leaving readers to figure out its meaning in this context.
*We can certainly make room for explaining the difference between fascism and Fascism later in the article, but IMO it clutters the header which must be brief.

-- ] 03:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:I see Wys is stil pushing her POV. But, I thank Simonides for his efforts, despite that we disagree on the theory of totalitarianism (its really a theory that is highly disputed). I agree with the current version that addresses editorial language, but includes the correct usage of fascism and imperialism, instead of the loaded term, totalitarianism, or the less than satifactory term expansionism. And it doesn't matter if other readers are not aware of the small f, capital F difference--its moot: Nazism is properly termed fascism. I agree with the analysis of Giovanni, John K, and Camilus, and disagree with Str, and most of all, Wyss. ] 04:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Belinda, was there ever an issue you didn't agree on with Giovanni?

Quite in contrast to what he is saying: there is (or was) a debate about whether N. is a form of F. or rather of T. - and there still different views on this. Hence including F. in the intro is POV (agreed, including T. becomes POV as well). At best, both equations are disputed.

Also, "Fascist Totalitarianism" doesn't work as this states the two opposing views. And we don't need to distinguish the two Totalitarisms here, as it is clear in the article that Hitler was a Nazi and no communist.

No one is talking about Hitler without mentioning F., as Mussolini certainly was a model for the early Hitler and later an ally, but whether N. equals F. is another question. And we can quite well talk about Hitler and N. without calling it F. We could include (if it really isn't included) a short phrase about parallels to Italian Fascism in the "early party" section, but it has to be short, as this article is about Hitler the man.

Name-calling doesn't help the discussion either, Giovanni, and whether F. is seen as a negative (I think we share at least that much) is irrelevant - what Wyss pointed out is the term is used to label all kinds of political views. Nazi is a better term as Hitler actually called himself a Nazi.

The preference of many people for labelling N. as F. is motivated in some cases by ideological preference (the so-called Antifascism), in other by linguistical (longish Nationalsocialism, German: Nazismus vs. Narzismus).

'''Last but not least, even if it were undisputed to label N. as F., it still wouldn't be all right to include it into the intro, as the "regime passage" in the intro is not concerned with labelling the political affiliation of Hitler (that is dealt with in the first paragraph by clearly calling him what he was, a Nazi), but the nature of the regime. To say it was F. is absolutely redundant. The whole passage becomes pointless and should better be removed completely.'''

] 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

PS. I do understand the F-f distinction but I don't like it, though it is unfortunately a part of the English language, an ugly scar on a beautiful face. ] 10:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me clarify one thing more, echoing Simonides. If T. is used along the line of the theory of T. it is a contentious point, but so would be F. However, when using T. more broadly, as Simonides argued, it is not contentious. F. however always remains redundant and pointless in the "regime passage". But I am open to any alternative word that might do the trick of avoiding the contentious side of T. while including the broader, non-contentious side of T. The problem is that most words are too weak to properly describe N. (e.g. authoritarian, dictatorial). ] 10:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I understand Simonides's argument that "fascism" is confusing, but that "totalitarianism" is perfectly acceptable. "Totalitarianism" just ''isn't'' a neutral, descriptive word. Use of the word means that one is endorsing a particular ideological viewpoint, which states that Nazism and Stalinism are essentially similar. As Str has noted, there are some scholars who hold this viewpoint. But it is very distinctly a minority viewpoint, and it is particularly so among scholars of Nazi Germany - I can't think of any major currently working historians who endorse the totalitarian model. That is to say, totalitarianism is a word which is used by a small minority of scholars and represents commitment to a particular ideological model of what Nazi Germany is. Fascism, on the other hand (with a small "f") is mostly agreed upon by historians as a useful model for understanding various European political movements of the interwar period, and the regimes they established, most notably in Germany and Italy. There are numerous useful scholarly works about the phenomenon of European fascism in the interwar period, and every single one includes Nazi Germany. Some scholars don't like to use the term, but I don't think that fascism studies can be said to represent a single ideological viewpoint in the way that "totalitarianism" does.

In terms of broader meanings, I would dispute that wikipedia should concern itself with that, especially if we are giving a link. If we say "totalitarian," we are going to link to the "totalitarianism" article, which is a particular theory which is mostly rejected among scholars. The popular meaning of the term is simply a derivative of the scholarly theory, and it seems to me that it's impossible to assert a clear decision between the two meanings. With "fascism," on the other hand, I agree that it has become something of a pejorative, and that, if the popular meaning is intended, it could be misleading. Fortunately, though, a link to the ] article would clarify matters. I would accept, though, if we were to agree to use neither term in the intro, although fascism should certainly be mentioned somewhere in the article. ] 16:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Too Long?==
Let's put this one to bed, the idea that the intro is to long, and would collapse under the weight of a single word addition. Comparing the following articles:

{|
|Article
|Word count
|-
|Stalin
|454
|-
|Mao
|392
|-
|Lenin
|206
|-
|Hitler
|179
|}

And Wyss even now wants to zap the word "totalitarian" as "too loaded"!

Note that the German language Misplaced Pages adds Hitler to the "Faschismus" category (and incidentally, uses the more neutral photo which has been proposed for this page, rather than the glorifying picture used here.)<BR>
Britannica calls Hitler a Fascist (and with a capital F!). Encarta calls him a fascist!<BR>
And I'm still waiting for someone to say how Wyss's "preferred" dicdef does not fit Hitler.<BR>
I maintain : "the reluctance of some to consider the fascist elements of Hitler's ideology makes me suspect a potentially misleading PoV". ]] 11:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


:If you review this talk page you will find that I support the inclusion of ''totalitarian'' and have never said it is loaded (someone else said that). '''''(Actually, you did :)'''''

::<s>'''No no no'''... don't you read these posts? I was trying to compromise with John Kenny. I did not assert that totalitarian is loaded, I was trying to be open about finding a common solution.</s> (I think you ackowledge this further down) ] 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::That's how I understood what Wyss said too. ] 19:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::John K stated his preference for "fascist" as a description for Hitler's regime. I hardly think it's likely that he would think it a "compromise" to remove ''both'' "fascist" ''and'' "totalitarian". ]] 19:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::That's beside the point. I suggested a compromise and that's the context of my suggestion that the word ''totalitarian'' be avoided too. People skim these posts far too wontedly, then get wound up about what they've misread. Boring. ] 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Editor 1: "We've got 5, I want 10." Editor 2: "Compromise? How about I give you nothing?" . End of transmission... ]] 20:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Camillus, it is rather "We want to have 10 for us and you want to have 10 for us so let's give 5 to each." Not saying that works, just pointing out Wyss' reasoning. And, before you ask, this is only about the intro. Adding references to Fascism or Totalitarianism in the article is valid. ] 21:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Perhaps we're getting somewhere - "adding references to Fascism or Totalitarianism in the article is valid". That's promising. I don't see, however, how proposing to remove both ideas is giving something to both sides...you've lost me there...but I'm prepared to draw a line under this as I'm more interested in your proposal that both be mentioned in the article. ]] 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Yes, we should draw the line. Just a last attempt at explanation. One side wants F. and opposes T., the other side wants T. and opposes F., so leaving out both in the intro would have denied both sides their wish but also spared them to put up with what they didn't want.
::::Sure, I never denied that F. can be mentioned in the article (if I came across as such I am sorry), as in the article he have more space than in the intro. If there is no mentioning yet, this not the result of any conscious decision. The question is where to put it. We could include a reference immediately before the putsch of 1923 (as Mussolini is mentioned anyway) or before that in the early party organisation phase. For another proposal re the intro see John K below. ] 21:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I did suggest avoiding both ''fascism'' (or ''fascistic'') and ''totalitarian'' as a compromise and still support that. I'm also ok with the use of the word ''totalitarian'' and alternatively, a minimalised intro but the latter is not a popular suggestion here and I'm ok with that too.
::An introduction for Hitler, without mentioning the Holocaust, or the war that Hitler threw the world into, as you propose, '''will not pass''', just as an introduction for Stalin without mentioning the millions of deaths in the Gulags will not pass, or an introduction to Mao without mentioning the madness of the Cultural Revolution will not pass. ]] 17:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::I agree with you on that 100%. If you're going to find traction by arguing that I'd like to diminish the importance of the Holocaust to this topic, forget it. Want to expand the Holocaust section in this article? I'll help you. They murdered most of the Jews in Europe. It's one of AH's most enduring legacies. ] 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::::"Legacy" seems a strange choice of word to me. Something handed down from one generation to another? ]] 21:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:As for those other lengthy intros which have been cited, flaws in other articles shouldn't be used as justification for introducing flaws in this one. ] 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is opposing the F. word for overblowing the intro - it is opposed because of accuracy.
: In what way is this definition of Fascism inaccurate as a description of Hitler's ideology?:
::1 an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government. 2 extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
:And not just the intro, but not a single mention of Fascism in the article as a whole? ]] 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was Giovanni that argued for the T. word being loaded.

:Not only Giovanni, Wyss too:
::<s>"I also don't really like totalitarian; that is a politically loaded word "</s>

:::Please cite the diff on that one, I know I didn't say it, and the string doesn't even show up in a search, thanks. ] 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::'''My apologies - it was MikAm who said that'''...'''''but'''''...

::"Is it possible that both totalitarian and fascist are too loaded to be descriptively helpful in this intro?"
:The difference being, Giovanni wanted to replace totalitarian with fascist, while Wyss apparently would prefer to omit both words. The idea that Hitler's regime cannot objectively be called totalitarian has no scholarly credibility whatsoever. ]] 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

::As above, I'm more than ok with using the term ''totalitarian'', you definitely misread someone else's post as mine. ] 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
:::'''''...one right, one wrong'''''. The diff shows you said that "totalitarian" may be too loaded. ]] 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:::You see it that way, I don't. I think totalitarian is helpful, fascist misleading in an intro. Discussing it in the text is more than ok by me.

:::Also.. I'm more than ok with ''aggressive'' exapnsionism, which spot on describes Sept 1 1939. ] 17:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't enter into debates about the picture, as those editors acquainted with this article have too many bad experience with one Mr RoHa.
:I mentioned it in parenthesis, as I'm aware that a long debate has taken place on this issue. Although I have only recently started commenting on this talk page, I have been following it for some time.

Wiki articles are not proper references and even Britannica can be wrong. Even if it's right, F. is redundant and pointless in the intro.
:Not only in the intro, but not even a single mention throughout the article? Brittanica is not the only reputable source that characterises Hitler's ideology as fascist. The idea that it is not accurate is a fringe view. ]] 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No one (AFAI can see) is denying that some elements of Hitler's ideology is fascist, but you probably could make Stalin a Fascist that way.
:How does Stalin fit Wyss' "preferred" dicdef, more than Hitler? I do not deny the similarities between Stalin's totalitarianism and Hitler's. But "fascist" is wholly appropriate to Hitler, while only marginally to Stalin.

Assume good faith. ] 13:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
:Yes indeed - my comment on "PoV" was a paraphrase of Wyss. Perhaps you should direct your comments to her. ]] 14:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

:::A couple of things: I don't agree with ]'s "paraphrase" of my take on PoV. Moreover, Stalin was as much a fascist as Hitler, but we don't say that in scholarly contexts because a) the term is insufficiently descriptive and b) it would more or less be op-ed. ] 15:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
::::Hardly surprising that you "don't agree", but how is it any less accurate than your assertion? We'll ignore the "Stalin was as much a fascist as Hitler", as you say, it's not "scholarly". The idea that Hitler's ideology was not fascistic is a fringe view, and the idea that Stalin was a fascist is a fringe view too. Franco didn't "perfect" Fascism, Hitler developed it into "Super Fascism", ie. Nazism. 16:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Happily, there is no need to mention these things in the intro, never mind we have some polite disagreements as to historical perspective, definitions and semantics. Ĩndeed, I glark this discussion is likely a symptom of ''why'' these terms are not helpful in an intro on this topic. ] 22:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

== Editorial language ==

Firstly, I think it's important to make something clear because Talk pages have a tendency to degenerate into camps - there aren't any real 'sides' in this article and I am not on anyone's 'side'. Any newcomer to this Talk page should go through the past five archived pages to realise that I have found previous versions of the header too much of a whitewash and argued at great length and sometimes vehemently with Wyss and to a lesser extent Str1977, Golbez and others - we're no cabal.

