Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:33, 3 February 2006

Adolf Hitler has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.

Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead.

This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Politics Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL Template:FAOL

An event in this article is a January 30 selected anniversary. (may be in HTML comment)

Archives

Adolf or Adolph, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

Final version and POV tag

I think we can remove the POV tag once these two lines are decided on, as they seem to be the only ones under dispute. The following is my version which is open to stylistic but not major semantic modification.

Hitler gained popularity through his charismatic oratory, often appealing to German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and promises of economic improvement. Once in power, he applied propaganda along with para-military violence in public to establish an efficient totalitarian state with almost no domestic resistance.

What do people disagree with? Something substantial that has not already been proven wrong or unnecessary, please.-- Simonides 23:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Take a chill pill, Simonides. Wyss 00:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Your unused stock? -- Simonides 00:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

:) Wyss 00:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Please calm down, guys. I want to suggest the following rewording:

Hitler came to power in a Germany plagued by political and economic crisis, using his (political skills and) charismatic oratory, appealing to nationalism and anti-Semitism. He established a totalitarian state based on propaganda and coercion.

After the economy had recovered and the military rearmed, Nazi Germany started World War II and during the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe. The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in an immense number of deaths across Europe, commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

I am undecided on the "political skills" (though keen is overdoing it), as I am not sure what these skills are except for rhetoric, charisma, and playing va-banque. But never mind.

I removed the "effective", as the Hitler state was many things but not effective.

I also reincluded the economic issue (both as crisis and as recovery), but without sounding as praise. I also included the actual start of the war, as the former version just suddenly plunged and was in the middle of the war.

Any suggestions for making it more concise are of course welcome. Str1977 00:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

user:Raul654 has stumbled in and protected the page (along with reverting it to the cartoon/Indiana Jones version he seems to like). I don't think this was done under appropriate WP authority but I've little hope he'll ever agree with that. Either way, yeah, I guess there are folks who think AH had no political skill, no significant popular appeal and was into brutality and violence for their own sakes. I mean, why regard him as the frighteningly talented piece of human complexity and moral irresponsibility that he was, when one can avoid all those inconvenient and uncomfortable subtleties and sum him up as frickin' Darth Vader or whatever? Wyss 01:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems people don't really read the Talk page here, yet have the temerity to edit self-righteously . Repeating myself:

• Good, so we can remove "schadenfreude". And Wyss, about "keen political skills", let's quote your own words - If it's so generally held, finding a suitable citation in a secondary source by a peer-reviewed author shouldn't be much trouble. (ie not just a handful of web pages.) As with charisma, it's not the inclusion that's being debated so much as its relevance next to other factors that are already mentioned and provide more specific information.

As for the use of the word coercion: "coercion" implies that people were being forced into doing something specific. In fact, apart from the public humiliation in which Jews were forced to clean latrines in front of crowds etc, people were not being "coerced" - they were being beaten up, deported or killed. That's why I used "violence." -- Simonides 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You mean Jewish people weren't forced to get in those cattle cars? Wyss 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence is a broader and more accurate category than "coercion"; it's like the difference between saying Hitler ruled Germany and Hitler ruled Bavaria. The analogy being that you want to insist that since Hitler ruled Bavaria, he couldn't have ruled Germany too. -- Simonides 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told I think coercion is the broader category. Lots of Germans complied (or, say, "adapted") because it was easier than getting one's head lopped off or starving to death in a Gestapo cell or concentration camp. The implied threat of violence is a much wider and more efftive tool than violence itself. Wyss 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)\

You wouldn't have so many semantic troubles if you actually knew something on the subject. There wasn't just an implied threat, there was a lot of documented violence, and it's an important aspect of Nazism. It's more important than unspecified "keen political skills" anyway so stop removing it. -- Simonides 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so we disagree on everything you've mentioned above. What now? :) Wyss 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(Obviously they were violent btw) Wyss 03:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's start again

This was yesterday's version:

• Hitler gained popularity through his charismatic oratory, often appealing to German nationalism, anti-Semitism, schadenfreude and promises of economic improvement. Once in power, he applied propaganda along with para-military violence in public to establish an efficient totalitarian state with almost no domestic resistance. Under Hitler, Germany rebuilt an economy and military devastated by World War I. At the height of their power during World War II, the armies of Nazi Germany and its Axis allies occupied much of Europe.

This is the current version:

• Hitler gained popularity through his charismatic oratory and political skill, often appealing to German nationalism, anti-Semitism, and promises of economic improvement.

I think we can do better. Str made a suggestione above that I'm fine with though it needs to be slightly briefer as he himself admits. More suggestions please... -- Simonides 02:34, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

For starters, you might want to have a look at WP:Civility. Wyss 03:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be much more useful to the article if you read a little scholarly material on the subject. -- Simonides 03:20, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I'm ok with letting other editors decide for themselves if my edits are based on the scholarly record ;) Wyss 03:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

They already have:

• "Please mind what you revert Wyss. I have included "keen political skills", although i find them somewhat redundant... he term "keen political skills" is too vague, sounds too high-schoolish to me." - Minister of War
• "Since Hitler's keen political skills consisted, for the most parr, precisely in his charimatic oratory and appeals to anto semitism, etc... adding it now would be a redundacy." - Lacatosias
• "I am undecided on the "political skills" (though keen is overdoing it), as I am not sure what these skills are except for rhetoric, charisma, and playing va-banque." - Str1977

Yet you re-inserted the phrase several times. -- Simonides 03:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess that means all his major biographers were mistaken. Wyss 03:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

No, his "major biographers" never bothered to keep harping on "keen political skills" without qualifying the phrase and after already mentioning obvious political skills in the same or previous sentence. -- Simonides 03:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is my contribution. Perhaps one or two things are salvageable...

Hitler rose to power amidst deep economic and political crisis by promises of economic improvement. He used charismatic oratory and propaganda to appeal to popular nationalist and anti-Semitic sentiments. Hitler terrorized and coerced the scant opposition he faced and quickly transformed Germany into a totalitarian state. Jbetak 04:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds good (Hitler did not just terrorize the opposition by the way, mostly the general populace, and there was little organized opposition to start with). By the way this is the most recent version so please comment on what can be removed or kept. -- Simonides 04:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hitler's nationalism, anti-Semitism and economic promises were popular in a Germany facing crises. Using charismatic oratory, effective propaganda and paramilitary violence, Hitler established a totalitarian state with little resistance. The devastated economy and military were rapidly rebuilt. At the height of their power during World War II, the armies of Nazi Germany and its Axis allies occupied much of Europe. The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in an immense number of deaths across Europe, commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

I'm not happy with this:

• the current wording leads the focus to nationalism, anti-Semitism and economic promises rather than on Hitler. Also, I think that saying these three were popular is too blunt a statement (apart from the fact that it seems to place the three on par, when they were not).
• "with little resistance" is clumsy and ambiguous (resistance against his rise or resistance against his rule) and IMO unecessary.
• The start of the war is left out again.

Str1977 08:18, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It says Hitler's nationalism etc... don't know what you have in mind, but please suggest something. As for the war - isn't it slightly simplistic to say he started it? He invaded Poland and war was declared later... -- Simonides 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

using the word "violence" is a POV. "propaganda" also sounds bad. --Haham hanuka 09:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hanuka, how is "violence" POV - I think the actions of the SA clearly constitue violence. Beating up (or worse) opponents, attacking rival party meetings etc. Propaganda may sound bad, but it isn't a derogatory term in itself, and in fact derives much of its negative connotation from the Nazis. But I am willing to discuss working alternatives. My objective was to include something that gave the substance of Nazi/Fascist rule - in Mussolini's case the two pillars are "consensus and terror" (though there was considerably less terror in Italy). Str1977 09:31, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence was widely used in the war on Iraq, so should we write on George Bush intro "using paramilitary violence" --Haham hanuka 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh not again, please read, re-read all the arguments and scholarly references above. This has already been thrashed out. Your analogy is also totally meaningless. -- Simonides 18:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro again

So this:

• Hitler's nationalism, anti-Semitism and economic promises were popular in a Germany facing crises. Using charismatic oratory, effective propaganda and paramilitary violence, Hitler established a totalitarian state with little resistance. The devastated economy and military were rapidly rebuilt. At the height of their power during World War II, the armies of Nazi Germany and its Axis allies occupied much of Europe. The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in an immense number of deaths across Europe, commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

has been changed to this:

• Hitler came to power in a Germany plagued by political and economic crisis, usingparamilitary violence and his charismatic oratory, appealing to economic need, nationalism and anti-Semitism. He established a totalitarian state based on propaganda and coercion. The racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in an immense number of deaths across Europe, commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust.

After the economy had recovered and the military rearmed, Nazi Germany started World War II. During the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe, but ultimately, Germany was defeated by the Allied powers in 1945.

My objections

1. violence and coercion are both included. And all along people were trying to exclude one or the other because of excessive POV - can we just remove coercion?
2. As for WW2, it's a bit simplistic to say the Germans "started" it as there is some debate over what was exactly the "start" of the war - the main article on World War II itself goes into that.
3. It seems even longer than the earlier version.

And this is an observation - people kept arguing that Hitler was only portrayed negatively, yet by putting economic/military recovery in passive one downplays Hitler's role (I'm fine with that but I wondered why no one else objects to it.) I'll make slight tweaks and suggestions are welcome. -- Simonides 17:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is the edit I made to make the intro more concise and sort of keep it line with chronology:

• Hitler came to power in a Germany facing political and economic crisis. Using charismatic oratory, Hitler appealed to economic need, nationalism and anti-Semitism. He established a totalitarian state through effective propaganda and paramilitary violence. With the recovery of the economy and the military, Nazi Germany provoked World War II. During the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe, but ultimately, Germany was defeated by the Allied powers in 1945. By then, the racial policies that Hitler directed culminated in an immense number of deaths across Europe, commonly cited as about 11 million people, including about 6 million Jews, in a genocide now known as the Holocaust. -- Simonides 17:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

This is good, I would add one thing also - Germany's defeat by the Allies was a;sp directly attributatble to Hitler's style of leadership. Hitler ran a chaotic nation, in which he deliberately had his subordinates working at cross purposes and in competition with each other, to ensure Hitler remained at the top of the chain. If someone can think of a one sentence summation of that notion, it would be appropriate here. Something like

During the height of its power, Germany and her allies occupied much of Europe, but ultimately, Germany was defeated by the Allied powers in 1945. Hitler exercised personal control over major facets of the German economy, military, and government, by 1942 having supreme political power as well as supreme command of the Army. His style of leadership, encouraging subordinates to compete needlessly, and the chaotic reporting lines in the country led to an extremely inefficient economy which, coupled with Hitler's poor attempts at grand strategy and an effective coalition of overwhelming material resources by Germany's enemies, ultimately led to their defeat. The Second World War in Europe was ultimately "Hitler's War" for it was he who personally instigated the war, prosecuted the war, and shaped Germany's participation.

