Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jiang (talk | contribs) at 23:15, 4 January 2004. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 Franco and 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

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)

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)