That said, words like "ultimately", "aggressively", "at the height of their power" etc are all very editorial, and this is the same concern that is driving some of the other editors to replace 'fascist' with 'totalitarian'; let's please try to use facts when we can as it sounds much more formal and provides more information (ultimately can be replaced with 'eventually' or 'by 19xx', or height of powers can be given an approximate time period, and so on.) -- ] 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep some of this editorial language, especially "at the height of their power" -it is hardly longer and we don't need to place exact dates into the intro. ] 22:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sad to say, almost ''nobody'' editing WP reads archived talk pages and I've run into admins exercising their admin powers who've actually told me "I'm not going to wade through x pages of archived talk..." The result is constant repetition of the same issues over and over again. ] 19:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==] - is a side-issue and a diversion from more substantive issues==
This Talk page is 145 kB long. I created a sub-page for this "side issue" of Hitler's sexuality, and moved the "discussion" above into it., see: ]. However, Str1977 reverted it. To be frank, I'm pissed off that this stupid speculation has been allowed to get us away from the real issues. I couldn't give "two hoots" if Hitler was gay or not - I'm more concerned with the discussion of the fascist nature of his regime, whether the intro should be expunged of mention of the Holocaust, Hitler's imperialism/aggressive expansionism/"reclaiming of former German lands".

Str1977, pleas don't revert these remarks without discussion. ]] 11:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please assume good faith. I certainly will not remove your comments from the talk page. I was merely adding my signature which (via the glitch) restored the section. I will restore your move now, though I don't think the topic merits a page of its own. It should be discused and archived in due course (but we can always turn the "Hitler's sex" talk page into an archive). ] 11:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:I am sorry if you took my comment as lacking respect for your "good faith". I allowed my annoyance at this "diversion" to spill over. My apologies. I think that the discussion does merit a separate talk page, as I imagine that this will come up again and again - just as there is a separate talk page for ], another perennial. ]] 12:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::And I am sorry for counteracting your move and for overreacting a bit. Last night was quite tense on WP (first this issue, later a sockpuppet controversy) and some of this spilled over to today. I agree that it will probably result in enough to fill a talk page. Some times, big issues are settled quickly, and small issues take ages. ] 13:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I blanked this whole section as it had been copied to ] (see below) and I feel a duplication can lead to confussion in the discussion - ie people carrying on commenting in both incarnations of the subject. ] 11:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

::The topic is wholly unsupported. Lots of codswallop about AH has been published. ] 14:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

==Totalitarianism and Fascism==

I notice that, at the moment, neither "fascism" nor "totalitarianism" is to be found in the intro. This is fine with me. On the other hand, later on, the article rather blandly states that Hitler was trying to establish a totalitarian state, with no sense that the word's meaning is problematic. At the same time, the only mention of the word "fascist" or "fascism" in the article is with respect to Italy. I don't really have strong opinions on the intro specifically, but I think that, in general, any use of "totalitarian" or "totalitarianism" needs to be problematized (that is, the narrative voice of wikipedia should not simply be saying that Hitler's regime was totalitarian - it should say that it has been described as totalitarian), and that there needs to be some mention that the National Socialist movement and the regime which it established have been described as fascist. This is all. ] 21:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with the intro as it is, too. I've no problem with succinct, objective references to the important nuances in the terms ''fascist'' and ''totalitarian'' as used by historians and I'm all for qualifying language in this context, (''described as'', etc) as mentioned by John Kenney. For example, I have zero problems with the ''body'' of the text mentioning that Nazism has been described as fascism and so on. ] 22:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

:While the tot. vs fasc. debate was quite unproductive and in my opinion, unwarranted, removal of either from the header and the inclusion of weasel words/evasive language/etc reintroduces POV and silliness. Was Hitler a dictator or not? Undisputedly. If you can't find other words to describe his dictatorship, then throw the latter in. If dictatorship is not your cup of tea, keep making the rounds with a tiny thesaurus. All this hyper-political correctness, where it isn't even accurate or necessary, is highly absurd. -- ] 00:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::Your PoV and emotion are showing :) ] 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::I feel the same way, I think the whole fascist/totalitarian issue was forced by {{User|Giovanni33}}'s trolling. I ran a quick Google search (see below) and both terms seem to be used with about the same frequency. In absence of an agreement, removing the term from the intro might be best. Even though this leads to hyper-political correctness (see the comment above), it's tough to imagine how else a consensus could be achieved.

::<table width="306" border="0"><tr><td width="213" height="31" bgcolor="#999999"><div align="center"class="style6">Search term </div></td><td width="83" bgcolor="#999999"><div align="center" class="style6"># of hits </div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span class="style7">Hitler + totalitarian</span></td> <td><div align="right" class="style7"></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span class="style7">Hitler + fascist </span></td> <td><div align="right" class="style7"></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span class="style7">Hitler + &quot;totalitarian state&quot; </span></td> <td><div align="right" class="style7"></div></td> </tr> <tr> <td><span class="style7">Hitler + &quot;fascist state&quot; </span></td> <td><div align="right" class="style7"></div></td> </tr></table>
::--] 01:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:::No, raw Google word searches are unscientific in terms of historical accuracy. Moreover, interpreting them is original research. However, although the presumption of using Google is false, I agree with the conclusion in that the intro can do without either term. ] 01:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::::Yeah, this was merely an attempt to show that it would not be surprising, if the body of editors was evenly split on the issue. The whole discussion has been quite wasteful. ] 01:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::::We do agree and I know you weren't trying to be scientific. I also, sadly, agree that some serious trolling and wiki-revenge tactics have been at play here. ] 01:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:To remove mention of Hitler's dictatorship is unhistorical, POV and unacceptable. It doesn't matter what word ''precisely'' we settle on, so long as it is mentioned. -- ] 01:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

::I don't agree. The term ''dictatorship'' is undescriptive, misleading and potentially PoV. Beacuse of this, the term is unscholarly and unencyclopedic. WP is not a blog. ] 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:::Hitler wasn't a dictator? Whatever next? This is one of the most batty things I've ever heard. How many "scholars" would suggest that Hitler wasn't a dictator? Bonkers! ]] 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

:Interesting result - twice as many hits for Fascist as totalitarian. I'd be content to see a discussion of both terms in the body of the article, mentioning, even if briefly, that Hitler's ideology has been characterised as a Fascist, and his regime as totalitarian, with appropriate links - eg. link to section in the Fascism article where the differences between Nazism and Fascism are discussed. I agree with Simonides comment above. Now I see that Wyss is asserting that Hitler wasn't a dictator. "What Next?"
:I feel it's rather sad when Wikipedians call others "trolls" when they dare to disagree with them. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of trolling. ]] 01:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


*'''The term ''dictatorship'' is undescriptive, misleading and potentially PoV. Beacuse of this, the term is unscholarly and unencyclopedic. WP is not a blog. ]'''
This should be enough to disqualify Wyss from editing an article on Hitler and all the numerous Hitler-related articles she obsesses over. -- ] 01:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:27, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Adolf Hitler article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Adolf Hitler. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Adolf Hitler at the Reference desk.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Good articleAdolf Hitler has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 26, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
December 19, 2005Good article nomineeListed
April 22, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
March 26, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 20, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
October 17, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
December 16, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article
This  level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconAustria Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconBavaria Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Bavaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bavaria on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BavariaWikipedia:WikiProject BavariaTemplate:WikiProject BavariaBavaria
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconEuropean history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconGermany Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconPolitics Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDeath High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDiscrimination High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish history Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconCrime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconBiography: Military / Politics and Government / Core
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Biography / European / German / World War I / World War II
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Military biography task force
Taskforce icon
European military history task force
Taskforce icon
German military history task force
Taskforce icon
World War I task force
Taskforce icon
World War II task force
WikiProject iconSpoken Misplaced Pages
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Misplaced Pages
Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
          Other talk page banners
Section sizes
Section size for Adolf Hitler (40 sections)
Section name Byte
count		 Section
total
(Top) 10,113 10,113
Ancestry 1,602 1,602
Early years 18 12,944
Childhood and education 4,704 4,704
Early adulthood in Vienna and Munich 4,156 4,156
World War I 4,066 4,066
Entry into politics 6,765 13,366
Beer Hall Putsch and Landsberg Prison 4,932 4,932
Rebuilding the Nazi Party 1,669 1,669
Rise to power 2,137 18,482
Brüning administration 4,258 4,258
Appointment as chancellor 1,540 1,540
Reichstag fire and March elections 2,152 2,152
Day of Potsdam and the Enabling Act 2,385 2,385
Dictatorship 6,010 6,010
Nazi Germany 341 7,582
Economy and culture 1,874 1,874
Rearmament and new alliances 5,367 5,367
World War II 19 29,340
Early diplomatic successes 258 5,840
Alliance with Japan 985 985
Austria and Czechoslovakia 4,597 4,597
Start of World War II 10,056 10,056
Path to defeat 6,242 6,242
Defeat and death 7,183 7,183
The Holocaust 7,398 7,398
Leadership style 3,261 3,261
Personal life 20 8,111
Family 993 993
Views on religion 3,484 3,484
Health 3,614 3,614
Legacy 4,014 4,861
In propaganda 847 847
See also 493 493
Notes 884 884
Citations 34 34
Bibliography 19 50,250
Printed 36,201 36,201
Online 14,030 14,030
External links 5,634 5,634
Total 174,355 174,355
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 129 million views since December 2007.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

