Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:51, 21 July 2008

Jewish history Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related ??? 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 December 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This page is a daughter article of the main Adolf Hitler article. WhisperToMe 18:53, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Moved from article

" In that sense, Hitler's Final Solution destabilized the already volatile Middle East for the long term.

The only positive outcome of the war was the destruction of Nazism and fascism as political and ideological forces, although modified forms of fascism lingered in Spain and Portugal under Franco and Salazar. The horrors of Nazism, when fully revealed by the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, also produced a radical re-assessment of the anti-Semitic attitudes which had been so prevalent in Europe. The process known as denazification meant that German society, in particular, was radically changed for the better in the postwar years. Other forms of pseudo-scientific racism, such as eugenics, were also discredited by the uses to which the Nazis put these doctrines. The founding of the United Nations on October 24 1945, and the principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, were signs that at least some of the lessons of Hitler's career had been learned. "

"The Jewish people consider Hitler's regime the greatest calamity in their history since the fall of the Temple in AD 70. "

"The Polish were compensated by lying in ruins former German cities, that required a lot of effort to bring to the life Recovered Territories. For the first time in history, Poland ceased to be multiethnic and pluralistsc country. For the first time in history, the share of Catholic and the share of Polish speaking exceeded 2/3 of Polish population.

Poland was put under thyranny of totalitarian regime. Loses of Poland were immense, and poportionally the highest in Europe."

" This confirmed the Soviet Union's already paranoid fear of the West, which led to the setting up of the Communist governments in eastern Europe; the Soviets hoped to use the satellite states there as a buffer zone against new invasions from the West, and to prevent such a catastrophe from ever happening again.

Another outcome was the destruction of Nazism and fascism as political and ideological forces. While modified forms of fascism continued in Spain and Portugal under Francisco Franco and António de Oliveira Salazar, it never regained popular appeal. As Germany radically reworked their society in a process known as denazification, the credibility of anything associated with Nazism was damaged or destroyed. Militarism, long a feature of German society, was abandoned. The horrors of the Holocaust, revealed by the Nuremberg Trials in 1946, prompted a reassessment of old anti-semitic beliefs, resulting in an increasingly tolerant atmosphere toward Judaism in the West. Eugenics, which had been popular in the scientific and government communities since the late 19th century, lost appeal after the brutal excesses committed by the Nazi regime in its name. " (no cited source, sounds POV, impossible to verify).

This stuff is clearly very POV. In a way, the whole article is, but I kinda like it. The quality of what you've written is high, but the anti-fascist, anti-eugenics, pro-jewish POV comes thru too clearly at times. JackLynch 05:26, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't write any of it. I said in the talk page, I split the text as a daughter article. WhisperToMe

who wrote it then?

and is it really neccessary to have it seperate from the Hitler article itself? You mentioned that there was a concern of an overly large hitler article on some browsers. Can you explain this more, or give a link to somewhere it is gone into in greater detail? Jack

I wrote the text in question, but I didn't split it off from the main article, which I presume was done on the grounds that article was too long. I apologise for being anti-fascist, anti-eugenics and pro-Jewish. Feel free to write some pro-fascist, pro-eugenics and anti-Jewish text to balance mine. Adam 02:51, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, rodger, will do. Jack 03:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't really like this title. A consequence is "a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous phenomenon". I don't think Hitler is a phenomenon. I don't have anything better, but hopefully somebody else will. Tuf-Kat 03:22, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

one definition of a phenomenon is "A remarkable or outstanding person; a paragon." Seems pretty accurate to me. Jack 03:42, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I guess, but it still just sounds wrong. To my ears (or eyes...) it seems incomplete without something after Hitler. Tuf-Kat 03:54, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

The title of this article was originally a subheading in Adolf Hitler, and is not a very good title for a free-standing article. Since, however, whoever has attempted to rewrite the text has produced a badly-written and morally bankrupt piece of nonsense, full of a whole lot of new opinionated statements under the guise of "NPOV, the article might as well now be abolished. Adam 04:12, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps I felt a little too free?

I'm sorry to have vexed you so severely. Would you perhaps like to point out a few of my numerous mistakes, so that I might reflect? I am sure that in time, and with cool heads, we can sort this article out nicely. Jack 05:23, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Is this stricktly about Hitler?

It seems to be more generally about the Nazi party and the wartime German state. While he was responsible, he didn't, for example, actually kill all those Russian soldiers himself. Also, was Hitler a dictator? He was elected wasn't he?209.102.125.76 10:05, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He was elected, was he? Care to give me the election results of 1937, 1941 and 1945? Generally, I don't think this is the right place to discuss Hitler himself. --KF 10:21, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

He was elected as the leader of the biggest party in 1932. Besides, he was one of the most popular leaders. Unlike Lenin, he doesn't have to kill milions of citizens to be followed. Cautious

A dictator is an absolute ruler - elected or not. And hitler made himself to the absolute ruler of germany after the burning of the reichstag. Absolute ruler, dictator. The word is more than justified. And Lenin didn't kill millions of citizens - stalin did. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You're right that after having been elected first time he didn't bother again, but he was elected to office, and commanded significant public support for his program. He wasn't a dictator in the sense that it's often used of governing without consent.209.102.125.76 10:29, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To Cautious: This is so one-sided I'm not going to reply any further. Misplaced Pages is definitely not the place to justify Hitler's cruel regime. If you, for whatever reason, you feel that is what you have to do, find some other place. However, I would encourage you to reconsider what you have written first.

One the features of democracy is that the majority can decide to murder, expell a minority. Hitler was somehow democratic dictator, that doesn't mean that he was good. This only means, that the society democratically elected the monster. Why don't you want to discuss? I understand, that in the German-speaking lands the myth is taught that describes him as dictator. This is to defend the society. Cautious

To 209.102.125.76: I'm sorry, but "not bothering again" boils down to governing without consent. There is something called term of office, usually laid down in the Constitution of a country. All the best, --KF 10:36, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

If you read German memoires, you would find, that most of people supported Hitler untill Sep 3 1939. He was applauded for the anti-Jews policies, for economy recovery, for the external policy, for the Nazi-Soviet pact, for the aggression against Poland. Germans were disturbed only by the England and France declaration of war and later by invasion on Soviet union. Cautious

PS I'm sorry, I can't continue now, I have an appointment. KF

Please don't misunderstand, this isn't a call for Hitler or Nazi apologetics, but the term dictator does carry the implication that there was not broad agreement for his platform. He was certainly terrible, and latterly undemocratic, and no-one is trying to excuse that, but I'm just a little worried that prehaps it is not very careful use of the word 'dictator'.209.102.125.76 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to put this here again, because you guys are abusing the word dictator. A dictator is an absolute ruler. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Also, on the other note - this page does not seem to really be about Hitler - does anyone object to changing it to something like Cons. of Nazi Germany or something like that?209.102.125.76 10:54, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anti-Nazi POV

The anti-Nazi POV of this page, and certainly of many of those in the talk is clear. I think that this POV is probably shared by the vast majority of the west (I am far less certain that it is the majority world view). What I am wondering is what is the wiki policy on popular POV? Should an article take a side on stuff, ever? Should it describe the holocaust as horrible? Are words that have a good or bad connentation ever acceptable to use? Obviously many think so, but I don't. Opinions have no place in an encyclopedia, and those who insist on placing them here should "find some other place" IMO ;). Jack 18:51, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Move?

Move to Consequences of Adolf Hitler's rule? --Jiang 03:09, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC) I second that. Vacuum 03:14, Jan 4, 2004 (UTC)

No, I don't like that name. I think it should be merged w the Hitler page, or left here, unless you can come up w a better name. Jack 03:32, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about Consequences of German Nazism? It wouldn't have been possible for Hitler to do everything alone. --Jiang 23:15, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thats better, but can't we just merge it into the Nazism article? This article has ALOT of issues, (see above) and IMO doesn't do a very good job of justifying itself as a stand alone article. Should I list it on VfD, or what? Jack 23:57, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No need to list on vfd since we're not deleting content. Merge if no one objects soon and the Nazism article has room. --Jiang 22:44, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have to admit, I don't really understand this concept of "room". How big is too big? To be perfectly honest, I don't know how to merge an article, nor how to determine if the size is a concern. But if others agree that merging with Nazism is a good idea, I certainly do as well. If space is a concern for some reason (and please explain why, or give me a link to where it is explained) I think your latest idea for a name change "Consequences of German Nazism" is acceptable, if not prefereable over a merge. Jack 00:17, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Browser page size limits. --Jiang 06:09, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It seems sensible to integrate it into one of the articles about German Nazism, the WWII and its aftermath etc, I tried to raise the issue of whether this page is really about AH, but seemed to be painted into being a Nazi apologist for it - this just seems to atribute a whole load of broad historical themes to one, albiet influential, man. 209.102.127.70 07:57, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Whats the deal?

I admit I failed to register the whole discussion that has been going on about this article. Right now I think it's not that bad and could give an uninformed person looking for knowledge a good introduction to the post-WWII situation. I wonder if Adam still thinks it is "a badly-written and morally bankrupt piece of nonsense, full of a whole lot of new opinionated statements under the guise of NPOV" and that it "might as well now be abolished". >KF< 21:31, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

hahahahaha..... I understand its a bit hard to follow, but he made that in statement in context, responding to some rather extreme edits I made in response to his "I apologise for being anti-fascist, anti-eugenics and pro-Jewish. Feel free to write some pro-fascist, pro-eugenics and anti-Jewish text to balance mine.". I clearly did too good a job, and he was in no way amused, lol. Anyways, it has been edited mercilessly since them, and continues to be. Jack 01:04, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• • • Can some one please tell me***

I have a term paper to write and i need to know:

• Copyright
• author
• Publishing *if any*

thanks alot!!! please email me the answers at OomojoOo@hvc.rr.com

What's with the usage of the word "Jewry" ?

Jewry is, as far as i'm aware, an antequated if not outright derrogatory term - i think Judaism would be much better. --80.142.247.173 20:34, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've definitely seen talk of "the attack on world jewry". Certainly "world judaism" doesn't make much sense. john 02:59, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Additions and removals

Two (fairly) recent changes seem in need of review here. First, I'm not sure I agree with Sam Spade that the "Impact on race relations" section was hopelessly POV and needed to be removed. Seems to me that when the most notorious regime in recent history is connected in most people's minds with racism, that has to have a major impact on how people think about race. At the very least the section should have been discussed here before deleting it.

Second, the new section "Twisted impact on the post-war democracy" needs lots of NPOV work. Isomorphic 21:37, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You are right that something can be said about the impact of nazism on contemporary race relations, but what was there was unfixable, so I deleted it. If you have something completely new to say, lets take a look. Sam Spade 03:04, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed from the article:

Twisted impact on the post-war democracy

The winners of the WW II have put the Nazism into one end of the dichotomy Evil - Good. The consequence is that most of the Nazis' descendents are mute about their history sixty years after the war. See Nazi children. Historically the Nazi parties were as legitime as any other party. The post-war European democracies are defective as long as millions of citizens are afraid of their history and of themselves. The consequences of making the German Nazism to a stigmatizing project are demoralizing and can only find a solution through a European reconciliation.

I had several tries at reworking this into something that didn't appear to be an apologia for Nazism, but this appears to be hopelessly POV, so I removed it. -- The Anome 07:08, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

8.7 million dead not 11: Not conclusive

The Soviet Union lost 8.7 million soldiers in ww2 not 11

Russia's War by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

Deng 08-02-06 13.20 CET

Overy's figures are not conclusive. There are estimates of up to 13 million Soviet soldiers killed in World War II. Total Soviet war deaths range from 20 to 27 million. The real figure will never be conclusively known. However it is obvious that the Soviet Union bore the brunt of the war against Nazi Germany and without Soviet participation on the side of the Allies, Allied victory over Germany would have been exceedingly problematic. Britain fighting alone was not militarily strong enough to defeat Germany and the United States may not have involved herself in another general European war.

Balance

The article focuses on Germany and its treatment, seems unbalanced-the fate of Jews and countries ruined by Germany has only few lines. --Granet 19:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevance of the citation given

These edits should be checked thoroughly for the relevance of the citation given, the accuracy of the data and any copyright violations. For example take this paragraph:

Sixty percent of Soviet POWs died during the war. Millions of Soviet POWs and forced laborers transported to Germany were on their return to the USSR (in many cases forcefully repatriated by the Western Allies) treated as traitors and deserters and were executed or deported to the Soviet prison camps. Over 1.5 million Red Army soldiers imprisoned by the Germans were sent to the Gulag in Siberia and the far north (25 years was the usual term).

The source given is http://www.moreorless.au.com/killers/stalin.html but the second half of the paragraph is very similar to one which appears in http://www.belarusguide.com/history1/WWII_partisan_resistance_in_Belarus.htm

Millions of Soviet POWs and Belarusian...

--Philip Baird Shearer 15:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted "10 to 20 years was the usual term". This number is controversial. According to some data, in 1951, for 53% of all prisoners (1362709 men) the term was in between 5 and 10 years, and only for ~17% it was longer.
I took these data from: http://www.hrono.ru/statii/2001/zemskov.html. The paper (in Russian) was published in 1991 in the jourtal Sociologicheskiye Issledovania (Social studies) and is being widely cited.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated sentence...

I have seen in the Effect on Austria section a sentence about West Germany and East Germany (i.e. about the Stalin Note). Can I remove it??? It's not fit to a paragraph about Austria. -Pika ten10 (talk) 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

10,651,000 dead Soviet solders, not 8.7 millinos

I changed the number of 8.7 millions to 10,651,000 to make it consistent with the article Eastern Front (World War II) and made appropriate reference. I did that because Misplaced Pages must be self-consistent. In addition to that, the number of 8.7 millions is the official number. Some researchers argue that the real number was much higher, up to 25 millions and even more (although not all their arguments look convincing). To verify the official number I checked the Memorial database (OBD Memorial the official database of killed and missing in action soviet soldiers). They claim that this database contains names of all of them. I tried to find my grandfather (was missing in action during the Battle of Stalingrad), but there was no his name there. The name of my friend's grandfather was also absent. I made a short poll among my friends asking them to search their dead relatives in this database, and only part of them could find anybody there. I conclude, therefore, that the number of 8.7 millions is a lower estimate only, so in situation when Misplaced Pages gives two different numbers the larger number is more trustworthy.
Someone may argue that I present my own research. It is not the case. I simply linked two Misplaced Pages articles together.
--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul you are right. This is not original research. Vadim Erlikman an independent Russian journalist has published a handbook of statistics that covers humnan losses in 20th century conflicts. Poteri narodonaseleniia v XX veke : spravochnik. Moscow 2004. ISBN 5-93165-107-1 His breakdown of Soviet WW2 losses is 7.6 million killed in battle or . missing in action, 2.6 million POW dead and 400,000 partisan & militia deaths, for a total of 10.6 million. The official figures published in English translation appear inG. I. Krivosheev. Soviet Casualties and Combat Losses. Greenhill 1997 ISBN 1-85367-280-7. The official total of confirmed battle deaths & deaths from non combat causes is 6.9 million, not counting those missing in action. The total missing in action and POW dead is only 1.8 million which adds to the official total of 8.7 million. Western historians agree that the Soviet POW death toll was around 3 million. When one adds the estimated 3 million POW to the 6.9 million confirmed deaths, plus at least 500,000 killed in battle but missing, one can see that the estimate of 10.6 million is indeed reasonable. The argument used by Krivosheev is that many men were taken prisoner by the German's were not officially in the ranks even though they may have been in the reserves. On the civilian side of the ledger the Russians today count 1.8 million dead in German camps or in forced labour. My hunch is that these 1.8 million civilians were in fact reservists caught in the German dragnet. In 1965 Marshal Konev claimed 10 million Soviet military deaths, I believe he was correct. If you take a look at Krivosheev's reconciliation of the total number of men drafted to the number on the rolls in 1945, the figures do not tie out to the official figure of 8.7 million, they add down to 10.1 million. The Soviet Union was well known for fuzzy math --Woogie10w (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

• Unassessed Jewish history-related articles
• Unknown-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles