Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1
[edit] essay?
Hitler was as Christian ad Bush is Christian as Saddam was Muslim as Stalin was Jewish. In any event, do you think Stalin or Mao believed in God? Even demons believe in God, and shudder (JAS 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that--and shudder.--NIV) Did Hitler shudder before God? Did Hitler behave as though he had a fear of God? Did Hitler worship God? Or did he, like Saddam, simply pay lip service from time to time to God to garner support from the masses, while attempting to usurp God's role by seperating the wheat from the chaff?
Other problems:
- Michael Savage is not a Christian as far as I know. He is Jewish by heritage, though he may be a messianic Jew, or he may have converted to Christianity. So I am challanging based on my lack of knowledge the claim that Michael Savage is Christian.
- I know of many people who were born into Christian or religious families, and do not believe nor worship God.
Anyway, this seems more like an essay so far. Heart♥Gold tx 09:40, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
He wasn't devout and in a way similar to how Saddam treated Islam, so I don't think his beliefs are really relevant. Except when refuting widespread (and untrue) ideas that Hitler was an atheist or a satanist. MiddleMan 09:57, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- Yeah pretty much. I'm doing this in response to claims on the Conservapedia article that he was a fanatical atheist. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 09:59, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
I see, just make sure it doesn't look as if we at RW are blaming his religious beliefs for the holocaust (even though it's quite possibly his catholic upbringing contributed to his anti-semitism.) MiddleMan 10:05, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- Ill try. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 10:06, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- It's worst when the enemy thinks that he is one of you.
- Ill try. -Ĭ₠ŴΣĐĝё 10:06, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- There you go, some words o'wisdom for the day. --ויִכִּ נתֶּרֶפּרֶתֵּר שְׁלֹום!
- I can't find anything linking Michael Savage to a statement about Hitler being an atheist. I'm going to remove his name, since there's a {{fact}} template hanging out there, unless someone else can find anything? I'll just move the template to after Ann Coulter's name, since that should probably have a ref as well anyway. Cool? -Smyth 12:31, 20 September 2007 (EDT)
First I heard that Stalin was Jewish. He trained as an orthodox priest, so that must have been weird.
Streona 12:25, 2 January 2008 (EST)
- Yeah, Stalin was very not-Jewish, and in fact was rather anti-Semitic. Truthfully, I think he mostly worshipped himself. EVDebs 14:15, 6 January 2008 (EST)
[edit] Night of Broken Glass
I don't think it's worth writing about here, but y'all should go read (really read) the 'night of broken glass' section in cp:Adolf Hitler. Then ask yourself the following questions:
- Was "The Grynszpan mention is not important on the face, but their 17-year-old son Herschel does." written by a native English speaker?
- What actually, y'know, happened, on the night of broken glass? Is that the name given to a kid in Paris buying a gun?
--jtltalk 14:23, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
- I thought a young Jewish homosexual assissanted a German diplomat, and this was used as pretext to encouraging rioting against Jewish owned businesses in Germany. Heart♥Gold tx 23:21, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
- The diplomat was homosexual, and this was used as an attempted defence (under french law a crime of passion receives a lesser sentence than a political assassination), but there is no evidence that the assassin was homosexual, and indeed the defence was entirely made up as a counter-propaganda move to protect the Jews still in Germany at the time. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:27, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- I thought a young Jewish homosexual assissanted a German diplomat, and this was used as pretext to encouraging rioting against Jewish owned businesses in Germany. Heart♥Gold tx 23:21, 4 June 2007 (CDT)
[edit] Most Evil Human Being Ever
William I of England killed a third of the population of England (Half a million from one and a half million) chiefly in the "Harrying of the North". He was also a little touchy about his nickname "William the Bastard" or "Guillaume le Batard", for when the citizens of Alencon taunted him over this, he had the taunters eyes poked out with hot pokers and their hands and feet cut off. Hitler managed to murder a fifth of the population of Poland. Streona 18:32, 3 January 2008 (EST)
- That doesn't make him the Most Evil Human Being Ever; it just makes him a Conquering Norman warlord. He also demolished parts of my home county of Northamptonshire, but we don't bear a grudge ;) Spica 09:55, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Half a million is much too high - Yorkshire may have been wealthy, but it hardly had a third of the population of England living there. Around 100-150,000 is more likely, at least that's what Orderic Vitalis says. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 10:23, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Interesting. Is there anyone to whom we can attribute a greater number of total deaths?--Bobbing up 14:22, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- I don't think it's just quanity, but quality as well. How about someone who was a lot more into making his victims suffer, or revelling in the slaughter of it all? I'd say those are more evil than simply killing a lot of people, evil as that is. --Kels 14:28, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, I think Hitler was quite happy about the holocaust. --Bobbing up 14:31, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Sure, but we're not talking about Hitler, we're talking about who would be worse, right? So do we want someone with a higher death toll only, or does higher cruelty count even if the numbers are lower? --Kels 14:32, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- I'll just point out that focusing on just one person in this way is a bit of an oversimplification. Sure, Hitler gave the orders, but someone had to carry them out, and there had to be specific circumstances or structures present in society that made it possible to give such orders in the first place. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 14:42, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Sure, but we're not talking about Hitler, we're talking about who would be worse, right? So do we want someone with a higher death toll only, or does higher cruelty count even if the numbers are lower? --Kels 14:32, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Well, I think Hitler was quite happy about the holocaust. --Bobbing up 14:31, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- I don't think it's just quanity, but quality as well. How about someone who was a lot more into making his victims suffer, or revelling in the slaughter of it all? I'd say those are more evil than simply killing a lot of people, evil as that is. --Kels 14:28, 6 January 2008 (EST)
Well - its the thought that counts.
Orderic Vitalis was a Norman apologist and even he was overwhelmed. Even the Pope! The deaths from the Norman Conquest were wider dispersed than just Yorkshire and Vitalis just ascribes them to the famine that followed the substantive harrying. Then of course there's Pol Pot Streona 15:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Maybe that bad guy from Ghostbusters II should get honorable mention. He did try to return from the grave to terrorize 20th century New York...'course, the fact that he's a fictional character probably hurts him.--Bayesupdate 15:45, 6 January 2008 (EST)
So is Satan but that hasn't done him any harm. Streona 17:06, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- I rather think that Satan misses out for being both non human and fictional.--Bobbing up 17:41, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- I'm pretty sure I wrote that line originally, and it is not meant to be a quantitatively perfect statement - it is an expression of who Hitler is perceived to be, by Westerners, in our era. If anyone thinks it should be in quote marks, I'm fine with that. The line could also be duplicated on several other pages if we have them (Stalin, Pol Pot, Gengkis Kahn,
George W. Bush, etc., and could even be a category. human
20:37, 6 January 2008 (EST)
- Weighing in rather late on the most evil human being issue, it has always seemed to me that the depth of evil associated with Schickelgrubber is due in large part to the methodical, scientific, cold-blooded way he deprived Jews of the right to work, confined them to ghettoes, starved them, shipped them to extermination camps and then collected their gold teeth after gassing them. Rational Edfaith 13:14, 7 April 2008 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure I wrote that line originally, and it is not meant to be a quantitatively perfect statement - it is an expression of who Hitler is perceived to be, by Westerners, in our era. If anyone thinks it should be in quote marks, I'm fine with that. The line could also be duplicated on several other pages if we have them (Stalin, Pol Pot, Gengkis Kahn,
The most evil human being ever was Gilles de Raille. He made Hitler look like a boy scout. --Let Them Eat Cake (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Hitler as Politician
I notice this article doesn't discuss Hitler's political views. The--ahem--competitors didn't have much patience (about two minutes' worth) for this young buck very gingerly describing the National Socialists as "a conservative party."
- Can't imagine why Lurker 01:40, 4 April 2008 (EDT)
- Taking "conservative" in its original meaning as coming from the root word "conserve", Hitler was indeed a conservative, promoting the traditional German family etc. Whether he matches perfectly with the modern movement called conservative I can't be entirely sure. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- To anyone who thinks Hitler or the Nazis were "conservative," I advise reading the first verse of the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Mein Kampf also sheds some light in that area.
ListenerXTalkerX 14:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- You mean the line about shooting/being shot by Reds and Reactionaries? That doesn't rule out a conservative philosophy...WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The term Reaktion at that time referred both to the liberals and to the conservatives like Hindenburg; the moderate powerholders in the Weimar Republic.
ListenerXTalkerX 18:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- Still, one can be conservative and not like moderate conservatives (they aren't conservative enough! They must be conservative more!). In NZ, the Worker's Party, a bunch of commie idiots, wear t-shirts saying they'd rather have a revolution than a Labour (moderate left) government, so it must also be possible on the right. I think our problem here is that the definition of conservative is ever-changing, and so of course Hitler's political beliefs could not be entirely squared with your average modern Republican, but at the same time there are elements which are obviously conservative (romanticisation of the past, strong support for the family unit, etc) WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hitler was a nationalist, not a conservative. He wanted to unite all the German-speaking lands under the government of one State, something that had never happened before. I must also emphasize that I do not consider our modern-day Republican luminaries so much conservative as radically right-wing; there was an article about this written last year during the election campaign.
ListenerXTalkerX 02:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Furthermore, the NS politics allways showed a quite confusing (one might say schizophrenic) mixture of "old and new", to put it simple. On the one hand, it advertised the traditional role model of "KKK" (Kinder-Küche-Kirche, children-kitchen-church) for woman, on the other hand, woman were encouraged to study and work in predominantly male workfields (out of necessity, of course, but other necessitys didn`t stop Hitler before). Hitler styled himself as a "tool of god" against the jews while activly working to undermine the influence of the church and replacing it with his own cult. Other "progressive" parts of the ideology would be the planned economy (certainly not a conservative thing) and the expansion of social welfare (for aryan germans, of course).
- To cut things short, you simply can`t press national socialism into the traditionel political system. Gmb (talk) 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hitler was a nationalist, not a conservative. He wanted to unite all the German-speaking lands under the government of one State, something that had never happened before. I must also emphasize that I do not consider our modern-day Republican luminaries so much conservative as radically right-wing; there was an article about this written last year during the election campaign.
- Still, one can be conservative and not like moderate conservatives (they aren't conservative enough! They must be conservative more!). In NZ, the Worker's Party, a bunch of commie idiots, wear t-shirts saying they'd rather have a revolution than a Labour (moderate left) government, so it must also be possible on the right. I think our problem here is that the definition of conservative is ever-changing, and so of course Hitler's political beliefs could not be entirely squared with your average modern Republican, but at the same time there are elements which are obviously conservative (romanticisation of the past, strong support for the family unit, etc) WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- The term Reaktion at that time referred both to the liberals and to the conservatives like Hindenburg; the moderate powerholders in the Weimar Republic.
- You mean the line about shooting/being shot by Reds and Reactionaries? That doesn't rule out a conservative philosophy...WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 15:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- To anyone who thinks Hitler or the Nazis were "conservative," I advise reading the first verse of the Horst-Wessel-Lied. Mein Kampf also sheds some light in that area.
- Taking "conservative" in its original meaning as coming from the root word "conserve", Hitler was indeed a conservative, promoting the traditional German family etc. Whether he matches perfectly with the modern movement called conservative I can't be entirely sure. WazzaHello? Is there anybody in there? Just nod if you can hear me... 09:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Tense issues?
Could someone copyedit for tense? I'd do it, but I'm hungry :-( -αmεσ (orator) 17:55, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
- I think I got it. It was mostly in one section, which had a weird use of the present tense. human
19:27, 6 April 2008 (EDT)
[edit] Germany category
I have restored Hitler to the Germany category. The article on Germany is not exclusively about the modern country; it contains the entire history of Germany from late antiquity onwards. Hitler is most definitely a part of German history, no matter how embarrassing or brief a part that is; if we are to include only positive articles in categories, perhaps for starters we should remove the "Kinder, Kuche, Kirche" article from the Germany category.
ListenerXTalkerX 01:12, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- Unfortunately so. Recognizing and coming to terms with history is better than ignoring it. LadyLuck 10:31, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- An alternative would be to put the Nazism category into the Germany one, which would mean articles on Hitler & other Nazis wouldn't need to be in the Germany cat too. Only slight issue is that one or two of the Nazism articles are about modern non-German neoNazis. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 11:53, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- As a German, I think the category Germany is apt. The worst parts of history can't be ignored. I wouldn't like a category German, or German People - unless he's put in the Austrian, and Austrian People bins, too. l'arronsicut fur in nocte 12:00, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- I yield on the cat. ħuman
15:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- I yield on the cat. ħuman
- As a German, I think the category Germany is apt. The worst parts of history can't be ignored. I wouldn't like a category German, or German People - unless he's put in the Austrian, and Austrian People bins, too. l'arronsicut fur in nocte 12:00, 4 February 2009 (EST)
- An alternative would be to put the Nazism category into the Germany one, which would mean articles on Hitler & other Nazis wouldn't need to be in the Germany cat too. Only slight issue is that one or two of the Nazism articles are about modern non-German neoNazis. Wéáśéĺóíď
[edit] Eddie Hitler
Sorry, couldn't resist that one :)
Woman: Edward Hitler?
Eddie: That's me
Woman: Any relation?
Eddie: Well, I've got a mother
Woman: No I meant Adolf Hitler
Eddie: Yes, that's her
Crundy 09:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] some minor(?) changes
Hi there. I finaly signed up today to make some changes to this article, specificly about Hitlers early succes during WW2, the "single most evil human" and "Mein Kampf". Since I`m (obviously) not a native speaker, it would be great if somebody could spellcheck my entries. I will add some sources later next week, as soon as I have acces to a library again. — Unsigned, by: Gmb / talk / contribs
- Hey, my apologies, I reverted the edit because, well, 1. it required huge spellchecking, and 2. did not seem to make sense as I worked through it, so I gave up. Can you keep trying, and perhaps not over-ride an existing section, so much as write a new one? And welcome, sorry about the undo of your edit. It's still there in the history. PS, please sign your talk page posts with four tildes, ok? ħuman
11:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- was it really so bad? thanks for the advice, I will try again :) Gmb (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- If it makes it easier, you can always put it on this talk page and we can go over anything with you before moving a finished copy to the main article.
narchist 11:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, how about this: His early campaigns against Poland and France were overwhelming victories for the Wehrmacht, but the reason was not Hitlers strategic insight, but rather a combination of bad planing on the french side, some reckless, but eventually sucessfull actions of a few german officers and a huge amount of luck. As the years passed, an apparent megalomania gripped him and his later mistakes (including the hubris of invading Russia, pissing off the United States, which at the time had a great many German sympathizers, and the pointless murder of much of the work force of his country and its occupied territories) cost him all his "gains".
- If it makes it easier, you can always put it on this talk page and we can go over anything with you before moving a finished copy to the main article.
- was it really so bad? thanks for the advice, I will try again :) Gmb (talk) 11:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
(UNDENT)--Yeah, but casting the deliberate murder of millions of people as a "mistake" is more than a little problematic. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- Also--the article as a whole seems to describe WWII and the Holocaust as a one-man show, as though Hitler did it all himself and should thereby take all the blame, thus overlooking the agency and guilt of millions of German, Dutch, Croatian, French, Polish, etc. etc. collaborators and sympathizers. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to bring this up again, but the part about Hitlers "strategic insight" is still bothering me. Might someone please spellcheck my suggestion, so that we can put it into the article?
- His early campaigns against Poland and France were overwhelming victories for the Wehrmacht, but the reason was not Hitlers strategic insight, but rather a combination of bad planing on the french side, some reckless, but eventually sucessfull actions of a few german officers and a huge amount of luck.
Gmb (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Religion
While hitler did present himself as Catholic, most of his private statements would suggest that he was not, he did plan on taking control of the churches in poland, and making the priests dependent on the third reich...beyond that, he did on occassion make some pro science, anti religion arguments (see the book Hitler: A Study in Tyranny) of course i know that such facts are not what we like to hear, but they seem to be the truth. He had some spirtual views, but would not count as a Catholic, and just because he said it in a few speeches ment for mass consumption, well, that doesnt mean anything.— Unsigned, by: 207.255.46.89 / talk / contribs
- This would be interesting, if you had said something new. - π 04:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a wikipedia editor and I can't help but notice that the religion section is a tad biased, and doesn't present much of a factual but more opinionated point of view. Hitler did in table talks, slander Christianity.
- "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianty's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world the relations between men and gods were founded on instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence would have developed in the direction of world domination and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilization at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that was in the natural order of things."
- "It is not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."
- In my opinion, I wouldn't call Hitler an atheist, as any Christian would, but an occultist, as there is more evidence to that plus his personal hatred of christianity.71.37.53.193 (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Stalin and Mao could be worse than Hitler.
In terms of death count Stalin was worse.
The Holodomer was a deliberate genocide to crush Ukrainian nationalism. 5-13 million people died of starvation from 1932-1933.
At least 1 million "kulaks" were killed by the "de-kulakisation" programs of Stalin from 1930-1934.
At least 3 million dead in the "Terror" purges from 1937-1940.
9.5-15 million peoploe were killed in the GULAG system from 1919-1953.
My source for this is "The Gulag Archipelago" by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. Moonshot926 (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- By sheer body count, Mao was by far the worst, ordering the deaths of between 49,000,000 and 78,000,000 people. Stalin follows with about 23,000,000, then Hitler with 12,000,000.
Liquid Blue 00:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot were great mass killers. They were all leftists. Lest we not forget. Moonshot926 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
- The entire left-right political spectrum is pretty subjective and relative. There does exist a general idea of what's "left-wing" or "right-wing", but it's not cut and dry enough for excessive pedantry. Whether or not Hitler was a leftist is somewhat murky, and his scatterbrained blend of different ideological currents is difficult to describe as either "left" or "right" and makes his Nazi ideology a good example of horseshoe theory in action. Also, while it's true that Stalin and Mao had much higher body counts than Hitler, I think what curls most people's hair about the Holocaust more than the death count alone (aside from the fact it was much more publicized than Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward) is its racial foundations and the highly industrialized way in which it was carried out. In fact, I was somewhat surprised when I learned that most genocides in world history weren't that organized or industrialized. The One They Call Mars (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- "while it's true that Stalin and Mao had much higher body counts than Hitler"
- If what you say is true, please dispute this bit in our article: "Joseph Stalin, who killed a mere six to nine million.>ref<Synder, T.Hitler vs. Stalin: Who Killed More? The New York Review of Books, March 10, 2011.>/ref<"
- Backed up by a solid source, of course. Nullahnung (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- That "solid source" relies on unusually low estimates of the number of deaths in the Holodomor; the joint declaration on the subject signed at the U.N. in 2003 put the minimum number of deaths at 7 million.
- Counterbalancing the engineered and systematic nature of the Nazi genocide is the fact that Stalin and Mao, unlike Hitler, claimed to be working for the good of the very people they were killing.
ListenerXTalkerX 10:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do think body count is a valid counter for "evilness". People go on about how the Holocaust is worst because of its industrial nature and other such factors, but in a way that seems cynical to me. It is almost, by implication, telling the victims of other atrocities "Oh, you were not killed in that specific fashion, so I suppose your case isn't so bad". A victim is a victim is a victim, so the death count is what remains. However, in Hitler's case one has also to take into account that he was eventually stopped. He "only" had 12 years of time and six years of war for his deeds. If we go by "deaths caused by year", Hitler leads by a wide margin (unfortunately, I forgot where I saw that figure). If you then also factor in his plans for post-war East Europe... yeah. Hitler was worst, he simply got stopped early. Octo8 (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- If "evilness" were measurable by the death of persons, I would not measure it by the count of people successfully killed, I would measure it by the count of people that potentially the evildoer would intend to kill.
- It does not make sense to me that just because a serial-killer was more successful in terms of people killed, he/she should rate as more evil than someone who tried to kill just as many, but did not succeed. Nullahnung (talk) 01:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I really think that when people take death tolls into account for Hitler they should also consider WW2 altogether, since he was the main one that provoked a pretty avoidable war. ClothCoat (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ah yes, you're right Nullahnung. That kinda is the argument I was trying to make, why Hitler still is worst, after all. So,y eah, succinctly put. Octo8 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tarkin was worse than all three put together. Destroyed the entire planet of Alderaan (estimated 2 billion inhabitants) as a mere interrogation tactic. Wéáśéĺóíď
Methinks it is a Weasel 01:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- Grand Moff Tarkin was worse than all three put together. Destroyed the entire planet of Alderaan (estimated 2 billion inhabitants) as a mere interrogation tactic. Wéáśéĺóíď
- Ah yes, you're right Nullahnung. That kinda is the argument I was trying to make, why Hitler still is worst, after all. So,y eah, succinctly put. Octo8 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I really think that when people take death tolls into account for Hitler they should also consider WW2 altogether, since he was the main one that provoked a pretty avoidable war. ClothCoat (talk) 03:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I do think body count is a valid counter for "evilness". People go on about how the Holocaust is worst because of its industrial nature and other such factors, but in a way that seems cynical to me. It is almost, by implication, telling the victims of other atrocities "Oh, you were not killed in that specific fashion, so I suppose your case isn't so bad". A victim is a victim is a victim, so the death count is what remains. However, in Hitler's case one has also to take into account that he was eventually stopped. He "only" had 12 years of time and six years of war for his deeds. If we go by "deaths caused by year", Hitler leads by a wide margin (unfortunately, I forgot where I saw that figure). If you then also factor in his plans for post-war East Europe... yeah. Hitler was worst, he simply got stopped early. Octo8 (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The entire left-right political spectrum is pretty subjective and relative. There does exist a general idea of what's "left-wing" or "right-wing", but it's not cut and dry enough for excessive pedantry. Whether or not Hitler was a leftist is somewhat murky, and his scatterbrained blend of different ideological currents is difficult to describe as either "left" or "right" and makes his Nazi ideology a good example of horseshoe theory in action. Also, while it's true that Stalin and Mao had much higher body counts than Hitler, I think what curls most people's hair about the Holocaust more than the death count alone (aside from the fact it was much more publicized than Stalin's purges or Mao's Cultural Revolution/Great Leap Forward) is its racial foundations and the highly industrialized way in which it was carried out. In fact, I was somewhat surprised when I learned that most genocides in world history weren't that organized or industrialized. The One They Call Mars (talk) 05:19, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Yes. Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot were great mass killers. They were all leftists. Lest we not forget. Moonshot926 (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Hitler was a leftist.
He was the leader of the NSDAP and used Keynesian fiscal stimulus. Moonshot926 (talk) 04:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and Glenn Beck is a communist. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC)What a silly label. "Leftist" is an arbitrary and subjective label that varies from country to country, time to time, and isn't terribly useful even in an ideal scenario. He had some policies that could be described as "left" in terms of modern American political positioning, but it's pretty silly to label him a "leftist." It's not even proper to call him "conservative," really, because it's not a useful distinction - it's just an attempt to smear that label with the association of Hitler. It's grossly dishonest, and a little shameful of you.--
talk
05:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler was center-left economically, even by European standards, or so the Political Compass says.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Centre-right. Anyways, calling arguably the most anti-egalitarian figure in history a leftist is pretty out there. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler was not "the most anti-egalitarian figure in history," which was partially why he cut such a bloody swathe through it: he favored wiping out entire peoples in Eastern Europe instead of just setting German governors over them, as had thitherto been done. Additionally he wanted to wipe out class distinctions among Germans.
ListenerXTalkerX 05:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- By instead putting everyone under a banner of nationalism. You also had the Social Darwinism thing going on, very egalitarian indeed. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- (EC) Fascism was considered a "third way" between capitalism and communism. It had its inspiration in the socialist thought of Georges Sorel (of whom Il Duce was a disciple) but also reactionary populism a la the romantic volkisch movement in Germany, among many other philosophies. Any wonder why the left/right dichotomy is so useless in real life? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- By instead putting everyone under a banner of nationalism. You also had the Social Darwinism thing going on, very egalitarian indeed. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler was not "the most anti-egalitarian figure in history," which was partially why he cut such a bloody swathe through it: he favored wiping out entire peoples in Eastern Europe instead of just setting German governors over them, as had thitherto been done. Additionally he wanted to wipe out class distinctions among Germans.
- Centre-right. Anyways, calling arguably the most anti-egalitarian figure in history a leftist is pretty out there. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler was center-left economically, even by European standards, or so the Political Compass says.
- (EC)What a silly label. "Leftist" is an arbitrary and subjective label that varies from country to country, time to time, and isn't terribly useful even in an ideal scenario. He had some policies that could be described as "left" in terms of modern American political positioning, but it's pretty silly to label him a "leftist." It's not even proper to call him "conservative," really, because it's not a useful distinction - it's just an attempt to smear that label with the association of Hitler. It's grossly dishonest, and a little shameful of you.--
Hitlert was a far left radical.
The proof is in the Nazi 25 point plan. It's a very socialist agenda, including things like nationalizing business and distribution of property and wealth.
Hitler appointed Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank as Reich Minister of Economics.
Schacht procured a series of complex and sophisticated loans to finance Hitler's public works programs and re-armament.
Schacht took Germany off the gold standard and used the freedom it provided to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits.
This kept unemployment low and Schacht used price controls to counter inflation.
Schacht introduced the "Reinhardt Program" for infrastructure development in June 1933. It had direct public investment in waterways, railroads and highways and tripled the size of the German construction industry.
Hitler demanded the production of a "People's Car" that would be cheap and available to all the citizens of Germany. Ferdinand Porsche got the contract and the Volkswagon was built.
Hitler ordered the construction of the the Autobahn highway system. It was built and maintained by the Nazi government.
All of the economic policies Hitler and Schacht used were Keynesian.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany Moonshot926 (talk) 05:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- All these points are economic in nature. What about social issues?
ListenerXTalkerX 05:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Neither Keynesianism nor elimination of a gold standard are necessarily "leftist," nor are large public works programs. You're just embarrassing yourself.--
talk
05:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hitler was opposed to abortions for "heathly Ayran women" but he supported them for the "Untermensch". The sub-humans. Moonshot926 (talk) 05:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC) Let me guess. Hitler was not a leftist. Stalin was not a leftist. Mao was not a leftist. Pol Pot was not a leftist. Just admit that leftism is evil and has killed millions of people. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Hitler ate sugar. Just admit that sugar is evil and has killed millions of people. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Left-wing leaders have killed a lot more people, per capita, than sugar-eaters.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:11, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Not as bad as" reasoning there. Also, can't forget death and illness from obesity. Just admit sugar is Hitler...or something. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:37, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Left-wing leaders have killed a lot more people, per capita, than sugar-eaters.
- I doubt anyone would consider Stalin/Pol Pot/Mao not lefist (the term you're looking for is totalitarianism). Osaka Sun (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Ah, i see you are in denial. If Hitler's Keynesianism and redistribution of wealth and nationalization of buissness was not leftism. What is leftism? Moonshot926 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- As spoken above by myself and Nebuchadnezzar, it's not a useful label in this way, because it is heavily dependent on context. But it's especially not applicable when it comes to specific policies like Keynesian stimulus. It's most useful to describe broad ideological views. For example, you could possibly say that conservatives generally attempt to preserve or return to the traditions of the past in a society. More specifically (and less usefully and accurately) modern conservatism tends to associate itself strongly with patriotism and militarism. And so on, until you're describing a very narrow section of modern American upper-class paleoconservative thought in a way that does not translate usefully to any other modern country, much less other countries from decades ago.
- You can call those figures "conservative" just as easily as "liberal" for that reason, because those broad contextual labels can mean almost anything you please.
- What are you trying to accomplish, anyway? Are you arguing that because Hitler was a leftist, that means all leftists must be bad? Hitler's policies that were "liberal" in terms of modern American political dialogue were also mostly inoffensive. I am not shocked and horrified at the Autobahn.--
talk
06:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
That is my point. Leftism and totalitarianism are the same thing. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I suppose you consider property rights a bulwark against totalitarianism?
ListenerXTalkerX 06:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Just take a look at the 25 point plan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program Moonshot926 (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- For starters, left-wingers prefer to grant "citizenship" to all people, not just "members of the race."
ListenerXTalkerX 06:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
hitler was also a racist if you didn't know. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you're not going to read up on the facts, then why bother. You have not explained why the Strausserites were purged while the first groups to be eliminated were socialists, communists, and trade unionists. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Hitler did not really care about "the people". All left-wingers promise utopian paradise when they are trying to gain power. once they have got it they systematically exterminate those who they find undesirable. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Why was the SDP the only party to the vote against the Enabling Act? You're deflecting. Osaka Sun (talk) 06:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- All left-wingers promise utopian paradise... Most left-wingers do that, true, but that does not mean that all those who do it are left-wingers.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- All left-wingers promise utopian paradise... Most left-wingers do that, true, but that does not mean that all those who do it are left-wingers.
It is true. You can look at Stalin and what he did to the Crimean Tatars, Kalmyks, Chechens, Ingush, Koreans and Chinese and other non-slavic people's. There was no diffrence between hitler and Stalin except for the race and nationality. But in terms of ideology it was nothing. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- You forgot
Polandthe Ukrainians. But, in any event, not every left-winger is an orthodox Stalinist.
ListenerXTalkerX 06:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- But leftism and totalitarianism are the same, LX. Therefore Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, et al are what all leftists become when they take power. Inside all leftists is a genocidal maniac waiting to appear.
Liquid Blue 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean there is a John Galt inside every rightist who will create great inventions and then
commit genocideGo Galt? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 06:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- Does that mean there is a John Galt inside every rightist who will create great inventions and then
- But leftism and totalitarianism are the same, LX. Therefore Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Kim Il Sung, et al are what all leftists become when they take power. Inside all leftists is a genocidal maniac waiting to appear.
Ukrainians are slavs. Same race as Stalin. But it is true. He starved Ukraine to crush nationalism. Also Stalin was an extreme anti-Semite. In the 1930s, he established a Jewish state, Birobidzhan, on the Chinese border. By 1953, Jews were being arrested, tried and shot throughout his empire, and it seems that he intended to deport the entire Soviet Jewish population to perish in Siberia and Kazakhstan. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
No because there is no such thing as a right wing dicatator so how can a righ win ger commit genocide? You fail. Moonshot926 (talk) 06:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- You are clearly using a definition of "right-wing" that is somewhat different from the common one. Were Franco and Pinochet not right-wingers? If not, why?
ListenerXTalkerX 06:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- No true rightist would ever be a dictator!
Liquid Blue 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- No true rightist would ever be a dictator!
Fascist and Nazi dictators are all left-wing, because they share "citizens must serve society" socialist mentality. Tojo considering that all Japanese have to serve Empire also left wing.
It leaves only Augusto Pinochet and Chiang Kai-shek as right-wing dictators. Yes, they are much better for the country than left-wing dictators.Moonshot926 (talk) 06:59, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- The people that the name "right-wing" was coined to describe, the French monarchists, believed in a duty to serve the King.
ListenerXTalkerX 07:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, actually i should not say that Augusto Pinochet and Chiang Kai-shek are right wing. They are not.
Imagine a long straight line. On the extreme Left end place Totalitarianism (total government). On the extreme Right end place Anarchy (no government at all). To the USA, there cannot be a Right Wing dictatorship. It is antithetical. The further Right you go the less power a Government leader has. To get to dictator you would have to move Left. Moonshot926 (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Sam Tally-ho! 07:08, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is not what most people understand by "right-wing" and "left-wing." Are you familiar with the Nolan chart?
ListenerXTalkerX 07:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- I expected from his Gilded Age ramblings on the Ron Paul page that he was crazy, but not this crazy. And he still hasn't answered why Hitler balked at the existence of leftist/liberal movements, so I'm beginning to call troll. Osaka Sun (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- That is not what most people understand by "right-wing" and "left-wing." Are you familiar with the Nolan chart?
Do you remember when Hillary and Obama ran against each other in 2008? it seemed like they hated each other but their platform was not that diffrent. Hitler hated Bolsheviks and Bolshevism. But i don't think it had much to do with ideologue. It had more to with race since Bolshevism was born in Russia and Hitler hated Slavs. The same goes for Hitler's political opponents in Germany. Many of them were Jewish. Moonshot926 (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
There is not much diffrence between them. They both put the collective over the individual. They both are racial. They both nationalistic. Moonshot926 (talk) 07:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)
http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/
Moonshot926 (talk) 07:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
- And he also said this:
“”Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism.
|
- And you still haven't explained why he collaborated with right-wing groups to get into power. Osaka Sun (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Source the quote. Which right wing grups aren you talking about? Moonshot926 (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I thought you were going to say Henery Ford or Prescott Bush. You may have a point. Big Business loved Hitler. Espically the military-industrial complex. Krupp, Mauser, Messerschmitt, Junkers, Porsche, Rheinmetall and others. He had them all in his pocket. The only question is, is corporatism right wing or left wing? Moonshot926 (talk) 08:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
[edit] mistranslation
"Gottlosenbewegung" translates into "movement of those without god", not "movement that is without god"
[edit] single vs. leading
Since GrantC said to take it to the talk page, I will, though it is only one word and I wasn't the one who wanted to change it.
The proposed edit is in the "Most evil human ever?" section: "As the single perpetrator of the the most destructive war in modern history [...]" the BoN wanted to change to "As the leading perpetrator of the the most destructive war in modern history [...]"
I personally think there is a case for this change, because certainly World War 2 had a lot of starting factors beside the actions of Hitler leading up to the invasion of Poland. For example there was the imperial policy of Japan, which pretty much led to the whole eastern theatre. Then there was also conflict in Spain, though Hitler came into that as well and it can be argued that without Hitler that wouldn't have contributed to WW2. I'm sure there's more, but at least on the grounds of the Japanese, I'd say Hitler was definitely not the single perpetrator, thus 'leading' can be argued to be more accurate. Nullahnung (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not to mention the Russians (Stalin) had had intentions to invade Northern (and probably Eastern) Europe, and definitely have a role to play in perpetrating WW2. Nullahnung (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree. The Treaty of Versailles was over the top, to say the least, and involved crippling Germany's economy 'and' humiliating Germany as a country. I would say that Hitler was more a product of the dissatisfaction associated with that than anything else. Germany had been fuming for war since the treaty was signed, and nationalism was at an all-time high (hence how Hitler managed to secure power politically and mostly legally). I support the change in wording, but wanted it to come to the talk page because that one little word does significantly change the tone of the article. - GrantC (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well, well, let's not get too simplistic here. While the Treaty of Versailles did play arguably the most important part of why Hitler gained any support at all, there are a variety of other important factors. If the Great Depression hadn't happened, for example, there is little reason to determine that Hitler would have been able to dismantle the Weimar Republic as much as he did, as the economic crisis really drove home the war debt from the Treaty of Versailles and enhanced German citizen's general dissatisfaction with their current government. Let's also not downplay the plethora of strong opposition Hitler was facing not only from major portions of German society but from all the other political parties and German military authorities as well. Let's not downplay the general radicalization of German society between the economic crisis, the Treaty and growing communist influences which provided a great distraction and scape goat for Hitler. Let's not forget all the blackmail, brutality (the brown guys), intrigue and fear tactics Hitler used on the German populace, another major factor, no doubt. A crucial factor is also an inherent structural weakness in the Weimar republic laws that Hitler manipulated and exploited to abolish opposition and give himself total power; a lot more resistance could have been put up if not for this fundamental flaw of the system.
- tl;dr Well, I'm sure you already knew some of that. My point is, we like seeing history as a linear string of events, one thing causing the other, but the truth is much more complicated.
- Aaaaaanyways, didn't mean to get so off-track. I'm gonna go ahead on the change for now! Nullahnung (talk) 15:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oh of course! My original comment was supposed to be an allusion to the complexity of the situation, but upon re-reading it, it does come across as significantly more narrow-minded than that. More or less, I support the change by virtue of that complexity. - GrantC (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, I agree. The Treaty of Versailles was over the top, to say the least, and involved crippling Germany's economy 'and' humiliating Germany as a country. I would say that Hitler was more a product of the dissatisfaction associated with that than anything else. Germany had been fuming for war since the treaty was signed, and nationalism was at an all-time high (hence how Hitler managed to secure power politically and mostly legally). I support the change in wording, but wanted it to come to the talk page because that one little word does significantly change the tone of the article. - GrantC (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] The Other Wiki has had its Hitler pages procedurally vandalized in an effort to connect Hitler, science, Darwinian evolution, and Atheism
Seriously, read this crap. It reads like something out of a book that would be promoted by a fundamentalist church.
Also, the same user who did that has also expanded on the Criticism of Atheism page. Another fun page.
--Mackinz (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe you should raise your concerns there rather than here? FWIW, that Hitler article looks pretty sound to me for the most part (having scanned it but not read it in full, so I may have missed whatever you're alluding to). It doesn't look like something a fundamentalist church would write, & I don't see anything about Darwinian evolution other than the influence of Social Darwinism on Hitler's ideas, which is well founded & very explicit in Mein Kampf. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 23:38, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
- "Adolf Hitler was raised by an anticlerical, sceptic father and a devout Catholic mother." (First line? No source? Legit. Also could not find a supporting source by looking it up myself.)
- "He did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God, though various scholars consider his final religious position may have been a form of deism. Others consider him "atheist". The question of atheism is debated." ("He did not believe in the Judeo-Christian notion of God" *cough* Interesting how they immediately rule that out.)
- "Hitler repeatedly stated that Nazism was a secular ideology founded on science." (Brought up on a page about Hitler's religious beliefs? Interestingly out of place.)
- "He presented a nihilistic, Social Darwinist vision, in which the universe is ordered around principles of struggle between weak and strong, rather than on conventional Christian notions." (Conventional Christian notions? Hmmm... sounds like a certain Scotsman.)
- " Bullock wrote that Hitler frequently employed the language of "Providence" in defence of his own myth, but ultimately shared with the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, a materialist outlook, "based on the nineteenth century rationalists' certainty that the progress of science would destroy all myths and had already proved Christian doctrine to be an absurdity"." (Sounds to me like Oz has tried his hardest to quote mine and find sources which supported his thesis.)
- "Following meetings with Hitler, General Gerhard Engel and Cardinal Michael von Faulhaber wrote that Hitler was a believer. Kershaw cites Faulhaber's case as an example of Hitler's ability to deceive "even hardened critics". Steigmann-Gall saw a "Christian element" in Hitler's early writings and evidence that Hitler continued to hold Jesus in high esteem as an "Aryan fighter" who struggled against Jewry. Use of the term "positive Christianity" in the Nazi Party Program of the 1920s is commonly regarded as a tactical measure by the Nazis, but Steigmann-Gall believes it may have had an "inner logic" and been "more than a political ploy", though he notes that anti-Christians later fought to "expunge Christian influence from Nazism" and the movement became "increasingly hostile to the churches"." (First is an attempt to portray those who thought of Hitler as a believer as easily decieved. Second is attempt to show that even Steigmann-Gall, who saw a "Christian element", thought of it as "anti-Christian".)
- "John S Conway considered that Steigmann-Gall's analysis differed from earlier interpretations only by "degree and timing", but that if Hitler's early speeches evidenced a sincere appreciation of Christianity: "this Nazi Christianity was eviscerated of all the most essential orthodox dogmas" leaving only "the vaguest impression combined with anti-Jewish prejudice..." which few would recognise as true Christianity." (Perhaps a legitimate criticism, in that Nazi "Positive Christianity" lacked some otherwise common "orthodox dogmas", but the end is an attempt to split "Positive Christianity" from "True Christianity" which we all know deserves a Trademark symbol.)
- "Laurence Rees concludes that "Hitler's relationship in public to Christianity - indeed his relationship to religion in general - was opportunistic. There is no evidence that Hitler himself, in his personal life, ever expressed any individual belief in the basic tenets of the Christian church"." (...which conveniently ignores a good amount evidence in favor of that conclusion.)
- That's just from the intro's three paragraphs, mind. The whole article is very one-sided.
- You may be correct. It sounds solid, but it's... setting off my bullshit detectors. Especially after reading the Talk page for that article.
- The Talk page is a gold mine. For example, in the second half of the article's Talk page section "A way forward-- Rename the article to something objective", there is a discussion on Oz's attempt to portray Hitler as a "racist pagan" where other contradictory sources were removed after being added. Under "Why the change in focus to tie Hitler to Darwinism on a "Religious views" page?", Oz is called out for originally referring to "Darwinism" over "Social Darwinism", and citing Richard Weikart (a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute) as his source. Under "Quotation", Oz misinterprets a quotation and justifies its addition to the article with "quotation says hitler believed religion and nazism could not co-exist. atheism is the opposite of religion. the quotation is relevant." and, again, attempts to link Nazism with science.
- The article is blatant in its attempts to whitewash Hitler's perverted sense of Christianity and portray him as a secular materialist and atheist. It especially contradicts our own article on Hitler (a.k.a. the article of this Talk page) so it might need an update if we take The Other Wiki's page seriously. --Mackinz (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. Why are you making the case here rather than the Wikipedia talk page? --Marlow (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking to enlist help in finding credible citations and like-minded rationallists in an effort to help fix the problems.--Mackinz (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Might want to read this: [1]. This kind of off-site canvassing is frowned upon at the other wiki. --Marlow (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Unless attempting to clear the vandalism (and attempted connections between unrelated sources) from a largely one-sided article equates to attempting to turn the article into a one-sided discussion, I don't see how that link is appropriate.
- I was attempting to recruit people of a similar mindset, yes, but I was doing it with the intention of obtaining good sources in an effort to lead to a less blatantly biased article. --Mackinz (talk) 07:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing you've posted suggests vandalism. Some of these passages are easy fixes (e.g. swap "true Christianity" for "traditional Christianity"); others I don't think need to be fixed. They are citing the views of historians on this issue: if they are misrepresenting these historians' views, they should be amended; if not, leave as they are. Wēāŝēīōīď
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:13, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- As I said, I believe him to be quote mining. As I am not a historian (or, really have access to the sources in question to verify their representation), I cannot say for certain whether or not he is or isn't.
- And even if he isn't, he doesn't really portray it as "one historian feels this way" and is more assertive that "it was definitely this way". --Mackinz (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, our own article is way more one-sided than that Wikipedia one. It needs some serious attention. Weaseloid
Methinks it is a Weasel 08:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing you've posted suggests vandalism. Some of these passages are easy fixes (e.g. swap "true Christianity" for "traditional Christianity"); others I don't think need to be fixed. They are citing the views of historians on this issue: if they are misrepresenting these historians' views, they should be amended; if not, leave as they are. Wēāŝēīōīď
- Might want to read this: [1]. This kind of off-site canvassing is frowned upon at the other wiki. --Marlow (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Looking to enlist help in finding credible citations and like-minded rationallists in an effort to help fix the problems.--Mackinz (talk) 05:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- Cool. Why are you making the case here rather than the Wikipedia talk page? --Marlow (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
- The article is blatant in its attempts to whitewash Hitler's perverted sense of Christianity and portray him as a secular materialist and atheist. It especially contradicts our own article on Hitler (a.k.a. the article of this Talk page) so it might need an update if we take The Other Wiki's page seriously. --Mackinz (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I have no interest in this topic, but I noticed your edits in the Recent Changes feed and thought you might be looking for Wikipediocracy, not RW. They relish in this sort of wiki-drama. Be warned that they know where all the bodies are buried. --Rakovsky (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
[edit] Does cult of personality count for being a cult leader?
Right now Stalin and Mao are listed as cult leaders yet were both atheists. Hitler is not; now using the argument a cult of personality counts as a cult; shouldn't Hitler be categorized as a cult leader? There's also the Nazi occultism aspect. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 23:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Our definitions & examples in the cult article are contradictory. Do whatever you think is best. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 00:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- A "cult" is an inherently religious enterprise. A "cult of personality" is typically something built around a political leader (who may well have a religious element to their rule, but by no means does that have to be the case). The two notions of the word "cult" are distinct, and should be kept separate. Also, while there was that weird Nazi occult thing, that didn't mean Nazism was at its core an occult/spiritual/religious movement. Take away the occultism, and it doesn't really change a damn thing of consequence. Father Vivian O'Blivion (talk) 01:13, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think Stalin and Mao should not be considered cult leaders than as they are both famous atheists. I think thheir is an element of Korean traditional religion in Juche still; but that claim would require a valid source before listing the North Korean leaders. Amateur Encyclopedist (talk) 01:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Juche is a political concept. It's culturally influenced by Confucianism, as is Maoism, but neither of them have any particular spiritual dimension. Arguably, neither does Confucianism: it's really a set of values and not a religion as such, although it is sometimes honoured in religious ways (e.g. there are temples dedicated to Confucius) and is also intermingled in many East Asian religious traditions. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ
Methinks it is a Weasel 02:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I can see how there's not a clear line between cult of personality and religious cult, but I think they're functionally the same. Both are some sort of self-reinforcing system pushing members to venerate the nutcase and/or deity on top. Both try to imbue the leader with extra doses of super-human or supernatural auras. From my imperfect view of history, that fits Stalin, the current North Korean dynasty, and a few others. MarmotHead (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I dunno. Defining large national governments as cults seems like it's muddling the definition a bit too much. Wèàšèìòìď
Methinks it is a Weasel 02:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yeah, probably. The extreme cases seem clear-ish, but it gets muddled soon afterwards. I can live with either version, I guess. MarmotHead (talk) 02:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
- I dunno. Defining large national governments as cults seems like it's muddling the definition a bit too much. Wèàšèìòìď
- I can see how there's not a clear line between cult of personality and religious cult, but I think they're functionally the same. Both are some sort of self-reinforcing system pushing members to venerate the nutcase and/or deity on top. Both try to imbue the leader with extra doses of super-human or supernatural auras. From my imperfect view of history, that fits Stalin, the current North Korean dynasty, and a few others. MarmotHead (talk) 02:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Something that's relevant. The National Socialist government composed prayers to the Führer, meant for children.
- Führer, mein Führer, von Gott mir gegeben,
- Beschütz und erhalte noch lange mein Leben!
- Hast Deutschland gerettet aus tiefster Not,
- Dir danke ich heute mein täglich Brot.
- Bleib lang noch bei mir, verlaß mich nicht,
- Führer, mein Führer, mein Glaube, mein Licht. (Sources: 1, 2)
Translation:
- Fuehrer, my Fuehrer, bequeathed to me by the Lord,
- Protect and preserve me as long as I live!
- Thou hast rescued Germany from deepest distress,
- I thank thee today for my daily bread.
- Abideth thou long with me, forsaketh me not,
- Fuehrer, my Fuehrer, my faith and my light! (Source)
Balaer (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wow! That's Hitler as a substitute for the Virgin Mary. Creepy! MarmotHead (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