Archiving icon
Archives
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.


Mass murderer category

Should we add categories of German or Austrian mass murderers for Hitler? This is a very heated topic but is it necessary here or is that reserved for those who were directly in charge of concentration camps? 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say not, as (technically) he did not personally kill anyone. It will just ass slowness and words without any real benefit. Slatersteven (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
No, while he caused mass death, he left the dirty work to others. There are lots of people who did that, we don't call them "mass murderers" either. Acroterion (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
And I bring this up because other dictators who have been accused of mass murder have this category on their articles. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
@Slatersteven 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Such as? Acroterion (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Bashar Al Assad, Saddam Hussein, Fulgenico Batista, etc. I also added to their talk pages if you’d like to contribute there. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe, but you need a better argument than other stuff, as I can also find examples where we do not. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
What constitutes adding that category? Why don’t we add it towards mobsters who ARE known to have murdered people in mass? 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I also added to talk pages of several dictators accused of mass murder that don’t have the category as of yet. 2600:100C:A218:9A7B:BC5E:E0AD:C8F9:553 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Well lets see, because some people actually take part in the killings, they do not just order them. Some people give direct orders as to who to kill, others give a direct order to kill. Different people have different histories. Slatersteven (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
I think we should Starmaglclove (talk) 07:10, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hitler killed 130000 max Not 3 mil 2A02:A03F:80CF:F300:1944:E13B:2E62:C8CA (talk) 17:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Annh07 (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Furkan1907 (talk) 18:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Adolf_Hitler,_20._april_1945.jpg_(2).jpg This photo is from March 20, 1945, not April 20, 1945. https://www.reddit.com/r/ww2/comments/sq01hc/adolf_hitler_march_1945/ https://twitter.com/ww2turkiye/status/1785209094082617803 https://www.hitler-archive.com/photo.php?p=33QYTKfe

The photo was clearly taken on March 20, 1945.

None of those are RS. Slatersteven (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Photographs taken at the same place and location, at the moment when Hitler saluted the young soldier. Furkan1907 (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Adolf_Hitler,_20._april_1945.jpg_(2).jpg https://www.hitler-archive.com/photo.php?p=33QYTKfe If there is no problem with vision, it can be understood that both were taken at the same place and time: March 20, 1945. Furkan1907 (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
The description of the photo on Misplaced Pages also says March 20, 1945, but let me explain further. April 20, 1945 is wrong. Furkan1907 (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
An anonymous person changed the date on the photo at the Commons on Dec 23/24. I have changed it back, because that's what this source says. April 20, 1945, was Hitler's last birthday and his last visit to the surface. He gave medals to several young soldiers. That's what we are seeing in the photo. This source has an incorrect date, because it shows the same event, which took place on Hitler's birthday, and was his last public appearance. Diannaa (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHfAdKeXkQ&t=30s 0.30 Mark Felton, a master of historical research, also says it was March 20.
In fact, from the many photos I posted, Hitler's coat, Artur Axmman's stance, the bald man in the background, clearly showed that these photos were taken at the same place and time on March 20, 1945. Furkan1907 (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Now that I have a minute to get the books out, I can tell you that Beevor covers this in chapter 17 ("The Fuhrer's Last Birthday") of The Fall of Berlin 1945,. The description of Hitler meeting Hitler Youth is on page 251. "That afternoon, in the ruins of the Reich Chancellery garden, the Fuhrer worked his way slowly down a line of Hitler Youth, some of whom had received the Iron Cross for attacking Soviet tanks."Evans, in volume III (The Third Reich At War), describes that part of Hitler's final birthday on page 722. "Hitler emerged into the open briefly to review a small detachment of Hitler Youth in the Chancellery garden..." Diannaa (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
It is not clear that the date written in the book is the same as that date. But the photographs I posted are clearly taken at the same place and time on March 20, 1945. https://www.reddit.com/r/GermanWW2photos/comments/ufvt7p/adolf_hitler_inspects_soldiers_of_hitler_youth/
Notice the white-skinned bald man in the back. Furkan1907 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/Adolf_Hitler#/media/File:Adolf_Hitler,_20._april_1945.jpg_(2).jpg Furkan1907 (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
An anonymous person on Reddit is not a good a source for information on this topic. Richard J. Evans is the retired Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge, and Antony Beevor is a visiting professor at Birkbeck, University of London, and the University of Kent. Diannaa (talk) 22:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpHfAdKeXkQ&t=30s 0.30 Master of history researcher Mark Felton says this date is March 20. There is no need to insist on the wrong date and give readers false information. Furkan1907 (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Mark Felton Productions is a STRICTLY NON-POLITICAL history channel presenting films by leading military historian and author Dr. Mark Felton on a variety of fascinating historical subjects, with particular focus on WWII and the Cold War. Mark is a well-known British writer, the author of 22 non-fiction books, including bestsellers Zero Night and Castle of the Eagles, both currently being developed into movies in Hollywood. He has written extensively on Japanese war crimes, POW camps, Nazi war criminals, the Holocaust, famous escapes, Hitler and other Nazi leaders. In addition to writing, Mark also appears regularly in television documentaries around the world, including on The History Channel, Netflix, National Geographic, Quest, American Heroes Channel and RMC Decouverte. His books have formed the background to several TV and radio documentaries. More information about Mark can be found at: www.markfelton.co.uk https://en.wikipedia.org/Mark_Felton Furkan1907 (talk) 09:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
And Beevor has written, what is regarded as pretty much the definitive book about the last days of the Reich (and AH). Why would we ignore that in favour of a (relatively) unknown?Pincrete (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
You wrote in such a way that Mark Felton seems like an NPC passing by on the street. Furkan1907 (talk) 15:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok, I gave up. Let that article remain as a wrong date. Do whatever you want. Furkan1907 (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
http://markfelton.co.uk/2016/04/ Furkan1907 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
One more source: Albert Speer was actually there in the Chancellery Garden that day, and he says it was on Hitler's birthday, April 20. Inside the Third Reich, page 598 of the 1971 paperback. Sometimes sources disagree on things; what we do in cases like that is go with consensus. So yeah, please drop it now, as consensus is against you this time. Diannaa (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Felton's reputation far from of Beevor and even farther away from that of Richard Evans and Ian Kershaw; the latter who also writes the event occurred on Hitler's last birthday of 20 April 1945. See chapter 28 ("Extinction") of Hitler: A Biography, pp. 922–923. And as Diannaa states we must go with WP:RS consensus. Kierzek (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Hatnote edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the hatnote at Adolf Hitler#Ancestry from {{see also|Hitler family|Origin theories of Adolf Hitler}} to {{see also|Hitler family}}. The second link is redundant as it was redirected to the first in this AfD. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8? 19:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

done. Rainsage (talk)

Torturer category

Would the torturer category be appropriate here? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:3DFA:A9B2:FCD8:A60 (talk) 06:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No. Slatersteven (talk) 10:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
Any reason for this? 2600:100C:A21D:971A:19F4:96E7:9B0B:1686 (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
He personally did not torture anybody. Diannaa (talk) 02:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: