Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. HeartGold 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. -ĬŴΣĐĝё 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. -ĬŴΣĐĝё 10:06, 3 June 2007 (CDT)
It's worst when the enemy thinks that he is one of you.
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)

Night of Broken Glass[edit]

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. HeartGold 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)

Most Evil Human Being Ever[edit]

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)

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)

Perhaps Vlad the Impaler is in with a chance?--Bobbing up 15:31, 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. humanUser talk: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)

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)

Hitler as Politician[edit]

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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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)

Tense issues?[edit]

Could someone copyedit for tense? I'd do it, but I'm hungry :-( -αmεσ (decider) 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. humanUser talk:Human 19:27, 6 April 2008 (EDT)

Germany category[edit]

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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ħumanUser talk:Human 15:40, 4 February 2009 (EST)

Eddie Hitler[edit]

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)

some minor(?) changes[edit]

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? ħumanUser talk:Human 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. Scarlet A.pngtheist 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".
Did I manage to make any sense? Gmb (talk) 21:25, 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)

could somebody perhaps spellcheck the part above? (about his campaign in poland and france) so I\we can put it into the article? Thanks in advance. Gmb (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

That`s not may part, I just changed the first sentence. I agree, of course, but I don`t want to start re-writing somebodys article on my first day here on RW...Gmb (talk) 21:32, 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)
Again, I agree, the whole article needs a complete re-write, but I`m certainly not the guy to do that, since I have neither the time nor is my english anywhere near good enough. Gmb (talk) 09:11, 13 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)

Replace "Hitlers" with "Hitler's", "french" with "French", "sucessfull" with "successful", and "german" with "German", drop the comma between "reckless" and "but" and put it between "officers" and "and." Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Gmb (talk) 21:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I might add, replace "planing" with "planning". Redchuck.gif ГенгисRationalWiki GOLD member 21:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. спасибо. Gmb (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
I beginn to realize that my english teacher might have been right. The last row in class is NOT the best place to learn anything... Thanks for your help everyone. Gmb (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


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: / 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. (talk) 07:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao could be worse than Hitler.[edit]

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. Blue (pester) 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. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 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. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't forget Khan. He would have killed more if Captain Kirk hadn't stopped him. ClothCoat (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hitler was a leftist.[edit]

Troll ClothCoat (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


"Gottlosenbewegung" translates into "movement of those without god", not "movement that is without god"

single vs. leading[edit]

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)

The Other Wiki has had its Hitler pages procedurally vandalized in an effort to connect Hitler, science, Darwinian evolution, and Atheism[edit]

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. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:19, 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)

Haha, will keep that in mind for next time. --Mackinz (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Does cult of personality count for being a cult leader?[edit]

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)

Shrug.gif Our definitions & examples in the cult article are contradictory. Do whatever you think is best. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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. €₳$£ΘĪÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks 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)

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)


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)

Did Hitler hold slaves?[edit]

[2] Exiled Encyclopedist (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean him personally or the Nazi regime generally? SophieWilderModerator 17:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
This definition would require every leader of every country where slaves were held to be listed as a slaveholder. This is not what the category is for; those in it are people who personally owned slaves. King Skeleton (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
He'll be calling Abraham Lincoln a slavekeeper next. SophieWilderModerator 18:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought you said you were quitting - David Gerard (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Just asking questions? ωεαşεζøίɗWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Number of Holocaust Victims[edit]

Please provide a source for the "12 million" holocaust victims. I have been hearing the number 6 million for decades. When did 6 become 12? The atrocity doesn't need exaggeration. Footnote required. Slings and Arrows (talk) 03:18, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

It's six million Jews, 12 million victims. King Skeleton (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The article claims that 12 million victims were killed due to the holocaust. Its an unsourced allegation. Needs a footnote. Slings and Arrows (talk) 04:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Citation King Skeleton (talk) 04:56, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

For a site that is dedicated to rooting out dubious claims (RationalWiki), your BS detector should be red-lined; the numbers appear to be all over the map:

Wikipedia gives two sources:

1) Donald Niewyk (17 million)

2) Service d’Information des Crimes (26.3 million)

The Jewish Virtual Library claims 11 million.

And yes, 12 million is also commonly bandied about. These enormous discrepancies serve to cast doubt on the validity of all the numbers. Slings and Arrows (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, so you're JAQing off, gotcha. King Skeleton (talk) 05:32, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Henry Ford[edit]

There is a whole section about Henry Ford in this article!!! That seems somewhat bizarre/off topic to me. I know Henry Ford was anti-Jewish but his anti-Jewish was of a completely different kind from Hitler's. He was opposed to inordinate Jewish influence in politics, government, the economy, he was not a racial anti-Semite, unlike Hitler. Ford had different political views from Hitler. Ford was a Freemason, Hitler was against Freemasonry.PaulBustion87 (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You'd have a point, perhaps, if the two did not interact. According to the article, they did. The article does not discuss Ford except as Ford supported Hitler and the Nazis. That's relevant. It may not be the central point of Hitler's life/career, but it is certainly an interesting episode. MarmotHead (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
i'm not sure that it is relevant. Lots of people supported Hitler and shared similar views and interacted with him. Why does ford get a special mention? AMassiveGay (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Probably, because Ford was a notable supporter of Hitler in the US and his brainless antisemitic asswipe "The International Jew" was notable used by Hitler, widely circulated by the Nazis and is a bestseller in antisemitic circles until this day?--Arisboch (talk) 14:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
that's of relevance to an article for ford, but why is that relevant to Hitler? Hitler wouldn't have done anything different without fords anti-Semitism AMassiveGay (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no article on Henry Ford.--Arisboch (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
so that makes it relevant here?AMassiveGay (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, his connection with Adolf Hitler does.--Arisboch (talk) 15:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
but why is that relevant here? In an article specifically about Hitler and not about ford or the world of anti-Semitism generally? Of the things that Hitler did, believed in and was inspired by, his relationship to ford is of no relevance to this article. Ford was in no way integral to who Hitler was and the things he did. Ford's position in this article makes it look like he had as much influence as Goebels, for example. This argument is getting terribly circular AMassiveGay (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Ford has the distinction of being mentioned in Hitler's book Mein Kampf, both on the text by Hitler and in an interesting footnote in my 1939 edition reading "These (Hitler's) reflections are copied, for the most part, from the Dearborn Independent, Mr. Ford's newspaper." Hitler himself goes on to describe Ford as "one great man" who is still holding out against the Jewish conspiracy. I say Ford stays right where he is. If he needs his own article, fine, but this section should be kept here. Carptrash (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but the Ford section does seem bigger in the article than he was to Hitler. It's interesting stuff, though, that ought to stay. MarmotHead (talk) 17:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedai has the goal of trying to provide a sort of balanced presentation. I think posting and discussion "interesting stuff" is why we are here. or do I have this wrong? Carptrash (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree although my (now corrected) typo may have suggested otherwise. MarmotHead (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
In The International Jew, Ford explicitly condemned all violence against, harassment of, and persecution against Jews. The book has the adjective "international" in the title, because Ford was talking specifically about liberal, cosmopolitan Jews in his book, not the entire Jewish people. Ford's anti-Semitism was political, not racial. I do not see much similarity between his ideas and Hitler's.PaulBustion87 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
International Jew.jpeg
I, too, fail to see any possible similarity between Nazi anti-Semitism and a harmless collection of newspaper essays with such measured and reasonable headers as "The Scope of Jewish Dictatorship in the U.S.", "The All-Jewish Mark on "Red Russia"" and "Jewish Jazz Becomes Our National Music", even if those essays were explicitly cited as influential on the development of the former by actual Nazis themselves. Queexchthonic murmurings 12:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Nice one. Scream!! (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but here's an important point. Ford's anti-Semitism was political, not racial. Hitler blamed people for things beyond their control, who their parents were. Hitler murdered Jews simply for being Jews. Nowhere in The International Jew does Ford advocate murdering, harassing, or even denying equal rights, to Jews. Ford's anti-Semitism was very different from Hitler's. "The All Jewish Mark on Red Russia" is not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Most of the Bolsheviks prior to Stalin's reign were Jewish. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"Hitler also utilised sections of Ford's book, The International Jew, (earlier circulated by the Nazis, and translated by them into a dozen languages), verbatim in writing Mein Kampf." One of the sources for this quote in the article is Antony Sutton's Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler. Sutton is not a mainstream/reliable source. Sutton is a right-wing conspiracy theorist. He believed there is a conspiracy by international Masonic financiers to create a world state. He is not a mainstream source, so perhaps the claim should be removed. PaulBustion87 (talk) 19:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"Most of the Bolsheviks prior to Stalin's reign were Jewish." Source, please. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
(EC) Some of Sutton's views are pretty odd, but his statements about Hitler and Ford rely on actual verifiable references that stand up to scrutiny. The dedicated insomniac reader can compare and contrast Ford's and Hitler's writings at their leisure. Who needs Sutton? MarmotHead (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)(EC) Some of Sutton's views are pretty odd, but his statements about Hitler and Ford rely on actual verifiable references that stand up to scrutiny. The dedicated insomniac reader can compare and contrast Ford's and Hitler's writings at their leisure. Who needs Sutton? MarmotHead (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Leon Trotsky was Jewish. Lazar Kaganovich was Jewish. Maxim Litvinov was Jewish. Adolf Yoffe was Jewish. I may have been mistaken that most of the Bolsheviks were Jewish, and I do NOT agree with Ford's viewpoint that Bolshevism is a form of Judaism or a Jewish conspiracy, but although Bolshevism is not a form of Judaism and is not the same thing as Judaism, there was an inordinate number of Bolsheviks who were Jewish. As to your point that the distinction between racial anti-Semitism and political anti-Semitism being creepy, I do not agree that it is creepy. There is a very large difference between opposing Judaism as a religious and political movement, and being racist against people because they have Jewish parents. Hitler murdered people because their parents were Jews. A person cannot help who his parents are, a person can help what religion he chooses to follow. And Ford did not advocate murdering Jews or even harassing them or denying them equal rights. There are real differences between Ford's anti-Semitism and Hitler's. If Ford had the kind of power Hitler had he certainly would not have murdered Jews or other people or even deprived them of rights. PaulBustion87 (talk) 20:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
My 95 year old copy of The International Jew: The World's Foremost Problem ,which frequently refers to the "Protocols", among things does not, in my opinion, support the statement, " Ford's anti-Semitism was political, not racial", whatever that means. It is just racism. period. Carptrash (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
"Whatever that means." Stating Henry Ford's anti-Semitism was political, not racial, means that he was opposed to some forms of Judaism, but did not blame people for things beyond their control, like who their parents were. Opposing the Jewish religion and hating people because there parents were Jewish are different ideas. I find it hard to believe that a person cannot comprehend the idea that its possible to oppose the Jewish religion and not oppose the Jewish "race" (I know that race is a made up concept, I'm saying it for lack of a better term). PaulBustion87 (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Why should we be surprised that a large percentage of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jewish? Jews had always prized literacy and the early Bolsheviks leaders tended to be literate. Authors from the USA have won about a dozen Nobel Prizes for literature. Of those three, or 25% went to Jews. Far above what statistics would suggest. Does this mean that the Swedish Academy (or whomever) is tied into the International Jewish Conspiracy? I think not. Also, Jews had learned the hard way that they had little to gain by backing the Romanovs (look up “pogrom”) , so, back the other side. I am still looking through the book to learn what its proposed solutions are to “the Jewish problem.” What do you think it proposed? And you keep saying "religion?" Are you suggesting that all the Bolsheviks who were Jews were observant Jews? No, they were atheists. Carptrash (talk) 21:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have only read parts of The International Jew and summaries of it. I ordered the book recently and when it arrives I will read the entire book."Why should we be surprised that a large percentage of the Russian Bolsheviks were Jewish? Jews had always prized literacy and the early Bolsheviks leaders tended to be literate. Authors from the USA have won about a dozen Nobel Prizes for literature. Of those three, or 25% went to Jews. Far above what statistics would suggest. Does this mean that the Swedish Academy (or whomever) is tied into the International Jewish Conspiracy? I think not." I am not Henry Ford. I never said Bolshevism was Jewish. I wrote above, "I do NOT agree with Ford's viewpoint that Bolshevism is a form of Judaism or a Jewish conspiracy, but although Bolshevism is not a form of Judaism and is not the same thing as Judaism, there was an inordinate number of Bolsheviks who were Jewish." Saying a large number of Bolsheviks were Jews is not the same thing as saying that Jews controlled Bolshevism or that it is a Jewish movement. I do not know what exactly Ford proposed, but I do know that he explicitly condemned violence against and harassment of Jews, and he explicitly said they should be allowed to keep equal rights with other citizens. So, whatever his solution was, it was not similar to Hitler's. Being an atheist and being religious is not a contradiction. There are many eastern religions, such as Buddhism and Jainism, that are atheistic. There are some atheistic forms of Christianity. There are also people who identify with a religion's culture, but not its theology, such as cultural Catholics.
"Also, Jews had learned the hard way that they had little to gain by backing the Romanovs (look up “pogrom”) , so, back the other side." Well, in one sense that is a very good point. The Romanov dynasty were racially anti-Jewish, so it does make sense that this would cause Jews to turn to Bolshevism as their saviors to an extent. But in one sense it does not make sense, because the Romanovs were first overthrown by Alexander Kerensky,who although he was not Jewish was not anti-Jewish at all, and then some of the Jewish Bolsheviks, such as Trotsky and others, still wanted the Bolshevik party to overthrow the Russian government. The reason of a problem with anti-Semitic rulers is a valid one when Russia was ruled by the Romanovs, but not for the time when Alexander Kerensky ruled Russia.

PaulBustion87 (talk) 21:46, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

By the time Kerensky took charge of Russia the Bolsheviks were already on a roll and anyway, Kerensky refused to stop the war with Germany, which was one of the main reasons that the Revolution happened, so the Bolsheviks in turn refused to back him. in fact, tossed him out.Carptrash (talk) 22:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Well, my point was, although Ford was WRONG in saying that Bolshevism was a form of Judaism/a Jewish conspiracy, his reasons for believing it may not have been ridiculous ones. It is true that a large number of the Bolsheviks were Jewish, so even though Ford was wrong in concluding Bolshevism itself was Jewish, it was an understandable error. It would not be as absurd as someone concluding the Chinese Communist Party was a Jewish movement or that the USA Republican Party is a Jewish movement. Ford's conclusion was false, but its understandable why he made this mistake. So I don't agree with the editor who earlier dismissed Ford as a crackpot.PaulBustion87 (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ford reached the wrong conclusion about the jews and the Bolsheviks because he was a racist and this was a popular (at that time, and I guess still is) explanation of how International Jewery works. Just be careful that you do not fall heir to the same trap. So, what exactly was Ford right about regarding the Jewish Question? Carptrash (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I have also just discovered Henry Ford and the Jews: The Mass Production of Hate" and found it online, so perhaps our homework should be to read it before going on? Carptrash (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
What on earth makes you think that you can separate out 'political' dislike and 'anti-Semitic' dislike in Ford's drivel? What political acts do you think Ford has a problem with? All the examples he specifically cites are nonsense based on conspiracy theories already old and tired by the time he got hold of them. Why does he attach these supposed problems to the 'Jew' rather than a better-defined political group? Because he's swallowed, hook, line and sinker, the underlying conspiracy theory that tries to tie evil Jews to everything. The only reason that crackpot theory even exists is because of plain, unvarnished racism and religious bigotry. So even if he, personally, was entirely convinced it was a political statement and not a racial one, he was dead wrong because he was suckered into that racism-created mode of thought. He wasn't alone in that at the time. Besides, if you study other parts of his history it's clear that he just wasn't that smart, so he was easy pray for that nonsense conception. He's one of those figures who had a singular amazing success, but most everything else they tried to do was an embarrassing failure that can be laid squarely at their feet. Queexchthonic murmurings 23:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Just a comment to Carptrash's points about Bolsheviks with a Jewish background: one of the attractions of Marxism (and not just the Bolshevik version) in the late 19th and early 20th century was that it eschewed religion, class and other ethno-social distinctions which were defining features of other political systems at the time and thus did not bar Jews or other "outsiders" from participating, but indeed offered them the prospect of a society where their ethno-social background wouldn't disadvantage them as had been the case in the Romanovs' autocracy. In this way, anti-Semitism in tsarist Russia probably bore a large part of the responsibility for leading many with a Jewish background to Marxism and Bolshevism. However, as Carptrash also correctly points out, they were only "Jews" insofar as their parents were Jews, but they themselves were (to my knowledge) not practising Jews (how could they be in an explicitly atheist, indeed antitheist political party), so identifying them as Jews already verges on the "once a Jews always a Jew" logic that's part and parcel of anti-Semitism - thumbs up to Carptrash for being explicit about the ambiguous status of their Judaism. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
You are probably correct that none of the Bolsheviks considered themselves Jews. But there are some atheistic forms of Judaism. Sigmund Freud was an atheist who identified himself as Jewish and was a member of a Jewish group called B'Nai Brith. Humanistic Judaism is an atheistic form of Judaism. So Ford's logic, although mistaken, is not necessarily racist. He probably regarded the Bolsheviks as believers in an atheistic form of Judaism. There are also many eastern religions that are atheistic, such as Buddhism, so atheistic Judaism is not absurd. PaulBustion87 (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I think when you've backed off to "but you can't philosophically prove it isn't true!" then you've got nothin' - David Gerard (talk) 11:32, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you that Ford was mistaken in calling Bolshevism a form of Judaism. What I disagree with you about is your view that Ford's viewpoint proves that he was racist. I'm saying there could be other reasons besides race for his holding this belief. I'm not defending Ford's view as accurate.PaulBustion87 (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Besides, that's irrelevant to the original point I made. My original point was that I don't see what Ford has to do with Hitler. Ford was an American. Ford may or may not have been anti-Semitic, but he could not possibly have been a Nazi, because Nazism is a German nationalist ideology. Hitler only mentions Ford ONE TIME in Mein Kampf, he does not cite him as a major influence. Would Hitler have been any less anti-Semitic without Ford's book?PaulBustion87 (talk) 13:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the statement that Ford was one of Hitler's chief financial backers as it was not supported by the citation given. The citation given was The New York Times December 20, 1922 Berlin Hears Ford is backing Hitler. The citation states,

"Berlin, December 19.A rumor is current here that Henry Ford, the American automobile manufacturer, is financing Adolf Hitler's nationalist and anti-Semitic movement in Munich. Indeed, the Berlin Tageblatt has made an appeal to the American Ambassador in Berlin to investigate and interfere." That sounds more like an accusation than a confirmed fact to me.PaulBustion87 (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Henry Ford was an active Freemason. Hitler was very much opposed to Freemasonry. In fact, he made involvement in Freemasonry a serious criminal offense in Germany after he came to power. That makes it hard to believe that Ford influenced Hitler all that much.PaulBustion87 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that can easily be found on the internet

"“You can tell Herr Ford that I am a great admirer of his,” Hitler said. “I shall do my best to put his theories into practice in Germany. … I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.” See Another great quote from that same piece is: "Henderson said he didn’t know about Ford’s anti-Semitic history prior to the controversy, yet nonetheless there’s a legitimate outcry against this and 'it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to read Mr. Ford’s background’.” I am now going looking for Ford's contribution to the German war effort. Want to come along? Carptrash (talk) 17:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Anyone else notice how our friend here tried to dodge around defending "The Scope of Jewish Dictatorship in the U.S." to engage on a side-track about Russian Bolsheviks? It would have been masterful had he not been thorough embarrassed even on that score. Queexchthonic murmurings 17:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I am preoccupied with other things right now, I have not yet read The International Jew in its entirety. However, anyone who argues international Judaism had no influence on Bolshevism is willfully ignorant. I am not a neo-Nazi or a Holocaust denier. I am partially of Jewish ancestry, on my mother's side. I do NOT oppose all forms of Judaism, only those that promote cosmopolitanism and liberalism. I love Zionism, because it is a patriotic ideology and emphasizes traditional virtues.PaulBustion87 (talk) 03:28, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Okay, what exactly is/was "international Judaism", who were its supposed spokesmen and how was it influencing Bolshevism? Also, it seems quite strange to vehemently attack what in yesteryear was called "Judeo-Bolshevism" and then immediately proclaim that you're opposed to the "forms of Judaism [...] that promote cosmopolitanism and liberalism." Sure, you could call the universalism of Marxism-Leninism/Bolshevism some kind of cosmopolitanism, but liberalism? Either you're jumping from one topic to another without any rhyme or reason,[more detail please] or you need to do some reading up on basic political ideologies. Also, see traditional values for why that kind of (non-)argument is not going to get you very far (not to mention who gets to decide which parts of Jewish history, ideas and practice count as "traditional"?). ScepticWombat (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Henry Ford and the Nazi War Machine[edit]

More reasons as to why Henry Ford and his company the Ford Motor Company belongs in the Adolph Hitler article.

"But documents discovered in German and American archives show a much more complicated picture. In certain instances, American managers of both GM and Ford went along with the conversion of their German plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home.” and "When you think of Ford, you think of baseball and apple pie,” … … "You don't think of Hitler having a portrait of Henry Ford on his office wall in Munich.” See

" In sum, they maximized profits by supplying both sides with the materiel needed to conduct the war. “ and "In Germany, for example, General Motors and Ford became an integral part of the Nazi war efforts. …..Ford was also active in Nazi Germany's prewar preparations. In 1938, for instance, it opened a truck assembly plant in Berlin whose "real purpose," according to U.S. Army Intelligence, was producing "troop transport-type" vehicles for the Wehrmacht. That year Ford's chief executive received the Nazi German Eagle (first class).... The outbreak of war in September 1939 resulted inevitably in the full conversion by GM and Ford of their Axis plants to the production of military aircraft and trucks.... On the ground, GM and Ford subsidiaries built nearly 90 percent of the armored "mule" 3-ton half-trucks and more than 70 percent of the Reich's medium and heavy-duty trucks. These vehicles, according to American intelligence reports, served as "the backbone of the German Army transportation system.".... See

Wikipedia, in its Ford Germany article adds, "The company also manufactured the V3000 V-8 truck series. Most notably, Ford-Werkemanufactured the turbines used in the V-2 rockets. In spite of the heavy bombing of Cologne, the factory got off relatively lightly and after the war production was able to restart in May 1945 with truck manufacture, the US government having paid $1.1 million in consideration of bombing damage.

That’s right Ford collected one million dollars in US tax dollars for damage that the US Airforce did to Ford plants in Germany during the war. Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

this info should be in an article for ford rather than Hitler AMassiveGay (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with AMassiveGay. Henry Ford does not deserve this level of attention in an article about Adolf Hitler. He was not a German, and his anti-Semitism was certainly not the same kind as Hitler's.PaulBustion87 (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
he is still an anti-Semitic prick whose article should have his his links to Hitler and the Nazi first and foremost. Just not here. AMassiveGay (talk) 01:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

dumb quote at the top...[edit]

This isn't really a reflection on Carlin as a comedian or the article. But that quote has about zero insight. Anyone who has spent more than 30 seconds with children in a less than ideal situation knows full well they could best Hitler on his worst day, or in his weakest moment of self doubt (he surely had a few?). The premise seems to be based on the notion that children are naturally kind and gentle before we screw them up. Carlin should've stopped snorting all his money up his nose and bought a copy of Lord of the Flies. Burkean (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He should've bought... fiction... I'm just going to leave now. WalkerWalkerWalker 12:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiction never tells us anything meaningful about life. It's the conflict, stupid. Burkean (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Way to completely miss the point of the quote there, Burkean. Don't ever change. Queex

chthonic murmurings 12:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you were not able to give me an example of why this was an insightful statement. One would think an intellectual giant such as yourself would be up to the challenge. The statement only makes sense if you believe that children are naturally innocent and kind. This adds on a whole other layer of irony, because the sentiment Carlin is expressing represents the kind of naivete someone such as himself would stereotypically associate with children. Burkean (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The point, my poor Burkean, is that Hitler is a complex subject. "How did a generally well-intentioned populace bring one of the worst leaders of history into power through mostly democratic means?" That's a question that has an answer, but it's not one that would be easy to answer, especially with a child's or a Burkean's understanding of history and human nature as a backing. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 13:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
It seems, my dear ikanreed, that you don't really explain why my understanding of history is somehow lacking. There are children in this country in second and third grade that are learning SOMETHING about Hitler, his bizarre reasons for feeling the way he did and so on. It kind of seems like you're shifting the goal posts. I said very young children can understand that there are mean and cruel people in the world, and many of them can be taught to understand why this is wrong and what you can do to stop it. Carlin didn't say try explaining the full and comprehensive history of the third reich to a child. In that case he (and you) might have a point. Unless you're trying to make some sort of Hegelian argument that one cannot explain Hitler without going through the entire history of the period from beginning to end. That seems facetious. I'm also interested to see your proof as to why the breadth and depth of your knowledge pertaining to history is infinitely superior to mine. Burkean (talk) 10:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I would say Antisemitism and the fact that it was central to German nationalism from the days of its invention might play a role... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, congratulations, you've identified one of hundreds of relevant points(and we'll be fair and admit definitely it's in the top 10) towards answering that question. That's not an answer, and if you explained to a kid that antisemitism was the whole reason Hitler got into power, you'd have failed at explaining. ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 14:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
"The statement only makes sense if you believe that children are naturally innocent and kind." The paucity of your imagination is not a limit on the rest of us. There are plenty of other reasons why it would be difficult, ikanreed gave one. Queexchthonic murmurings 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
So what is it about children that predisposes them to not understanding Hitler were it not for their innocence or lack of information about the world? Why is imagining (in fact actually seeing) even younger children learning about important events in history at that time, indicative of a deficient imagination on my part? Because I don't have a cubbyhole idea of what a child is which would fit with Carlin's pointless, unfunny, unoriginal observation? I guess I come from the school of thought that children come in all shapes and sizes, with various gifts, and some of them will grasp events in history and why they are important at a very young age. Oh, and by the way, ikanreed's reason amounts to "Children don't understand complicated things. Hitler is complicated. Therefore, children won't understand Hitler." Carlin said some absolutely true as well as absolutely hilarious things in his time. However, this time, it's just another one of those overrated quotes along with "Unless you've done something for humanity, you should be ashamed to die" or some supposedly witty overrated doggerel from Oscar Wilde such as "I'm not young enough to know everything". Burkean (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it's a crappy quote, devoid of context. Take it down. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of putting Kubrick's quote about Hitler at the top, but, interesting though it is, I'm not sure it would be relevant either. Burkean (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Now this page has the awesomest quoteeva :D--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 17:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Non.gif WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Fucking spoilsport...--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 18:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh, what did I miss? Burkean (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The point is: How many quotes do we want and which? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 14:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Only one: Mine, of course!--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 14:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
In the spirit of George-Carlin-style cynicism, how about this one?
What good fortune for governments that the people do not think.
—Adolf Hitler (talk) 15:19, 28 August 42015 AQD (UTC)
Well, one of my favorites by carlin was "Rape isn't funny? Just think of Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd". Burkean (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Hilarious quote[edit]

Love the quote at the top. But did he actually say that. Would certainly not be one of the most crazy things he said if he did!Burkean (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


I want to add some info to the "most evil person" part about Hitler and the nazi party's shockingly great views on animal rights. I'm not trying to put him in leather pants or anything, I just want to point out that even he had good points.Tfaddict (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by "animal rights" in the Nazi context? There's some documentation that Hitler was, at least at times, a vegetarian, but what is your broader claim here?
Stuff like hunting restrictions, banning animal trapping, and laws on conservation. They were actually the first nation in the world to place grey wolves under environmental protection.Tfaddict (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you have solid documentation for that stuff, go ahead. But I'd caution you about any implication that this redeems Nazis.---Mona- (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I do have documentation, however I am completely unknowledgeable about how to actually source it. Tfaddict (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If it's a link, it looks like this at the end of the sentence or paragraph: <ref></ref> There's other stuff you can do also, such as adding the title of the article and embedding the link in that, inside the reference.---Mona- (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

So a guy who had millions sent to their death really loved his dog. Whoop-de-do. There are various theories about Hitler's vegetarianism, but if you're going to attribute it, & his policies on hunting etc., to "animal rights" then you need some solid sourcing to verify that he believed in any such concept. Since he liked to compare what he viewed as inferior races of humans to animals, & since he apparently did not believe that people of these races had inherent rights, I'm going to kind of doubt it. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, he may have had extensive sympathy for animal welfare which became reflected in Germany's laws, but animal "rights" wasn't a thing yet.---Mona- (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Them being (supposedly) in favor of animals is mostly due to three things: Kosher butchering is a popular trope among antisemites that somehow "proves" how "evil" Jews are (even though all type of butchering end up killing the animal and doing so by it bleeding out. Kosher butchering has the added benefit of the person doing the killin actaully knowing what they do). The second thing: Hitler was (or claimed to be) a vegetarian. And of course Goering was an avid hunter (the Jägermeister you like to drink? Yeah, that was named for him...) But of course the record of the Nazis on animal stuff makes PETA and ALF cringe. Which is fun to watch :-P Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hitler was a sensitive man! (probably NSFW) --Ymir (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

It's actually interesting that the similar slaughter practices in Judaism and Islam is arguably what has protected halal slaughter against being outlawed as animal cruelty in several European countries (because it would be pretty hard to outlaw one and not the other and the odd conjunction of right-wing Islamophobia and extreme pro-Israel attitudes those most apt to push for limiting halal slaughter practices are unlikely to do so in order not to hit Jewish practices as well). The argument against both practices is that the animal should be stunned (or otherwise rendered unconscious) first in order to alleviate the pain involved in bleeding out. Indeed, the general rule for non-religious slaughter seems to be that stunning or similar practices is mandatory. Whether this is in concord with Islamic/Jewish religious requirement is something about which there seems to be various levels of objections to or agreement with within both traditions. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The fact of the matter is: Measuring pain is difficult. We can't know for sure which amount of pain the animal feels in which type of killing. However, I think it is safe to say that a botched stunning (and those happen from time to time in automated slaughterhouses) likely produces more pain than a well done halal/kosher slaughter... Oh and as for halal/kosher... There was a debate on some RW talk page some time ago as to whether kosher food without alcohol is automatically halal... I always thought it is... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah yes, if you compare a botched slaughter to a well conducted one, the latter is preferable, who'd have guessed... As for whether kosher = halal, doesn't the latter has to have some specific prayer recited over it during slaughter? I'm not intimately familiar with the details of liturgy here, but though it would be rather nifty if the procedures were interchangeable, I'm not sure it's the case. As a general rule (i.e. outside slaughter specifics), however, yes, I think you're probably right. ScepticWombat (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK both Muslims and Jews say some kinda prayer before the ritual slaughter of an animal (during would be a rather bad idea).--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the vast majority of Muslims / Jews who care about kosher halal will say "ah close enough" (as long as the milk/meat and alcohol thing is not violated, respectively) and get on with eating. Especially when on the road or far away from major groups of their coreligionists... But there is always the 1% fringe nutcases... And I don't know about halal butchers, but I have heard that kosher butchering is usually done by people who have a lot of hands on knowledge, making botching the whole thing much less likely... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
"I have heard that kosher butchering is usually done by people who have a lot of hands on knowledge" Funny, I've heard the same thing about people working in secular abattoirs too... ScepticWombat (talk) 01:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Wasn't there that book about meatpacking in Chicago? I personally have little reason to believe today's meat is produced all that differently... And is it really that easy to "industrialize" kosher/halal butchering without being kicked out of the religion for violating the rules? I mean I don't care all that much, but... yaknow.... Just thinking: The guy who started last week botching it or someone who has apprenticed for three years and sees it as his/her holy duty... But than again, there are "experts" who are to stupid to correctly apply tape measure Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You know why most slaughterhouse workers aren't guys "who started last week"? Because a trained worker is able to process a carcass way faster and efficiency is everything. Also, there are other industrialised countries than the US and they rarely have farmed out a large sector of their meatpacking sector to illegal immigrants, but instead have the kind of skilled workforces that was the standard in the US before the deregulation fetishists and anti-union forces took over. To take just one example, I know of an education solely for intestine cleaners in my native country which takes 2-3 years, while training to be a basic butcher takes 2 years (with an additional 1-1½ years to specialise in various branches such as retail, delicatessen, or animal types) so please try to limit these apples and oranges comparisons. Of course any unskilled untrained labourer is likely to make more mistakes than a skilled and experienced one, but you could just as well turn things around and ponder how your sacred duty butchers became so skilled (probably not by practising on vegetables or props, I'd wager...), meaning that you are liable to get the exact same inexperience problems with religious slaughter too. ScepticWombat (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
You are probably right on at least some points. (And it is amazing that we are discussing whether kosher butchering is superior on this of all talk pages) However, every industrialized country (including the not-US one I am sitting in right now) has automatization most of its industries. Including slaughter. And I am quite sure that a machine is neither kosher nor halal as a slaughter thingy. And I may of course be mistaken, but I think a machine dealing with living things on occasion botches stuff. And I have heard some time ago that even countries such as Germany have huge animal cruelty problems in their slaughterhouses. So big that they ban cameras (and hidden camera footage invariably leaks)... Denmark was in fact favorably compared to Germany in one of the articles on the subject that made its way into Spiegel online Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2015 (UTC)