Michael Dorosh 18:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro still has problems. Use of the word violence in the context of a totalitarian dictator is redundant and unencyclopedic because it gives the appearance of PoV, even if bias is not actually present in the article. Second, the lack of any mention of AH's widely documented political ability (some editors may mistakenly believe that political ability is in itself a positive, admirable trait) is conspicuous in its absence and third, parts of the intro suffer from very weak syntax and style. Minor nitpick to Michael Dorosh's interesting remarks: To characterise the 1939-45 war as "Hitler's War" is tempting, however it is also speculative in the sense that we can't be assured a second world war in Europe could have been avoided if only AH hadn't been in power. Wyss 20:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully suggesting this replacement for the middle paragraph of the intro:

• Hitler assumed power in a time of political and economic crisis for the German state. Through his use of charismatic oratory he appealed to the electorate, with an emphasis on the need for economic revitalisation, while urging the people to accept state policies that derived from nationalism and anti-Semitism. By way of effective propaganda and paramilitary violence, a totalitarian state was established by his party, with a view to creating the empire of the Third Reich under the leadership of a Fuhrer.
• With the surge in economic activity under his leadership, and the envigoration of the military establishment during the mid-1930's, Hitler directed the German state's diplomatic relations, to the point of provoking the second World War. At the height of its power in 1941, Germany (along with its allies) occupied much of Europe, and parts of north Africa, the middle-east and west Asia.
• Hitler took unusual responsibility in determining the strategy and battle plans of the state's army, but in 1945 Germany was defeated by the Allied powers. By then, the racial policies set by him had culminated in a great number of deaths - the figure commonly cited is of 11 million people, which includes the deaths of 6 million Jews in a genocide known as the Holocaust.

I hope this addresses all the points raised in debates going back three months (adding his involvement in military campaigns), but with a better flow than the existing paragraph in the intro. And I think all the links are good and useful. Any thoughts?--shtove 22:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Without implying any negative criticism of shtove's suggestions, I think the intro is far too long. Wyss 22:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

All right, my thougts on Shtove's suggestion:

• The general problem is, as Wyss said, that this version is too long for the intro, while the shorter version does the trick of conveying the same info as well.
• "Assume" to me sounds to much like taking hold of an apple lying around.
• The rest of the sentence is factually ok, but it is too long and offers explanations better left to the article itself.
• "with a view to creating" is IMHO only elaborating on what "totalitarian state" means here.
• the economic lines gives too much credit to Hitler (or seems to) while stating that Hitler directed diplomacy is stating the obvious. "Provoke" is inaccurate.
• His stearing of the military is again stating the obvious and possibly connects his military decisions too close with the defeat. Though Hitler is often portrayed as a military dilitant, he was in fact quite well informed in the military field - his decisions weren't that foolish until this "forward strategy" ran adrift. What really caused the defeat were his political and not his military decisions.

Str1977 23:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually like the current version, though the "coercion and propaganda - totalitarian state" is missing, except for the "provoked World War II" bit. That sounds like Germany provoked others to start the war (as it did in 1870 with Napoleon III), when in fact it was Germany that started the war. Granted the war at the beginning was not a world war, only a German-Polish war, but with France and the UK entering the war after a few days it was a World war. Anyway, we are taking about one war here (WWII) which started on 1 September 1939. Hence I will change "provoke" to "start".

- This is what I wrote before, but it appears that I was looking at an outdated version. Here are some more comments on my edit and the current version:

I changed "Allied powers" to "Anti-Hitler Coalition", for a couple of reasons:

• Avoid the repitition of the word "allied/s", which could suggest and identity. The wording "Axis allies" is awkward and shouldn't be used
• I'm not sure whether the Soviet Union was part of the Allied Powers, but it bore a large burden of the war.
• Anti-Hitler Coalition is a perfectly common term.

The proper terms are "Axis powers" and "Allies," the latter including the USSR by treaty, the Declaration by United Nations. Wyss 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I retained the following passage:

He established a totalitarian state through effective propaganda and paramilitary violence.

Is this passage intended to refer to Hitler's rise to power or to his governing the Third Reich. Paramilitary violence played a part in the former but not in the second case. Coercion or repression are more fitting in the second case.

Thoughts?

Str1977 23:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary violence is problematic. First, the word is too vague. Second, the mere threat of violence had much sway in Nazi Germany. Third (as I've mentioned before) violence in the context of a totalitarian dictatorship is unremarkable. Use of the term is redundant and creates the impression of bias or emotionalism, even if these aren't editorially present. Wyss 23:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping to address the concerns of the reader of this article, rather than those of the contributors. Forgive me, but replacing Allied Powers seems a bit complicated, or recondite, for a WP article. The term violence (paramilitary or otherwise) is one of the bones (of contention) - (see, Adolf Hitler). I do know the current intro (2nd para) doesn't read well. This is a big subject - one of WP's most popular - so, let the intro be long and let it be readable. Better that than the disjointed thing we have at the moment. Let Wyss and Str1977 hack away at the suggested replacement - prolix and inaccurate as it may be - until they produce something that helps the reader who wants to learn about Adolf Hitler.--shtove 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Readers of whatever background or bias will inevitably be distracted by an intro that attempts to accomplish too much. In an extreme case, AH's b-d dates, political offices and acknowledged responsibility for the holocaust are likely enough. Once one starts to elaborate beyond that bare framework, the probability of bias, reader irritation, misleading word choices and spin (well meant or otherwise) approaches 1. Wyss 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I take one of your points. In my historical biogs I cite in the intro - name, DOB/DOD, station/rank/occupation - and then give a single sentence summary of what the subject achieved. It's the last part that proves a problem on this subject, with the lesser or greater degrees of elaboration that Adolf Hitler demands. My suggested replacement touches on all the "likely" areas, in a style that I consider logical. The reader of this article will have no background or bias - the reader reads. So let the intro be readable (so what if it's long?) and accomplished. And let the contributors relegate their conflicts to the talk page.--shtove 00:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I understand, but I don't think it's that easy. Wyss 00:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shtove, I changed from Allied powers to Anti-Hitler Coalition (which is just as correct) for a couple of reasons, one being to avoid the repetition and possible confusion. The problem with using "Axis powers" is that does not clearly connect them to Germany and that "and its allies" was flowing better. Also, this change doesn't avoid possible confusion when suddenly "Allies" appear.

I agree with Wyss on the length of the intro.

Finally, could someone please actually address my question:

Is the passage

He established a totalitarian state through effective propaganda and paramilitary violence.

intended to refer to Hitler's rise to power or to his governing the Third Reich. Paramilitary violence played a part in the former but not in the second case. Coercion or repression are more fitting in the second case.

Str1977 01:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it's meant to apply to both his gradual rise, through his consolidation of power through the Enabling Act and straight through to the end. I also think it's incomplete and poorly worded to the point of being misleading. Wyss 01:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but that creates the ambiguity that others decry, especially in regard to violence. I am more in favour of including a statement about the actual regime, being based on consensus and terror. Str1977 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The word terror is too loaded to use, even here, though terror it was, and violence it was. Coercion can involve either applied or threatened force. Indeed, the force they applied wasn't always so violent, but usually effective enough. The term violent is vague and misleading. While I think the phrase coercion through paramilitary and police power since some readers seem to think that means a polite wink and meek request to clamber into the cattle car or whatever, why bother with it? The body of the article mostly does a very helpful job of explaining how he did all this. Why irritate and distract readers with a dodgy, over-long intro? Wyss 01:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Wyss. With "consensus and terror" I was only referring to principle I know from my studies of fascist Italy. I did edit the text to reinclude "propaganda and coercion". It use coercion exactly because it can involve either applied or threatened force. (Actually terror has that dual nature as well, as it refers to the fear caused, but unfortunately many associated terror with the violence itself and wouldn't distinguish, say, terrorist attacks from assasinations). Again I agree about the length. Str1977 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, for precise adjectives, the best I've ever heard applied to the SA (both in books and by people who saw them first hand) is thugs. Wyss 01:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Allies and Axis powers

This is all well documented, even in WP. The Declaration by United Nations in 1942 established the UK, USA, USSR and many other countries as the Allies. Germany was aligned and treatied with the Axis powers including Italy and Japan. Describing them any other way is non-standard, unsupported by the historical record and will chavel the article's credibility with any informed reader. Wyss 01:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Wyss, I never disputed that the terms you use are standard. I was concerned for the flow and the possible confusion. But I won't push this issue. However, to say that "Anti-Hitler Coalition" is non-standard or unsupported or even that it would harm the article's credibility is, to put it bluntly, nonsense. Str1977 01:25, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense? I've cited the terms. Anyway you've now got the word power in that sentence three times and it'll never stick stylistically. Truth be told, part of the skill of writing these articles is using accepted terminologies in a smooth and seamless narrative flow. Please reassure me and say you didn't deliberately use the word 3x to make a point? One can call the Allies the Allies and find an alternate word for power, leaving Axis powers as the only instance in the sentence. Wyss 01:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, Wyss, read carefully not your terms are nonsense, but the dismissing tone regarding AHC.

No, I wasn't trying to make a point by using "powers" (I didn't count it, though I liekd the parallel structure Axis Powers vs. Allied Powers). I just think Allies, accurate or not, a bit too vague. It might be the official term but as such it was used by the Allies and the Allies knew whom they were allied to. "Allied Powers" makes it clearer that we are not talking about some allies but a specific group of that name. I wouldn't mind changing the first instance of power. Str1977 01:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, in the context of 1939-45, Allies and Axis powers have ultra precise, stark, standard and widely understood meanings :) Wyss 01:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Er, you don't have to trust me, click on the wikified cites above. Wyss 01:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I trust you and I know that these are precise. I was just concerned about the flow.

However, I don't understand what you mean by wikified cites. The articles on "Axis powers" and "Allies" (actually "Allies of World War II")? Or the link to the UN Declaration - I can't find the words "Allies" or "Axis" in there)?

Are these two actually the official terms of the alliances in question? Axis isn't really, as the Axis never was and never was intended as a formal alliance, rather Mussolini's surrogate for such an alliance while he was still contemplating. Is Allies an official term.

Or are these terms used by historians? I know Axis Powers are, and Allies are too, but I have also read Allied Powers. We should ask a native speaking historian, as my first language is German. There we'd have "Achsenmächte" and "Alliierte" (which doesn't creat the "Allies vs. allies" problem). Str1977

In Anglo-Saxon culture (English), these were and are the "official" terms. Newspapers and radio at the time used them, history books still use them, every biography of every person from that time I've read uses them and lastly, everyone I've ever known who was alive then and has spoken to me about it in English has used the terms... Allies and Axis (powers). I've heard and read variations in French and German but this is the En WP.

The article Declaration by United Nations explains the legal treaty that bound them (it was the genesis of the present day UN by the bye) and goes on to say that they were referred to as the Allies. The article Axis powers does a similar job (though after the essentials, towards the end, someone dumped in some incoherent machine translation gunk).

Yes, sometimes you will see Allied powers but not nearly as often.

In 40s era lit one will often see Axis used stand-alone. I think I've even seen this in comic books from the period (I'm a Betty and Veronica fan, Archie got his start in something called "Pep" comics during the era and I've seen several of them). Wyss 02:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand the argument here. "Allies" is a standard term, and if capitalized, can be understood to be a proper noun referring to the anti-German powers in World War II. That said, I think Str is right that the particular usage in question is a bit awkward. I'd prefer "Allied powers." "Germany was defeated by the Allies," with no context, just sounds awkward to me. I'd also make the side point that Wyss is most certainly wrong to say that any other terminology is "unsupported by the historical record." During World War II itself, the most commonly used term for the Allies was "the United Nations." For obvious reasons of ambiguity and confusion, this has not been used by historians. john k 05:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why they call them the Allies in this context. I'm not making this stuff up :) Wyss 14:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely not. But "Allied Powers" would further forestall confusion - is that term really so outrageous? Str1977 14:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole dispute sounds like a tempest in a teacup. I don't think the standard term 'Allies' is so vague that we need to invent a similar neologism like 'Allied Powers'. But 'Allied powers' sounds ok too. I could go either way, but without capitalizing Powers when talking about the Allies. Wesley 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Truly... the standard, widely understood terms in English for the two combatant groups of countries during the 1939-45 war are Allies and Axis powers. Wyss 14:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "violence"

This word has been justified over and over and yet only one editor seems to have a problem with it, namely Wyss, whose arguments against it haven't held up under scrutiny. Since I am loath to repeat myself, and since some editors are loath to pay attention to facts and others' arguments, I'll just repeat the previous arguments verbatim in the hope that someone will actually read and then apply them. -- Simonides 05:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Brute force

Brute force may be op-ed language, but it is not untruthful; if you want references and scholarly material, look up the acclaimed "Nazi Germany and the Jews" by Saul Friedlander. Here's a quote from the early pages in my copy: "Anti-Jewish violence spread (my note: SPREAD, not BEGUN) after the March elections... In Breslau, Jewish lawyers and judges were assaulted in the court building... in Gedern, the SA (Storm Troopers) broke into Jewish homes and beat up the inhabitants... The list of similar incidents is a long one. There were also killings... (etc.)... Much of the foreign press gave wide coverage to the Nazi violence." Also note, on the previous page: "The primary political targets of the new regime and of its terror system, at least during the first months after the Nazi accession to power, were not Jews but Communists." Also look at the works "Holocaust: A History" by Deborak Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, "Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert. Jews were being publicly humiliated in the streets by police, arrested, their homes were broken into and wrecked, and groups of Jews started being transported to concentration camps almost right away. All the scholars mentioned are reputable, not hacks like Goldhagen or other agenda-driven ultra-Zionists. Brute force or some variant needs to be reinstated. I think the onus is on you to prove the contrary, particularly this absurd statement "for the first several years lots of Germans didn't find him brutal at all". -- Simonides 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they used violent means. However, I'm not sure the use of violence is remarkable for a dictator and hence the word wontedly doesn't show up in introductory paragraphs about this particular violent, murderous sociopath. Wyss 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "remarkable" it is. Violent is a neutral word, it is factual and attributable, it belongs in the header. Adding it says more than merely mentioning that police forces were involved. -- Simonides 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

for starters. ... Wyss 01:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, all of the sites you linked support the fact that anti-Semitism was a major factor in Hitler's popularity, and that violence was frequently used by Hitler, both of which you tried to play down with your edits. ... -- Simonides 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why "violent" is not redundant & op-ed langauge

At least three users don't seem to understand the diff between saying police powers were involved and violent police power was involved. It's very simple, it helps if you know a little history:

1. Stalinist Russia was a police state in which millions were deported, tortured, executed without fair trial, etc. Police and para-military forces were involved, of course. However, unlike Nazi Germany, these forces did not beat up people on the streets, in their homes, in full view of others, and so on. The Post-Stalinist era did not see great changes in method; of course, the arbitrariness, censorship and death toll decreased drastically, but the Soviet Union remained a very strict police state.
2. East Germany, practically micro-managed by the Stasi, was a police state which used similar methods, again with lower numbers of victims and with less visibility, but with equally dangerous consequences for anyone implicated in any "subversive" activity. The same extends to other Soviet "satellite states" like Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
3. North Korea, and certain Latin American, Middle Eastern and African countries are among modern police states with the grimmest human rights records. Once again, military and police forces are always under the government in these countries, but they do not all engage in public violence against citizens.

As shown above, all of the Nazi violence was of a different order and the words chosen are perhaps better than "brute force"... Finally, NPOV is not about giving equal time to every single opinion and making every personality look like a mix of good and bad. It's about using unbiased information to project a contextually accurate picture. Trying to throw in information about, for ex., how much Hitler loved little furry animals to "balance" an article is no longer about NPOV, it's about being un/able to judge the value of facts. -- Simonides 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that North Korea, Guatemala, and Zimbabwe are "not violent." We simply don't have to spell out every single method in the intro; that's what the article is for. Establish who he is, without specifics or judgment. --Golbez 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Zimbabwe, from time to time yes. I don't know enough about Guatemala; North Korea - the streets are practically deserted a lot of the time. Please look at what I'm saying - secret/ military police are violent, but not always publicly, and that's what I want to emphasize. It's not about "spelling out methods". Are you deliberately being trivialising? Do you think the difference between public violence and humiliation and secret torture is just a question of method? In the Soviet Union it was possibly to deny torture and it is true that even now many people don't know/ don't believe in Stalinist crimes, in Russia. In Nazi Germany the crowds cheered on. Talking about his violent methods is specific. Mentioning "keen political skills" is judgement. I find your judgement on the header rather skewed, not for any partisan reasons, but probably simply because you don't want any changes. -- Simonides 10:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Violence and Request for comment

I came in through WP:Requests for comment/Politics, on whether or not "violence" and "anti-semitism" are suitable terms for the into.

I've read it over a few times, and feel it to be quite balanced at the moment (dont know whose reversion it is, and dont want to know!). There are some issues with the phrasing imho, for example the mild suggestion that violence was a tool he used to come to power, which was not really the case. Some intimidation, certainly, but the true paramilitary and police violence came later. ... The Minister of War 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the open violence should be mentioned along with anti-Semitism, and I think we tried to point out that he used the violence to gain totalitarian control, not popularity! ... -- Simonides 10:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Incarnation of Evil

...you restored the word "violent" to the intro. Hey, in truth we're not that far off in our takes on this. ... So far as his racial beliefs go, he did stir up the thugs with Jew baiting but most middle class Germans were far more afraid of communism, anarchy and hyper-inflation. ... Wyss 01:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler's anti-Semitism and his use of violence are NOT gray areas, they ARE significant aspects of Hitler's popularity (both within his party and among the public) and rule, they are VERY well documented, your own "sources" back this up, he was not responsible for the SYSTEMATIC deaths of more "ordinary" Germans than Jews/Communists, the use of violence went well beyond merely "Jew baiting", and all the scholarly works I cited above go into GREAT detail about both these aspects of Nazism, in fact you could say Nazi Germany and the Jews, which only covers the period from 1933-1939 by the way - ie BEFORE the war - is about this subject only. You're just wrong on this and if you look up the books I mention (which are just ones I own by the way, there must be several others), you'll understand. -- Simonides 02:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Final version and POV tag

As for the use of the word coercion: "coercion" implies that people were being forced into doing something specific. In fact, apart from the public humiliation in which Jews were forced to clean latrines in front of crowds etc, people were not being "coerced" - they were being beaten up, deported or killed. That's why I used "violence." -- Simonides 01:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow. You mean Jewish people weren't forced to get in those cattle cars? Wyss 01:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Violence is a broader and more accurate category than "coercion"; it's like the difference between saying Hitler ruled Germany and Hitler ruled Bavaria. The analogy being that you want to insist that since Hitler ruled Bavaria, he couldn't have ruled Germany too. -- Simonides 02:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Truth be told I think coercion is the broader category. Lots of Germans complied (or, say, "adapted") because it was easier than getting one's head lopped off or starving to death in a Gestapo cell or concentration camp. The implied threat of violence is a much wider and more efftive tool than violence itself. Wyss 02:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)\

You wouldn't have so many semantic troubles if you actually knew something on the subject. There wasn't just an implied threat, there was a lot of documented violence, and it's an important aspect of Nazism. ... -- Simonides 02:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The word "violence" - other comments

I don't think the word 'violence' is particularly elegant or all that applicable to how the National Socialists established power. Concentration camps, certainly, and events like the Night of the Long Knives were certainly violent, but Hitler's rise to power was done democratically, and the totalitarian state created was based more on fear and threat of violence than actual violence itself. Once private ownership of firearms was curtailed and opposing parties made illegal, the potential for violence was greatly reduced. I think a better word can be found also. Michael Dorosh 05:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael, there was more violence after Hitler established power than before (I want to use the word in reference to Hitler's rule, not his rise to power). It's a fact, it's neither opinion nor elegant summary. See the sources quoted above. -- Simonides 05:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe you make a credible case; I agree with the others - violence is the wrong word to use. It brings to mind visions of anarchy, which the Third Reich most certainly was not. Any threats of violence came from a very ordered vision of society, and friction was created when persons ran in opposition to that perception the ruling organizations had of "order". Unfortunately, that order was rather exclusionary. Sorry, but I don't feel "violence" is an appropriate word to describe Hitler's rule in the manner you intend. Perhaps criminal would be a better word or sense to capture - the importation of slave labour kept the economy fed, and the quest for racial purity led to wholesale thievery of personal possessions and property, mass deportations, and eventual mass slaughter. But there were no riots in the streets; the crimes are noted for its near banality. Most victims of the Holocaust gave in to deportation meekly. Some insurrections, ie Sobibor, took place, but violence was far more common in the occupied territories (think French Resistance or Eastern European partisans) than any internal strife in Germany itself. Violence brings to mind all the wrong images when speaking about domestic politics in Nazi Germany. Michael Dorosh 07:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not making a case, I am repeating what are established facts. Copying again (From "Nazi Germany and the Jews" by Saul Friedlander:) "Anti-Jewish violence spread (my note: SPREAD, not BEGUN) after the March elections... In Breslau, Jewish lawyers and judges were assaulted in the court building... in Gedern, the SA (Storm Troopers) broke into Jewish homes and beat up the inhabitants... The list of similar incidents is a long one. There were also killings... (etc.)... Much of the foreign press gave wide coverage to the Nazi violence." Also note, on the previous page: "The primary political targets of the new regime and of its terror system, at least during the first months after the Nazi accession to power, were not Jews but Communists." Also look at the works "Holocaust: A History" by Deborak Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, "Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert.

I feel you are making comments based on your personal intuition, and not on any specific knowledge of the subject. The above source material, and there is much more on the subject, justifies the use of the word violence rather than coercion. I'm open to other suggestions, but between violence and coercion the former is a better, more representative word. -- Simonides 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Couple of observations: He established a totalitarian regime based on propaganda and violence. This sentence has been changed completely, and it now seems to resemble an attempt to explain the term totalitarian state. Since we are linking to that article already, it might be better to either use the space for something more useful or abbreviate the intro even further. If you risked a peek at totalitarianism, you'd notice the terms violence and coercion are not mentioned there at all. Instead the the term terror is used, which has not found a lot of support here.

Since the question has been raised before: I believe Hitler's leadership deserves more credit than is implied. I'm quite certain that he was personally responsible for supporting and promoting rapid development of motorized infantry and tank units, which turned out to be a significant tactical advantage at the outbreak of the war. Other examples of projects far ahead of their time are the autobahn and the KdF Wagen. I'm not that familiar with his personal influence on these two (or other economic initiatives). 67.180.197.16 07:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the word terror (your other observations are probably better placed in a new section) but I have given my reasons for the use of the word violence vs such blanket words as "coercion" and "terror" which could also apply to other police states where violence in public was not one of the methods. -- Simonides 07:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeating flawed arguments won't make the term any less vague or op-ed. Wyss 14:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion, which you have shown nothing to support. -- Simonides 20:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're attempting to edit by revert again, Simonides. This tactic may work for a time, but you'll eventually find that its lasting effect on the article will be nil. Wyss 21:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling the reinstatement of edits that have been justified at length and removed purely by force of opinion as "reverts" is typical of your largely superfluous domineering on this article. The insertion of policy is wordy and redundant, yet where crucial information would require only two words - "propaganda" and "violence" - you choose to compromise as much as possible. That reflects on your uncritical position more than it does on anyone else. -- Simonides 21:39, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Let others decide as they will, I'll abide. I'm not here to be intimidated by reverting editors who might do better by reviewing WP:Civility and WP:NPA, thanks. Wyss 21:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have absolutely no desire or need to "intimidate" those who get hysterical over trivia and choose to ignore police when they like- Simonides 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe "violence" is POV, but I believe it belongs into the context of his rise to power, say 1930 to 1934, especially if you preface it with "paramilitary" - that was of no great importance after 1934 (with the exception of the Kristallnacht). As to the comparisons above, you didn't see police or paramilitary beating up people as described in Nazi Germany either, after 1934.

In the context of Hitler's rule I think coercion is better, as it involves the threat as well as the action, and it also includes the concentration camps (not the Death camps of course).

Re the Friedländer quote: he is right but this passage wants to portray the nature of Hitler's state. We cannot include every event in the intro and further down "racial policies" are already mentioned. Also, anti-Jewish violence, as in open violence, was not the mainstay of Nazi Germany until 1938. There was a big lump between the failed boycotts of 1933 and the Kristallnacht.

Re 67..., let me say that other Wiki articles are not quotable sources. These other articles might be wrong or missing something. Also, there is no doubt that Hitler is the prime mover behind the military build-up but not behind the economic recovery. And you are overestimating the Autobahn issue - Hitler didn't invent the Autobahn. Plans were already in the drawer and the first German was not opened by Hitler but by his successor Adenauer, who then was mayor of Cologne.

Str1977 09:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

For me, Str1977's take on this is also a helpful example showing why the intro is too long, trying to accomplish more than it reasonably can. Wyss 14:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Paramilitary Coercion??

Why not just "paramilitarism"? I think it would cover all the bases and hint at how structured Germany was under the Nazis - from the Hitler Youth to the Reichsbahn, post office, dog catchers and every other official government agency who wore a military uniform complete with dagger and rank insignia. Then you avoid the whole argument over violence/coercion and are free to explain those concepts in detail later, while still hinting at the ways in which Hitler and Nazis gained and maintained power. It is vague and broad enough to include both coercion and violence in the meaning without being exclusive to those concepts.Michael Dorosh 21:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts. Wyss 21:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael, paramilitarism is far too vague and applies equally well to nations where the paramilitary plays an important but diminished role, such as certain modern East European/ Middle Eastern/ Central Asian countries. I explained this too above. I am fine with the word "terror" as suggested by other editors and used in other articles, though I find it more general and less informative than "violence". -- Simonides 21:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the notion of paramilitarism being vague is precisely the point... :-) See my comments above. Michael Dorosh 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Michael, the vagueness plays down the brutality of the Nazi regime. As I wrote earlier, I feel editors here would better appreciate the perspective this article needs by reading the accounts of victims of the Holocaust, whether documented by scholars or themselves, rather than glorifying his "talents", to use the word Wyss did. -- Simonides 21:57, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Given that a stark reference to the 6-11 million people killed in the industrial slaughter of the Holocaust is already in the intro, I hardly think the brutality of the Nazis is being downplayed here. Please see my additional comments below. Wyss 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The systematic genocide and the domestic violence are different aspects which need mention. Let's not oversimplify. -- Simonides 22:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I too like the vagueness. Based on Simonides edit history, in effect, it appears he wants the word violence in the intro no matter what. Meanwhile, I have such a docking big problem with using a broad and potentially distracting word like violence in the intro to a serious, high traffic, sensitive encyclopedia article, that I've been resisting it. Simonides and I have a polarized disagreement on this and I think we could use continued input from other editors, thanks. Wyss 21:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Terror

Although I agree that Mr Hitler used tactics which could be broadly characterized as "terror," without listing his other tactics the use of this term in the intro will only mislead readers. Worse, the modern usage of the term terror implies specific tactics which were not employed by Hitler, thus the term will further mislead some readers (and ruin the article's credibility for others). In my view, using the word terror is even less helpful than using the word violence, although both adjectives could surely be worked into the main text. Wyss 21:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this modern terror usage you talk about at all. Terror is not Terrorism. Paramilitarism is of course no substitute. --Yooden

I noticed :) Reader interpretations of the word terror will fall in too wide a range of meanings. I'm not sure readers can be expected to draw a distinction between word forms here. Personally, I think the intro is too long. As I mentioned above, the more one tries to list in a simple intro, the probability of well-intentioned but unhelpful, misleading spin creeping in rapidly approaches 1. Wyss 22:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how to comment on these wild extrapolations - choosing words based on what is assumed to be the full range of meanings of a word, not to mention the patronizing attitude towards readers' comprehension abilities - which one might as well extend to the rest of the article if not Misplaced Pages. Words should be chosen on their representativeness of a given situation, not on what a faddish journalism want them to be. Speaking of trying to include too much, Wyss' re-insertion of the note on foreign policy is the best example of crowding a header. -- Simonides 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Terror is what happened on the streets then. I can think of no better word to describe that, and certainly no shorter one. Since it's only an introduction, perfect clearness cannot be achieved and shouldn't be attempted, or the introduction would proliferate as you describe. --Yooden

Ibid Yooden - Wyss' concerns are well off the mark. -- Simonides 22:04, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

You're mistaken, Simonides. We're discussing appropriate wording for a summary intro here, not if Mr Hitler employed violence and terror... he did and even the intro makes that clear without using those vague terms. Wyss 22:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wyss - go vague on the introduction and then develop these themes in the detailed articles. Devote a whole page on Violence in Nazi Germany if necessary, but take the loaded words out of the intro. I think additional input is also necessary here given the impasse. Nazi Germany, for all the "violence and terror" it dealt out, could often be a deceptively benign state within, in which mass murderers could refuse to carry out their duties without consequence(see Browning and Goldhagen, for example). I'd definitely like to see additional opinions on this also; so far I feel Wyss has been right on the mark. Michael Dorosh 22:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are on about - I merely wish to repeat Yooden's comment "Terror is not Terrorism. Paramilitarism is of course no substitute." which you don't seem to understand. -- Simonides 22:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, terror is not terrorism is not always a true statement, it depends on usage. What I'm on about is that you seem to want a strong, sweeping adjective like violence or terror in the intro to the article and I think it's misleading, since for the average German citizen of the 3rd Reich during the 1930s, violence and terror were at the most, rare events. Since these words are linked to how Mr Hitler rose to power and gained the support of millions of Germans, using them is quite misleading. For most Germans, the coming to power of Mr Hitler was not at all about blood, pain and violence (save for memories of the Great War perhaps). Rather, it was about sundry hopes, fears and sometimes, pride (volkish nationalism). Wyss 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh, even after all the extensive documentation points to the very opposite, you want to continue insisting that "for the average German citizen of the 3rd Reich during the 1930s, violence and terror were at the most, rare events." You are arguing against history here - should anyone even take you seriously? -- Simonides 22:29, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It is very disturbing that Misplaced Pages articles that require at least some background understanding of the subject, and some respect for the sea of scholarly material on them, particularly on a sensitive topic that deals with the persecution and killing of millions, is being handled by dilettantes with little to no understanding of the scope of the events under discussion. -- Simonides 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Undated GA templates
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates (contested)
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed politics articles
• Unknown-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles