Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2011-05-27T04:48:20Z

UofGuelphStudent: /* "Socialist" and his rise to power */

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

== "Socialist" and his rise to power ==
This article is extremely historically incorrect. I'm a history professor (proud conservative, don't worry) and I really don't like the terms used here. First of all, he was not a socialist. The word socialist was put into the party name in order to rally workers to vote for the party. Hitler himself did that when he took control of the party in 1923. He was a fascist, plain and simple. Hypernationalism, racialism, etc. There was some state control of the economy, but for the most part, people owned private property, businesses ran by themselves, etc. He is not a socialist.

Regarding his rise to power, he did not do all of the tactics mentioned in the beginning of the article. He first attempted a bloody coup, which failed, then he turned to legal means. His party legally attained a plurality in parliament, and Hitler himself ran against von Hindenburg in 1932 for President, but lost. Once his party had a plurality, he was appointed chancellor. This was all legal and peaceful.

Other than that, the article is fine, and well written.

[[User:Jimmypeg|Jimmypeg]] 19:28, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for editing here professor! Read this article on Hitler/ socialism/ unions and tell me if correction to the page are needed. [http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/03/senator-sherrod-brown-d-oh-meets-hitler/]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:36, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

I have to agree with Jimmypeg and say this is well written except for the huge error of using the term socialist instead of Fascist. This should be fixed soon.--[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:48, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution works with environmental selection and a [b]diversity of gens[/b], something that hitler definitely did not emphasize, this article undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia: {{unsigned|DeSouza}}
::You're not credible, Hitler apologist. You must discount the whole Nazi ideology to believe Hitler and Darwin were not connected in any way.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The last paragraph about Richard Dawkins words “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question" is taken totally out of context and turned upside down. Here is the full context that should be given:

When asked a question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, his response was: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

Racism and anti-semitism existed long before Darwin's books. One only has to look at slavery in the 1700s, the First Crusade, and the Jewish expulsions from England and Spain. [[User:OneTruth]]

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it. If he was, he kept it a secret, because homosexuals were one of the groups targeted in the holocaust. - [[OneTruth]]

==Shouldn't Hitler be listed under liberal==
Logically it only makes sense. hitler was a Nazi, or national socialist. socialism is a liberal ideology. therefor it is resonible to assume that hitler was a liberal. not to mention the fact that he had numerous traits in common with liberals--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

== Proof He's An Atheist ==

What proof is there that he is an atheist? In Mein Kampf, he actually seems to be a believer. [http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm] [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:04, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an athiest would do that. Hitler was a socialist which is an atheistic philosophy--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:18, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:Maybe you should read the article on [[Evolutionary racism]] - Hitler's only religion was [[Darwinism]], and he took his [[Darwinist]] beliefs to their natural [[holocaust|conclusion]]. [[User:BobCharlton|BobCharlton]] 13:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::SayidR, you are jumping to quite extraordinary conclusions. I'm not saying that he's a Christian, I'm saying that he said himself he believed in God. He could believe in evolution and believe in God. Many bishops do. --[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not so, no Christian would do such a thing because Christianity is based off of truth and love while Naziism is based off of deception and hate--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I didn't say he was a Christian. I'm just saying that he himself believed in God, as shown in Mein Kampf. You can dodge questions like a liberal, or be a true open source conservative and see the facts. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 14:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe YOU should remember the 90/10m rule against talk talk talk and keep your pointless arguments to your self--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 20:17, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:Okay. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::I have to say, it does seem as if Hitler believed in God. NOT as a Christian. There are things that point to him being a BELIEVER, not a "true" CHRISTIAN. I'm a Christian myself and agree that if any Christian had actually read the Bible, he or she would not do something like Hitler did. I'd say that Jwilhem brought up a fine point, and Jwilhem never claimed that Hitler was a Christian. SayidR, Jwilhem was merely presenting a point. You jumped to a conclusion. Problem solved. Now, can we please get on with this discussion? [[User:VenkuTurMukan|VenkuTurMukan]] 14:33, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." Adolf Hitler
So either he was posing as a Christian trying to rally support or he was actually and atheist in disguise attempting the same. --[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:32, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== Re: Hitler's sexuality and religion ==

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality and religion requires some sophistication in terms of [http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html historiography]. Therefore, I suggest using the below framework:

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

Here is a link to the Google book, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought&source=bl&ots=uFc1bbRwU9&sig=BwjV0u_94Zt0r6Hx-dHDTXHEzZM&hl=en&ei=8IXFTKu1AoaglAeX5eEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Hackett Fischer's 7 basic rules for determining the answers to historical questions:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants.

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

== '''Fascism''' ==

I'm confused as why this article claims Hitler to be a socialist when he was a fascist. They are two different ideals one being right wing authoritarian and the other being a left wing economic policy. Quite different...

I suggest this be fixed as to not cause confusion.

Thanks
--[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:40, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Try reading [[National Socialism]] first. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 00:45, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2011-05-27T04:40:50Z

UofGuelphStudent:

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

== "Socialist" and his rise to power ==
This article is extremely historically incorrect. I'm a history professor (proud conservative, don't worry) and I really don't like the terms used here. First of all, he was not a socialist. The word socialist was put into the party name in order to rally workers to vote for the party. Hitler himself did that when he took control of the party in 1923. He was a fascist, plain and simple. Hypernationalism, racialism, etc. There was some state control of the economy, but for the most part, people owned private property, businesses ran by themselves, etc. He is not a socialist.

Regarding his rise to power, he did not do all of the tactics mentioned in the beginning of the article. He first attempted a bloody coup, which failed, then he turned to legal means. His party legally attained a plurality in parliament, and Hitler himself ran against von Hindenburg in 1932 for President, but lost. Once his party had a plurality, he was appointed chancellor. This was all legal and peaceful.

Other than that, the article is fine, and well written.

[[User:Jimmypeg|Jimmypeg]] 19:28, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for editing here professor! Read this article on Hitler/ socialism/ unions and tell me if correction to the page are needed. [http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/03/senator-sherrod-brown-d-oh-meets-hitler/]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:36, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution works with environmental selection and a [b]diversity of gens[/b], something that hitler definitely did not emphasize, this article undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia: {{unsigned|DeSouza}}
::You're not credible, Hitler apologist. You must discount the whole Nazi ideology to believe Hitler and Darwin were not connected in any way.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The last paragraph about Richard Dawkins words “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question" is taken totally out of context and turned upside down. Here is the full context that should be given:

When asked a question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, his response was: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

Racism and anti-semitism existed long before Darwin's books. One only has to look at slavery in the 1700s, the First Crusade, and the Jewish expulsions from England and Spain. [[User:OneTruth]]

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it. If he was, he kept it a secret, because homosexuals were one of the groups targeted in the holocaust. - [[OneTruth]]

==Shouldn't Hitler be listed under liberal==
Logically it only makes sense. hitler was a Nazi, or national socialist. socialism is a liberal ideology. therefor it is resonible to assume that hitler was a liberal. not to mention the fact that he had numerous traits in common with liberals--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

== Proof He's An Atheist ==

What proof is there that he is an atheist? In Mein Kampf, he actually seems to be a believer. [http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm] [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:04, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an athiest would do that. Hitler was a socialist which is an atheistic philosophy--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:18, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:Maybe you should read the article on [[Evolutionary racism]] - Hitler's only religion was [[Darwinism]], and he took his [[Darwinist]] beliefs to their natural [[holocaust|conclusion]]. [[User:BobCharlton|BobCharlton]] 13:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::SayidR, you are jumping to quite extraordinary conclusions. I'm not saying that he's a Christian, I'm saying that he said himself he believed in God. He could believe in evolution and believe in God. Many bishops do. --[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not so, no Christian would do such a thing because Christianity is based off of truth and love while Naziism is based off of deception and hate--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I didn't say he was a Christian. I'm just saying that he himself believed in God, as shown in Mein Kampf. You can dodge questions like a liberal, or be a true open source conservative and see the facts. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 14:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe YOU should remember the 90/10m rule against talk talk talk and keep your pointless arguments to your self--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 20:17, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:Okay. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::I have to say, it does seem as if Hitler believed in God. NOT as a Christian. There are things that point to him being a BELIEVER, not a "true" CHRISTIAN. I'm a Christian myself and agree that if any Christian had actually read the Bible, he or she would not do something like Hitler did. I'd say that Jwilhem brought up a fine point, and Jwilhem never claimed that Hitler was a Christian. SayidR, Jwilhem was merely presenting a point. You jumped to a conclusion. Problem solved. Now, can we please get on with this discussion? [[User:VenkuTurMukan|VenkuTurMukan]] 14:33, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." Adolf Hitler
So either he was posing as a Christian trying to rally support or he was actually and atheist in disguise attempting the same. --[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:32, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== Re: Hitler's sexuality and religion ==

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality and religion requires some sophistication in terms of [http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html historiography]. Therefore, I suggest using the below framework:

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

Here is a link to the Google book, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought&source=bl&ots=uFc1bbRwU9&sig=BwjV0u_94Zt0r6Hx-dHDTXHEzZM&hl=en&ei=8IXFTKu1AoaglAeX5eEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Hackett Fischer's 7 basic rules for determining the answers to historical questions:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants.

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

== '''Fascism''' ==

I'm confused as why this article claims Hitler to be a socialist when he was a fascist. They are two different ideals one being right wing authoritarian and the other being a left wing economic policy. Quite different...

I suggest this be fixed as to not cause confusion.

Thanks
--[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:40, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

Adolf Hitler

2011-05-27T04:37:55Z

UofGuelphStudent: burned.

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|200px]]
| name =Adolf Hitler
| birth =April 20, 1889 Braunau am Inn, Austria–Hungary
| parents =Alois Hitler (Schicklgruber) Klara Pölzl
| religion =Roman Catholic (rejected)
| spouse =Eva Braun
| children =none
| death =April 30, 1945 Berlin, Germany
| deathmanner =Suicide by gunshot
| education =Realschule Linz, Austria
| country =[[Third Reich|Germany]]
| military =16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment Imperial German Army (1914-1918)
| rank =Corporal
|burial = none, burned.
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[National socialism]] (Nazism)
| party =German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1920–1921) National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1921–1945)
| dictatordate =March 23, 1933
| war =[[World War II]]
| deathnumber =12,000,000+ exclusive of battle casualties
20,000,000 to 25,000,000 altogether

Rummel: 21,000,000
}}
'''Adolf Hitler''' was the Austrian-born Chancellor and President of [[Germany]] from January 30, 1933 until his death on April 30, 1945. He was also the leader (German: ''Der Führer'') of the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (''National-sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'', or [[Nazi]] Party) which gained political power through threat, intimidation, and outright violence throughout Germany in the aftermath of the [[First World War]]. Adolf Hitler was an [[Evolution|evolutionary]] [[racist]] and [[socialism|socialist]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref><ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Hitler’s policies and beliefs resulted in the [[Genocide|mass extermination]] of the [[Jews]], [[Gypsies]], and other peoples he considered “[[Racial Supremacy|inferior]]” throughout central and eastern [[Europe]] and were directly responsible for the outbreak of [[World War II]], which caused the deaths of untold millions on and off the battlefield and ended only after Hitler's [[suicide]] in his Berlin bunker.

==Early life==
[[File:Hitler Roses.jpg|thumb|Roses by Adolf Hitler.]]
Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, [[Austria]]. Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was a customs official who was himself born out of wedlock, carrying for a time his mother's name, Schicklgruber. By 1876 he had his baptismal entry corrected in his church records, establishing his father as Johan Heidler, which was altered slightly to Hitler.

When his father retired the family moved to Linz, Austria, where it remained a favorite for young Adolf for the rest of his life, and where he gave his wish to be buried. When Alois died in 1903 he left enough of a pension to support his wife and children; Adolf would take his and live off of it in Vienna after leaving school, dreaming of becoming an artist. Although somewhat competent as a painter of landscapes and architecture, his renderings of humans were considered “lifeless” and “crude” by the standards of the Academy of Fine Arts, and his application was rejected twice. Remaining in [[Vienna]], he moved from one cheap flop house to another, painting postcards and advertisements to earn a meager living after his allowance had dried up. By then he had developed traits which characterized his life as a whole: secretiveness, loneliness, a Spartan mode of everyday life, and a hatred of the cosmopolitan, multinational character that was the makeup of Vienna. ''He never sought a proper job or regular employment. Instead he immersed himself in the works of [[Hegel]], [[Nietzsche]], and the anti-Semitic writings of the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He loved the operas of Wagner, and the stories of the Nordic Gods... In early 1910, he entered a shelter for the homeless, populated in the main by poor Jews, on Meldemenstrasse, and was eating at soup kitchens. By this time he had pawned all his belongings. '' <ref> [http://socyberty.com/history/young-adolf-the-adolescent-hitler-and-beyond/ Young Adolf: The Adolescent Hitler and Beyond.] </ref>

==Who And What He Was==
[[Image:Cupid Complaining to Venus by Lucas Cranach.jpg|150px|left|thumb|This painting, one of the best-loved paintings in the National Gallery, had once belonged to Hitler. New evidence has come to light that Lucas Cranach's ''Cupid Complaining to Venus'', currently on loan to an exhibition in Bristol, hung on the sitting-room wall of his flat in Munich. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/28/art.secondworldwar Hitler owned painting now in National Gallery]</ref>]]
[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote famously, and most eloquently about Hitler in 1998:
<blockquote>''"At the same time that he terrorized his adversaries, he knew how to please, impress and charm the very interlocutors from whom he wanted support. Diplomats and journalists insist as much on his charm as they do on his temper tantrums. The savior admired by his own as he dragged them into his madness, the Satan and exterminating angel feared and hated by all others, Hitler led his people to a shameful defeat without precedent. That his political and strategic ambitions have created a dividing line in the history of this turbulent and tormented century is undeniable: there is a before and an after. By the breadth of his crimes, which have attained a quasi-ontological dimension, he surpasses all his predecessors: as a result of Hitler, man is defined by what makes him inhuman. With Hitler at the head of a gigantic laboratory, life itself seems to have changed."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"How did this Austrian without title or position manage to get himself elected head of a German nation renowned for its civilizing mission? How to explain the success of his cheap demagogy in the heart of a people so proud of having inherited the genius of a Wolfgang von Goethe and an Immanuel Kant?"''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"Was there no resistance to his disastrous projects? There was. But it was too feeble, too weak and too late to succeed. German society had rallied behind him: the judicial, the educational, the industrial and the economic establishments gave him their support. Few politicians of this century have aroused, in their lifetime, such love and so much hate; few have inspired so much historical and psychological research after their death. Even today, works on his enigmatic personality and his cursed career are best sellers everywhere. Some are good, others are less good, but all seem to respond to an authentic curiosity on the part of a public haunted by memory and the desire to understand."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"We think we know everything about the nefarious forces that shaped his destiny: his unhappy childhood, his frustrated adolescence; his artistic disappointments; his wound received on the front during World War I; his taste for spectacle, his constant disdain for social and military aristocracies; his relationship with [[Eva Braun]], who adored him; the cult of the very death he feared; his lack of scruples with regard to his former comrades of the SA, whom he had assassinated in 1934; his endless hatred of [[Jews]], whose survival enraged him — each and every phase of his official and private life has found its chroniclers, its biographers."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"And yet. There are, in all these givens, elements that escape us. How did this unstable paranoid find it within himself to impose gigantic hope as an immutable ideal that motivated his nation almost until the end? Would he have come to power if Germany were not going through endless economic crises, or if the winners in 1918 had not imposed on it conditions that represented a national humiliation against which the German patriotic fiber could only revolt? We would be wrong to forget: Hitler came to power in January 1933 by the most legitimate means. His [[Nationalist Socialist Party]] won a majority in the parliamentary elections. The aging [[Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg]] had no choice but to allow him, at age 43, to form the new government, marking the end of the Weimar Republic. And the beginning of the [[Third Reich]], which, according to Hitler, would last 1,000 years."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"From that moment on, events cascaded. The burning of the [[Reichstag]] came only a little before the openings of the first concentration camps, established for members of the opposition. Fear descended on the country and squeezed it in a vise. Great writers, musicians and painters went into exile to France and the U.S. Jews with foresight emigrated toward Palestine. The air of Hitler's Germany was becoming more and more suffocating. Those who preferred to wait, thinking that the Nazi regime would not last, could not last, would regret it later, when it was too late."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people — not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy. Did they not see the hateful mask that covered his face? Did they not divine the catastrophe he bore within himself?<ref name="time">http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/hitler.html"''</ref></blockquote>

{{Clear}}

==Beliefs==
Although there have been many attempts to slander [[Christianity]] by claiming Hitler to be a Christian, Hitler was actually an atheist. While he may have said some things during speeches to make him sound like he was a Christian for political reasons, historians agree that the evidence points to him being an atheist. It is not just parts of his speeches, and text from his book ''Mein Kampf'' that prove this, but it was also proven by his actions as well. No true Christian would slaughter the Jews like Hitler did. That is the kind of hatred of a religion that could only come from atheism; that and his [[Evolutionary racism]]. <ref>http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html</ref>

==War==
[[Image:Hitler munich1914.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler in the crowd in Munich, 1914, reacting to the news of Germany's entry in the First World War.]]
By 1913 Hitler was in Munich, Germany, with war clouds on the horizon. Classified as unfit for service in the Austrian army (possibly by faking, as he did not like the thought of serving Austria) in 1914, he volunteered for the German army, joining the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment, greeting the war with enthusiasm, and finding the military discipline and comradeship satisfying. He served during the entire [[First World War]] as a messenger carrying dispatches between units, and often at the front lines under fire; he was wounded in 1916, and gassed in 1918. His bravery during this time earned him the [[Iron Cross]], 2nd Class, in December, 1914, and in August 1918 he was awarded the Iron Cross, 1st Class – a rare decoration for a corporal. But the gassing would take him out of the war and into a hospital, where he would be told the heart-wrenching news of Germany’s defeat the following November.

==Path to power==
After the war ended, Hitler's future seemed uncertain. There was much discontent among demobilized veterans because of the lack of employment. The German military had felt it had not been defeated; indeed, the German Army stood on foreign soil when the Armistice was signed November 11, 1918 and not a square inch of German soil had been occupied. This was despite the fact that the German Army's strongest position, the Hindenburg line, had been broken by the Allies, and the German Army itself was in full retreat. However, the Army felt they had done their job, and the nation had been "stabbed in the back" by a gang of traitors who sought to lay hands on the Fatherland. The "myth" that Germany had been defeated was the "big lie" Hitler spoke of, as if repeating it often enough would cause people to believe it.

After his discharge from the hospital, Hitler acted as an army political agent, assigned in Munich to gather information on the various political parties which had spring up amid the social chaos following Germany’s defeat. In September, 1919, he was given orders to investigate the relatively-minor German Workers’ Party (''Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''); intrigued by the party’s apparatus and its racial, pan-German nationalism, he joined, becoming its 55th member; he left the army soon after and devoted himself to improving the party’s propaganda, as well as his own position within.

Conditions in Germany fostered the development of the party. Economic woes brought widespread discontent, added to the furor surrounding the loss of the war and the harsh terms heaped upon Germany by the Allied Powers in the Versailles Peace Treaty. Bavaria’s traditional separatism from the central government in Berlin made current conditions especially sharp, and Hitler was savvy enough to take full advantage of them. When he joined, he found the party ineffective in leadership and uncertain as to its aims; he accepted the party program, but regarded it as a means to an end. He caused friction with other members of the party, and their attempts to control him caused a threat of resignation; realizing that the future of the party now depended on Hitler, who clearly had a talent of organization, fund collecting, and above all, speaking, they declined to accept it; from July, 1921 Hitler was regarded as the party leader with nearly unlimited power. From his party newspaper, ''Völkischer Beobachter'' (“Popular Observer”), he spewed out endless propaganda. His meetings where he spoke grew from handfuls to hundreds, and then on to thousands. A man of charismatic personality, he quickly attracted a circle of loyal and devoted followers: Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Hermann Göring, and Rudolf Hess.

Munich was also a gathering place for former servicemen dissatisfied with conditions in the country; members of the Freikorps, which had been organized after the war from army units that refused to return to civilian life; and those civilians who plotted against the republic. Many of these men joined the Nazi Party. Among them was a staff member of the district command who had joined the German Workers’ Party before Hitler, Ernst Röhm, a pudgy man with a scared face who saw his own ambition in helping further Hitler’s rise within the party. Röhm recruited what came to be known as the “Brown Shirts”, the violent squads used to attack socialists and communists, and to protect party meetings whenever Hitler was speaking. By 1921 they were organized into a private army called the ''Sturmabteilung'', abbreviated to S.A.

==The Beer Hall Putsch==
Germany in 1923 was marked by social and political unrest caused by hyperinflation. In this time Hitler was able convince [[Erich Ludendorff]], an accomplished general and leader of the German forces in the first World War, to join him in a coup d'etat (''Putsch'' in German). When Hitler learned that the nationalist prime minister of Bavaria was giving a speech to 3000 officials in one of Munich's biggest beer halls (the Haufbrau Haus), he ordered his paramilitaries to surround the building. Hitler went inside and took the prime minister hostage, announced a revolution, and attempted to convince him to join the coup against Berlin and become member in his new administration. The Bavarian prime minister agreed under pressure, but informed the nation via radio later that night that he did not support Hitler. The prime minister also informed the federal government in Berlin; the putsch had begun to fail.

The next morning, 9 November 1923, Hitler and Ludendorff were marching with approximately 2000 partly armed supporters through Munich in a show of strength to regain the momentum. In the ensuing fight between Hitler's marchers and a cordon of police and army units at least 14 Nazi supporters and three policemen were killed and hundreds wounded. Ludendorff handed himself over to the authorities, while Hitler fled soon after the fighting began. Hitler was arrested a few days later at a friend's house, were had been in hiding since the failed coup. Ludendorff was acquitted of all charges, while Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in prison (he would do eight months). <ref>http://history1900s.about.com/cs/thirdreich/a/beerhallputsch_2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/putsch2.htm</ref> The Bavarian prime minister, who foiled the plan, was killed in 1934 in the "Night of the Long Knives".

===''Mein Kampf''===
{{main|Mein Kampf}}
Hitler had his inner circle as frequent visitors in his prison cell, which was made more comfortable due to his celebrity. While there, he dictated to Rudolf Hess the first volume of ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' (“My Struggle”), his political autobiography and a compendium of his many ideas, including his [[atheist]] and [[evolutionist]] ideas.

Hitler believed in the inequality of the races, nations, and individuals as part of the natural order of mankind, and chief among them was the exalted “Aryan race”, and the greatest of the Aryans were the Germans. It was the German, according to Hitler, that gave the world civilization and the arts; to safeguard the German people as a race (the “Volk”), they would need to be united under a single leader (the Führer), where they would be protected from their three principle enemies: Marxism, which included social democracy as well as communism; democracy and its mob-rule, as shown by the failings of the Weimar Republic; and above all what Hitler called the poisoners of humanity, the Jews. “Rational anti-Semitism must lead to systematic legal opposition,” he wrote in 1919. “Its final objective must be the removal of the Jews altogether.” In Mein Kampf, he told the world that the Jew was the “destroyer of culture,” “a parasite within the nation,” and “a menace.”

From "Mein Kampf":
{{cquote|The Jew "... he blares out his merits to the rest of the world until people really begin to believe in them. Anyone who does not believe in them is doing him a bitter injustice. In a short time he begins to twist things around to make it look as if all the injustice in the world had always been done to him and not the other way around." <ref> [http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.]</ref> }}

{{cquote| Hitler portrays Jews as leaders in politics and banking, both groups seeking to strengthen their cause, [[Zionism]], to ensure Jewish domination. From his Social Darwinist perspective, Hitler perceived a racial war as inevitable and he sought to halt the "[[Jewish]] drive towards world conquest"... As Berlin collapsed around him, Adolf asserted: "Out of the ruins of our towns and monuments hatred will grow against those finally responsible for everything, International Jewry." <ref> [http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=32043&amid=30237234 Mein Kampf – The Text, its Themes and Hitler’s Vision] Robert Carr dissects a book frequently referred to but seldom read. </ref>
}}

==Rebuilding the Nazi Party==
[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Hitler speaking; he would often employ physical gesturing to emphasize a point.]]
[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in car, saluting passing S.A. at one of many parades.]]
Internal dissension within the party caused it to languish while Hitler was in prison. When he was released he saw difficulties in the country that had not existed before the Putsch, namely currency reform that brought economic stability, and the scaling back of the war reparations as a result of the Dawes Plan. Hitler was also forbidden to speak in public, and remained so until 1928; nonetheless he worked to rebuild the party and re-establish his own position within it as leader, despite Gregor Strasser’s opposition in northern Germany. By 1927 the number of Nazis was in the hundreds of thousands.

A new period of political and economic instability began with the onset of the Great Depression which threw millions out of work in Europe and North America. To campaign against the [[Young Plan]] (a second renegotiation of war reparations payments) Hitler made an alliance with one of Germany’s leading nationalists, Alfred Hugenberg, whose newspapers enabled Hitler to reach a national audience for the first time. The alliance also had another advantage: it enabled him to seek support from many in business and industry who controlled funds going into politics, and who themselves were desirous of seeing Germany under the control of a strong anti-Soviet and anti-Communist regime. The subsidies Hitler received placed the Nazi Party on a strong financial footing, enabling him to make his emotional appeal to the lower middle class and the unemployed in his faith that Germany would recover from its suffering and be a great nation once more. The alliance with the industrialists also demonstrated another aspect of Hitler, a skill of effectively using those that would use him, which many would discover when it was too late.

The electoral strength of the Nazis grew during the Depression, as unceasing propaganda accused the government of failing to improve conditions for the working man. By the fall of 1930 the Nazis captured more than 18 percent of the vote, compared to just 2.6 percent in 1928. Hitler captured 36.8 percent of the vote when he opposed Paul von Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election; his mass following put him in such a strong position that he entered a series of closed-door intrigues with Franz von Papen, Oskar Hindenburg, and Otto Meissner, all sharing a fear and loathing of a communist government. Despite the party losing votes in the November, 1932 election, Hitler insisted on nothing less than the office of chancellor for himself. For him, it was all or nothing. Hindenburg offered it to him on January 30, 1933.

==In power==
Almost immediately, Hitler established himself as dictator. Less than a month after taking office, on February 27 the Reichstag building was set on fire under mysterious circumstances (but officially blamed on a feeble-minded Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe); Hitler soon after succeeded in getting several decrees passed removing much of the freedom guaranteed the constitution in the name of state security, and which also allowed an intensified campaign of violence against dissidents. Incredibly, in a special election set in those conditions on March 5, the Nazis won 43.9 percent of the vote. On March 21, the new Reichstag assembled at the Potsdam Church, as much a show of unity between the old guard under Hindenburg and the Nazis as it was a show of peace. Two days later the Enabling Act was passed, giving Hitler full powers; with the exception of the Nazis, all other political parties, including those which had helped pass the Enabling Act, ceased to exist within three months. Many of their leaders were imprisoned in concentration camps.

===Night of the Long Knives===
[[Image:HitlerRohm1933.JPG|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with Ernst Röhm in 1933]]
Hitler, however, did not wish to start an immediate revolution. In order to implement his ideas he still needed the support of the army. But he did have one growing problem that was a thorn in the army’s side, the million-plus men of the S.A. and their leader, Ernst Röhm, who wanted nothing less than the merger of the S.A. into the army, with himself in overall command. At first, Hitler tried getting Röhm’s support by persuasion, but Hitler’s inner circle was for removing him by any means possible. On June 29, 1934, Hitler ordered a purge, flew towards a resort near Munich where a number of S.A. leaders were vacationing, and had them all arrested; many would be shot without trial. Refusing to shoot himself when offered, Röhm was killed in his cell at Dachau, his last words, ironically, “Mein Führer, mein Führer!” <ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/roehm.htm</ref><ref>http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/nsdap/Rohm.html</ref><ref>http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/innenpolitik/roehm/index.html</ref>
On July 13, Hitler gave speech in the Reichstag, announcing that some seventy-four individuals had been shot for threatening the stability of the Reich.
:''"If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people…It was no secret that this time the revolution would have to be bloody; when we spoke of it we called it 'The Night of the Long Knives.' Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot." ''
Hitler also used this event to settle his account with other opponents, such as Georg Strasser, who stood for a more socialist and less racist national socialism, and the former Bavarian prime minister who foiled the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Satisfied that the S.A. leadership was thoroughly broken up (thousands of S.A. members were either arrested or killed that night), the army approved of Hitler’s actions. Hindenburg died a few days later on August 2, and Hitler merged the office of president with the chancellorship, and with it the supreme command of the German armed forces. During this time the world was slowly recovering economically from the Depression, but it quickened in Germany, coincidently with Hitler’s rise to power. Taking credit for the recovery made him very popular, bringing him a 90 percent approval rating in a voter plebiscite that year.

===Beginnings of expansion===
In matters of state, the running of domestic affairs was left to subordinates, which was something Hitler had little attention for. Foreign policy always peaked his interest, in so much as to the advantages of a “Greater Germany”, which was his chief ambition. The first part of realizing this, according to ''Mein Kampf'', was to be a reunion of the German peoples within Europe; the second would be an expansion of Germany to the east (lebensraum). Expanding would mean a renewed conflict with the Slavic peoples, whom Hitler intended to serve as slaves to the “New German Order.” To follow through on his ambitions, he would have to remove Poland and the Soviet Union as countries; France also would have to be stabilized in the west, as she was Germany’s enemy for more than a century. He counted as possible allies Italy, with its fascist government under [[Benito Mussolini]], and Britain, whom he regarded as having a similar, Teutonic heritage.
[[Image:Hitler6-thumb.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with his dog, Blondie.]]
Before any of his ambitions could take place, there was one thing he detested which needed immediate removal: the restrictions placed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. Posing as a man of peace to allay suspicions, he insisted that he was a champion of Europe wishing only for the removal of the inequalities leveled by the treaty, and posturing as a shield against Bolshevism. In October, 1933, he had Germany withdraw from the [[League of Nations]]. The following January he signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland. His individual repudiations of parts of the treaty were followed by offers of negotiations for new agreements, while maintaining Germany’s limited ambitious nature.

While this was going on, Germany was steadily building up the armed forces. Rigorous training using wooden guns and trucks marked as “tanks” got needed battlefield training for officers. Potential fighter pilots began their training in gliders at public demonstrations – Germany, under terms of the treaty, was not allowed an air force – and later they would fly in new civilian stunt planes and transports, which on the drawing board were designed to be rapidly turned into fighters and bombers. Conscription was introduced in January, 1935, and in June of that year Hitler successfully signed a naval treaty with Britain, giving him rights to a respectable navy; but even while the ink was drying, Germany was secretly building a large U-boat fleet.

The matter of reuniting the German peoples came into being in July, 1934, and here Hitler overreached. German organizations were covertly aiding Austrian Nazis in the overthrow of their government, culminating in an attempted revolt as well as murdering Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss. When the attempt clearly failed, Hitler denied involvement. In January, 1935, a plebecite was introduced in the Saarland; more than 90 percent voted to return the territory to Germany. Then in March, 1936, came his greatest slap to the Versailles Treaty: against the advice of his generals, and in open defiance of France and Britain, he ordered troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. Germany was once again becoming the leading power in continental Europe. By October, 1936, Germany had signed an alliance with Italy, proclaiming a “Rome-Berlin axis,” followed by the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. All three countries would sign a single, mutual alliance pact, the following year.

===Health care in Nazi Germany===

According to Michael H. Kater "physicians became Nazified more thoroughly and much sooner than any other profession, and as Nazis they did more in the service of the nefarious regime than any of their extra-professional peers."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=lDMIHDTLEN4C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Reich+Minister+of+the+Interior%2Bhealth%2Bcivilian+patient&source=bl&ots=2lLhun_7PE&sig=olfzxYKJAswVjjIEqjBcZPKhCXM&hl=en&ei=3D2MSsrZAZGeMLeq7JMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false Doctors Under Hitler] By Michael H. Kater, pp. 4-5.</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=NnPBlkKk8AQC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=physicains+became+nazified+much+thoroughly+and+sooner&source=bl&ots=sWUPklUojC&sig=fAJrGFwHYn-0gJDKPWLERHikAY4&hl=en&ei=GUaMStjmKIfaNb66rZMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Atrocities on trial: historical perspectives on the politics of prosecuting war crimes]
By Patricia Heberer, Jürgen Matthäus], p. 110.</ref><ref>[http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v073/73.1marrus.html The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial in Historical Context] Michael Robert Marrus, Bulletin of the History of Medicine,Volume 73, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp. 106-123, E-ISSN: 1086-3176 Print ISSN: 0007-5140 [http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Moral%20Issues%20in%20Medicine/Human%20Experimentation/Nuremberg%20Doctors%27%20Trial.html]</ref> After 1933, physicians joined the Nazi Party in greater numbers than did any other profession. By 1935, almost a third of the non-Jewish German physicians belonged to the Nazi Party. From 1925 to 1944, the per cent of doctors in the party was almost three times as high as in the population as a whole. <ref>Michael H. Kater, ‘’The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders 1919-1945’’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.</ref>

The National Association of Sickness Fund Physicians [http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/24/health-care-around-the-world-germany/] was established in 1933 as a national bargaining unit to replace the numerous, more local, associations with which sickness funds had negotiated in the past. Thus, several thousand sickness funds were forced to deal with a single organization, or [[single payer]], that held a legal monopoly over medical services. The drive by the medical profession to transform the organization and delivery of [[health care]] services from self-governing sickness funds to physician-controlled services was complete.<ref>[http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/76/1/78.pdf Social Medicine vs Professional Dominance: The German Experience], Donald W. Light, PhD, Stephan Liebfried, PhD, and Floran Tennstedt, PhD.</ref>

==Anschluss==

Removed from their offices in January 1938 were Hjalmar Schacht (economic ministry); Werner von Fritsch (soldiers’ representative); and Konstantin von Neurath (foreign office); the reason being was they were not fully accepting of Nazism. Beginning his plans of German conquest, he started with Austria. Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian chancellor, was invited to Berchtesgaden in February, where he was browbeaten and forced to sign an agreement placing Austrian Nazis in the government. When Schuschnigg resisted and announced a plebiscite for Austrian voters concerning independence, Hitler ordered German troops into Austria, completely taking over the country within days. His return to Vienna was in triumph; enthusiastic crowds greeted him by the tens of thousands, in sharp contrast to the scenes of privation he had gone through there in his youth. Austria was annexed (Anschluss) to the Reich a short time later.

While the Anschluss was going on, Hitler was speaking in friendly terms with Czechoslovakia; nearly as soon as Austria ceased to exist, Hitler proceeded with his plans against the Czechs. The northwestern region of Czechoslovakia was the Sudetenland, inhabited by a German minority, and the leader of them, Konrad Henlein, was instructed to make impossible demands for those Germans on the Czech government. In the interest of preventing a general war (which Hitler wanted), Mussolini and British prime minister Neville Chamberlain concluded a peaceful agreement in Munich on September 30, giving Hitler the Sudetenland without firing a shot. Chamberlain would return to Britain, waving the agreement signed between himself and Hitler, declaring it to be “peace for our time”, but his act of appeasement would ensure the peace would last only a few more months. Despite assurances that the Sudetenland was his last territorial demands, “Czechia”, as the remainder of Czechoslovakia was called, became a German protectorate on March 15, 1939, when Hitler ordered it occupied. Just over a week later, Lithuania was forced to cede to Germany the territory of Memel (Klaipeda), on the border of East Prussia.

==Poland==
Poland’s turn was next, and listening to the rumblings was France and Britain, which signed guarantees of mutual assistance to the Polish nation should it be attacked by Germany. Hitler also signed pacts: a “Pact of Steel” with Italy, strengthening the alliance between Rome and Berlin, and then a treaty that caught many off-guard: a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union on August 23. A secret clause in the pact allowed for the simultaneous invasion of Poland, and the division of the country in the center from north to south. Poland was invaded on September 1; two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler assumed his own war strategy. Poland was conquered within weeks, and when a desired peace accord with Britain failed to materialize, he ordered the army to prepare for a western offensive. Norway was invaded and occupied, forestalling a British move on that country; Denmark was occupied by April, 1940. Hitler than adopted General Erich von Manstien’s plan for an offensive against France itself, which would move through neutral Belgium’s Ardenne Forest on May 10, taking that country as a matter of convenience, as well as avoiding the static fortifications of France’s Maginot Line. The German forces, extremely successful in their operations, reached the coastal ports on the English Channel in 10 days; Holland and Belgium both surrendered within days. But south of Dunkirk was where the army was ordered to halt. Hitler had hoped even at this stage in the battle that Britain would commit to peace; instead, the halting of the German army allowed the British to remove 170,000 fighting men.

On June 10, Italy entered the war as German tanks were sweeping across northern France. Hitler signed an armistice with France on June 22, the signing taking place in the same rail car at the same site where the Germans surrendered in 1918.

Having failed in getting the British to sign an armistice, Hitler prepared his forces for “Operation Sea Lion,” the invasion of Britain. However, the Luftwaffe was defeated in its attempt to gain air superiority over British airspace, also known as the Battle Of Britain, which forced the permanent postponement of Sealion.

Facing the failure of the British to give in, Hitler started to prepare to double-cross his erstwhile partner in the Poland conquest, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. Then Mussolini invaded Greece, got bogged down in the Balkans, and the threat loomed that he would lose his whole army there. Hitler found it necessary to come to his aid, while at the same time taking direct control of Yugoslavia in the wake of the overthrow of the pro-Nazi government.

==Barbarossa==
The attack on Soviet Russia began June 22, 1941. Rapid in its advancement, the German army captured a large swath of territory between the Baltic and Black seas, and captured close to 3,000,000 prisoners. But Hitler, already micro-managing military operations, became overbearing to his generals; he preferred to go after many targets, while his generals argued for a single objective. A few miles in front of Moscow, the German army was halted by a Russian offensive in December, as well as something he had absolutely no control over: the severe Russian winter.

In the lands already occupied by German forces, S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler was preparing the ground for Hitler’s new German order. Expelling the Jews from Germany was the first step, and this was carried out by laws and decrees beginning in 1933; the Germans would switch to outright force in 1939, as Jews were first deported en-masse to Poland, then walled into ghettos after the occupation began. By 1941, a policy crafted under S.S. general Reinhard Heydrich had changed expulsion for extermination in what was called "a final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). The system of concentration camps was supplemented by the creation of specialized killing centers in the occupied countries, especially in Poland, where camps such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzac “processed” thousands of victims daily. Some six million Jews died during what was called the [[Holocaust]], as well as an additional five million Slavs, Gypsies, the handicapped, the aged, and many others that the Nazis considered “subhuman” in accordance with German racial policies.<ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm</ref>

==Beginning of the end==
[[Image:Adolf_hitler6.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in 1944, by now looking tired and strained.]]
Hitler grew increasingly strained by the end of 1942, depending on large amounts of drugs supplied by his physician, Theodor Morell, as a result of the twin defeats of El Alamein (which he lost the bulk of his Afrika corps to British general Montgomery), and Stalingrad (where he lost an entire army of 250,000 men to the Russians). He spent more time in his headquarters in East Prussia, and his time in the public eye ceased to exist. He refused to visit bombed German cities, and, as with Stalingrad, refused to allow German armies to withdraw from the battlefield when the situation was lost. Still, he could make stunning, decisive decisions when called for, such as the commando raid that resulted in the rescue of Benito Mussolini from Italian partisans in July, 1943.

But the defeat of Germany in the war was looming closer. Hitler’s relations with his leading commanders grew strained, the more so as he allowed units of the S.S. to take positions traditionally held by the army. The line at the eastern front was slowly being pushed back by the Soviets, while in the Atlantic his U-boats campaign had faltered. German cities were constantly being bombed, and a successful invasion on the Normandy coast of France in June, 1944 marked the beginning of the end.

===Assassination attempt===
[[Image:NWT Hitler dead.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Hitler's death as covered by the ''New York Times'', May 2, 1945.]]
Seeing Germany’s chances of surviving the war were desperate, a group of officers plotted to assassinate Hitler, planning several attempts in 1943-44, but nearly successful on July 20, 1944, when a bomb hidden in a briefcase by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg went off under a table that Hitler and others were leaning over; four were killed outright, several suffered injuries, but Hitler escaped relatively unharmed (the bomb itself was set down away from Hitler behind a solid oak table leg, saving him). The conspirators were quickly rounded up; Stauffenberg was shot. The remainder were put on show trials and condemned to hang on meat hooks with piano wire. It was said that Hitler enjoyed watching film of their executions. As a result of the bomb, Nazi members were employed at key positions within the army, removing any trace of the army’s independence.

Within months nearly all of the territory occupied by Germany was now in Allied hands. A last offensive in December, 1944 to take the port of Antwerp, Belgium, failed. Hitler had by them grown ill; his hopes for a German victory bordered on the fantastical and the imagination. By January, 1945 he had moved into his command bunker in Berlin, where he gave orders deploying fictional divisions to counter the ever-closer Soviets. When all seemed lost, he gave out his final orders: first, appointing Admiral Karl Dönitz as head of the state and his successor, and Josef Goebbels as chancellor; and second, dictating his last political will which was an attempt to justify his life’s work.

On April 29, he committed the one truly-chivalrous act of his life: he married Eva Braun, his long-time mistress. After retiring to his room in the bunker the next day, Eva took poison, and Hitler put a bullet in his head. In accordance with his wishes, both bodies were burned. His Third Reich would outlive him for another week.

[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote the following in [[Time Magazine]] regarding Hitler:
{{cquote|Adolf Hitler or the incarnation of absolute evil; this is how future generations will remember the all-powerful Fuehrer of the criminal Third Reich. Compared with him, his peers [[Mussolini]] and [[Franco]] were novices. Under his hypnotic gaze, humanity crossed a threshold from which one could see the abyss. "Before Hitler, we thought we had sounded the depths of human nature," argues Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler." "He showed how much lower we could go, and that's what was so horrifying. It gets us wondering not just at the depths he showed us but whether there is worse to come. The power of Hitler was to confound the modernist notion that judgments about good and [[evil]] were little more than matters of taste, reflections of social class and power and status. Although some modern scholars drive past the notion of evil and instead explain Hitler's conduct as a reflection of his childhood and self-esteem issues, for most survivors of the 20th century he is confirmation of our instinctive sense that evil does exist. It moves among us; it leads us astray and deploys powerful, subtle weapons against even the sturdiest souls." <ref name="time" />}}

All in all, Hitler survived over forty assassination attempts. The Stauffenburg attempt was the closest anyone ever came to killing Hitler. George Elser, a communist, came very close in 1938, having planted a bomb in a beam that Hitler stood in front of while giving a speech. Luck saved Hitler, as he left the hall early and twelve minutes later the bomb exploded.

==Hitler and the Theory of Evolution==
''For more information please see:'' [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

[[Image:Hitlerrisetopower.jpg|right|225px|thumb]]
The staunch [[evolution|evolutionist]] Stephen Gould admitted the following:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|[Ernst] Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}

Robert E.D. Clark in his work ''Darwin: Before and After'' wrote concerning Hitler's evolutionary racism:
{{cquote|The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (''Mein Kampf''). <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1675</ref>}}

Hitler wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>}}

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote in his work ''Darwin, Before and After'' the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution: “Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches”.<ref name="courier">http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen</ref>
[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> ]]
Richard Hickman in his work ''Biocreation'' concurs and wrote the following:
{{cquote|It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his [[psychosis]], it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. <ref>http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm</ref>}}

Noted evolutionary [[anthropology|anthropologist]] Sir [[Arthur Keith]] conceded the following in regards to Hitler: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.<ref name="courier" />

[[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning author [[Marilynne Robinson]] wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of ''[[Harper’s]]'' magazine:
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in [[Europe]], it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

[[Richard Dawkins|[Richard] Dawkins]] deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of ... an insane and unscientific [[eugenics]] theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/someone-finally-said-it-dawkinss-hysterical-scientism/</ref>}}

[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ==

''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]

In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref>}}

== External links ==
[[File:Hitler Siegestor Munich Victory Gate.jpg|thumb|Watercolor of the Arch of Triumph in Munich by Hitler.]]
*[http://www.eucontest.org/go.php?pdf=www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%201994.pdf Extracts From Mein Kampf by Hitler]
*[http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.] Full text.
*[http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/hartworks.htm Adolf Hitler ORIGINAL Watercolor Artworks.]
*[http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/ Hitler Was a Leftist]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/medical.htm STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH], FROM THE OPENING STATEMENT BY TELFORD TAYLOR, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.] Retrieved from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Sources==
*[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.htmlA Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler, His Life and Legend], Walter C. Langer, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Hitler, Adolf}}

[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Mass Murderers]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Evolutionary Racists]]
[[Category: Lunatics]]

Talk:Adolf Hitler

2011-05-27T04:32:46Z

UofGuelphStudent: /* Proof He's An Atheist */

[[Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive1]]

==Improvement Proposals==
*'''''Due to vandalism, please post ''MAJOR'' improvement proposals here, in this section. '''''

----

I know you are keen to point out other things, but could the summary maybe mention that he was also ultimately responsible as the commander of the German army for a large number of war crimes, including the execution of POWs, the leveling of civilian cities and the extermination squads killing whole civilian villages. Could we mention that his main philosophy was that enemies of the German people do not possess any rights, which even applied to citizens of Germany. And he did not only use "threat, intimidation, and outright violence" but he had brilliant polemic propaganda. He was, in the beginning elected in a democratic election. He was grossly misunderstanding and abusing scientific theories (Evolution theory may be the most known one which he perverted, but there are other branches of science as well, like medicine).

I suggest a summary like this: After gaining power trough polemics and tactics in politics, he systematically undermined the constitution and the civil rights. With his power growing he used increasingly violence and threats. His philosophy was governed by the hate toward enemies of the German people, which he defined by race, religious or political attitude. He was an antisemitist, and explicitely hated Jews. He was responsible for the killings of millions in concentration camps and for war crimes like the use of chemical weapons, execution of POWs, use of extermination squads in conquered regions, and sieges against civilian cities. He defined the term "racial hygiene" in a perversion of science under which marriages between German and non Germans or German Jews had been restricted and which he used to justify killings of disabled and other people (the largest group being the Jews).

--[[User:Stitch75|Stitch75]] 00:31, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Path to power ==

I see that the Hayek quote got back. So, the paragraph now explains in detail, but briefly, what van Papen did, what Hitler did, what Hindenburg did, all referring to actual events.

Then the article quotes Hayek out of context, and unrelated to the rest, to the effect that its is all just the socialists fault. I guess this means Conservapedia thinks that good ordinary Germans are and cannot not be blamed for what happened in the Third Reich. Is this true? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 8:40 (AEST)

:It will be integrated. Hayek is the historical narrator here. Here's more regarding Roosevelt:

:::Whatever you do don't integrate it there. It is ruining the article. All paragraphs of the article except for the introduction contain historical facts and no significant interpretion. The paragraphs, The Beginning Of His Political Life, Beer Hall Putsch, Path to Power, Consolidation of Power, Holocaust, 1944 Assassination Attempt, Marriage, and Death all are fairly factual, and the Hayek quote is the only part of it offering a interpretation. If you want to discuss Hayek's contribution to the discussion on the causes of the Third Reich, do it somewhere else, but not in the factual account. Make an article, introduce a section at the end, whatever. And then, citing Hayek as only scholar with an opinion on this issue is also insufficient. Numerous history wars were fought about this one. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:30

== "Socialist" and his rise to power ==
This article is extremely historically incorrect. I'm a history professor (proud conservative, don't worry) and I really don't like the terms used here. First of all, he was not a socialist. The word socialist was put into the party name in order to rally workers to vote for the party. Hitler himself did that when he took control of the party in 1923. He was a fascist, plain and simple. Hypernationalism, racialism, etc. There was some state control of the economy, but for the most part, people owned private property, businesses ran by themselves, etc. He is not a socialist.

Regarding his rise to power, he did not do all of the tactics mentioned in the beginning of the article. He first attempted a bloody coup, which failed, then he turned to legal means. His party legally attained a plurality in parliament, and Hitler himself ran against von Hindenburg in 1932 for President, but lost. Once his party had a plurality, he was appointed chancellor. This was all legal and peaceful.

Other than that, the article is fine, and well written.

[[User:Jimmypeg|Jimmypeg]] 19:28, 17 May 2011 (EDT)
:Thanks for editing here professor! Read this article on Hitler/ socialism/ unions and tell me if correction to the page are needed. [http://www.redstate.com/erick/2011/03/03/senator-sherrod-brown-d-oh-meets-hitler/]--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:36, 17 May 2011 (EDT)

::"The system he (FDR) blundered us into is more like the managed and bureaucratized, state supported system of Germany before World War I than our own traditional order. Before his regime we lived in a system which depended for its expansion upon private investment in private enterprise. Today we live in a system which depends for its expansion and vitality upon the government. This is a prewar European importation imported at the moment when it had fallen into complete disintegration in Europe. ...Americans trapped in the economic disasters and the political quarrels of every nation on earth and a system of permanent militarism closely resembling that we beheld with horror in Europe for decades, bureaucrats swarming over every field of life and the President calling for more power, more pricefixing, more regulations and more billions. Does this look like the traditional American scene? Or does it not look rather like the system built by Bismarck in Germany in the last century and imitated by all the lesser Bismarcks in Europe? ...No, Roosevelt did not restore our economic system. He did not construct a new one. He substituted an old one which lives upon permanent crises and an armament economy."

:Actually, we already had this discussion, how the ''real'' anti-Semites & racists came from the former territorries of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. [[Franz Leopold Neumann]] of the Frankfurt School of [[critical thinking]] and Chief Nurmberg Prosecution Researcher said it clearly, and most would agree (exept brainwashed Americans who believed wartime Hollywood propaganda and still do), and that is, Germany was the last place in Europe that anyone ever expect the Holocaust to take place. And that is because nowhere in Europe had Jews been accepted and made as much social progress as in Germany. The real fact is, it is Germany's lack of development as a Democracy that would respect everybody's rights including minorities, and the lack of citizen participation and involvement, and not racism, is how a foreigner like Hitler could get in power, import his racist ideas from Austro-Hungary which were not commonly held in Imperial or Wiemar Germany, and carry out the program he did.

:And as Hayek points out, it is the Socialist who snuffed out any feelings for, or movement toward, a liberal democracy ''prior to WWI''. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

First, what has FDR to with this discussion? Other than Germany wasn't the only country with a planned economy during WWII.

Second, the Emperor and his political allies weren't to fond about liberal democracy either.

Third, we had the discussion that they were all Austrians, and is was already debunked, because many of the main centers of Nazi support were in the Lutheran North of Germany.

Fourth, don't hide all the time behind Hayek. His work is definitely interesting, especially because he was neither conservative nor socialist, but states in his work "Why I am not a conservative", that he is an (old-school) liberal, which exists in a different political dimension. Anyway, whatever Hayek might have said, the question is what you think about the matter. Hayek isn't a Conservapedia editor, you are, and you took his sentence out of context, and put it there. So, what is you opinion on this matter?

Finally, do you say that the Third Reich was Austrian Catholic Socialist venture, and the Germans had no part in it?

And as an aside, I'd like to ask you if you are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 11:26
:So the fact Hayek stated he was not a conservative still does not place fascism at the polar end as an opposite of Communism and Socialism. We are writing historical narrative. We are using primary source, eyewitness accounts of educated and objective observers, not wartime propagandists. A lie that was told in 1933 or 1943, whether it was told by [[Josef Goebbels]], the US [[Office of War Information]], the Hollywood [[Screen Writers Guild]] or [[Franklin Roosevelt]] is as much a lie today as it was in 1933 or 1943. I'm sorry, I make no appologies for this. Facts are facts. We need to explain to the youth of the planet (a) what happened, and (b) ''why'' it happened. Sourcing, and the ''credibility'' of sourcing is paramount. Simply because a myth has been handed down by popular culture or proven liars means nothing. In fact, we have every obligation to correct the record. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 21:41, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with this matter?

* I am not sure to which lie you refer? Can you be precise? Do you mean to say that it is a lie that a broad section of German society was bearing responsibility for the Third Reich, and not just a group of Austrian catholic crypto-socialists? Can you answer this please?

* I never said that because Nazism wasn't socialist, it must have been conservative. To the contrary. And I didn't say that Socialism was the anti-thesis of Nazism. And therefore good. I repeatedly said that it was neither socialist, nor conservative, and that communism and Nazism were both totalitarian. I said it repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. Repeatedly. So don't make stuff up. But just because they were both totalitarian doesn't mean that they are the same.

* The article was factual, until you added the Hayek quote giving an interpretation by Hayek. What you report isn't an eyewitness account, but the interpretation of a contemporary. I agree that should tell the youth first what happened. And that is exactly why the Hayek quote is at it a wrong place, because it not describing a factual event, it is interpretation. Feel free to add a section on the "history wars" that discussed the causes of the Third Reich. However, I see no need to single out Hayek as only scholar who had something to contribute to the discussion. Other scholars were contemporaries too, and have made equally credible contributions.

* And finally, I am still curious if are by any chance of North German Lutheran National Conservative descent? [[User:Order]] 31 July, 13:36

#FDR & Hitler articles are part of the WWII series.
#We're actually not that far off on the [[political spectrum theory]] aspects of National Socialism; the tradional telling is Communism & Fascism are polar opposites. This isn't what happened. Two extreme factions of an anti-God ideology got in a big dispute, and 55 million people--many not sympathetic to either side--got killed in the process. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:45, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* What has FDR to do with which parts of the German society bears responsibility?

* Nazism wasn't anti-god. Sure, Hitler wasn't what you would a good Christian, and he was anti-clerical when it interfered with his business, but he was a theist, and Nazism as ideology was in favor of "positive Christianity". Unlike its socialist roots, this principle has never been been amended. Before you get all excited, I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach. I don't not say that all Christians are Nazis, but just that Nazism wasn't anti-God.

* I never said that they are polar opposites, and the article didn't say it either. But just because they are not polar opposites, doesn't means that they are the same. [[User:Order]] 31 July, 15:00

::One of the very important aspects of National Socialism is, Nazi's were enlightend Socialists who got thier enlgihtened, athiestic doctrines from Socialsim. This enlightened, athiestic doctrine, i.e. to overthrow the existing order, or to promote "change" in social organization and institutions that challenged the power of the church, and exisitng Christian morality, such as the commandment to love thine enemies, the Nazi's got from their Socialist roots.

::Socialism preached hate and envy, and destruction of alleged "oppressors;" Christianity, or the "old social order" preached tolerence and acceptance of all, Greek and Jew alike. This is where Jewish doctine and Christian doctrine separate--Jews adhered to the old Mosaic command to love thine friend and hate thine enemy. Christian doctrine, or the "established order" taught "love thine enemies", even those who oppose themselves. When God was rejected wholesale in the [[French Revolution]], and Marx & Darwin substituted man having dominion over the earth (as in both Hebrew & Christian scriptures), with the doctrine of ''Natural Selection of '''Favored Races''''', [[class hate]] and [[class war]], and the doctrine that man is an animal, these doctines were applied to those (whom it was percieved) promoted the doctrines. IOW, since man is an animal, if you can kill a dog, you can kill a man. And there is no consequences, final judgement, or higher power to answer to. '''''It is the enlightened doctrine of Natural Selection of Favored Races being applied in its most logical, and rational, form.''''' [[User:RobS|RobS]] 14:47, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* First, it Nazi apologetic to say that Nazism is the most logical and rational. What essential say is that everybody who doesn't share your views '''must''' kill other people based on race. This is a call for genocide, as I see it. And excuses them. Because you say that there is only one logical conclusion, the Nazis had no choice. Which is not true, because they had a choice. You did put into quotes, so I don't know who said it, but since you post it without comment, I have to assume that it also your opinion.
:*I didn't say this at all. I said Nazism is the natural consequence and outgrowth of enlighten Socialism. That is, more specifically, Naxism is the natural consequence of ''both'' the [[Enlightenment]] and [[Karl Marx]], (and [[Darwinism]], an enlightened subfield of 19th century thought). Let me put it quite specifically, it is a straight line of deductive reasoning from the Enlightenment which caused the overthrow of the ''Ancien Regime'' to the Holocaust. There are no divergent paths. It is the natural process and outgrowth of logical thought along that path. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::What you say is that Nazism was unavoidable, it was the logical consequence of the 19th century. This lets all the people of the hook who helped the Nazis to power in the 1930; this lets all the people of the hook who imprisoned, tortured, and killed people during the Third Reich, and it lets all the people off who invaded other countries an bombed and burned their population in WWII. Because it was inevitable in your reasoning. This a very extreme position withing the already disputed Sonderweg theory, and generally rejected, even by other adherents of the Sonderweg theory. It is generally accepted that some important people had the choice to act differently, but they didn't, and if they had acted different, history would be different as well. [[User:Order]] 2 August, 12:26

:::Not at all. What I am saying is worshipping at the altar of science, logic, and reason, in lieu of God, is what the progressive development of 19th century ''thought'' was all about. And yes, destruction is unavoidable when secularism rejected the Jewish God, that is to say, Jehovah - as a Jewish conspiracy, which is what led [[Marie Antoinette]] to the gallows.

:::: Can you point us to an [[atheism|atheist]] who reject all gods, because they think that it is all a jewish conspiracy? Russel? Dawkins? Or Sam Harris? I guess there is none. They reject gods, because they think that they are inconsistent with what they assume to know about the world. Just because you don't like them, and maybe disagree with their reasoning, doesn't mean that you have to vilify them and make up reasons for their atheism, that are not true. The "positive Christianity", advocated by the Nazis, didn't think that it was all a conspiracy, but they thought, that Christ original message, was corrupted by Jews and jewish thought. [[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

:::::I think most of the Nazi's writers certainly make that case, and some point to earlier, 19th century writers to support their arguments. All of them, Hitler & Hess in ''Mien Kampf'', Goebbels, several others all make this central agrument. In particular, read the outline of Hitler's unpublished second book, editied by Joachim Fest, tentative title was ''The Monumental History of Mankind''. It's unmistakeable, "Judah" is responsible for all the planet's problems since time immemorial according to Hitler. Folks like Voltaire, Marx, and Darwin just paved the path for Hitler & Hess (actually Rudolf Hess did write most of ''Mein Kampf''), Alfred Rosenberg, Houston Stuart Chamberlain, ''et al''. Betrand Russell and Vladimir Lenin are simply first cousins of this line of "intellectual thought." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::::And I didn't deny that the Nazis and their "Positive Christianity" did blame Jews, to the contrary I '''did'' actually say it. Problem is "Positive Christianity" is theist, not atheist. [[User:Order]] 3 August, 11:35
::::::::You're going to have to prompt my memory with this one, I really have been away from most of these primary sources since the late 1970s. A link might help, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:::And just because secular athiesm has unavoidable consequence does not mean at all that that those consequences are justified. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

::::I didn't mean to say that you justified the consequence, I meant to say that it was inevitable, such that in the end no p[erson is personally responsible for the committed crimes.[[User:Order]] 3 august, 10:00

* Second. Did you call Nazism enlightened? Just because they respected private property, and sold human beings as raw material to the companies to keep their production running?
:*Yes. Nazi's were enlightened atheists who viewed Christianity, as it had been viewed since the time of Voltaire, as a Jewish conspiracy which the Jews themselves did not beleive in. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::(1) What has Voltaire to do with the matter? (2) As is said on this page already, Hitlers view was apparently that the true theistic faith that later became Christianity was corrupted by Jews, but he didn't reject the notion of a god. He wanted a religion that was cleansed from the jewish influences. But even if he wasn't an atheist, he still was a bad person. Bin Laden isn't an atheist either. Why are you hung up about proving that he is an atheist, if he said himself that he wasn't. [[User:Order]] 2 August 00:08 (AEST)

:::See above. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:::This really is a digression, some atheists who do not worship Jehovah worship self or Satan as their god. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

* Third. Even if you keep repeating it, it is wrong to call a movement that had the inscription "Gott mit uns" on their belt when went out to war atheist, or even anti-God. And how do you explain the following sentence from their party program "Die Partei als solche vertritt den Standpunkt eines positiven Christentums, ohne sich konfessionell an ein bestimmtes Bekenntnis zu binden." Doesn't strike me as anti-God. And I repeat it again, in case you didn't get it, this I do not say that their view of Christianity is in any way compatible with your view on Christianity.
:*The old "Gott mit uns" argument. Actually, that was the inscription on the Imperial German belts '''''in the Erste Welt Krieg'''''; the Nazi's substituted the swastika, and later brought back the old imperial inscription. Further, if you look, it is quotation from the Hebrew scriptures: "Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought; speak the word, and it shall not stand: for '''God is with us'''." [http://biblebrowser.com/isaiah/8-10.htm] And there is a famous photograph of none other than Ernest Hemingway with a First World War (i.e. no swastika) "Gott mit uns" belt buckle in the 1930s. Do an internet search if you want to see it. Finally, if you're reaching for this argument, it means you're running out of gas. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:37, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
::* It seem like you can buy those belt buckles of the internet. I don't want to post neo-nazi sites on this page, but google for ''' "gott mit uns" hakenkreuz''', and you will find where you can buy them.
:::*For the second time "Gott mit uns" is (a) from the Hebrew scriptures, and (b) from Imperial Germany. Using this logic, we should abandoned the Hebrew scriptures because the Nazi's ripped them off. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::I am not sure how long will take until it get through to you, but I still didn't say that Christianity is Nazism. And I also did not say that Christianity is using Nazi symbols. I said that Nazis used references to God. And that many Nazis, and among them quite likely Hitler himself, were theists. This means that they weren't atheists. You might know that "theist" is not the same as being a "Christian". And you might also know that not being a "Christian" following your particular interpretation of the scripture doesn't mean that you are an "atheist". The Nazis advocated "positive Christianity", something which should be different from your version of Christianity, but which is still decidedly theist. This is something different from saying that Christians are Nazis. What is so difficult to understand about that? you are barking up the wrong tree. For days. And I am telling you for days. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 23:58

:::::Ok, this argument is difficult for obvious reason. Hitler certainly did not accept the existence or soveriegnty of the Jewish God, Jehovah. Neither did Hitler accept the old Nordic gods like Wotan, despite some rumors (Ludendorf perhaps did). Hitler may have believed in some sort of Providence, as Menachim Begin referred to, also. Who is this "Providence"? IMHO, it is was most likely Satan, however if Hitler were here, and if you asked him, he'd probably most certainly deny it and laugh, as most Hollywood movie producers would laugh also at the same question.
:::::So, we're at the crossroads in examining where a person may actually be admitting to some divine supernatural being greater then themselves that they are in subservience to. Most spiritually decieved people never even get this far, laboring under the notion that they themselves are god, i.e. that their life purpose is to serve themself. Now, if a deluded soul arrives at the point where they recognize a supernatural power apart from themself, more powerful than themself, and to whom they owe some sort of debt even, and at the same time pointedly denying this supernatural power is Jehovah, for all intents and purposes we can conclude they are avowed Satanists. So the only remaining question is, when Hitler survived the July 20, 1944 assassination attempt, and Goebbels convinced Hitler Providence intervened, did he really believe it, or was he just going along with another propaganda scheme?

:::::Whatever you conclude from all this, you're not going to find a very widely accepted doctrine, even among Nazi party members. The vast majority of Nazi party members, and even sympathetic non-party members, were simply garden variety athiestic socialists, who would laugh at the idea they worshipped and/or served Satan. Yes, there were occultists, like Himmler and many top Nazi's, but the vast majortiy of the public just looked on this behavior not very different from the seances [[Hillary Clinton]] used to hold on the [[White House]] roof. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:40, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
::*And what about point 24 in the progam of the NSDAP? About "positive christianity" [[User:Order]]

* Thanks for proving my point. I said: '''I do know that the Nazi view of Christianity is fundamentally different from what the main Churches of today teach''', but you still could help giving me the spiel that Nazism and Christianity is different. Read my postings for a change, instead of making stuff. It seems that you can only argue against stuff I didn't say. [[User:Order]] 1 August, 11:23

:*Wikipedia, believe it or not, has a good article on Hanns Kerrl. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Kerrl] This could be expanded upon, and I hope to do so here in CP. For now, here's a quote from Hitler in ''Tischgesprache'', 14th December 1941 Midday,
::*"Kerrl, with the noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself....Pure Christianity...is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics." [p. 145-146] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

* Nice quote. Of course there is a dispute about the "Tischgespraeche itself. whether they took place in the form Kerrl reported. But lets no go down this road. Lets take it at face value. It say that he doesn't like the Christian message of forgivenes and compassion. And guess what, that is what I told now already countable time myself. So why do you keep on hammering this point?
* Actually, a very nice quote. Because he actually says that he reject Bolshevism wholeheartedly. That the he sees a Bolshevistic aspect in Christianity, and that it is exactly this aspect that is incompatible with Nazism. This quote proves that the Fuehrer himself believed that bolshevism and Nazism were incompatible. You made my point, Rob. Thanks. [[User:Order]] 1 August 14:00
:*Yes. Nazism simply replaced the word "bourgeois" in [[Marxist]] rhetoric, with "Jewish", but all the other rhetoric remained the same (incidentally, the [[DNC]] does this very same thing, instead of "rich Jew", they simply use "The Rich.") [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:30, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
You didn't answer one my questions, and I am still curious: Are you by any chance of Conservative Lutheran North German descent? [[User:Order|Order]] 23:35, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:I am of mixed race: 50% German 50% Slavic. I was raised Catholic, but today am moreless a Dispensationalist Christian. Some roots come from Stetin (Szczecin) which was mixed German/Polish & defintiely devout Catholic when they arrived in America; others come from Slovakia. And there were "mixed marriages" in the US, i.e. my mothers father was Lutheran. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:08, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
===contemporaneous corroboration===
Ok, returning to Hayek, whom we use a 1945 quote, let's look at a 1940 quote from a Socialist publication during the [[Phoney War]] which says virtually the same thing Hayek said after Hitler blew his brains out:

<center>'''From 1905 to 1940'''</center>
:'''The downfall of bourgeois democracy in Europe did not begin with Hitler. Hitler is a result not a cause'''. The crisis of Europe first showed itself in the Russian revolution of 1905. That it was a world crisis and not a European crisis was proved by the course of the war in 1914. That war neither ended nor made the world safe for democracy. '''The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy''' in country after country, with or '''without the violent defeat of the socialist movement''', and the steady preparation for the second imperialist war. '''Without socialism, the war of 1939''', Hitler victory or no Hitler victory, '''must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''' all over Europe, the development of the totalitarian state in America, and still further battles for the re-division of the world.

:'''The question that faces us, therefore, as Marxian socialists, is to estimate soberly, at this critical moment, what are the possibilities for the socialist revolution''', the only force that can check the descent into the abyss and reverse the process of disintegration. The possibility of an early Hitler victory, the tremendous power displayed by the German military machine, the inevitable demoralization of the anti-Hitler forces in Germany by his uninterrupted march of success – these things undoubtedly have altered the former perspective of a long drawn-out war ending in immediate revolution. Let us, however, before we speculate on the future, examine the past.
*Source:[http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/history/etol/newspape/ni/vol06/no04/editorial.htm#s1 ''Blitzkrieg and Revolution''], An Editorial, From New International, Vol.6 No.4, May 1940, pp.83-87.

And here is the Hayek quote:

:"By the time Hitler came to power, liberalism was dead in Germany. And it was socialism that had killed it."

'''Analysis of comparison;''' while Hayek uses the term "liberalism", the ''New International'' editorial uses "democracy." In both, they are talking about the same thing, and they both make reference to the fact that Socialism survived the destruction of liberal democracy. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 18:50, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:I guess the highlighting is by you and not by the ''New International''. Where in the text by the socialist publication do they say that they destroyed liberalism or democracy? To the contrary, the article even suggests that without socialism democracy will be destroyed, and the writer even argues that socialists are the only movement capable of saving democracy. Take for example: ''Without socialism, the war of 1939 must inevitably mean the complete destruction of democracy''. No Socialism, no democracy. According the the ''New International''. The fragment that you quoted tell that democracy got destroyed, and then even claims that the Marxist Socialist are the only force that can reverse the process of disintegration. This quote shows clearly that even the Socialist disagree with your interpretation of the Hayek quote. I am not sure why you like to quote material that proves my point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 10:00 (AET)

::The question simply is over blame. Hayek says socialism destroyed liberalism; the Socialist publication says "The characteristic feature of the period 1918-39 was the destruction of democracy in country after country, with or without the violent defeat of the socialist movement." Of course they are not going to take the same position as Hayek, i.e. that they caused it. But they are observing the same phenomenea, that liberal democracy faded, and socialism survived. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:11, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:So all you wanted to say it that democracies in 1920/30s democracies in Europe failed. I don't need Hayek or the New International to tell that. In Italy, Germany, Spain, Russia, and even in Poland and Austria, democracy wasn't going too well. If this is what you want to say both quotes aren't that great to make that point. Given that the other paragraphs in the article are referring to actual events, and not to interpretations from 30 years later, or from a contemporary opinion pieces, you should refer to events in the other countries to make your point. [[User:Order]] 2 august 18:00

::A reading of both documents is illuminating (and other materials could support it, too). We extracted just one sentence from Hayek, but the whole paragraph sheds even more light, and other quotes, too. Hayek says something to the effect of "fascism is the result when people realize Communism does not work" (to put it another way, Socialism, which evolves into Communism, does not bring democracy, it brings fascism). ''The New International'' quote above says the same thing, "Hitler is a result not a cause." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 12:58, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

It is agreed that, if not the idea of fascism, then at least the rise of fascism in Europe was a reaction to communism, especially to the rise of Bolshevism in the Soviet Union. But even for that their are better quotes to find that support this.

Anyway, what we have now are eight sections on Hitlers life. Look at them one by one:

* ''The Beginning Of His Political Life'': 2 paragraphs, both on fact and events.
* ''Beer Hall Putsch'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''Path to Power'' 2 paragaphs on fact and events. And '''one''' sentence of interpretation, the Hayek quote.
* ''Consolidation of Power'': 4 paragraphs on fact and events.
* ''Holocaust'': 2 paragraphs on facts and events.
* ''1944 Assassination Attempt'': 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Marriage'' : 1 paragraph on facts and events.
* ''Death'' :: 1 paragraph on facts and events.

Altogether 15 paragraphs on facts and events, and one single unrelated sentence that says only indirectly what you actually want to say, namely that fascism was a reaction to Bolshevism. This is not the way to go. The right thing to do would be to remove the Hayek quote from where it is, and if you insist on discussing the causes, a separate section on what scholars said about the causes. And Hayek isn't the only scholar you should mention. Taylor, Turner, Dawidowicz and even Goldhagen come to mind, and there are numerous others. But an isolated blurb, whose meaning isn't obvious after first reading, isn't the way to go. [[User:Order]] 6 august 10:20

:Actually, to say fascism is a "reaction" can be somewhat misleading. What we know is, that communism and fascism ''do not'' represent polar opposites; fasism is the end result of a ''process'' who's original aim is that socialist utopia called 'communism'. The process goes something like this: a liberal society embraces socialism; socialism smothers liberalism (the socialist ideal of the collective being greater than the individual stamps out progress on the road to the Rights of Man); socialism's ultimate goal is communism, but when the people realize communism is only a dream, fascism is the end result.

:: Where does 'reaction' implies polar opposites? Where? Every person in his right mind knows that both were totalitarian. [[User:Order]]
:::The problem with this one is the usual misinformation taught at the junior high school level in definition of "reactionary;" while on one level, fascim indeed was a "reaction" to communism, it was actually part of a progressive process, not a reactionary polar opposite. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
:There are no polar opposites, liberalism devolves into socialism, socialism evolves into communism, and communism ultimately evolves into fascism. I have another eyewitness source who uses the phrase "Red fascism." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:20, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

You are applying the cold-war and 1980's US definition of "Liberal", because actual Liberals of that time, and Hayek is a prime example, would strongly disagree with you. They would probably hit you with a stick. Liberals like Hayek were firmly the opposed to both socialism and fascism, because both were totalitarian. Also it is provably wrong to say that people first embraced socialism, before they became fascists. Many embraced fascism right away, from being national conservative, or monarchist, or whatever other -ism you had in that time. Often out of fear of Bolshevism. [[User:Order]] 6 august 11:30

:I agree the contemporary, popular use of the term "liberal" is a misnomer, particularly in the United States. The correct term is "socialist," even with its US shading to mean "treasonous," which is becoming more apparant as time goes by. It is unfortunate, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Boris Yeltsin, all [[classical liberal]]s, did somewhat rehabitilate the term in the 1980s & early 90s, but the old perjoritives all came back to stick (most probably through Rush Limbaugh and the lifting of the [[Fairness Doctrine]], which is very well explained in CP's entry). FWIW, it looks like we're stuck with the pejoritive, contemporary American meaning of the term liberal. Of course, the [[MSM]] and the [[DNC]] have been of little help in clarifing its real meaning. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

==von Papen==

I see that the Hayek quote is still in there. I also saw that you portrayed the period of imperial Germany as one in which it was a socialist paradise. And also there you quote Hayek. Hayek would hit you with a stick for this, because he knew perfectly well that this is plain ridiculous. Imperial Germany was Bismarck, Kulturkampf, Nationalismus, Demokratiedefizit, Sozialistenerlaesse, Sozialversicherung, Flottenausbau, Wilhelm Zwo.

And when it comes to the beginnings of the Third Reich you might want check which party van Papen belonged to, which parties did vote, under pressure but they did, in favour of his empowerment laws, which party the rest of Hitlers first cabinet belong too, which parties were part of the Harzburg front, the political background of Hugenberg, Schacht, and others who actually helped Hitler to power. You can impossibly claim that it was all just a socialist endeavor. But it seems that fact don't count here, while I had hope that we could keep spin out of the a subject as important as Hitler. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 20:08, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Interesting premise; one of the charges against von Papen at Nuremberg was he was part of the Nazi conspiracy, but as you just pointed out, he was never a member of the Nazi Party. Why can't these things ever be discussed dispassionately? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:32, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
Exactly, my point. He wasn't a member of the Nazi party, he was a prominent member of the Zentrum party, a Catholic Party, and he still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:06, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, dare I ask the question, is it unfair to refer to him as a "Nazi War Criminal"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:26, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
It might be unfair, not sure what the Nuremberg Trial decided. Did I call him "Nazi War Criminal"? To the contrary, the point is that he probably isn't, but that he was a fairly normal German centrist politician, who still helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)
:Truth is, he really had a disdain for Hitler, and Hitler didn't care much for von Papen either. And their mutual distrust and resentment had little to do with politics. It was a class difference. Von Papen regarded Hitler as an ill-mannered low-life, and Hitler thought von Papen an artistocratic snob. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:There is famous newsreel footage with no audio of [[Treaty of Munich]] that reveals the difference between the two. Von Papen and Hitler are leading the guests which include Ciano & Chamberlain into a room. Hitler plops himself down in a chair, while von Papen observes the diplomatic nicities of remaining standing until all the guests are in the room and seated. Hitler clearly is embarassed the moment he sits down and sees von Papen remaining standing, and its all caught on film. He knows he looks crude, rude, selfish, and inexperienced in just simple manners, let alone protocol, or "high class" manners. And it's almost as if he feels deliberately tricked by von Papen into making himself look bad. Very revealing, if uyou ever get a chance to see it. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:30, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
So, van Papen didn't even like this guy, and still helped him to get to power, and worked for him until Munich. So, we found already one person who wasn't an ideologue but was still working for the third Reich. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:36, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
::So the Foreign Minster of the Third Riech wasn't even a Nazi, was not one of the 22 Nazi War Criminals at Nuremberg (although history remembers him that way), was found innocent at Nuremberg of being part of the Nazi conspiracy to (a) sieze power (b) make aggresive war (c) etc., although you persist in making that charge. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:03, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
Did the Nuremberg trail say that it was a conspiracy? I doubt so. And indeed, van Papen helped Hitler to power, I guess there is little discussion about it. One might argue about his motivation, but seems to not much of a mystery either. [[User:Order|Order]] 04:21, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Yes it did. The [[Treaty of Munich]] was a "conspiracy against Peace", as well as all the other events (re-occupation of Rhineland, Invasion of Poland, etc.) Then there was "conspiracy to wage aggressive war", etc.
:One should read the Nuremberg Indictment in its entirety [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count.htm]. It really is not that long. And it sets out all the major issues to be dealt with prior and afterwards. (One writer has explained why the charge of "conspiracy", Britian needed it to CYA for thier policy of appeasement, i.e. Britian couldn't live up to treaty obligations because it was a victim of a conspiracy--and von Papen's aquittal addresses that argument).
:You will see, for example, the Katyn massacre. Peculiar, isn't it, that while the Western Powers knew this Soviet charge was false, and that indeed one of the Administators of Justice in this case himself was guilty of the charge, allowed it to become part of the historical record (this record, which then was resurrected in the mid 1990's as the model of Administering International Justice for War Crimes); also, after reading the horrors that the Soviet's present, we almost get comic relief at France's idea of Crimes Against Humanity, like plunder of property [http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/count3.htm#sec8e]

:Wine..................................................................7,647,000 hectolitres.

:Champagne...................................................87,000,000 bottles

:Beer...................................................................3,821,520 hectolitres

:Various kinds of alcohol.................................1,830,000 hectolitres

:The myth of France as a "Great Power" (or for that matter, a "victim" when France provided more manpower, and more [[GDP]] to the Nazi cause than it did to defend, or liberate, itself, is something that at some point needs to clarified in the English language.

:Another point, the various charges of "mass deportation of populations", while Germans were being deported east of the Oder-Niese, the Keelhaul Agreement, the Crimean Taters, the Volga Germans etc. etc. etc. were occuring, has never been addressed (outside of Solzhenitsyn's ''Gulag Archipeligo''), or "systematic malnutrition", which Lenin & Stalin perfected long before Hitler adopted [[Bolshevik]] methods. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 11:42, 21 August 2007 (EDT)

The [[Treaty of Munich]] happened after the seizure of power. And saying the this treaty was "a conspiracy against peace", is also something slightly different than claiming that "Nazism is a conspiracy". And the rest are tangents. The question was still about who helped Hitler to power, not what happened afterwards or elsewhere. And von Papen was still one of the people who brought Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:04, 21 August 2007 (EDT)
:Unfortunately, all we have is the historical record. And the Nuremberg trial rendered its verdict. You are arguing the case that everyone deficient in psychic powers in 1933 is complicit in genocide.

:It's not unlike the recent book on IBM; because Nazi's purchased IBM equipment, all the shareholders, employees, and Board of Directors past and present who "did business with the Nazi's" are complicit in genocide. By this line of argument, if Nazi's purchased Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toilet Paper, Crest Toothpaste and Charmin Toiler Paper likewise "did business with the Nazi's." Don't forget Hitler's shoeshine boy, he must have been involved, too. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 16:25, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

Did I somewhere say that van Papen is responsible for genocide? I agreed that the Nuremberg trial is probably the instance that had to decide on this. So but what you say that that van Papen is as responsible for Hitlers rise to power as Hitler shoe shine boy. Did the shoe shine boy go to Hindenburg and convince him to make Hitler chancellor? I doubt it. What I see that you go on all kinds tangents, just because you are unable to accept the historical fact that there were centrist and conservative politicians who helped Hitler to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 18:44, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:Here's the probelm: Hitler was legally came to power under the then Wiemar Constitution. He overwhelmingly won a popular election as well. The Wiemar Constitution wasn't even indigenous, it was imposed as a "liberal reform."

:Now, if you are to allege that Hitler, a common scum, came to power outside of some secret Masonic Illuminati cabal that really controls things, and therefore Hitler and the Nazis claim on power was illigimate, we have a problem there. As it is, Hitler was never invited by the French government to visit Paris anytime from the day he came to power. Why is this? Because he was illigitmate? Because he was outside of a clique of insiders who determine who should hold power? Do you see where this line of rhetoric is going to lead you? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 21:31, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

You try to get the discussion on all kinds of tangents, like whether the constitution was indigenous, Masonic Illuminati, French inviting Hitler for supper, IBM, Crest tooth paste. Rob, you are alleging all kinds of things that I never said, and that frankly do not even matter. Fact is Hitler came to power under the Weimar constitution. Did I say otherwise? I don't think so. Fact is also that he didn't win a majority of seats, so he needed the help of others. And van Papen was one of then who helped. And Hugenberg another. BTW: While van Papen wasn't found guilty in the Nuremberg trial to be one of the main criminals, he was sentenced to 8 years in prison during denazification for his role as collaborator and enabler. Why is it so hard for you to admit the fact that there were conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. No, you rather talk about Illuminati to not to have admit this simple fact. [[User:Order|Order]] 21:56, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:So, welfare queens & labor unions help Bill Clinton get into power, despite the fact he sold them down the river with NAFTA & Welfare Reform. Do you think they might have voted any different if they knew they'd be "stabbed in the back"? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:00, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
For discussing Bill Clinton, go to the entry [[Bill Clinton]]. We are discussing Hitler's path to power. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:02, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK. What's wrong with this text:
:*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.

:Seems to say what you want it to say. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:05, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

No surprise. I wrote it.

Problem is still the Hayek quote that you took out of context. It suggests that the path to power was purely a socialist endeavor. However, and I cite you citing me:
*''After a series of minority cabinets former Chancellor van Papen convinced President Hindenburg to appoint Hitler to become Chancellor in a coalition government with the national conservative party. Van Papen expected the nation would recognize Hitler to be a fraud within a few months in government.''

See, it wasn't just the socialists who brought Weimar down. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:11, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
:What Hayek is saying is liberalism, in the classic sense, was weakened to non-existent to oppose Nazism. And your use of conservative here likewise is problematic; the titled nobility of Germany, or for that matter all of Europe, is "conservative" in the European sense. As we've had this discussion elsewhere, the US Constitution expressly prohibits the government from conferring titles. So the express meaning of the term here, "conservative" to refer to von Papen and others is wholely out of context in attempt to draw a parallel to contemporary American conservativism.
:Shame on you, Order, I have more respect for you and your skills than this feeble reasoning your pushing. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:19, 26 August 2007 (EDT)
Classic liberalism was indeed weakened, and the permanent attacks from both sides of the spectrum didn't help. But where did the liberals go? Some went left, other went right. My use of "conservative" is fairly consistent with the use by the people in question themselves. The DNVP, the German National People Party, was for example the legitimate successor of the pre-WWI Konservative Partei, the Conservative Party. This is the party that helped Hitler to a majority of seats in parliament. Same holds for von Papen, he was from the conservative wing of the Zentrum party. I said it a few times in this thread already that contemporary US interpretations of 'left' and 'right' don't apply to the 1930s in Germany, so I am not sure what you are complaining about. And there is no shame in pushing the fact that there were also conservative politicians in Germany who made didn't mind that Weimar failed, who didn't shed a tear when Hitler came to power. One of the lesson of the Third Reich is that if you fail to fix an imperfect democracy for short term political gain, you might end up with something worse in the long run. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:32, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

:This is an interesting discussion. Truth is, its been many years since I've reviewed any of these source materials in detail. Likewise I did read von Papen's memoirs many many years ago, and am familiar with his case. Seems much of this discussion only grabs tidbits from this or that source, usually out of context, so let's make some effort to set the materials before us (incidentally, von Papen was sentenced to 8 years, yet served less than two; and this is not the place to go into why he was tried a second time after being aquited the first time).
::There's is nothing special about it. The Nuremberg Trials where aimed at the top of the regime, while the Denazification was aimed to determine the involvement of all people who held office, 2.5 million people in the western Germany alone. He probably was sentenced as 'offender'. The majority were judged to be 'followers', or even acquitted. Von Papen obviously wasn't. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:34, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:::He was tried twice because of the outrage over the verdict. Double jeopardy goes against Anglo-American jurisprudence. Even the Soviet Judges could not find conspiracy on his part. And when the poltical situation changed in 1949, so did the second verdict against von Papen. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::::The Soviets didn't agree with the judgment of the Nuremberg trial and wrote dissenting Opinion[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-dissenting-von-papen.html]. The second trial was in a civil court, and I guess it happens also in the US that someone is found not guilty of criminal charges, but gets convicted in civil court nevertheless. But I couldn't find much about the second trial, so I trust you that the second trial was a result of public outrage. I guess that proves that while he might have not been guilty in criminal court, he messed up politically. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:11, 29 August 2007 (EDT)
:OK, let's look at the original indictment, and then the Judgement. Von Papen is indeed charged with all the same things you are charging him with here: "Von Papen Used His Personal Influence To Promote The Accession Of The Nazis To Power. " ''et seqq'' [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/nca/nca-02/nca-02-16-18-index.html]

:Let's look at the Judgement: "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January;" Wikipedia reports "The central role that Papen played in Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in January 1933 was reflected by Papen's indictment at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trial, though he was acquitted on formal reasons, the tribunal deciding that his "political immoralities" were not under its jurisdiction." This of course, is totally false, as the Nuremberg Judgement clearly, clearly states: "The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss. To carry through this plan he engaged in both intrigue and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be. " [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-von-papen.html]

:Conlcusion: (a) von Papen's "political immortality" (singular), as rendered by the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, related to the Anschluss, '''''and not the Nazi's regimes rise to power in Germany.''''' Further, the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal fails to make any mention whatsoever about any sort of complicity in conspiracy or for that matter anything about his role in helping Hitler gained power. All the Tribunal found, as cited above, is "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," with the final verdict, "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty under this Indictment, and directs that he shall be discharged."

:So lets get the facts in order before we even discuss making generalizations. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:03, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

So, we still agree that he wasn't one of about 20 people that were found guilty as war criminals in the Nuremberg Trial. Thanks for posting the judgment. The second paragraph of the judgment refers exactly to what we are discussing here. "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933, in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933 ". That he was found not guilty for his role in the Anschluss is another matter. That happened a few years later. Thanks again for posting the official judgment which essentially confirms what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:17, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:So what was he guilty of as "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," since contrary to ''both'' you ''and'' Wikipedia's claim, the Tribunal found this '''''did not''''' even constitute an offense against "political morality", let alone a crime, or conspiracy? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:38, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
I still didn't say that he was part of the conspiracy to start an agressive war. And why should we care what Wikipedia says. The tribunal had to determine which people were responsible for the ''aggressive war''. It judged that it could not be established beyond reasonable doubt that von Papen was involved in planning an aggressive war. That is why they acquitted the charges. However, the tribunal found him politically responsible, but that under the charter of the tribunal, they couldn't convict him for "such offenses against political morality, however bad these may be". Anyway, this all refers to the Anschluss, and we where talking about his involvement in Hitler's path to power. And here the judgment states clearly that von Papen helped Hitler into power. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:59, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:Big deal. There was no crime in it. In fact, Hitler came to power legally.

:Now, when the Tirbunal sat down in November 1945, they brought up all this conspiracy stuff about a "siezure of power"; as the trial progressed, it became fairly obvious there may have been "backstairs" dealings, but that how the sytem works, even under the US Constitution. By the time the verdict was reached, the Judges were faced with the sad fact that Hitler abided by the rules to "sieze power."

:Now many peolple have never been happy with these facts, and wish to condemn Hitler & everybody connected with from his mothers womb for all that followed. The German people today speak of the "Nazi seizure of power", obviously to take comfort themeselves in denial because the truth is he came to power Consitutional, by democratic means, and the people voted for him. But its easier for contemporay Germans to play the role of victim along with everybody else.

:Then your argument, that somehow everybody involved in his ascention was illigitimate; this really itself sounds like Nazi rhetoric. Cause the root of this arguement is that Hitler was unnapporved by the Jewish-Masonic conspiracy that controls and decides who is legitimate. And this is the very argument you are putting forward. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:23, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

* Where do I say that the Nazis seizure of power overcame the German people? Where did I say that it was an illegitimate action? And most important where did I use Nazi rhetoric? Don't make stuff up stuff that I didn't say. Or show me where.
* As a German myself I can tell you that just a few Germans comfort themselves with the myth that it was an illegal power grab. The failure of Weimar is taught and discussed in great detail, including the decline of liberal democracy, the failure of democrats to work together, the anti-democratic forces on both sides of the spectrum, and also the role (and call it naivety) of von Papen and the likes when it came to Hitler. Don't make up stuff about how the end of Weimar is discussed in Germany.
* It was about political and moral responsibility all the time. You went on all kind of tangents, like the war tribunal, and whether von Papen was a war criminal. The question wasn't if von Papen was a War Criminal, but if he and other conservative politicians have a share in the political and also moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power.
* You bring up the in the Illuminati stuff without reason. If your best bet is to bring up weird conspiracies that I didn't mention, your arguments must be poor. And then on top of it you claim that I use Nazi rhetoric.
* Hitler came to power through legitimate means because he got help from others. And these other were conservative politicians like von Papen and Hugenberg. No need to tell you that Von Papen was Vice-chancellor, and Hugenberg Minister in Hitler first administration.

You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:*''where did I use Nazi rhetoric? ''
::*In the Nazi view, the [[Treaty of Versailles]] was a Jewish conspiracy that destroyed the monarchy, dismembered Germany, and established a Constitutional Republic. This "Jewish Conspiracy", in the Nazi's view, dictated ''who'' the administrative powers in Germany would be, and what German domestic armament policy, and foreign policy would be. The Nazi's viewed themselves as "seizing power" from this Jewish-Illuminati International bankers conspiracy when Hitler was appointed Chancellor in 1933. However, the Nazi's were not strong enough to win the Chancellorship and Parliamentary elections, so it was done in a coalition with other parties, some democratic.

:::In the Nazi view, there was a second "seizure of power" after the Nazi's "seized power" from the International "conspiracy" that "dictated" who would govern Germany; power was seized away from the Nazi's coalition partners when parliamentary rule was ended.

:::When the Nuremberg Tribunal met, Prosecutors brought forward some of the Nazi's own rhetoric, how they had "seized power" in violation of both International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution. Charges of "conspiracy" were leveled, that all involved had violated International conventions under Versailles, and the Weimar Constitution in the Nazi's assent to power in 1933. The Judges, including Soviet Judges, soon realized, that to render this verdict would be to rubber stamp the validity of Nazi propaganda. That to adjudicate the Nazi regime as illegitimate from day one would be to validate the Nazi claim that foreigners and International agreements such as Versailles were indeed the controlling instruments that stripped Germany of its sovereignty.

::::Where do I say any that the Nazi seizes the power from an international conspiracy? Where? Where did I bring up the Illuminati? You say that I use Nazi rhetoric, while I didn't say any of those things. Show me otherwise. This is a challenge.

::::To the contrary, I was always pointing to his coalition partners. Do not make up stuff that I never said. Otherwise, show me.[[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::You might as well blame a constitutional democracy for Hilter's rise, because that is exactly what happened. The system was designed for coalition governments in the absence of an absolute majortiy. Bottomline again, the coalition parnters were not Nazi's; if they were Nazi's they would have quit thier minortiy parties and joined the Nazi party. But that did not happen. Instead, once Hitler became Chancellor, he ignored and violated thier rights, too.

::::::So, did I say otherwise? After the Hitler came to power, some politicians from conservative did actually join the NSDAP. Anyway, bottomline is indeed that his coalition partners weren't Nazi's, but conservative politicians like von Papen. As I said from the beginning of this thread. {{unsigned|Order}}

:*''why should we care what Wikipedia says.''

::*A few years ago I commented in Wikipedia on the large volume of material being brought over from the German Wiki that persistently referred to the "Nazi seizure of power." The Nazi's in fact did not seize power in January 1933, they came to power under provisions of the legitimate Weimar Constitution. The Nazi's ''did'' seize power from their democratic coalition partners when they ended parliamentary rule.

:::Contemporary Germans have maintained the that they, too, were victims; that the Nazis came to power illegitimately, when in fact they were supported at the ballot box by many Germans. They were victimized later, when parliamentary rule ended, and the Nazi's "seized power" from their coalition partners ''after'' January 1933.

:::The bottomline, while maintaining the fiction that the Nazi's "seized power" in January 1933 is comforting to absolve complicity among democratic forces that were coalition partners, it really is nothing more than the Nazi POV. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:26, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Did I say any of this? Didn't I say the opposite. I was permanently pointing to Hitlers coalition partners. Don't make stuff up or show me otherwise. Or is this supposed to be proof that Germans at large think that the Hitler came to power illegally, by pointing to an experience you had on Wikipedia a few years ago. If you trust Wikipedia that much, go to the German version of Wikipedia, and what they say about Machtergreifung. I will be edited mostly by German editors, and I doubt that it says that it was an illegal act to get power from back an international conspiracy. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Your point is along the lines that, "Why did von Papen, et al, form a coalition government ''with'' the Nazis, ''against'' the Comintern apparat?" This question is easy to answer. While the murderous nature of the Comintern organizations against ''thier'' imaginary enemies was known in 1933, no one knew the Nazis would adopt and apply Bolshevik methods against the Nazis imaginary enemies to the extent that they did after 1933. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 20:32, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

::::::Where did I say that von Papen should have sided with the Comintern. Where? It is generally agreed that at the beginning of 1933 there was no need to form a coalition government with the Nazis. The Nazi had just lost their first state elections, and the economy was picking up. Von Papen had to convince Hindenburg. Sure, von Papen probably didn't have the foresight that it would almost cost his life in the Night of Long Knives, nor that it would lead to a total war. But he rather than trying to fix the democracy, he was actively pushing to get somebody into power, who was fairly open about his aims to abolish democracy. Fascism was known, and von Papen knew it too.

:::::::So von Papen used democratic means to destroy democracy? I think you may be mischaracterizing von Papen's political views. Von Papen was an anti-Communist. Not all anit-Communists are fascists, however in this instance a coalition between some democratic elements was made with fascists to prevent Soviet-backed Comintern subversion. You repeatedly speak of "bares responsibiltiy;" the Weimar Constitution itself bares responsibility, it did precisely what it was designed to do. Hitler was speaking of rebuilding the German military; industrialists & the miltiary liked this idea. That does not make them racists or advocates of genocide. That makes them partners in a coalition government with Nazis, nothing more and nothing less. When the Nazis began diabusing ''thier'' rights, some joined the nationalist movement, some did not.

:::::::In sum, once again, the Tribunal rendered its verdict, not just regarding von Papen, but '''also''' regarding the whole question as to conspiracy & morality around the Nazis and Hitler's rise to power. What it really does look like is, other than von Papen being Catholic, what crime or moral offense is he guilty of?

::::::::I didn't blame him for being catholic (see below). And the tribunal said in its verdict that Von Papen bears responsibility for the events in that got Hitler into power. The tribunal acquitted Von Papen for other charges. [[User:Order|Order]] 22:42, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::::This brings me back to the question: Who bears more responsibility for the getting Hitler into power: von Papen or Ossietsky? [[User:Order|Order]] 21:44, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

:The question that I posed remains unanswered. Who, in your opinion Rob, has bears more responsibility for Hitler's rise to power. Von Ossietsky or Von Papen. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:20, 27 August 2007 (EDT)

Since you keep referring to things I never said, a brief list of thing we did agree on, and a list of things I actually did say.

First, we agree that von Papen was
* a catholic
* conservative
* anti-communist
* member of the Zentrum Party

I don't blame him for any of this. If I'd be living in the 1930s it would probably apply to me, since all of my 4 grandparents were catholic, conservative, anti-communist voters of the Zentrum party. There is no blame in that.

However, von Papen has responisbility for his deeds. In particular.

* Von Papen revoked as Chancellor in June 1932 the ban on SA and SS.
* Von Papen was actively pursuing the end of the Schleicher administration in January 1933.
* Von Papen then gathered support to get Hindenburg to appoint Hitler chancellor in a coalition government.
* Von Papen was vice-chancellor in Hitler's government.
* Von Papen was leading the political alliance of national conservative parties in the March 1933 election, which provided Hitler the remaining seats to get a majority in parliament.
He shares political responsibility for this. We are not talking a criminal charges, but about political responsibility. For the rise and consolidation of Hitlers power, up to the Empowerment laws, or if you like even up to the Night of the Long Knives, when Hitler got von Papen to resign as vice-chancellor. That he wasn't found guilty of war crimes is another issue altogether. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:25, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
:Where is there a crime in any of this? How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense? And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.

:There is plenty of information available to condemn the Nazi's with. Using half truths, innuendo, and falsehoods based upon the Nazi's own falsehoods only impugns the integrity of the historical reporter, and makes all his reporting biased and suspect. Such is the case with Wikipedia right now, and it may not be their own invention, they may actually be just parroting the lies and falsehoods they've inherited.

:The point of propagating and expounding these half truths and falsehoods you actually may have articulated in this discussion; it is not to give accurate historical reporting, nor to gather experience and warning signs for future generations. It is to twist the facts of history, such as we've seen in the Wikipedia articles, to impugn contemporary imagined political opponents, in this case "conservatives." How is this being done? (a) refusing to admit the godless socialist nazis rose in a marxist revolution against the powers that be, in thier view, the "Jewish International" financiers who destroyed the Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romanov monarchies which had kept the peace for 100 years; (b) blaming the enemies of Communism, the Church and other anti-Communists, for anti-Semitic fascist ideals and intent.

:The bottomline here is, using the Nazi's own view of themselves, that they were illegitimate outsiders to the Jewish international cabal that wrote the Treaty of Versailles, illegally and by immoral means rose up and seized power from the legitimate powers that be, i.e. the "Jewish financiers" behind the Treaty of Versailles, to put a spin on history with the real intent to attack modern political opponents with, is unnecessary, and potentially very dangerous. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:32, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

The discussion isn't about Nazi ideology, and I in particular didn't push any Nazi views that involve a Jewish conspiracy (or show me other wise), and this is irrelevant for the discussion for Von Papen, because he wasn't a Nazi in the first place. But your first paragraph is to the point, so i'll respond to that.

* ''Where is there a crime in any of this?''. I said repeatedly that we are not talking about criminal charges.
* ''How are free citizens exercising their rights in a constitutional democracy a moral offense?'' Everybody bears responsibility for his deeds, even for the legal ones. This also applies also in politics, and there are countless example of immoral but legal behavior in politics.
* ''And given the alternative, for example revoking the ban on SA and SS to counter the Moscow directed murderers is something you fail to consider, let alone discuss.'' Von Papen was the Chancellor of Germany, and he had access to police and army. I hope that we agree that the SA and SS weren't out to enforce the law, but a fascist mob instead. Von Papen didn't use or need the SA and SS to prevent or solve violent crimes by the communist mob. He legalized it to get political backing from the NSDAP for his minority cabinet.

All these acts were legal, sure, but Von Papen did it for political reasons, and carries hence political responsibility for these acts. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:01, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

== Path to Power (Continued) ==
You are unable to admit that the rise of Hitler was not just a socialist venture, but that there were also conservative politicians who helped Hitler into power. Maybe you can answer the following question. Who bears a greater political and moral responsibility for Hitler's rise to power: Carl von Ossietsky, a very controversial socialist in the Weimar Republic, who was sentenced for treason in the 1930? Or von Papen who convinced Hindenburg to give Hitler a try? And who helped Hitler to consolidate his power, and who was Vice-Chancellor, when his government put von Ossietsky in a labor camp? The guy who got the Nobel peace price in 1935, or the guy who was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment after the war? The guy who died in 1938 from tuberculosis he got while he was forced to drain swamps, or the guy who died in 1969 of old age in his mansion? The socialist pacifist with a questionable ideology, or the conservative politician with a questionable role during the Third Reich? Not an easy question, but spare us long tangents please, just who bears more responsibility, von Ossietsky or von Papen for Hitler's rise to power? [[User:Order|Order]] 08:29, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
:The Tribunal examined all the questions and rendered its verdict. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:46, 27 August 2007 (EDT)
::The tribunal said that von Papen shares moral and political responsibility for getting Hitler into power. Cool. So I take it as admission that it was not just socialism was responsible for the end of the Weimar Republic, but that conservative politicians like von Papen also bear some responsibility. The only reasonable thing to do right now would be to remove the Hayek quote, because as it is quoted it suggest otherwise. You can either do it yourself, or unlock the article and I am happy to remove it myself. [[User:Order|Order]] 00:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)
::::You are still reading this in the verdict that are not there. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 22:51, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::::Lets get a third person to read the verdict and see if the second paragraph says "Von Papen was active in 1932 and 1933 in helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor on 30th January, 1933." and then to look at the end which says "Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war" and he was found not guilty of that charge. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:07, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

<--

Here's the paragraph condensed:

:"The evidence leaves no doubt that von Papen's primary purpose as Minister to Austria '''was to undermine the Schuschnigg regime''' and strengthen the Austrian Nazis for the purpose of bringing about Anschluss....he '''engaged in''' both '''intrigue''' and bullying. But the Charter does not make criminal such '''offenses against political morality''', however bad these may be. Under the Charter von Papen can be held guilty only if he was a party to the planning of aggressive war....."

::So, we agree that the tribunal did find him not guilty for his role in the Anschluss, since '''offenses against political morality''' do not fall under the charter. That is kind of exactly what I said. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

Now, at the moment I am reading the case of [[Helen Scott]], one of several [[Comintern]] opperatives who "engaged in political immorality" and "intrigue" (haven't found any "bullying" yet). Who was Helen Scott? Helen Scott was one of several Comintern opperatives who, as an American citizen, was an agent of the Soviet Union ''and '''was appointed to the staff of American prosecutors at the [[Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal]].'''''

Care to collaborate on [[Helen Grace Scott Keenan]]? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 10:37, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

I'll think about it. But I try to stay focussed, and not get into to much at once. Thanks. [[User:Order|Order]] 23:39, 29 August 2007 (EDT)

:You will see on the [[Talk:Munich conference]], for example, we just reviewed other material from the War Crimes Tribunal regarding Nazi infiltration and subversion of the Czech and Slovak regime; here for example, [http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/tgmwc-02/], we have evidence of a "Campaign within Czechoslovakia since 1934"; Helen Scott was a member of an organization that was found to be controlled by a foreign government actively seeking the violent removal of the United States Government long before WWII broke out, she was a member of that same organization when she took employment with the United States Government, which was illegal. And she was the agent of a foreign power when she worked on the staff of the American Prosecutors at Nurermberg.

:So, today we have information available that was not avialable for nearly 50 years. My point is, much of what we know about all of these events needs to be re-analyized. But first we must assemble the facts before we can do a review. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 00:56, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

----
:::The Tribunal did not say that. It said von Papen was "active in ...helping Hitler to form the Coalition Cabinet and aided in his appointment as Chancellor," and "The Tribunal finds that von Papen is not guilty." Where in any of this is there a quesion of moral responsibiblity?

:::::He was found not guilty in the conspiracy to start an aggressive war and the not guilty of a conspiracy to undermine the Austrian government. Did I say otherwise? Can you for once show me where I say either of these. But the judgment also says that he was morally responsible for the Anschluss and the beginnings of the regime, but that couldn't try him for that because it didn't fall under the charter of the tribunal. Please read the judgment carefully. Just because he was acquitted from charges for starting the war, doesn't mean that they acquitted him from blame for his part in Hitler's first administration. To the contrary, the judgment '''explicitly''' states that he shares responsibility for that. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

:::The Nazi's, true to their Socialists roots, viewed themselves in the true Socialist sense of rising up against the powers that be, i.e. in thier view rising up against the Jewish Internaitional bankers conspiracy that killed three monarchies (Hapsburg, Hohenzollern, and Romonov), dismembered Germany, and saddled theme with a war debt. Marx said the common scum peons, i.e. people like the low life Nazi's would seize power in a Revolution. In thier view they did just this, they seized power for the Jewish International bankers. Now to allege then in 1933, at the time of Nuremberg in 1945, or today, that the Nazi "seizure of power" was illigitimate in any sense, is to agree with the Nazi's, because that is exactly how they viewed themselves. They viewed themselves as a rogue regime against "the International Jewish conspiracy." [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 01:19, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

::::So, what? Where did I say that the seizure of power was illegitimate? Where? Tell me? You are barking up the wrong tree. We are discussing von Papen, and the events that brought about end of the Weimar Republic. It seems that you are unable to stick to the topic, and the topic is who helped Hitler into power. Marx, the conspiracy charges, the Illuminati, the Anschluss, Jewish International bankers, all probably very interesting, but besides the point. [[User:Order|Order]] 03:05, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

==new img==
Actually that man in the new img may not be Hitler. Hitler, as Stalin & Saddam Hussein likewise, were all known to use doubles for some public appearances, the man in that photo may actually be one of Hitler's doubles. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 14:54, 6 August 2007 (EDT)

== The evolution of the Hitler article ==

It used to be a fairly factual article. Now it turns into something like an opinion piece, pointing to everybody CP disagrees with as causes for Hitler. This isn't encyclopedic anymore, and the really bad thing about it is, that one of the main message of the Third Reich gets lost, namely that fairly decent people from all backgrounds can under the influence of a bad ideology, commit heinous crimes. Peace be upon you. [[User:Order|Order]] 19:54, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

:The entire evolution bit is a discussion of the ideology of "eugenics" an "race hygiene". It is not really at its right spot. All other paragraph refer to actual events. The discussion of evolution should go into a discussion section, or a separate article, probably under the header "Eugenics". [[User:Order|Order]] 22:10, 28 August 2007 (EDT)

**Know whats funny this is the first conservative i have seen on this wiki that has not been glorified. [[User:Cal05000|Cal05000]] 18:08, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler's wax effigy ==

It might interest the primary editors of this article to note that the wax effigy of Adolf Hitler, in a glass case built into a wall, guards the entrance to the Chamber of Horrors at Madame Tussaud's Wax Works in [[London]], [[England]]. Or at least it did in 1988 when I toured London with my family.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:15, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Again, probably not releveant to the article, but there was an amusing story run in the press some time ago suggesting that the dummies hair was actually growing! Quite probably nonsense, but I thought it might interest posters! [[User:Josephx|Josephx]]

==Improved the article==
Before anyone gets in a dither, I improved the article. There was just nothing in it pertaining to even the smallest biography of this individual that could be considered useful before. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:17, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

What I did not touch upon, and it could be included in future edits, were these:
*Accusastions of, or toleration for, homosexuality in his early years prior to the Night of the Long Knives. It was known that Hitler used people to further his own ends.
*Geli Raubal, and implications she may have had a forced affair with Hitler that led to her suicide.
*Detailed info regarding his childhood
And it could use some good quotes. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

== First Sentence ==

Since this is locked, I'd just like to point out that it's not actually a sentence. ;)[[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:18, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:It's more or less a title...and I didn't know it was locked! [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:26, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::No, the actual first sentence is missing a verb. Actually the whole first paragraph could use some clean up. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:29, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
:::You could do it...just keep in mind that it's an introductory paragraph. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Thanks, I did. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 18:34, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Need to point out something: Hitler was directly responsible for the outbreak of World War II in Europe, and that has to be emphasized. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 18:35, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

True, but the introductory paragraph suggests that WWII was a response to the Holocaust. It remains uncertain to this day what was and wasn't known about the attrocities being perpetrated against the Jews et al, but it was the need to counter German Imperialism that led to countries becoming involved in the war, not, as much as we would like to believe, a moral stance against the shoah. [[User:Josephx|Josephx]] 12:31, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

== Hitler and against various christian groups ==

Hitler and against various christian groups at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i3/nazi.asp
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 05:57, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

== we need to give the various evidences and deal with them in a scholarly manner ==

We need to give the cite evidences put forth for Hitler not being a Christian and Hitler being a Christian and give reasoanble scholars commentary on them. For example, the scholarly debate regarding Hitler's Table Talk, Hitler and the occult, Hitler and paganism, Mein Kempf references to God and Jesus Christ. I don't believe there is a strong case for Hitler being a Christian and since many atheists trot this out I think there should be a scholarly and reasonable material on this matter at Conservapedia.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:04, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

*Is there some scholarly reason for turning this article about Hitler into one primarily about his religious beliefs, running on forever? Do you not know how to be concise? Might I suggest a new article for you: "Religious Beliefs of Dictators Down Through the Ages". I believe you continue to think this is a Bible wiki. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 07:22, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Hitler time and again cites Darwin & the TOE as the reason why he's not a Christian. And Hitler summed up Christianity in one word, "stupid." [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 12:36, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes. That does not answer my question. This is not a Bible Wiki, so what you mentioned would be worthy one paragraph. Without "C" quotes. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:02, 2 October 2007 (EDT)

::Didn't the Nazis burn Darwin's books? Why would Hitler endorse the views of a man whose books he destroyed? '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 13:15, 19 October 2007 (EDT)

:::I think that it would be fair to say that Hitler believed in a stripped-down, brutal version of Darwinism that was far from being close to Darwin's own beliefs. It is not unsurprising that Hitler should take something and twist it to fit his own abhorrent standards. [[User:Darkmind1970|Darkmind1970]] 10:38, 4 January 2008 (EST)

== Hitler was a Vegetarian ==

My question is why some people fail to mention Hitler was a Vegetarian and an Anti-Hunting nut.
:Cause it's not really relevant to anything?[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT) also, learn what words get capilalized in English. And sign your posts.[[User:AliceBG|AliceBG]] 15:24, 7 June 2008 (EDT)

== Hitler, Creationism, Eugenics, and Evolution ==
(re posted from earlier)
The page seems to imply that when Hitler spoke of "favored races" he was somehow invoking evolutionary thought. Evolution theory does not place worth or lack thereof on certain genetic traits, as Hitler did. Are we trying to suggest that racism did not exist before Darwin published his writings? Let us not forget the many places in Mein Kampf where Hitler visualizes his eugenics plan as the fulfillment of '''God''''s Divine Will. And what of the following gems:
<blockquote>For it was by the Will of God that men were made of a certain bodily shape, were given their natures and their faculties. - '''Adolf Hitler''', ''Mein Kampf'', vol. ii, ch. x</blockquote>
<blockquote>From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today. - '''Adolf Hitler''', Hitler's Tischgesprache im Fuhrerhauptquartier</blockquote>
It is not only erroneous to call Hitler an evolutionist, it is, quite frankly, insulting--to suggest a causal connection between scientific theory and genocide. As a secular conservative, I am beginning to wonder: Is Conservapedia really about promoting conservative values (financial responsibility, economic security, etc.) or about trouncing on people's beliefs? Shouldn't conservatives of all beliefs be working together instead of dividing each other in this ridiculous way?
--[[User:Stirlatez|Stirlatez]] 22:37, 29 June 2008 (EDT)
:If anyone is being divisive, it is you. Instead of trawling around for quotations to rip out of context, try making more substantive contributions to this site. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

The Nazi's also banned "6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)." http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 13:09, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:Note the qualifier. Social Darwinism does not come into that. And learn how to use apostrophes. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 13:15, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
:: That is absolutely correct, I did use an apostrophe wrong; I rewrote the sentence and the apostrophe became obsolete. I think that social Dawinism comes in to that to the entire extent that Hitiler's philosophy is based on Darwinian evolution, in that it doesn't at all. Bottom line The Nazi's didn't believe and or like the works of Darwin. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 16:18, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

:Evolution works with environmental selection and a [b]diversity of gens[/b], something that hitler definitely did not emphasize, this article undermines the credibility of the whole encyclopedia: {{unsigned|DeSouza}}
::You're not credible, Hitler apologist. You must discount the whole Nazi ideology to believe Hitler and Darwin were not connected in any way.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 16:01, 19 June 2009 (EDT)

The last paragraph about Richard Dawkins words “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question" is taken totally out of context and turned upside down. Here is the full context that should be given:

When asked a question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, his response was: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

Racism and anti-semitism existed long before Darwin's books. One only has to look at slavery in the 1700s, the First Crusade, and the Jewish expulsions from England and Spain. [[User:OneTruth]]

== Naziism and Homosexuality ==

Wasn't Rohm (the leader of the SA) a Homosexual?----[[User:PhilipV|PhilipV]][[User talk:PhilipV|'' I Support our Troops!'']] 07:23, 25 December 2008 (EST)

I doubt it. If he was, he kept it a secret, because homosexuals were one of the groups targeted in the holocaust. - [[OneTruth]]

==Shouldn't Hitler be listed under liberal==
Logically it only makes sense. hitler was a Nazi, or national socialist. socialism is a liberal ideology. therefor it is resonible to assume that hitler was a liberal. not to mention the fact that he had numerous traits in common with liberals--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)

== Proof He's An Atheist ==

What proof is there that he is an atheist? In Mein Kampf, he actually seems to be a believer. [http://atheism.about.com/od/adolfhitlernazigermany/tp/AdolfHitlerFaithGod.htm] [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:04, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

I'm sure you are against classroom prayer and homeschooling as well, just like Hitler. No real Christian would ever kill millions of people, only an athiest would do that. Hitler was a socialist which is an atheistic philosophy--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:18, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:Maybe you should read the article on [[Evolutionary racism]] - Hitler's only religion was [[Darwinism]], and he took his [[Darwinist]] beliefs to their natural [[holocaust|conclusion]]. [[User:BobCharlton|BobCharlton]] 13:35, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::SayidR, you are jumping to quite extraordinary conclusions. I'm not saying that he's a Christian, I'm saying that he said himself he believed in God. He could believe in evolution and believe in God. Many bishops do. --[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 13:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Not so, no Christian would do such a thing because Christianity is based off of truth and love while Naziism is based off of deception and hate--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 13:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I didn't say he was a Christian. I'm just saying that he himself believed in God, as shown in Mein Kampf. You can dodge questions like a liberal, or be a true open source conservative and see the facts. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 14:13, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

Maybe YOU should remember the 90/10m rule against talk talk talk and keep your pointless arguments to your self--[[User:SayidR|SayidR]] 20:17, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:Okay. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 21:11, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

::I have to say, it does seem as if Hitler believed in God. NOT as a Christian. There are things that point to him being a BELIEVER, not a "true" CHRISTIAN. I'm a Christian myself and agree that if any Christian had actually read the Bible, he or she would not do something like Hitler did. I'd say that Jwilhem brought up a fine point, and Jwilhem never claimed that Hitler was a Christian. SayidR, Jwilhem was merely presenting a point. You jumped to a conclusion. Problem solved. Now, can we please get on with this discussion? [[User:VenkuTurMukan|VenkuTurMukan]] 14:33, 16 May 2011 (EDT)

"As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice." Adolf Hitler
So either he was posing as a Christian trying to rally support or he was actually and atheist in disguise attempting the same. --[[User:UofGuelphStudent|UofGuelphStudent]] 00:32, 27 May 2011 (EDT)

== Re: Hitler's sexuality and religion ==

I do understand that the question of Hitler's sexuality and religion requires some sophistication in terms of [http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html historiography]. Therefore, I suggest using the below framework:

"Fischer, David Hackett, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (New York: Harper Collins, 1970). In only approximately 300 pages, Fischer surveys an immense amount of background historical literature to point out a comprehensive variety of analytical errors that many, if not most, historians commit. Fischer points out specific examples of faulty or sloppy reasoning in the work of even the most prominent historians, making it a useful book for beginning students of history. While this book presumably did not make Fischer popular with many of his peers, it should be noted that his contributions as a historian have not been limited simply to criticizing the work of others; since 1976, he has published a number of well-received books on other historical topics."[http://history.nasa.gov/thinking/hist-4.html]

Here is a link to the Google book, Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought:
http://books.google.com/books?id=7_G2UumJCEQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historians%27+fallacies:+toward+a+logic+of+historical+thought&source=bl&ots=uFc1bbRwU9&sig=BwjV0u_94Zt0r6Hx-dHDTXHEzZM&hl=en&ei=8IXFTKu1AoaglAeX5eEG&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false

David Hackett Fischer's 7 basic rules for determining the answers to historical questions:

(1) The burden of proof for a historical claim is always upon the one making the assertion.

(2) Historical evidence must be an answer to the question asked and not to any other question.

(3) An historian must not merely provide good evidence, but the best evidence. And the best evidence, all other things being equal, is the evidence which is most nearly immediate to the event itself.

(4) Evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is no evidence at all. In other words, an absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

(5) The meaning of any historical evidence is dependent upon the context from which it is obtained from.

(6) An empirical statement must not be more precise than its evidence warrants.

(7) All inferences from historical evidence are probabilistic. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 25 October 2010 (EDT)

Adolf Hitler

2011-05-27T04:26:16Z

UofGuelphStudent: wrong word error.

{{Dictator bio
| image =[[Image:Hitler7.JPG|200px]]
| name =Adolf Hitler
| birth =April 20, 1889 Braunau am Inn, Austria–Hungary
| parents =Alois Hitler (Schicklgruber) Klara Pölzl
| religion =Roman Catholic (rejected)
| spouse =Eva Braun
| children =none
| death =April 30, 1945 Berlin, Germany
| deathmanner =Suicide by gunshot
| education =Realschule Linz, Austria
| country =[[Third Reich|Germany]]
| military =16th Bavarian Reserve Regiment Imperial German Army (1914-1918)
| rank =Corporal
|burial = unknown
| polbeliefs =[[Socialism]] [[National socialism]] (Nazism)
| party =German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1920–1921) National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei 1921–1945)
| dictatordate =March 23, 1933
| war =[[World War II]]
| deathnumber =12,000,000+ exclusive of battle casualties
20,000,000 to 25,000,000 altogether

Rummel: 21,000,000
}}
'''Adolf Hitler''' was the Austrian-born Chancellor and President of [[Germany]] from January 30, 1933 until his death on April 30, 1945. He was also the leader (German: ''Der Führer'') of the [[National Socialist German Workers Party]] (''National-sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei'', or [[Nazi]] Party) which gained political power through threat, intimidation, and outright violence throughout Germany in the aftermath of the [[First World War]]. Adolf Hitler was an [[Evolution|evolutionary]] [[racist]] and [[fascism|fascist]].<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref><ref>http://mises.org/daily/1937</ref><ref>http://www.hourofthetime.com/socialist.htm</ref> Hitler’s policies and beliefs resulted in the [[Genocide|mass extermination]] of the [[Jews]], [[Gypsies]], and other peoples he considered “[[Racial Supremacy|inferior]]” throughout central and eastern [[Europe]] and were directly responsible for the outbreak of [[World War II]], which caused the deaths of untold millions on and off the battlefield and ended only after Hitler's [[suicide]] in his Berlin bunker.

==Early life==
[[File:Hitler Roses.jpg|thumb|Roses by Adolf Hitler.]]
Hitler was born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, [[Austria]]. Hitler's father, Alois (born 1837), was a customs official who was himself born out of wedlock, carrying for a time his mother's name, Schicklgruber. By 1876 he had his baptismal entry corrected in his church records, establishing his father as Johan Heidler, which was altered slightly to Hitler.

When his father retired the family moved to Linz, Austria, where it remained a favorite for young Adolf for the rest of his life, and where he gave his wish to be buried. When Alois died in 1903 he left enough of a pension to support his wife and children; Adolf would take his and live off of it in Vienna after leaving school, dreaming of becoming an artist. Although somewhat competent as a painter of landscapes and architecture, his renderings of humans were considered “lifeless” and “crude” by the standards of the Academy of Fine Arts, and his application was rejected twice. Remaining in [[Vienna]], he moved from one cheap flop house to another, painting postcards and advertisements to earn a meager living after his allowance had dried up. By then he had developed traits which characterized his life as a whole: secretiveness, loneliness, a Spartan mode of everyday life, and a hatred of the cosmopolitan, multinational character that was the makeup of Vienna. ''He never sought a proper job or regular employment. Instead he immersed himself in the works of [[Hegel]], [[Nietzsche]], and the anti-Semitic writings of the Englishman Houston Stewart Chamberlain. He loved the operas of Wagner, and the stories of the Nordic Gods... In early 1910, he entered a shelter for the homeless, populated in the main by poor Jews, on Meldemenstrasse, and was eating at soup kitchens. By this time he had pawned all his belongings. '' <ref> [http://socyberty.com/history/young-adolf-the-adolescent-hitler-and-beyond/ Young Adolf: The Adolescent Hitler and Beyond.] </ref>

==Who And What He Was==
[[Image:Cupid Complaining to Venus by Lucas Cranach.jpg|150px|left|thumb|This painting, one of the best-loved paintings in the National Gallery, had once belonged to Hitler. New evidence has come to light that Lucas Cranach's ''Cupid Complaining to Venus'', currently on loan to an exhibition in Bristol, hung on the sitting-room wall of his flat in Munich. <ref>[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2008/mar/28/art.secondworldwar Hitler owned painting now in National Gallery]</ref>]]
[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote famously, and most eloquently about Hitler in 1998:
<blockquote>''"At the same time that he terrorized his adversaries, he knew how to please, impress and charm the very interlocutors from whom he wanted support. Diplomats and journalists insist as much on his charm as they do on his temper tantrums. The savior admired by his own as he dragged them into his madness, the Satan and exterminating angel feared and hated by all others, Hitler led his people to a shameful defeat without precedent. That his political and strategic ambitions have created a dividing line in the history of this turbulent and tormented century is undeniable: there is a before and an after. By the breadth of his crimes, which have attained a quasi-ontological dimension, he surpasses all his predecessors: as a result of Hitler, man is defined by what makes him inhuman. With Hitler at the head of a gigantic laboratory, life itself seems to have changed."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"How did this Austrian without title or position manage to get himself elected head of a German nation renowned for its civilizing mission? How to explain the success of his cheap demagogy in the heart of a people so proud of having inherited the genius of a Wolfgang von Goethe and an Immanuel Kant?"''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"Was there no resistance to his disastrous projects? There was. But it was too feeble, too weak and too late to succeed. German society had rallied behind him: the judicial, the educational, the industrial and the economic establishments gave him their support. Few politicians of this century have aroused, in their lifetime, such love and so much hate; few have inspired so much historical and psychological research after their death. Even today, works on his enigmatic personality and his cursed career are best sellers everywhere. Some are good, others are less good, but all seem to respond to an authentic curiosity on the part of a public haunted by memory and the desire to understand."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"We think we know everything about the nefarious forces that shaped his destiny: his unhappy childhood, his frustrated adolescence; his artistic disappointments; his wound received on the front during World War I; his taste for spectacle, his constant disdain for social and military aristocracies; his relationship with [[Eva Braun]], who adored him; the cult of the very death he feared; his lack of scruples with regard to his former comrades of the SA, whom he had assassinated in 1934; his endless hatred of [[Jews]], whose survival enraged him — each and every phase of his official and private life has found its chroniclers, its biographers."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"And yet. There are, in all these givens, elements that escape us. How did this unstable paranoid find it within himself to impose gigantic hope as an immutable ideal that motivated his nation almost until the end? Would he have come to power if Germany were not going through endless economic crises, or if the winners in 1918 had not imposed on it conditions that represented a national humiliation against which the German patriotic fiber could only revolt? We would be wrong to forget: Hitler came to power in January 1933 by the most legitimate means. His [[Nationalist Socialist Party]] won a majority in the parliamentary elections. The aging [[Field Marshal Paul von Hindenburg]] had no choice but to allow him, at age 43, to form the new government, marking the end of the Weimar Republic. And the beginning of the [[Third Reich]], which, according to Hitler, would last 1,000 years."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"From that moment on, events cascaded. The burning of the [[Reichstag]] came only a little before the openings of the first concentration camps, established for members of the opposition. Fear descended on the country and squeezed it in a vise. Great writers, musicians and painters went into exile to France and the U.S. Jews with foresight emigrated toward Palestine. The air of Hitler's Germany was becoming more and more suffocating. Those who preferred to wait, thinking that the Nazi regime would not last, could not last, would regret it later, when it was too late."''</blockquote>

<blockquote>''"The fact is that Hitler was beloved by his people — not the military, at least not in the beginning, but by the average Germans who pledged to him an affection, a tenderness and a fidelity that bordered on the irrational. It was idolatry on a national scale. One had to see the crowds who acclaimed him. And the women who were attracted to him. And the young who in his presence went into ecstasy. Did they not see the hateful mask that covered his face? Did they not divine the catastrophe he bore within himself?<ref name="time">http://www.time.com/time/time100/leaders/profile/hitler.html"''</ref></blockquote>

{{Clear}}

==Beliefs==
Although there have been many attempts to slander [[Christianity]] by claiming Hitler to be a Christian, Hitler was actually an atheist. While he may have said some things during speeches to make him sound like he was a Christian for political reasons, historians agree that the evidence points to him being an atheist. It is not just parts of his speeches, and text from his book ''Mein Kampf'' that prove this, but it was also proven by his actions as well. No true Christian would slaughter the Jews like Hitler did. That is the kind of hatred of a religion that could only come from atheism; that and his [[Evolutionary racism]]. <ref>http://www.doxa.ws/social/Hitler.html</ref>

==War==
[[Image:Hitler munich1914.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler in the crowd in Munich, 1914, reacting to the news of Germany's entry in the First World War.]]
By 1913 Hitler was in Munich, Germany, with war clouds on the horizon. Classified as unfit for service in the Austrian army (possibly by faking, as he did not like the thought of serving Austria) in 1914, he volunteered for the German army, joining the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment, greeting the war with enthusiasm, and finding the military discipline and comradeship satisfying. He served during the entire [[First World War]] as a messenger carrying dispatches between units, and often at the front lines under fire; he was wounded in 1916, and gassed in 1918. His bravery during this time earned him the [[Iron Cross]], 2nd Class, in December, 1914, and in August 1918 he was awarded the Iron Cross, 1st Class – a rare decoration for a corporal. But the gassing would take him out of the war and into a hospital, where he would be told the heart-wrenching news of Germany’s defeat the following November.

==Path to power==
After the war ended, Hitler's future seemed uncertain. There was much discontent among demobilized veterans because of the lack of employment. The German military had felt it had not been defeated; indeed, the German Army stood on foreign soil when the Armistice was signed November 11, 1918 and not a square inch of German soil had been occupied. This was despite the fact that the German Army's strongest position, the Hindenburg line, had been broken by the Allies, and the German Army itself was in full retreat. However, the Army felt they had done their job, and the nation had been "stabbed in the back" by a gang of traitors who sought to lay hands on the Fatherland. The "myth" that Germany had been defeated was the "big lie" Hitler spoke of, as if repeating it often enough would cause people to believe it.

After his discharge from the hospital, Hitler acted as an army political agent, assigned in Munich to gather information on the various political parties which had spring up amid the social chaos following Germany’s defeat. In September, 1919, he was given orders to investigate the relatively-minor German Workers’ Party (''Deutsche Arbeiterpartei''); intrigued by the party’s apparatus and its racial, pan-German nationalism, he joined, becoming its 55th member; he left the army soon after and devoted himself to improving the party’s propaganda, as well as his own position within.

Conditions in Germany fostered the development of the party. Economic woes brought widespread discontent, added to the furor surrounding the loss of the war and the harsh terms heaped upon Germany by the Allied Powers in the Versailles Peace Treaty. Bavaria’s traditional separatism from the central government in Berlin made current conditions especially sharp, and Hitler was savvy enough to take full advantage of them. When he joined, he found the party ineffective in leadership and uncertain as to its aims; he accepted the party program, but regarded it as a means to an end. He caused friction with other members of the party, and their attempts to control him caused a threat of resignation; realizing that the future of the party now depended on Hitler, who clearly had a talent of organization, fund collecting, and above all, speaking, they declined to accept it; from July, 1921 Hitler was regarded as the party leader with nearly unlimited power. From his party newspaper, ''Völkischer Beobachter'' (“Popular Observer”), he spewed out endless propaganda. His meetings where he spoke grew from handfuls to hundreds, and then on to thousands. A man of charismatic personality, he quickly attracted a circle of loyal and devoted followers: Julius Streicher, Alfred Rosenberg, Hermann Göring, and Rudolf Hess.

Munich was also a gathering place for former servicemen dissatisfied with conditions in the country; members of the Freikorps, which had been organized after the war from army units that refused to return to civilian life; and those civilians who plotted against the republic. Many of these men joined the Nazi Party. Among them was a staff member of the district command who had joined the German Workers’ Party before Hitler, Ernst Röhm, a pudgy man with a scared face who saw his own ambition in helping further Hitler’s rise within the party. Röhm recruited what came to be known as the “Brown Shirts”, the violent squads used to attack socialists and communists, and to protect party meetings whenever Hitler was speaking. By 1921 they were organized into a private army called the ''Sturmabteilung'', abbreviated to S.A.

==The Beer Hall Putsch==
Germany in 1923 was marked by social and political unrest caused by hyperinflation. In this time Hitler was able convince [[Erich Ludendorff]], an accomplished general and leader of the German forces in the first World War, to join him in a coup d'etat (''Putsch'' in German). When Hitler learned that the nationalist prime minister of Bavaria was giving a speech to 3000 officials in one of Munich's biggest beer halls (the Haufbrau Haus), he ordered his paramilitaries to surround the building. Hitler went inside and took the prime minister hostage, announced a revolution, and attempted to convince him to join the coup against Berlin and become member in his new administration. The Bavarian prime minister agreed under pressure, but informed the nation via radio later that night that he did not support Hitler. The prime minister also informed the federal government in Berlin; the putsch had begun to fail.

The next morning, 9 November 1923, Hitler and Ludendorff were marching with approximately 2000 partly armed supporters through Munich in a show of strength to regain the momentum. In the ensuing fight between Hitler's marchers and a cordon of police and army units at least 14 Nazi supporters and three policemen were killed and hundreds wounded. Ludendorff handed himself over to the authorities, while Hitler fled soon after the fighting began. Hitler was arrested a few days later at a friend's house, were had been in hiding since the failed coup. Ludendorff was acquitted of all charges, while Hitler was sentenced to 5 years in prison (he would do eight months). <ref>http://history1900s.about.com/cs/thirdreich/a/beerhallputsch_2.htm</ref><ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/putsch2.htm</ref> The Bavarian prime minister, who foiled the plan, was killed in 1934 in the "Night of the Long Knives".

===''Mein Kampf''===
{{main|Mein Kampf}}
Hitler had his inner circle as frequent visitors in his prison cell, which was made more comfortable due to his celebrity. While there, he dictated to Rudolf Hess the first volume of ''[[Mein Kampf]]'' (“My Struggle”), his political autobiography and a compendium of his many ideas, including his [[atheist]] and [[evolutionist]] ideas.

Hitler believed in the inequality of the races, nations, and individuals as part of the natural order of mankind, and chief among them was the exalted “Aryan race”, and the greatest of the Aryans were the Germans. It was the German, according to Hitler, that gave the world civilization and the arts; to safeguard the German people as a race (the “Volk”), they would need to be united under a single leader (the Führer), where they would be protected from their three principle enemies: Marxism, which included social democracy as well as communism; democracy and its mob-rule, as shown by the failings of the Weimar Republic; and above all what Hitler called the poisoners of humanity, the Jews. “Rational anti-Semitism must lead to systematic legal opposition,” he wrote in 1919. “Its final objective must be the removal of the Jews altogether.” In Mein Kampf, he told the world that the Jew was the “destroyer of culture,” “a parasite within the nation,” and “a menace.”

From "Mein Kampf":
{{cquote|The Jew "... he blares out his merits to the rest of the world until people really begin to believe in them. Anyone who does not believe in them is doing him a bitter injustice. In a short time he begins to twist things around to make it look as if all the injustice in the world had always been done to him and not the other way around." <ref> [http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.]</ref> }}

{{cquote| Hitler portrays Jews as leaders in politics and banking, both groups seeking to strengthen their cause, [[Zionism]], to ensure Jewish domination. From his Social Darwinist perspective, Hitler perceived a racial war as inevitable and he sought to halt the "[[Jewish]] drive towards world conquest"... As Berlin collapsed around him, Adolf asserted: "Out of the ruins of our towns and monuments hatred will grow against those finally responsible for everything, International Jewry." <ref> [http://www.historytoday.com/MainArticle.aspx?m=32043&amid=30237234 Mein Kampf – The Text, its Themes and Hitler’s Vision] Robert Carr dissects a book frequently referred to but seldom read. </ref>
}}

==Rebuilding the Nazi Party==
[[Image:Hitler.jpg|thumb|200px|right|Hitler speaking; he would often employ physical gesturing to emphasize a point.]]
[[Image:Hitler-3.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in car, saluting passing S.A. at one of many parades.]]
Internal dissension within the party caused it to languish while Hitler was in prison. When he was released he saw difficulties in the country that had not existed before the Putsch, namely currency reform that brought economic stability, and the scaling back of the war reparations as a result of the Dawes Plan. Hitler was also forbidden to speak in public, and remained so until 1928; nonetheless he worked to rebuild the party and re-establish his own position within it as leader, despite Gregor Strasser’s opposition in northern Germany. By 1927 the number of Nazis was in the hundreds of thousands.

A new period of political and economic instability began with the onset of the Great Depression which threw millions out of work in Europe and North America. To campaign against the [[Young Plan]] (a second renegotiation of war reparations payments) Hitler made an alliance with one of Germany’s leading nationalists, Alfred Hugenberg, whose newspapers enabled Hitler to reach a national audience for the first time. The alliance also had another advantage: it enabled him to seek support from many in business and industry who controlled funds going into politics, and who themselves were desirous of seeing Germany under the control of a strong anti-Soviet and anti-Communist regime. The subsidies Hitler received placed the Nazi Party on a strong financial footing, enabling him to make his emotional appeal to the lower middle class and the unemployed in his faith that Germany would recover from its suffering and be a great nation once more. The alliance with the industrialists also demonstrated another aspect of Hitler, a skill of effectively using those that would use him, which many would discover when it was too late.

The electoral strength of the Nazis grew during the Depression, as unceasing propaganda accused the government of failing to improve conditions for the working man. By the fall of 1930 the Nazis captured more than 18 percent of the vote, compared to just 2.6 percent in 1928. Hitler captured 36.8 percent of the vote when he opposed Paul von Hindenburg in the 1932 presidential election; his mass following put him in such a strong position that he entered a series of closed-door intrigues with Franz von Papen, Oskar Hindenburg, and Otto Meissner, all sharing a fear and loathing of a communist government. Despite the party losing votes in the November, 1932 election, Hitler insisted on nothing less than the office of chancellor for himself. For him, it was all or nothing. Hindenburg offered it to him on January 30, 1933.

==In power==
Almost immediately, Hitler established himself as dictator. Less than a month after taking office, on February 27 the Reichstag building was set on fire under mysterious circumstances (but officially blamed on a feeble-minded Dutch communist, Marinus van der Lubbe); Hitler soon after succeeded in getting several decrees passed removing much of the freedom guaranteed the constitution in the name of state security, and which also allowed an intensified campaign of violence against dissidents. Incredibly, in a special election set in those conditions on March 5, the Nazis won 43.9 percent of the vote. On March 21, the new Reichstag assembled at the Potsdam Church, as much a show of unity between the old guard under Hindenburg and the Nazis as it was a show of peace. Two days later the Enabling Act was passed, giving Hitler full powers; with the exception of the Nazis, all other political parties, including those which had helped pass the Enabling Act, ceased to exist within three months. Many of their leaders were imprisoned in concentration camps.

===Night of the Long Knives===
[[Image:HitlerRohm1933.JPG|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with Ernst Röhm in 1933]]
Hitler, however, did not wish to start an immediate revolution. In order to implement his ideas he still needed the support of the army. But he did have one growing problem that was a thorn in the army’s side, the million-plus men of the S.A. and their leader, Ernst Röhm, who wanted nothing less than the merger of the S.A. into the army, with himself in overall command. At first, Hitler tried getting Röhm’s support by persuasion, but Hitler’s inner circle was for removing him by any means possible. On June 29, 1934, Hitler ordered a purge, flew towards a resort near Munich where a number of S.A. leaders were vacationing, and had them all arrested; many would be shot without trial. Refusing to shoot himself when offered, Röhm was killed in his cell at Dachau, his last words, ironically, “Mein Führer, mein Führer!” <ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/roehm.htm</ref><ref>http://www.adolfhitler.ws/lib/nsdap/Rohm.html</ref><ref>http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/nazi/innenpolitik/roehm/index.html</ref>
On July 13, Hitler gave speech in the Reichstag, announcing that some seventy-four individuals had been shot for threatening the stability of the Reich.
:''"If anyone reproaches me and asks why I did not resort to the regular courts of justice, then all I can say is this: In this hour I was responsible for the fate of the German people, and thereby I became the supreme judge of the German people…It was no secret that this time the revolution would have to be bloody; when we spoke of it we called it 'The Night of the Long Knives.' Everyone must know for all future time that if he raises his hand to strike the State, then certain death is his lot." ''
Hitler also used this event to settle his account with other opponents, such as Georg Strasser, who stood for a more socialist and less racist national socialism, and the former Bavarian prime minister who foiled the Beer Hall Putsch in 1923. Satisfied that the S.A. leadership was thoroughly broken up (thousands of S.A. members were either arrested or killed that night), the army approved of Hitler’s actions. Hindenburg died a few days later on August 2, and Hitler merged the office of president with the chancellorship, and with it the supreme command of the German armed forces. During this time the world was slowly recovering economically from the Depression, but it quickened in Germany, coincidently with Hitler’s rise to power. Taking credit for the recovery made him very popular, bringing him a 90 percent approval rating in a voter plebiscite that year.

===Beginnings of expansion===
In matters of state, the running of domestic affairs was left to subordinates, which was something Hitler had little attention for. Foreign policy always peaked his interest, in so much as to the advantages of a “Greater Germany”, which was his chief ambition. The first part of realizing this, according to ''Mein Kampf'', was to be a reunion of the German peoples within Europe; the second would be an expansion of Germany to the east (lebensraum). Expanding would mean a renewed conflict with the Slavic peoples, whom Hitler intended to serve as slaves to the “New German Order.” To follow through on his ambitions, he would have to remove Poland and the Soviet Union as countries; France also would have to be stabilized in the west, as she was Germany’s enemy for more than a century. He counted as possible allies Italy, with its fascist government under [[Benito Mussolini]], and Britain, whom he regarded as having a similar, Teutonic heritage.
[[Image:Hitler6-thumb.jpg|right|200px|thumb|Hitler with his dog, Blondie.]]
Before any of his ambitions could take place, there was one thing he detested which needed immediate removal: the restrictions placed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of World War I. Posing as a man of peace to allay suspicions, he insisted that he was a champion of Europe wishing only for the removal of the inequalities leveled by the treaty, and posturing as a shield against Bolshevism. In October, 1933, he had Germany withdraw from the [[League of Nations]]. The following January he signed a non-aggression treaty with Poland. His individual repudiations of parts of the treaty were followed by offers of negotiations for new agreements, while maintaining Germany’s limited ambitious nature.

While this was going on, Germany was steadily building up the armed forces. Rigorous training using wooden guns and trucks marked as “tanks” got needed battlefield training for officers. Potential fighter pilots began their training in gliders at public demonstrations – Germany, under terms of the treaty, was not allowed an air force – and later they would fly in new civilian stunt planes and transports, which on the drawing board were designed to be rapidly turned into fighters and bombers. Conscription was introduced in January, 1935, and in June of that year Hitler successfully signed a naval treaty with Britain, giving him rights to a respectable navy; but even while the ink was drying, Germany was secretly building a large U-boat fleet.

The matter of reuniting the German peoples came into being in July, 1934, and here Hitler overreached. German organizations were covertly aiding Austrian Nazis in the overthrow of their government, culminating in an attempted revolt as well as murdering Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss. When the attempt clearly failed, Hitler denied involvement. In January, 1935, a plebecite was introduced in the Saarland; more than 90 percent voted to return the territory to Germany. Then in March, 1936, came his greatest slap to the Versailles Treaty: against the advice of his generals, and in open defiance of France and Britain, he ordered troops into the demilitarized Rhineland. Germany was once again becoming the leading power in continental Europe. By October, 1936, Germany had signed an alliance with Italy, proclaiming a “Rome-Berlin axis,” followed by the Anti-Comintern Pact with Japan. All three countries would sign a single, mutual alliance pact, the following year.

===Health care in Nazi Germany===

According to Michael H. Kater "physicians became Nazified more thoroughly and much sooner than any other profession, and as Nazis they did more in the service of the nefarious regime than any of their extra-professional peers."<ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=lDMIHDTLEN4C&pg=PA18&lpg=PA18&dq=Reich+Minister+of+the+Interior%2Bhealth%2Bcivilian+patient&source=bl&ots=2lLhun_7PE&sig=olfzxYKJAswVjjIEqjBcZPKhCXM&hl=en&ei=3D2MSsrZAZGeMLeq7JMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#v=onepage&q=&f=false Doctors Under Hitler] By Michael H. Kater, pp. 4-5.</ref><ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=NnPBlkKk8AQC&pg=PA110&lpg=PA110&dq=physicains+became+nazified+much+thoroughly+and+sooner&source=bl&ots=sWUPklUojC&sig=fAJrGFwHYn-0gJDKPWLERHikAY4&hl=en&ei=GUaMStjmKIfaNb66rZMO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false Atrocities on trial: historical perspectives on the politics of prosecuting war crimes]
By Patricia Heberer, Jürgen Matthäus], p. 110.</ref><ref>[http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/bulletin_of_the_history_of_medicine/v073/73.1marrus.html The Nuremberg Doctors' Trial in Historical Context] Michael Robert Marrus, Bulletin of the History of Medicine,Volume 73, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp. 106-123, E-ISSN: 1086-3176 Print ISSN: 0007-5140 [http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Moral%20Issues%20in%20Medicine/Human%20Experimentation/Nuremberg%20Doctors%27%20Trial.html]</ref> After 1933, physicians joined the Nazi Party in greater numbers than did any other profession. By 1935, almost a third of the non-Jewish German physicians belonged to the Nazi Party. From 1925 to 1944, the per cent of doctors in the party was almost three times as high as in the population as a whole. <ref>Michael H. Kater, ‘’The Nazi Party: A Social Profile of Members and Leaders 1919-1945’’. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983.</ref>

The National Association of Sickness Fund Physicians [http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/24/health-care-around-the-world-germany/] was established in 1933 as a national bargaining unit to replace the numerous, more local, associations with which sickness funds had negotiated in the past. Thus, several thousand sickness funds were forced to deal with a single organization, or [[single payer]], that held a legal monopoly over medical services. The drive by the medical profession to transform the organization and delivery of [[health care]] services from self-governing sickness funds to physician-controlled services was complete.<ref>[http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/76/1/78.pdf Social Medicine vs Professional Dominance: The German Experience], Donald W. Light, PhD, Stephan Liebfried, PhD, and Floran Tennstedt, PhD.</ref>

==Anschluss==

Removed from their offices in January 1938 were Hjalmar Schacht (economic ministry); Werner von Fritsch (soldiers’ representative); and Konstantin von Neurath (foreign office); the reason being was they were not fully accepting of Nazism. Beginning his plans of German conquest, he started with Austria. Kurt von Schuschnigg, the Austrian chancellor, was invited to Berchtesgaden in February, where he was browbeaten and forced to sign an agreement placing Austrian Nazis in the government. When Schuschnigg resisted and announced a plebiscite for Austrian voters concerning independence, Hitler ordered German troops into Austria, completely taking over the country within days. His return to Vienna was in triumph; enthusiastic crowds greeted him by the tens of thousands, in sharp contrast to the scenes of privation he had gone through there in his youth. Austria was annexed (Anschluss) to the Reich a short time later.

While the Anschluss was going on, Hitler was speaking in friendly terms with Czechoslovakia; nearly as soon as Austria ceased to exist, Hitler proceeded with his plans against the Czechs. The northwestern region of Czechoslovakia was the Sudetenland, inhabited by a German minority, and the leader of them, Konrad Henlein, was instructed to make impossible demands for those Germans on the Czech government. In the interest of preventing a general war (which Hitler wanted), Mussolini and British prime minister Neville Chamberlain concluded a peaceful agreement in Munich on September 30, giving Hitler the Sudetenland without firing a shot. Chamberlain would return to Britain, waving the agreement signed between himself and Hitler, declaring it to be “peace for our time”, but his act of appeasement would ensure the peace would last only a few more months. Despite assurances that the Sudetenland was his last territorial demands, “Czechia”, as the remainder of Czechoslovakia was called, became a German protectorate on March 15, 1939, when Hitler ordered it occupied. Just over a week later, Lithuania was forced to cede to Germany the territory of Memel (Klaipeda), on the border of East Prussia.

==Poland==
Poland’s turn was next, and listening to the rumblings was France and Britain, which signed guarantees of mutual assistance to the Polish nation should it be attacked by Germany. Hitler also signed pacts: a “Pact of Steel” with Italy, strengthening the alliance between Rome and Berlin, and then a treaty that caught many off-guard: a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union on August 23. A secret clause in the pact allowed for the simultaneous invasion of Poland, and the division of the country in the center from north to south. Poland was invaded on September 1; two days later, Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Hitler assumed his own war strategy. Poland was conquered within weeks, and when a desired peace accord with Britain failed to materialize, he ordered the army to prepare for a western offensive. Norway was invaded and occupied, forestalling a British move on that country; Denmark was occupied by April, 1940. Hitler than adopted General Erich von Manstien’s plan for an offensive against France itself, which would move through neutral Belgium’s Ardenne Forest on May 10, taking that country as a matter of convenience, as well as avoiding the static fortifications of France’s Maginot Line. The German forces, extremely successful in their operations, reached the coastal ports on the English Channel in 10 days; Holland and Belgium both surrendered within days. But south of Dunkirk was where the army was ordered to halt. Hitler had hoped even at this stage in the battle that Britain would commit to peace; instead, the halting of the German army allowed the British to remove 170,000 fighting men.

On June 10, Italy entered the war as German tanks were sweeping across northern France. Hitler signed an armistice with France on June 22, the signing taking place in the same rail car at the same site where the Germans surrendered in 1918.

Having failed in getting the British to sign an armistice, Hitler prepared his forces for “Operation Sea Lion,” the invasion of Britain. However, the Luftwaffe was defeated in its attempt to gain air superiority over British airspace, also known as the Battle Of Britain, which forced the permanent postponement of Sealion.

Facing the failure of the British to give in, Hitler started to prepare to double-cross his erstwhile partner in the Poland conquest, Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. Then Mussolini invaded Greece, got bogged down in the Balkans, and the threat loomed that he would lose his whole army there. Hitler found it necessary to come to his aid, while at the same time taking direct control of Yugoslavia in the wake of the overthrow of the pro-Nazi government.

==Barbarossa==
The attack on Soviet Russia began June 22, 1941. Rapid in its advancement, the German army captured a large swath of territory between the Baltic and Black seas, and captured close to 3,000,000 prisoners. But Hitler, already micro-managing military operations, became overbearing to his generals; he preferred to go after many targets, while his generals argued for a single objective. A few miles in front of Moscow, the German army was halted by a Russian offensive in December, as well as something he had absolutely no control over: the severe Russian winter.

In the lands already occupied by German forces, S.S. chief Heinrich Himmler was preparing the ground for Hitler’s new German order. Expelling the Jews from Germany was the first step, and this was carried out by laws and decrees beginning in 1933; the Germans would switch to outright force in 1939, as Jews were first deported en-masse to Poland, then walled into ghettos after the occupation began. By 1941, a policy crafted under S.S. general Reinhard Heydrich had changed expulsion for extermination in what was called "a final solution to the Jewish question" (''die Endlösung der Judenfrage''). The system of concentration camps was supplemented by the creation of specialized killing centers in the occupied countries, especially in Poland, where camps such as Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzac “processed” thousands of victims daily. Some six million Jews died during what was called the [[Holocaust]], as well as an additional five million Slavs, Gypsies, the handicapped, the aged, and many others that the Nazis considered “subhuman” in accordance with German racial policies.<ref>http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/riseofhitler/burns.htm</ref>

==Beginning of the end==
[[Image:Adolf_hitler6.jpg‎ |right|200px|thumb|Hitler in 1944, by now looking tired and strained.]]
Hitler grew increasingly strained by the end of 1942, depending on large amounts of drugs supplied by his physician, Theodor Morell, as a result of the twin defeats of El Alamein (which he lost the bulk of his Afrika corps to British general Montgomery), and Stalingrad (where he lost an entire army of 250,000 men to the Russians). He spent more time in his headquarters in East Prussia, and his time in the public eye ceased to exist. He refused to visit bombed German cities, and, as with Stalingrad, refused to allow German armies to withdraw from the battlefield when the situation was lost. Still, he could make stunning, decisive decisions when called for, such as the commando raid that resulted in the rescue of Benito Mussolini from Italian partisans in July, 1943.

But the defeat of Germany in the war was looming closer. Hitler’s relations with his leading commanders grew strained, the more so as he allowed units of the S.S. to take positions traditionally held by the army. The line at the eastern front was slowly being pushed back by the Soviets, while in the Atlantic his U-boats campaign had faltered. German cities were constantly being bombed, and a successful invasion on the Normandy coast of France in June, 1944 marked the beginning of the end.

===Assassination attempt===
[[Image:NWT Hitler dead.jpg|left|200px|thumb|Hitler's death as covered by the ''New York Times'', May 2, 1945.]]
Seeing Germany’s chances of surviving the war were desperate, a group of officers plotted to assassinate Hitler, planning several attempts in 1943-44, but nearly successful on July 20, 1944, when a bomb hidden in a briefcase by Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg went off under a table that Hitler and others were leaning over; four were killed outright, several suffered injuries, but Hitler escaped relatively unharmed (the bomb itself was set down away from Hitler behind a solid oak table leg, saving him). The conspirators were quickly rounded up; Stauffenberg was shot. The remainder were put on show trials and condemned to hang on meat hooks with piano wire. It was said that Hitler enjoyed watching film of their executions. As a result of the bomb, Nazi members were employed at key positions within the army, removing any trace of the army’s independence.

Within months nearly all of the territory occupied by Germany was now in Allied hands. A last offensive in December, 1944 to take the port of Antwerp, Belgium, failed. Hitler had by them grown ill; his hopes for a German victory bordered on the fantastical and the imagination. By January, 1945 he had moved into his command bunker in Berlin, where he gave orders deploying fictional divisions to counter the ever-closer Soviets. When all seemed lost, he gave out his final orders: first, appointing Admiral Karl Dönitz as head of the state and his successor, and Josef Goebbels as chancellor; and second, dictating his last political will which was an attempt to justify his life’s work.

On April 29, he committed the one truly-chivalrous act of his life: he married Eva Braun, his long-time mistress. After retiring to his room in the bunker the next day, Eva took poison, and Hitler put a bullet in his head. In accordance with his wishes, both bodies were burned. His Third Reich would outlive him for another week.

[[Elie Wiesel]] wrote the following in [[Time Magazine]] regarding Hitler:
{{cquote|Adolf Hitler or the incarnation of absolute evil; this is how future generations will remember the all-powerful Fuehrer of the criminal Third Reich. Compared with him, his peers [[Mussolini]] and [[Franco]] were novices. Under his hypnotic gaze, humanity crossed a threshold from which one could see the abyss. "Before Hitler, we thought we had sounded the depths of human nature," argues Ron Rosenbaum, author of "Explaining Hitler." "He showed how much lower we could go, and that's what was so horrifying. It gets us wondering not just at the depths he showed us but whether there is worse to come. The power of Hitler was to confound the modernist notion that judgments about good and [[evil]] were little more than matters of taste, reflections of social class and power and status. Although some modern scholars drive past the notion of evil and instead explain Hitler's conduct as a reflection of his childhood and self-esteem issues, for most survivors of the 20th century he is confirmation of our instinctive sense that evil does exist. It moves among us; it leads us astray and deploys powerful, subtle weapons against even the sturdiest souls." <ref name="time" />}}

All in all, Hitler survived over forty assassination attempts. The Stauffenburg attempt was the closest anyone ever came to killing Hitler. George Elser, a communist, came very close in 1938, having planted a bomb in a beam that Hitler stood in front of while giving a speech. Luck saved Hitler, as he left the hall early and twelve minutes later the bomb exploded.

==Hitler and the Theory of Evolution==
''For more information please see:'' [[Evolutionary racism]] and [[Social effects of the theory of evolution]]

[[Image:Hitlerrisetopower.jpg|right|225px|thumb]]
The staunch [[evolution|evolutionist]] Stephen Gould admitted the following:
{{cquote|[[Ernst Haeckel|[Ernst] Haeckel]] was the chief apostle of evolution in [[Germany]].... His evolutionary racism; his call to the German people for racial purity and unflinching devotion to a "just" state; his belief that harsh, inexorable laws of evolution ruled human civilization and nature alike, conferring upon favored races the right to dominate others; the irrational mysticism that had always stood in strange communion with his brave words about objective science - all contributed to the rise of Nazism. - Stephen J. Gould, "Ontogeny and Phylogeny," Belknap Press: Cambridge MA, 1977, pp.77-78).<ref>http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/social.html</ref>}}

Robert E.D. Clark in his work ''Darwin: Before and After'' wrote concerning Hitler's evolutionary racism:
{{cquote|The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (''Mein Kampf''). <ref>http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1675</ref>}}

Hitler wrote in ''Mein Kampf'':
{{cquote|The stronger must dominate and not blend with the weaker, thus sacrificing his own greatness. Only the born weakling can view this as cruel, but he, after all, is only a weak and limited man; for if this law did not prevail, any conceivable higher development (Hoherentwicklung) of organic living beings would be unthinkable.<ref>http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=268</ref>}}

Dr. Robert E.D. Clark wrote in his work ''Darwin, Before and After'' the following regarding Hitler and the theory of evolution: “Adolf Hitler’s mind was captivated by evolutionary teaching — probably since the time he was a boy. Evolutionary ideas — quite undisguised — lie at the basis of all that is worst in Mein Kampf — and in his public speeches”.<ref name="courier">http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_holocaust_why_did_it_happen</ref>
[[Image:5712dawkins.jpg|alt=Richard Dawkins|right|thumbnail|200px|[[Richard Dawkins]] is a prominent [[atheism|atheist]] and [[evolution|evolutionist]]. [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> ]]
Richard Hickman in his work ''Biocreation'' concurs and wrote the following:
{{cquote|It is perhaps no coincidence that Adolf Hitler was a firm believer in and preacher of evolutionism. Whatever the deeper, profound, complexities of his [[psychosis]], it is certain that [the concept of struggle was important for]. . . his book, Mein Kampf clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and extermination of the weak to produce a better society. <ref>http://www.creationism.org/csshs/v08n3p24.htm</ref>}}

Noted evolutionary [[anthropology|anthropologist]] Sir [[Arthur Keith]] conceded the following in regards to Hitler: “The German Fuhrer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practices of Germany conform to the theory of evolution”.<ref name="courier" />

[[Pulitzer Prize]]-winning author [[Marilynne Robinson]] wrote the following regarding Hitler's racism in the November 2006 issue of ''[[Harper’s]]'' magazine:
{{cquote|While it is true that persecution of the Jews has a very long history in [[Europe]], it is also true that science in the twentieth century revived and absolutized persecution by giving it a fresh rationale — Jewishness was not religious or cultural, but genetic. Therefore no appeal could be made against the brute fact of a Jewish grandparent.

[[Richard Dawkins|[Richard] Dawkins]] deals with all this in one sentence. Hitler did his evil "in the name of ... an insane and unscientific [[eugenics]] theory." But eugenics is science as surely as totemism is religion. That either is in error is beside the point. Science quite appropriately acknowledges that error should be assumed, and at best it proceeds by a continuous process of criticism meant to isolate and identify error. So bad science is still science in more or less the same sense that bad religion is still religion. That both of them can do damage on a huge scale is clear. The prestige of both is a great part of the problem, and in the modern period the credibility of anything called science is enormous. As the history of eugenics proves, science at the highest levels is no reliable corrective to the influence of cultural prejudice but is in fact profoundly vulnerable to it.

There is indeed historical precedent in the [[Spanish Inquisition]] for the notion of hereditary Judaism. But the fact that the worst religious thought of the sixteenth century can be likened to the worst scientific thought of the twentieth century hardly redounds to the credit of science.<ref>http://solutions.synearth.net/2006/10/20</ref><ref>http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/someone-finally-said-it-dawkinss-hysterical-scientism/</ref>}}

[[Evolution|Evolutionist]] and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Richard Dawkins]] stated in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref> The interviewer wrote, regarding the Hitler comment, "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own [[philosophy|philosophical]] position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."<ref>http://byfaithonline.com/page/in-the-world/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist</ref>

== Adolf Hitler and Abortion ==

''For more information see:'' [[Abortion and Adolf Hitler]]

In 1942 Adolf Hitler declared:
{{cquote|In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-[[German]] population multiply…We must use every means to instill in the population the idea that it is harmful to have several children, the expenses that they cause and the dangerous effect on woman's health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics. <ref>http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/sep/07090708.html</ref>}}

== External links ==
[[File:Hitler Siegestor Munich Victory Gate.jpg|thumb|Watercolor of the Arch of Triumph in Munich by Hitler.]]
*[http://www.eucontest.org/go.php?pdf=www1.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%201994.pdf Extracts From Mein Kampf by Hitler]
*[http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/ Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler.] Full text.
*[http://www.snyderstreasures.com/pages/hartworks.htm Adolf Hitler ORIGINAL Watercolor Artworks.]
*[http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/ Hitler Was a Leftist]

==Further reading==
*[http://www.ushmm.org/research/doctors/medical.htm STATE MEDICAL SERVICES OF THE THIRD REICH], FROM THE OPENING STATEMENT BY TELFORD TAYLOR, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946–April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949–1953.] Retrieved from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

==Sources==
*[http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.htmlA Psychological Analysis of Adolf Hitler, His Life and Legend], Walter C. Langer, Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C.

{{DEFAULTSORT: Hitler, Adolf}}

[[Category:Dictators]]
[[Category:Atheists]]
[[Category:Mass Murderers]]
[[Category:Nazis]]
[[Category:Evolutionists]]
[[Category:Totalitarianism]]
[[Category:Anti-Semitism]]
[[Category:German History]]
[[Category:World War II]]
[[Category:Evolutionary Racists]]
[[Category: Lunatics]]

Absolute value

2011-05-27T04:16:59Z

UofGuelphStudent: the abolute value of a negative number is the number without the minus sign, IE l -3 l is 3

The '''absolute value''' of a number is a measure of the size of that number. The absolute value of <math>x</math> is written <math>|x|</math>.

:If <math>x</math> is a positive number, then <math>|x| = x</math>.

:If <math>x</math> is a negative number, then <math>|x| = x</math>.

:If <math>x=0</math> then <math>|x| = 0</math>.

Absolute value has several useful properties. One is the ''multiplicative'' property. If <math>x</math> and <math>y</math> are two numbers, then <math>|xy| = |x| \times |y|</math>. Another is the ''triangle inequality'', which is the fact that <math>|x+y| \leq |x| + |y|</math>. For example, if <math>x = 3</math> and <math>y = -5</math>, then <math>|x+y| = |3 + (-5)| = |3 - 5| = |-2| = 2</math>, while <math>|x| + |y| = |-5| + |3| = 5 + 3 = 8</math>. In this case, the triangle inequality is the fact that 2 is not more than 8.

[[Complex number]]s also have an absolute value. If <math>z = x+iy</math> is a complex number with real part <math>x</math> and imaginary part <math>y</math>, then <math>|z| = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}</math>. If we represent <math>z</math> as a point in the complex plane with coordinates <math>(x,y)</math>, then <math>|z|</math> is the distance from this point to the origin. The absolute value of complex numbers also has the multiplicative property and satisfies the triangle inequality.

[[Category:Algebra Terms]]
[[Category:Algebra]]
[[Category:Mathematics]]

User:UofGuelphStudent

2011-05-27T04:07:01Z

UofGuelphStudent: Created page with "I'm a Political Science Student at the University of Guelph ON. I'm Canadian and I love Hockey :)"

I'm a Political Science Student at the University of Guelph ON.

I'm Canadian and I love Hockey :)

World War II

2011-05-27T03:41:56Z

UofGuelphStudent: /* leaders */ Capitalized Leaders.

{{World War 2
| image =WWII collage.JPG
| conflict =
| date =1931-1945
| location =Europe North and eastern Africa Eastern Asia
| combatant1 ='''Allies''' [[Great Britain]] [[France]] [[Soviet Union]] [[China]] [[United States]]
| combatant2 ='''Axis''' [[Nazi Germany]] [[Italy]] [[Japan]]
| commander1 =
| commander2 =
| strength1 =
| strength2 =
| casualties1 =
| casualties2 =
}}
'''World War II''' was a global set of conflicts, beginning in 1931 in Asia, 1935 in Africa, and 1939 in Europe, all lasting until 1945, in which the [[Allies|Allied powers]] (led after the Fall of France by the [[British Commonwealth]], and including the [[United States]], the [[Soviet Union]], the [[Republic of China]], and many other nations), totally defeated the [[Axis Powers]] (led by [[Third Reich|Nazi Germany]], and including [[Italy]], and [[Japan]]). Although Japan's war against China began in 1937, the main conflict started in September 1939 when Germany invaded [[Poland]] (with support from the Soviets); [[Britain]] and [[French Third Republic|France]] then declared war on Germany.

The conflict was the deadliest in human history with estimated deaths ranging from 50 million to over 70 million soldiers and civilians.<ref>http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm#Second</ref> It ended with the Soviet Union dominant in Eastern Europe, and the U.S. and its allies dominant in Western Europe, setting the stage for the [[Cold War]].
==Causes==
:''See: [[Causes of World War II]]''

==War Begins in Europe==
[[Image:Communazi Peace Pact.jpg|thumb|300px|right|By terms of a secret protocol to the [[Nazi-Soviet pact]], Poland was partitioned with Germany and the USSR each occupying 200,000 square kilometers.]]
:''See also: [[Molotov-Ribbentrop pact]]''

In the immediate run up to WWII, there were frequent reports of trespassing Polish troops. On August 31, 1939 German covert operatives staged a fake attack by Polish troops on a German radio station. WWII started on September 1, 1939, when German troops invaded Poland. Hitler justified this as a defensive act, pointing to the frequent border incidents, and said famously that from this moment on Germany would strike back.

The major tactical innovation of the war was the use of combined arms warfare, typified by the German doctrine of [[blitzkrieg]]. In this style of warfare armor, infantry, artillery and air power (see [[Luftwaffe]]) all coordinate to achieve overwhelming superiority at point on the enemy lines. Armor and fast-moving infantry units then exploit the gap and penetrate deep behind enemy lines. The objective is to cause a widespread collapse of the enemy's ability to fight. It was particularly effective during the early stages of the war, before the Allies developed effective countermeasures.
On September 17, 1939, Poland was invaded from the east by Hitler’s ally, Josef Stalin.

In 1939-1940, eastern Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Bessarabia were invaded and annexed into the Soviet Union proper.

==War in the West==
[[Image:Caen_sniper.jpg|left|thumb|200px|A Canadian soldier in the ruins of Caen, 9 July 1944]]
Following the completion of the invasion of Poland, German forces regrouped and Allied forces remained defensive, leading US commentators to dub it the [[Sitskreig|Phoney War]]. May 10 1940 marked the end of any accusation of a phony war, with the invasion of France by Germany, via the [[Netherlands]], [[Luxembourg]] and [[Belgium]]. Resistance by the British armies and French armies proved weak and the occupation of France began. British and French troops were routed and evacuated mainland Europe at [[Dunkirk]]. France was divided into the northern [[Occupied France]] and the collaborationist [[Vichy regime]] in the south of France, including [[Corsica]].

The collapse and occupation of France, together with Germany's non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union,<ref>[http://nobsopus.blogspot.com/2007/01/celebrations-marking-60-years-since-end.html Celebrations Marking 60 Years Since the End of World War II], Pavel Vitek, ''Russkii vopros - Studies'', No. 1 2005. Translation from Russian.</ref>, their alliances with fascist Italy, and an expansionist Japan, benevolent neutrality of fascist Spain, with little of Europe outside of Axis hands led many to assume that Britain had been defeated. Indeed it would appear that the seemingly foolish decision of the relatively weak Britain to continue the war took the Axis powers off guard. This decision ensured the remaining British Empire was still involved in the war, with Japan threatening many British possessions in Asia.

In 1940 [[Denmark]] and [[Norway]] were invaded by German forces, to preempt a British occupation of Norway and acquire Norway's coastline and ports for the German Navy. Norway also contained a source of [[Heavy water]], potentially crucial in the construction of an atomic weapon. The operation was successful, but losses were heavy, especially to the [[Kriegsmarine]]. This was soon followed by the British troops invited by [[Iceland]] and American occupation of [[Greenland]]. (The need to prevent any increase in the range of German air activity, brought about the occupation of these lands - and of the Azores at the request of the Portuguese Government.)

With Britain the sole opposing European nation, the [[Battle of Britain]] commenced. The [[Luftwaffe]] attempted to achieve aerial dominance over the south of Britain, in order to allow a sea based invasion of Britain to proceed. From 10th July to the end of October the [[Royal Air Force]] and Luftwaffe fought for dominance, with the resilience of the RAF, with British, Canadian and London Polish exile pilots, and the use of [[radar]] and its associated early warning system had forced a rethink of German tactics. It was the first significant setback for the Germans in the War. They now concentrated on the great population centers, especially London, hoping that huge civilian casualties would weaken morale and lead to a lessening of the war effort by the populace. The period that followed, popularly known as [[the Blitz]], lasted into May 1941. Around 40,000 civilians and civil defense workers died; but it failed in its objective and Hitler began concentrating on the impending invasion of Russia

With the pressure off their airbases the RAF was now able to increase its nightly raids on industrial sites in Germany and occupied lands. Because of the inability to correctly target these sites, the raids soon turned into “area bombing”, and German civilian casualties rose. These raids were to reach further into Germany as the war progressed and were greatly increased when American bombers began their sorties.

==Finnish Wars==

The Soviet Union invaded [[Finland]], a neutral, on November 30 1939. This conflict came to be known as the "Winter War". Despite the overwhelming numbers of the Red Army, the Finnish resistance was strong and the battle was hard fought before the Soviet army took control. Outside powers (including the U.S.) considered intervention to help Finland; only a little aid trickled in and Finland was forced to sue for peace. The peace treaty signed in March 1940 favored the Soviets, but they paid heavily for their victory with 200,000 dead. Finland lost 25,000 dead, and had to absorb 400,000 refugees from areas turned over to the Soviets. In 1941 Finland joined Germany in attacking the Soviets, in the "Continuation War" (1941-44), but lost again. An armistice in Sept. 1944 stabilized the border, using March 1940 lines; in addition Finland had to pay heavy reparations and had to remain neutral in the [[Cold War]].<ref> Roger R. Reese, "Lessons of the Winter War: a Study in the Military Effectiveness of the Red Army, 1939-1940," ''Journal of Military History'' 2008 72(3): 825-852 </ref>

==Soviet-German War==
1941 marked the major turning point in the war in Europe, when the Germans undertook [[Operation Barbarossa]] - the invasion of the Soviet Union. Stalin was repeatedly informed by his own spies and anti-German countries that Germany was about to attack; he rejected the accurate reports and paid dearly for the blunder.

In June--behind schedule because of diversions in the Balkans--the Germans launched their massive war against the Soviet Union (known as the "Great Patriotic War" in Russia). It was by far the largest, bloodiest, and most decisive phase of World War II. Outside observers in the first few months figured that Germany would win easily. But the Nazi armies were split three ways, logistics became worse and worse as distances grew, and none met their objective by the time the extreme Russian winter of 1941-42 set in. Blitzkrieg had failed against the Soviets, and the Germans lacked the resources to fight a long war against a country with such vast areas and so many more people. The Luftwaffe, which promised to overcome the slowness of ground travel, failed to provide adequate support and was soon matched and outnumbered by the Soviet air force.<ref> The best studies of this theater are by [http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=30&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=&as_vt=&as_auth=glantz+david&as_pub=&as_sub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= David Glantz]</ref>

Finally, after the disastrous Battle of Stalingrad, in which nearly 25% of the German forces on the Eastern Front were defeated, the Soviets began a massive, steady counter-attack. After a time of comparatively slow progress, the brilliant Soviet officer, Konstantin Rokossovsky, engineered "Operation Bagration", named-so after the Napoleonic Russian hero. The operation was extremely successful for the Soviets, leading to around 600,000 Soviet casualties and over 500,000 German casualties, including over 60,000 German vehicles and tanks. Even the Germans' best officer, Erich von Manstein, couldn't turn the situation around. Finally, in 1945, Soviet troops stormed Berlin, and forced Nazi Germany into capitulation.

==Far East==

After Pearl Harbor, the Japanese juggernaut seemed unstoppable. In the south, they conquered the [[Philippines]], the oil-rich Dutch East Indies, Malaysia, and extended their reach as far as the Solomon Islands. In the west, they seized [[Burma]] and the vital port at [[Rangoon]], and even attacked British forces at [[Ceylon]]. The Japanese empire now reached as far as [[Wake Island]] in the east and the [[Aleutian Islands]] to the north. Attacks on Japanese targets, including the Doolittle raid, boasted American morale, but did little material damage. In May 1942, Japanese forces were finally halted at the [[Battle of the Coral Sea]], which cost the Americans a precious [[aircraft carrier]], but saved southern [[New Guinea]]. At the [[Battle of Midway]] a month later, the Japanese lost four of their best carriers, suffering a blow to their sea power from which they never recovered.

The Americans took the offensive in August with a landing on the island of [[Guadalcanal]]. The overall American offensive strategy was two-pronged. Forces in the south advanced up the Solomon island chain and New Guinea, while in the central Pacific, Marines took island after island, including [[Battle of Tarawa|Tarawa]], Eniwetok, [[Saipan]], and [[Guam]]. The two lines of attack came together at the Philippines.

Integral to the strategy was the policy of island hopping. Many Japanese strongholds were bypassed, allowing the American forces to concentrate on more strategically significant islands. For example, [[Truk]] and Rabaul were home to major Japanese air and naval bases, but once the bases were neutralized, there was no reason to take on the troops there. This policy not only saved thousands of American (and Japanese) lives, it shortened the war by at least several months.

The American invasion of the Philippines took place in late October of 1944 when Marines landed on Leyte Island. A few days later, the US Navy shattered what was left of Japanese naval power in the [[Battle of Leyte Gulf]]. The Japanese fought hard, however, and Leyte took two months to secure. When the Americans landed on the other islands, they found the troops there equally unwilling to retreat, but with American superiority in almost every area, the outcome was never really in doubt. [[Manila]] was captured by March, and the American position had become solid enough that leaders could start preparing for the final stage: [[Operation Downfall|the invasion of Japan]]. The first step was taken when the island of [[Okinawa]] was captured in June after two months of heavy fighting. Operation Olympic, the invasion of [[Kyushu]], was scheduled for November 1945, followed by Operation Coronet, the invasion of [[Honshu]], in March of 1946.

The Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike, were expected to put up a fierce defense. Army Chief of Staff [[George C. Marshall]] believed that Japan would fight to the last man, and insisted on preparing for a land invasion of Japan with an army of 2,000,000 men anticipating a tremendous number of casualties. Some analysts estimated the number of projected casualties from Operation Olympic alone at 250,000 dead and wounded.<ref>Historical Atlas of the U.S. Navy, by Craig L. Symonds, the Naval Institute, 1995</ref> For this reason, Washington begged the Soviet to invade Japanese possessions on the mainland.

[[Image:Ww2-asia usma.edu pic.gif|thumb|300px|left|Time Line of Pacific War]]

==Japanese capitulation==
On August 6, 1945, a B-29 Superfortress, the Enola Gay piloted by Paul Tibbet, dropped an atomic bomb (now called a nuclear weapon) on [[Hiroshima]]. Japan did not respond, so on August 9, Bocks Car, a B-29 piloted by Frederick C. Bock dropped the second atomic bomb.

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, in reponse to urgent American requests. It invaded Manchuria and Korea; the Japanese army disintegrated. It was no longer possible for the Imprial Army to defend the Emperor. On August 20 the Japanese government told Washington it was ready to accept the proposed terms, with the understanding the Emperor would remain on the throne and would not be hung as a war criminal. Washington agreed, saying the authority of the emperor would be "subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers." On September 2, 1945, the Japanese Emperor formally surrendered all Japanese forces to the Allies in a famous ceremony aboard the battleship ''Missouri'' in Tokyo Bay. This was the ending of World War II, after six years almost to the day.

==Effects of war on empires==

*[[Iron Curtain]]
:The Red army conquered practically everything east of the "Iron Curtain," destroying independent national governments and making them all subservient to Moscow. The US grudgingly tolerated this imperialism until 1947, when it was Greece's turn. Then the US drew the line and adopted a policy of [[containment]]. Because of the geography of war, [[Yugoslavia]] and [[Albania]] escaped the Red Army. They fell under the control of independent Communists--Yugoslavia received American support, and Albania turned to Red China for help against the Soviets.

*[[British Empire]]
:The war effectively bankrupted Britain, which soon gave up India, as well as Pakistan, Ceylon and many of its other colonies).

* French Empire
:France saluted its overseas Empire as the savior of France, and wanted control back. That led to nasty large scale civil wars in Algeria and Vietnam, which France lost.

*the Netherlands and Indonesia
:The Dutch returned to the [[Dutch East Indies]] to face an insurrection they could not handle. Dutch acknowledged in 1949 the sovereignty of [[Indonesia]], a non-Communist state.

*Supremacy of the USA in the Western World
:The war left the U.S. with a vastly stronger economy than anyone else. To save on budget deficits the military was demobilized, but the long-term strategy was in confusion after Roosevelt's death.

==See also==
===Land war===
[[Image:Bradley.jpg|thumb|290px|''Time'' Dec. 4, 1944]]
* [[Battle of the Bulge]], Dec. 1944
* [[Battle of Okinawa]], spring 1945
* [[Second Sino-Japanese War]], 1937-45
* [[Dwight D. Eisenhower]], US general
* [[Omar Bradley]], US general
* [[George S. Patton, Jr.]], US general
===Air war===
* [[Luftwaffe]], German air force
* [[World War II in the Air]]
* [[Bombing of Japan]]
* [[Bombing of Germany]]
===Naval===
* [[Attack on Pearl Harbor]], Dec. 1941
* [[Battle of Midway]], June 1942
* [[Chester W. Nimitz]], US Admiral

===Homefronts===
* [[Holocaust]], killing the Jews

===Leaders===
* [[Charles de Gaulle]], France
* [[Adolf Hitler]], Germany
* [[Franklin D. Roosevelt]], US
* [[Winston Churchill]], Britain
* [[Joseph Stalin]], Russia
* [[Chiang Kai-shek]], China
* [[Benito Mussolini]], Italy
* [[William Lyon Mackenzie King]], Canada
* [[John Curtin]], Australia

==Further reading==
For a more detailed guide, see [[Bibliography of World War II]]

* Dear, I. C. B. and M. R. D. Foot, eds. ''Oxford Companion to World War II'' (in Britain titled ''Oxford Companion to the Second World War'' (2005; 2nd ed. 2009). the best reference book; [http://www.amazon.com/Oxford-Companion-World-War-II/dp/019280670X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236549909&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* ''Times Atlas of the Second World War'' (1995)
* Weinberg, Gerhard L. ''A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II'', (1994) the best overall view of the war.

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

== External Links ==
* United States Department of the Navy/Navy Historical Center's [http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq36-4.htm Fleet Admiral Chester William Nimitz]
* [http://www.onpower.org/history_wwii.html/ World War II]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=12&articleID=139 "On the Brink of World War II: Justus Doenecke’s ''Storm on the Horizon''," by Ralph Raico]
*[http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/1997/padilla.html Kursk: The Turning Point on the Eastern Front in World War II], by Roberto R. Padilla II
* [http://encyc.org/WorldWarII World War II - Encyc]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/working_papers/article.asp?id=1499 "Government and the Economy: The World Wars," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=113 "How War Amplified Federal Power in the Twentieth Century," by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/store/book_detail.asp?bookID=65 ''Depression, War and Cold War'', by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=138 "Wartime Prosperity?", by Robert Higgs]
* [http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=1431 Pearl Harbor]
[[Category:World War II| ]]
[[Category:Wars]]

Canada

2011-05-27T03:36:49Z

UofGuelphStudent: /* Politics */ updated from the 2011 elections

{{Country
|name =''Canada''
|map =Canada pol99.jpg
|map2 =Loc of Canada.png
|flag =Flag of Canada.svg
|arms =Canada arms.png
|capital =Ottawa
|capital-raw =
|government =Parliamentary Democracy/Federal Constitutional monarchy
|government-raw =
|language =English, French
|king =
|queen =Elizabeth II
|monarch-raw =
|president =
|president-raw =
|chancellor =
|chancellor-raw =
|pm =Stephen Harper
|pm-raw =
|chairman =
|premier =
|area =
|pop =32,907,500
|pop-basis =2007
|gdp =$1.105 trillion
|gdp-year =2007
|gdp-pc =$35,133
|currency =Canadian dollar
|idd =
|tld =
}}
'''Canada''' is a [[country]] in [[North America]] which extends from the [[Pacific Ocean]] in the west to the [[Atlantic Ocean]] in the east and northward to the [[Arctic Ocean]]. Canada is the largest country by total area in [[North America]] and the second largest in the world behind [[Russia]]. It also has the longest coastline of any nation, as well as the longest border with the [[United States]] to the south and northwest.

Canada's motto, ''A Mari usque ad Mare'' (From sea to sea), is based on biblical scripture: "He shall have dominion from sea to sea and from the river unto the ends of the earth (Psalm 72:8)".<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/arm2_e.cfm The Arms of Canada- Description]</ref>

==Etymology==
The name Canada originated in 1535 by [[Jacques Cartier]] is based on the Iroquoian word "kanata", meaning "village."<ref name="Canadian_Encylopedia">[http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&ArticleId=A0001216 The Canadian Encyclopedia]</ref> By 1545, Europeans began referring to this region as Canada.

The name ''Dominion of Canada'' was adopted during [[British North America Act|confederation]] in 1867; the term "dominion" was new, and it seemed a better choice than "kingdom" (which might annoy the Americans). The name continued until the [[Constitution Act]] of 1982, when "Canada" became the legal name.

== Anthem==

The Canadian national anthem, '[[O Canada]]', was written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier as a poem, to which music, composed by Calixa Lavallée, was later added, in 1880. The original was composed in French, and was first translated into English by Dr. Thomas Bedford Richardson of Toronto, Ontario, in 1906. However, it was not officially adopted as the national anthem until 1980.<ref>[http://www.pch.gc.ca/progs/cpsc-ccsp/sc-cs/anthem_e.cfm National Anthem: O Canada]</ref> It is important to distinguish between 'O Canada', the national anthem, and 'God Save The Queen', which is the Royal anthem, played as a salute to Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]] as Queen of Canada.

==Geography==
[[File:E-canada.jpg|thumb|450px|political map of Canada]]
At the time of Confederation, Canada was comprised of four provinces: Upper Canada (now Ontario), Lower Canada (now Québec), Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick. Since that time, six additional provinces have joined Canada or have been created. From west to east, the provinces are [[British Columbia]], [[Alberta]], [[Saskatchewan]], [[Manitoba]], [[Ontario]], [[Québec]], [[New Brunswick]], [[Prince Edward Island]], [[Nova Scotia]], and [[Newfoundland|Newfoundland and Labrador]]. Newfoundland was the last province to join Canada, in 1949. The provinces all elect a single (unicameral) legislature, headed by Premier, who is selected the same way as the Prime Minister. A Lieutenant-Governor represents the Queen, similar to the Governor General.
Canada has three territories: the [[Yukon Territory]], the [[Northwest Territories]], and [[Nunavut]]. Territories have only have those powers delegated to them by the federal government.

*Area: 9.9 million sq. km. (3.8 million sq. mi.); second-largest country in the world.
*Cities: Capital--Ottawa (pop. 1.1 million). Other major cities--Toronto (5.1 million), Montreal (3.6 million), Vancouver (2.1 million), Calgary (1.1 million), Edmonton (1.0 million), Quebec City (0.7 million), Winnipeg (0.7 million), Hamilton (0.7 million).
*Terrain: Mostly plains with mountains in the west and lowlands in the southeast.
*Climate: Temperate to arctic.
{{Clear}}

==People==
[[File:Canadian Aboriginal Festival.jpg|thumb|left|280px|Aboriginal leader at the 13th Annual Canadian Aboriginal Festival, 2006.]]
*Population (2008 est.): 33.1 million.
*Ethnic groups: British/Irish 28%, French 23%, other European 15%, Asian/Arab/African 6%, indigenous Amerindian 2%, mixed background 26%.
*Religions: Roman Catholic 43.6%, Protestant 29.2%, other Christian 4.3%, Muslim 2.0%, Jewish 1.1%, Buddhist 1.0%, Hindu 1.0% other 1.3%, none 16.5%.
*Languages: English (official) 57.8%, French (official) 22.1%, other 20.1% (including Chinese and aboriginal languages).
*Education: Literacy--99% of population aged 15 and over has at least a ninth-grade education.
*Health: Infant mortality rate--5.4/1,000. Life expectancy--77.7 yrs. male, 82.5 yrs. female.
*Work force (2008, 18.2 million): Goods-producing sector--25%, of which: manufacturing 15%; construction 6%; agriculture 2%; natural resources 2%; utilities 1%. Service-producing sector--75%, of which: trade 16%; health care and social assistance 11%; educational services 7%, accommodation and food services 7%; professional, scientific, and technical services 7%; finance 6%; public administration 5%; transportation and warehousing 5%; information, culture, and recreation 5%; other services 4%.

In 2005 the city of [[Vancouver]], [[British Columbia]] was voted "the world's best place to live".<ref> [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4306936.stm Vancouver is "best place to live"]</ref>
Canada's population is increasingly urban, with 6 cities recording a population over 1 million ([[Toronto]], [[Montreal]], [[Vancouver]], [[Ottawa]]-Gatineau, [[Calgary]], [[Edmonton]]); these 6 cities represent over 45% of Canada's population. Canada is becoming an increasingly multicultural country, with most new immigrants settling in [[Toronto]], [[Montreal]] and [[Vancouver]]. [[Toronto]] is the world's most multicultural city, with 43% a member of a visible minority.<ref>http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=bb0fee45-b305-490a-b161-a21bcb1d7329&k=34160</ref>
[[Image:800px-Canada-satellite.jpg|right|thumb|200px|A satellite image of Canada.]]

====Culture====
Due to its colonial past, Canadian culture has historically been heavily influenced by British culture. Quebec maintains a French culture but has been largely cut off from Parisian trends for 250 years. Sine 1800 Canadian culture has been greatly influenced by American culture, due to the proximity and the migration of people, ideas, and capital. Amidst this, Canadian culture has developed some unique characteristics, and many Canadian movies, authors, television shows, and musicians are equally popular in United States. Canadian culture has also been influenced by indigenous cultures, and by immigrant groups from around the world. It has the highest per capita immigration rate of any country in the world.<ref>http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080402/d080402a.htm </ref>

Canada has two federal official languages, French and English. The province of Quebec has French as an official language, New Brunswick both French and English, and all other provinces English (although in some parts of Ontario French has special status). The territory of Nunavut has Inuktitu and Innuinaqtun as official languages in addition to French and English, the North West territories has eleven official languages, and the Yukon recognises French and English.

Canada tends to reflect slightly more liberal social policies than the neighboring states of the northern U.S. Two such examples are the legalizing of [[gay marriage]] in June, 2005<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/06/28/samesex050628.html CBC news article on passing of gay marriage law]</ref> and, in some regions, the decriminalization of medicinal [[marijuana]] and small amounts of other psychoactive substances.

<center>
[[File:Toronto Canada 2009.jpg]]

Panorama of Toronto, Ontario.
</center>

===Sports===
See [[Canadian sports]]

Notable sports which are enjoyed throughout Canada include [[hockey]], [[curling]], [[lacrosse]], and [[football]]. Canada collected 18 medals in the Summer Olympics, more per capita than the United States but less than Australia. The country finished third overall in the Torino Winter Olympics, with a total of 24 medals, one less than the United States and 10 more than next-place [[Sweden]]. The most recent winter Olympics, was held in 2010 in Vancouver and Whistler. Canada finished third overall in medal count and was first in gold medal count with 14 gold. This was the first instance of Canada winning a gold medal on home ground and a moment of national pride.

====Cultural Style====
[[File:Canada Orchestra.jpg|thumb|Collegiate band.]]
Canadian culture puts stress on open-mindedness and tolerance of multiple viewpoints.<ref>See [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/global/main.jhtml?xml=/global/features/cucanada.xml&source=EMC-exp_01102008 National Cultural Profiles, a guide from the London ''Telegraph'' to the thinking patterns of all the world's major cultures]</ref> Canadian opinion shows a strong sense of wanting to be independent of the U.S., although their economy, society, and culture closely resembles the U.S., and most Canadians live a short drive from the border. Canada is usually contrasted as a "cultural mosaic" to the United States' "melting pot". Canadian and U.S. polls habitually confirm citizens of both countries view the relationship with each other in a highly positive light, and consider each other with a special respect afforded to common allies. <ref>http://www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/canadian-cultural-mosaic-american-melting-pot</ref>
{{Clear}}

====Education====
[[File:Mount St Helens erupting at night by Paul Kane.jpg|thumb|330px|Mount St Helens erupting at night by Paul Kane, 1847.]]
Education in Canada is the responsibility of provincial and territorial governments; curriculum and marking schemes are completely removed from the control of the federal government. Each province uses a different method of administering education, with variation in the number of years and the curriculum. Quebec, for example has five years of secondary school finishing at the equivalent of grade 11 followed by two years of CEGEP, while Ontario has two years of kindergarten. Most provinces have kindergarten with school starting at age 5 going to grade 12 (age 17) as part of the public system. Some provinces have standardised provincial exams at the end of secondary school and/or at other designated grades.

Several provinces have two publicly funded school systems: public and private(e.g. Catholic). The constitution also guarantees education in one's first official language and, as such, all provinces and territories have both English and French language schooling. Additionally, private schools both religious and secular exist throughout the country. Alberta has an additional category, known as charter schools. Charter schools are schools that have been created in the community to surround a particular theme. They could be artistic, vocational, etc.

A source of comparison is the Human Development Index, a measurement of literacy, education, life expectancy and standard of living. Using this scale, Canada scores +.967 and the U.S. +950.

====Religion====
For the total population, in 2001, 12.9 million (44%) were Roman Catholic, with 8.7 million Protestants (29%). 4.9 million (16% ) report no religious affiliation (including atheists and agnostics). Other religions of significance in Canada include 580,000 Muslims; 330,000 Jews; 300,000 Buddhists; 297,000 Hindus; and 278,000 Sikhs.<ref> See [http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/demo30a-eng.htm "Population by religion, by province and territory (2001 Census)"]</ref>

Catholicism formerly dominated Quebec until the "[[Quiet Revolution]]" of the 1960s, which has greatly reduced the power of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and its participation rates.
[[File:Gurion Hyman Jewish people of Canada.jpg|thumb|left|280px|Jewish people of Canada.]]
The proportion attending religious services on a regular basis has declined over the past 20 years. According to the General Social Survey (GSS), 21% of Canadians aged 15 and over reported they attended a religious service at least once a week in 2005, down from 30% in 1985.<ref> Colin Lindsay, "Canadians attend weekly religious services less than 20 years ago," [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-630-x/2008001/article/10650-eng.htm ''Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref> Between 1985 and 2004, the share of Canadians aged 15 and older reporting no religious affiliation increased by seven percentage points from 12% to 19%. 37% of Canadians who rarely attend formal services nevertheless regularly engage in personal religious practices. Of of those who had not attended any religious services over the previous year, 27% engaged in weekly religious practices on their own. Overall this group of adults who regularly engage in private religious practices, but infrequently or never attend religious services, represent, 21% of the adult population. This pattern was most prevalent among older Canadians.<ref> Warren Clark and Grant Schellenberg, "Who's religious?" [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-008-x/2006001/9181-eng.htm '"Statistics Canada'' (2008)]</ref>

Civil liberties organizations, the media, and some members of Parliament occasionally criticized federal and provincial human rights commissions and tribunals for their application of hate speech restrictions included in federal and provincial human rights acts, claiming that the commissions and tribunals at times limited free speech and expression, and religious rights. The commissions are required by law to process all complaints they receive.

A complaint against the editor of ''Catholic Insight'', alleging the magazine promoted hatred against homosexuals,remained before the Canadian Human Rights Commission at the end of 2008. The complainant alleged that he was upholding Catholic teaching on homosexuality in the magazine.

In June 2008 members of the Ontario legislature voted unanimously to maintain the tradition of reading the Lord's Prayer in the provincial legislature and to add a rotation of prayers from other major religious traditions and a moment of silent reflection for atheists. The vote was prompted by a proposal by Ontario's premier in February 2008 to discontinue the religious observance.

==Government==
The government of Canada is split into two orders, federal and provincial, as outlined by the BNA Act. Each has very specific responsibilities, with some overlap. For instance, universal health care is mandated by the Federal Government, but it is administered by the Provincial Governments. Neither level has supremacy over the other. The Federal Government is run out of [[Ottawa]], [[Ontario]]; the provincial governments are run out the ten provincial capitals.

The federal parliament is bicameral, including both a lower house - the [[Canadian House of Commons]] - and an upper house - the [[Canadian Senate]]. The parliamentary system is based on the British parliament. Members of Parliament represent specific geographical areas, generally chosen to have approximately equal population. A single member is elected from each on a [[first past the post]] system. The [[prime minister]] is usually the leader of the party with the most seats, though two or more parties may form a [[coalition]] to form a government.

The Senate is made up of senators appointed for life by the prime minister (acting on behalf of the Governor General).

In almost all cases, Acts of Parliament are created in the House of Commons. After passing three readings in the House of Commons, the bill is passed to the Senate. The job of the Senate is to further debate the proposed legislation, before passing it to the Governor General for Royal Assent. The Governor General is the official representative of Her Majesty [[Queen Elizabeth II]], Queen of Canada. The senators and the governor general are appointed positions by the sitting government. Senators are "lifetime" appointments and the Governor General will sit for, approximately, five yerars. The Prime Minister of Canada is the head of Government of Canada, acting as the Minister of the Crown, a practise inherited from the British system.
[[File:Stephen Harper Canada.jpg|thumb|left|220px|Prime Minister Stephen Harper.]]
All provincial legislatures are unicameral. The legislative process for provincial legislation is the same as for federal legislation, except that there is no Senate and the legislation is given royal assent by the provincial Lieutenants Governor, who represent the monarch at the provincial level.

From 1841 to 1844, the capital city of what would become Canada was located in [[Kingston|Kingston, Ontario]]. Subsequently the capital alternated between [[Toronto]] and [[Montreal]] until 1857, when the capital moved to [[Ottawa|Ottawa, Ontario]].
[[Image:Supreme Court of Canada.jpg|right|thumb|200px|The Supreme Court of Canada.]]
The 40th Canadian Federal General Election occurred on October 14, 2008.<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html "Vote set for Oct. 14"]</ref> Currently, the Prime Minister is The Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]], a member of the [[Conservative Party of Canada]], while His Excellency [[David Lloyd Johnston]] is the Governor General. At present Canada is governed by a [[minority government]].

===Principal Government Officials===
*Head of State--Queen Elizabeth II
*Governor General--David Lloyd Johnston
*Prime Minister--Stephen Harper
*Minister of Foreign Affairs--Lawrence Cannon
*Ambassador to the United Nations--John McNee

===Politics===
On February 6, 2006, '''Stephen Harper,''' leader of the Conservative Party, became Canada's twenty-second prime minister, succeeding Liberal Paul Martin. A policy wonk from Alberta, Harper rose from the ranks of conservative political party staffers. In Parliament, he became Leader of the Opposition (2002-6). In 2003 he became head of the western-based Canadian Alliance. He was elected the first leader of the Conservative Party of Canada when it was created in 2003 through the merger of Harper's Canadian Alliance and Peter MacKay's Progressive Conservative Party. The January 23, 2006 election victory by the Conservative Party ended twelve years of Liberal Party rule that, in the end, was tainted by accusations of corruption and ethical missteps. In the federal election on October 14, 2008, the Conservatives won 38% of the vote and formed a second minority government with 143 seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals won 26% of the vote and 77 seats in the House of Commons. As the party with the second-largest number of seats, the Liberals form the "official opposition."

The Conservatives made unexpected gains in Quebec by winning ten seats in the January 2006 election, but failed to increase their number of seats in the province in the 2008 election. The separatist Bloc Quebecois (BQ) had a majority (49) of Quebec's 75 seats (the BQ runs candidates only in Quebec). The left-leaning New Democratic Party (NDP) had 37 seats, and two independents also sat in Parliament. Harper beat off a threatening no-confidence vote in late 2008 by warning that a government that included the BQ separatists --who want Quebec to break away from Canada--was hostile to Canada's national unity.

On May 2, 2011 there was another election. The outcome was very dramatic and ground breaking. The Liberals traditionally placing first or second were reduced to just 34 seats becoming the third party of Canada. This happened from vote splitting in Ontario in which the leftists split their votes between the Liberals and the NDP. The Bloc Quebecois were destroyed in Quebec as the so called "Orange Crush" of the NDP swept that province taking 59 out of 75 seats, leaving the BQ with a mere 4 seats. The NDP had their best results of all time and for the first time in history became the Official Opposition. The Conservatives came out on top though with 166 seats giving them their coveted majority.

===Policy===
[[File:Afghanistan Canadian army.JPEG|thumb|280px|Canadian army at Afghanistan.]]
Policy priorities of the Conservatives under Harper have remained fairly consistent since 2006: fighting the [[Recession of 2008]]; aiding the ailing [[Automobile]] industry; improving accountability and ethics in government; lowering taxes; fighting crime; reinvesting in defense; bolstering Canada's Arctic sovereignty; promoting national unity; and raising the profile of Canada's role abroad, through its combat mission in Afghanistan, contributions to stabilization in Haiti, and renewed partnership with Latin America. Harper has been friendly with the U.S., despite growing Canadian annoyance with restrictions on border crossings. Harper has been a strong supporter of [[NAFTA]], and works to increase Canada's oil exports to the U.S. He remains strong in the polls as Canada has suffered less from the worldwide [[Recession of 2008]] than the EU or the U.S.

[[Quebec]], with 23% of the national population, its distinctive French-language ("francophone") culture, angered the western provinces by wielding undue influence on the Federal Government and its repeated threats to national unity. Until Harper of Alberta became prime minister in 2006, the western provinces had denounced Ottawa's failure to appreciate the oil interests, Canada's major industry. Ontario complains that it pays out far more to the Federal Government than it gets back in revenues, while the Atlantic Provinces seek to assert greater control over fishing and mineral rights off their shores. The Federal Government ceded some power in a few areas of provincial jurisdiction, while seeking to strengthen the federal role in many other areas such as inter-provincial trade and the regulation of securities.

====National Unity====
Popular support for Quebec sovereignty appears to be on the wane, although Francophone pride in that province's unique cultural and linguistic identity remains very strong. Most Quebec voters seem to appreciate the economic benefits of remaining in the Canadian confederation and aim to advance their separate Francophone identity within the confederation. In a provincial election held on December 8, 2008, provincial Liberal Leader Jean Charest won a majority government. The separatist Parti Quebecois placed second.

====Quebec Secession Movement and the October Crisis====
[[File:Quebec1759.jpg|thumb|300px|left|Painting of British landing at Quebec, 1759.]]
There are trivial separatist movements lobbying for independence from Canada in British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec. The only movement of real significance is in Quebec, where the province has twice voted on whether or not to separate from Canada, once in 1980 and again in 1995; the vote in 1995 failed by just 1 percent. On November 27, 2006, the Federal Government passed a motion declaring Québec a nation "within a united Canada". <ref> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=hansard&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2544166&File=0#OOB-1799206</ref>

This movement did reach a violent level however when the [[FLQ]] (Front de liberation du Quebec) undertook a series of letterbombings from 1963-1970[http://www.canadianencyclopedia.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0005880.com] The terror campaign reached a fever pitch when Pierre Laport and James Cross were kidnapped in their own homes by gun wielding FLQ members. [http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/civil_unrest/topics/101/] The government initiated a crackdown in which the War Measures Act was put in place. The only time where the measure has been enacted in peace time [http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/terrorists_spies/terrorists/flq/11.html]. The measure was widely supported by Canadians at the time. The action was short lived however as the members of the FLQ were tracked down and arrested. The body of Pierre Laport was discovered in the trunk of a car outside a Canadian military base. James Cross was released after intense negotiations with the government. The remaining members of the FLQ were either jailed or as a result of negotiations deported to Cuba.

===Taxation===
The average tax rate in Canada is higher than in the United States. In 2003, Canada's tax burden equals about 33.8% of GDP placing it in the middle of the G7 countries, with Japan lowest at 25.3% and France highest at 43.4% <ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/activty/faq1e.html#Taxation Department of Finance Canada: FAQs]</ref>. The US rate is roughly 25.6%; this discrepancy is consistent with the differing levels of social services which the governments funds. Canada also has managed to run without a budget deficit for a number of years.

Equalization payments, worth 11.7 billion Canadian dollars are made by the federal government to the provinces from richer provinces (currently Alberta, Newfoundland<ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2008/11/03/have-not.html]</ref>, and British Columbia) and the poorer provinces (Ontario, <ref>[http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/11/03/flaherty-ministers.html]</ref>, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) . This is to ensure that reasonably uniform standards of services and taxation are kept between the richer and poorer provinces.<ref>Budget 2007 [http://www.budget.gc.ca/2007/bp/bpc4e.html]</ref> These payments have not been without controversy as provinces begin to make more revenues from natural resources they do not want to give up the Equalization payments.

British Columbia has the lowest corporate tax rate in North America <ref>http://www.investbc.com/businessclimate.htm</ref>.

Canada also has a national sales tax, the Goods and Services Tax (GST) of 5% on all purchases. Some provinces add an additional percentage in the form of a Provincial Sales Tax (PST), or a combined Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) combining GST and the Provincial Sales Tax. Based on actual income, and a number of other factors, the government will refund GST/HST to eligible tax payers in quarterly installments on the fifth of the month in July, October, January, and April.

====Public Health Care====
[[File:Trudeau.jpg|thumb|Pierre Elliot Trudeau.]]
In 1984, the Federal Government, under the leadership of the Liberals and The Right Honourable [[Pierre Trudeau|Pierre Elliot Trudeau]], enacted the Canada Health Act. This act was based on the five principles of "universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness, and public administration"<ref>[http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/hise.html History of Canada Health and Social Transfer]</ref>. This public health care system is run in partnership by Health Canada and provincial Ministries of Health, who both contribute tax revenues. The federal government sets policy, while the provinces are responsible for actual administration. In 1995, the Canada Health and Social Transfer was created to replace existing systems for the transferal of tax funding to the provinces to administer social programs. The rationale behind the system is to allow all Canadians equal access to equal treatment, regardless of socio-economic status.

In Canada health care is frequently listed as top issue in election campaigns and is both a topic of frequent debate and a point of pride for many Canadians, Tommy Douglas the founder of medicare was, for example, voted the "Greatest Canadian" on a CBC television programme in 2004 <ref>
http://www.cbc.ca/greatest/</ref>.

The current state of Canada's public health care system is gathering increasing media attention due to rising wait times. [[David Gratzer]] wrote:
<blockquote>... government researchers have provided the best data on the doctor shortage, noting, for example, that more than 1.5 million Ontarians (or 12 percent of that province’s population) can’t find family physicians. <ref>[http://city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html The Ugly Truth about Canadian Healthcare] </ref></blockquote>
Most of the blame for the current state of affairs has been placed on successive government mismanagement. This represents a failure of the federal government to properly regulate the level of service being offered in the provinces. People regularly have to wait between four and eight months for surgeries. The median wait time for an MRI across Canada is 10.3 weeks in 2006.<ref>http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/shared/readmore.asp?sNav=nr&id=753</ref> In fact, former Prime Minister [[Jean Chretien|Jean Chrétien]] campaigned on a promise to shut down private MRI clinics because it creates a two tier system, regardless of the demand for more facilities.

In recent years, there has been suggestion from some lobby groups that Canada should adopt a two-tier health care system, while others have expressed strong opposition to this idea, including the federal government under the Liberal Party. Some argue that Canada already does have a two-tier health care system as the very wealthy can go to the United States for treatment. The argument for allowing private health care is twofold. The first reason is that competition may improve the quality of products and services, while the increase in options will allow those with the means to access private health care and may relieve some of the burden off the public system. Critics argue that health is a right, and that everyone should have access to the same standard of care.

Recently, in [[Québec]], a provincial judge has ruled that private health care providers must be allowed to compete with the government-run health care system.

==Defense==
As of the most recent cabinet shuffle, Conservative MP Peter MacKay has assumed the role of Minister of National Defense.
[[File:Canadian Army ambulance Medical Truck.jpg|left|250px]]
The [[Canadian Forces]] is comprised of the Regular Force and the Reserve Force. The Regular and Reserve Forces employ over 62,000 and 25,000 members respectively. While the various branches wear distinctive elemental uniforms (DEU), the Royal Canadian Navy, Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Air Force were amalgamated in 1968 into one common command structure <ref>http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/about/index_e.asp</ref>.
The Canadian Forces are <ref>http://www.canadianally.com/ca/forces-cf-en.asp</ref>equipped with modern vehicles such as the Canadian-built LAV III, the German-built Leopard CII tanks and both the American-built CF-18 Hornet and CC-177 Globemaster III. The Canadian government spends about 17 billion Canadian dollars annually on defence<ref>[http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/est-pre/20072008/me-bd/part1/ME-030_e.asp]</ref>.

The Conservative government has continued the trend of increased defense spending initiated by the Liberals, and have also taken steps to decrease red-tape preventing the troops from having the necessary equipment to keep them safe and effective. They have also taken steps to establish Canada's sovereignty over its arctic regions.

Over 3000 Canadian troops are currently deployed around the world, with over 2500 in [[Afghanistan]] where they are assisting in anti-terrorism and reconstruction operations. Another 500 are deployed to the Middle East where they are attached to a US-led coalition fleet and the Standing NATO Maritime Group 1 (SNMG1). These are prime examples of Canada's capability for interoperability with foreign military forces.

==Economy==
[[File:Urmas Paet Canadian Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan, 2010.jpg|thumb|250px|The Minister of International Trade Peter Van Loan with Urmas Paet, Estonian Foreign Minister, 2010.]]
*GDP (2007): $1.266 trillion.
*Real GDP growth rate (2007): 2.7%.
*Per capita GDP (2007): $38,435.
*Natural resources: Petroleum and natural gas, hydroelectric power, metals and minerals, fish, forests, wildlife, abundant fresh water.
*Agriculture: Products--wheat, livestock and meat, feed grains, oil seeds, dairy products, tobacco, fruits, vegetables.
*Industry: Types--motor vehicles and parts, machinery and equipment, aircraft and components, other diversified manufacturing, fish and forest products, processed and unprocessed minerals.
*Trade: U.S. merchandise exports to Canada (2007)--$248.9 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, industrial and electrical machinery, plastics, computers, chemicals, petroleum products and natural gas, and agricultural products. In 2007, 65% of Canada's imports came from the United States. U.S. merchandise imports from Canada (2007)--$313.1 billion: motor vehicles and spare parts, crude petroleum and natural gas, forest products, agricultural products, metals, industrial machinery, and aircraft. In 2007, 76% of Canada's exports went to the U.S.

===Business===

Canada has invested heavily in high-tech, export-oriented businesses, achieving major success in:
* Aerospace: Canada’s global share of aerospace activity has tripled in the last 20 years, making Canada the world’s 5th largest aerospace producer.
* Ag-biotech: Canadian firms’ revenues exceed those of US agro-based companies and are more than double those of Japan and the UK.
* Agri-food: Canada is the world’s fourth-largest exporter of agricultural products.
* Automotive: Canada is among the Top 10 automotive countries and the 3rd largest exporter of automotive products after Japan and the U.S. Most of the output goes to the U.S. market.
* Biotechnology: Canada is a leader in biotechnology—one of the top five countries in the world.
* Plastics: Canada is the world’s fourth largest exporter of moulds and eighth largest exporter of plastics processing machinery.
* see also [[Canadian railways]]
[[File:O-bad-for-canada.jpg|thumb|200px|Leading Canadian newsmagazine evaluates Obama's threat to Canada, June 29, 2009]]

Canadians worry that Obama's economic policies will damage Canada's economy, especially [[cap and trade]], the Buy America rule in the 2009 stimulus, and environmental hostility to Canadian oil produced from oil sands.

===Energy===
Canada has vast natural resources and is one of the world’s largest producers and exporters of energy. In 2005, Canada produced 19.1 quadrillion British Thermal Units (Btu) of total energy, the fifth-largest amount in the world. Since 1980, Canada’s total energy production has increased by 86%, while its total energy consumption has increased by only 48% during that period. Almost all of Canada’s energy exports go to the United States, making it the largest foreign source of U.S. energy imports: Canada is consistently among the top sources for U.S. oil imports, and it is the largest source of U.S. natural gas and electricity imports.<ref> See Energy Information Administration, [http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Canada/Background.html "Canada" (2009 report)] </ref>

In 2005, the largest source of energy consumption in Canada was oil (31%), followed by hydroelectricity (25%) and natural gas (24%). Both coal (12%) and nuclear (7%) constitute a smaller share of the country’s overall energy mix. From 1985-2005, Canada’s overall energy mix has remained relatively stable, though hydroelectricity has decreased from 31%to 25%, as oil drilling is more popular than dam building.

==History==
* See [[History of Canada]]

[[File:VC John Robert Osborn Statue Military of Canada Hong Kong.jpg|thumb|left|300px|Statue, Military of Canada, John Robert Osborn, VC, [[Hong Kong]]'s Park.]]

==Further Reading==
* '''See [[History of Canada]] for a more detailed bibliography.'''

* [http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCESubjects&Params=A1 ''Canadian Encyclopedia'' (2008)] reliable detailed encyclopedia, on-line free
* Artibise, Alan F. J., ed. ''Interdisciplinary Approaches to Canadian Society: A Guide to the Literature.'' McGill-Queen's U. Press, 1990. 156 pp.
* Bickerton, James, and Alain Gagnon. ''Canadian Politics'' (2004) 584 pages, textbook
* Blore, Shawn. ''Frommer's Canada'' (2004) 828 pages travel guide
* Campbell, Robert Malcolm et al. ''The Real Worlds of Canadian Politics: Cases in Process and Policy,'' (2004) 342 pages
* Conrad, Margaret, and Alvin Finkel. ''Canada: A National History.'' (2003), college textbook.
* DK Publishing. ''Canada'' (Eyewitness Travel Guides) by Hugh Thompson (2002) [http://www.amazon.com/Canada-Eyewitness-Travel-Guides-Publishing/dp/0789495619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1249580319&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hallowell, Gerald, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian History'' (2004) 1650 very good entries
* Johnson, William. ''Stephen Harper and the Future of Canada'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Harper-Future-William-Johnson/dp/0771095546/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239348955&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* Morton, Desmond. ''A Short History of Canada'' 5th ed (2001)
* ''National Atlas of Canada'' (1st ed. 1906; 2nd ed. 1915; 3rd ed. 1957; 4th ed. 1974; 6th ed. 1999 is electronic)
* Pammett, Jon H., and Christopher Dornan. ''The Canadian Federal Election of 2006'' (2006)
* Pryke, Kenneth G. and Walter C. Soderlund, eds. ''Profiles of Canada.'' (2003). 3rd edition of textbook
* Toye, William, ed. ''The Oxford Companion to Canadian Literature.'' (1983). 843 pp.
* Wells, Paul. ''Right Side Up: the Fall of Paul Martin and the Rise of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism'' (2006)
* Westhues, Anne. '' Canadian Social Policy: Issues and Perspectives,'' 2003

== External links ==
* [http://www.gc.ca/ Government of Canada]
* [http://www.parl.gc.ca/ Parliament of Canada]
* [http://www.pch.gc.ca/ Department of Canadian Heritage]
* [http://cansim2.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-win/cnsmcgi.pgm?Lang=Eng&SP_Action=Main-Principal&SP_Mode=2 Statistics Canada current data]
* [https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ca.html CIA World Factbook:Canada]
* [http://www.forces.ca The Canadian Forces], military
* [http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-516-x/3000140-eng.htm ''Historical Statistics of Canada'' (1983)] The major historical data source.
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwDvF0NtgdU Canadian National Anthem]
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNlTwaPQQH4&feature=related Canadian National Anthem (French)]
*[http://www.asianramblings.com/travel/hong-kong/battle-hong-kong/canadian-heroes-china-john-robert-osborn/ Battle of Hong Kong - Canadian Heroes in China: John Robert Osborn, VC.]
=== Political Party Websites (Major) ===
* [http://www.conservative.ca Conservative Party of Canada]
* [http://www.liberal.ca Liberal Party of Canada]
* [http://www.ndp.ca New Democratic Party of Canada]
* [http://www.blocquebecois.org Bloc Québécois]
* [http://www.greenparty.ca Green Party of Canada]

=== Political Party Websites (Minor) ===
* [http://http://www.fpnpoc.ca/ First Peoples National Party of Canada]
* [http://www.partyofalberta.org/ Party of Alberta]
* [http://www.progressivecanadian.org/ Progressive Canadian Party]
* [http://www.mlpc.ca/ Marxist-Leninist Party]
* [http://www.canadianactionparty.ca/ Canadian Action Party]
* [http://www.peoplespoliticalpower.ca/ People's Political Power Party]
* [http://www.animalalliance.ca/ Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party]
* [http://www.westernblockparty.com/ Western Bloc Party]
* [http://www.chp.ca/en/index.html Christian Heritage Party of Canada]

== References ==
{{reflist}}

[[Category:Canada| ]]
[[Category:North American Countries]]
[[Category:NATO members]]
[[Category:Christian-Majority Countries]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Conservative Party of Canada

2011-05-27T03:24:56Z

UofGuelphStudent: some grammar added subsidy

[[Image:649px-Conservative Party of Canada.png|right|thumb|Conservative Party of Canada LOGO]]
The '''Conservative Party of Canada''', colloquially known as the '''Tories''', is a [[Canada|Canadian]] [[political party]], formed after the 2003 amalgamation of the national [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada]] and the [[Canadian Alliance]]. The party united right-of-center and right-wing Canadians under one common banner and won a [[minority government]] in 2006, ending a 13-year reign by the [[Liberal Party of Canada]]. The current party leader, and [[Prime Minister of Canada]], is the Right Honourable [[Stephen Harper]]. They currently have a majority government with 166 out of 308 seats.

After the 1993 defeat of the Canada's only female Prime Minister, [[Kim Campbell]], the Progressive Conservatives, a center-right party were reduced to just two seats in the House of Commons. Another right-wing party, the [[Reform Party of Canada|Reform Party]], gained 52 seats in that election. In 2000, the Reform Party changed its name to the Canadian Alliance. After a decade of split votes between the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance, the parties merged.

The party is generally supportive of privatization, a smaller federal government, larger provincial governments, closer relations with the [[United States]], [[Canadian Senate|Senate reform]], implementation of a two tier health care system, and a stronger military. The party opposes legalization of [[cannabis]], and held a free-vote on reopening the issue of [[same-sex marriage]] (which was ultimately defeated). They have also motioned for fixed election dates, raising both supporters and detractors among all Canadian political parties, removal of the per-vote subsidy, and for government accountability.

== See also ==

*[[Conservative Links]]

==External links==
* [http://www.conservative.ca/ Conservative Party of Canada official site]

[[Category:Canadian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Conservative Political Parties]]

Liberal Party of Canada

2011-05-27T03:20:24Z

UofGuelphStudent: added bob rae

The '''Liberal Party of Canada''' is a federal political party within the [[Canadian]] Federal Government. Other Liberal Parties exist in all of the Canadian Provinces, but not all are directly afflicated with the federal party. The party's former leader [[Stéphane Dion]], was often portrayed as a very innefectual leader and is often lampooned in the Canadian media.<ref>Stéphane Dion [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLNfNsHooNo portrayed as an idiot by the CBC]</ref> He was ousted as leader in December 2008 by [[Michael Ignatieff]], who was been continuously seen as a opportunist and only in it for himself.

In the past, the party has been traditionally a center and slightly left of center party based chiefly in vote rich [[Ontario]] and [[Québec]], and has been known as "Canada's Governing Party" because of the large number of elections they have won. However, the party has been rocked by a sponsorship scandal in Québec of late, and their popularity has not returned. The Liberals have not been as popular in western Canada, where voters have voted for the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservatives]].

The Liberal Party is has been plagued for years by corruption scandals. It also wholeheartedly rejects [[conservative]] and [[family values]]; it instituted socialized medicine, legalized [[gay marriage]], decriminalized [[marijuana]] possession, upholds taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], and affirms man-made contribution to [[global warming]]. Stéphane Dion, a former sociology professor, and a devout Catholic.

The Liberal Party, and liberals in Canada are known informally as "Grits".

They are opposed by the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]], [[New Democratic Party]] and the sovereigntist [[Bloc Québecois]].

In the 2011 elections the Liberals were demolished by the success of the Conservatives and the NDP. The Liberals seat total reduced from 77 in the to a record low of 34 making them the third party in Canadian politics. Their leader at the time Michael Ignatieff failed to win even his own riding and resigned as party leader. Bob Rae former NDP turned Liberal former premier of Ontario has taking up the position as the parties in-term leader until further notice.

==External links==
* [http://www.liberal.ca/ Liberal Party of Canada official site]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

[[Category:Canadian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

Liberal Party of Canada

2011-05-27T03:14:45Z

UofGuelphStudent: grammar improvements.

The '''Liberal Party of Canada''' is a federal political party within the [[Canadian]] Federal Government. Other Liberal Parties exist in all of the Canadian Provinces, but not all are directly afflicated with the federal party. The party's former leader [[Stéphane Dion]], was often portrayed as a very innefectual leader and is often lampooned in the Canadian media.<ref>Stéphane Dion [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLNfNsHooNo portrayed as an idiot by the CBC]</ref> He was ousted as leader in December 2008 by [[Michael Ignatieff]], who was been continuously seen as a opportunist and only in it for himself.

In the past, the party has been traditionally a center and slightly left of center party based chiefly in vote rich [[Ontario]] and [[Québec]], and has been known as "Canada's Governing Party" because of the large number of elections they have won. However, the party has been rocked by a sponsorship scandal in Québec of late, and their popularity has not returned. The Liberals have not been as popular in western Canada, where voters have voted for the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservatives]].

The Liberal Party is has been plagued for years by corruption scandals. It also wholeheartedly rejects [[conservative]] and [[family values]]; it instituted socialized medicine, legalized [[gay marriage]], decriminalized [[marijuana]] possession, upholds taxpayer-funded [[abortion]], and affirms man-made contribution to [[global warming]]. Stéphane Dion, a former sociology professor, claims to be a devout Catholic.

The Liberal Party, and liberals in Canada are known informally as "Grits".

They are opposed by the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]], [[New Democratic Party]] and the sovereigntist [[Bloc Québecois]].

In the 2011 elections the Liberals were demolished by the success of the Conservatives and the NDP. The Liberals seat total reduced from 77 in the to a record low of 34 making them the third party in Canadian politics.

==External links==
* [http://www.liberal.ca/ Liberal Party of Canada official site]

==References==
{{reflist|small}}

[[Category:Canadian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

New Democratic Party

2011-05-27T03:11:27Z

UofGuelphStudent: added some policies of the NDP

The '''New Democratic Party''' or '''NDP''' is a [[democratic socialist]] [[Canadian]] political party and the current Official Opposition. Its current leader is [[Jack Layton]]. It is noted for being the party of [[Tommy Douglas]]<ref>[http://www.mta.ca/faculty/arts/canadian_studies/english/about/study_guide/roots/ccf2ndp.html NDP Party history]</ref>, founder of Canada's [[universal healthcare]] system. Said of Douglas "He pursued his radical ideas relentlessly until they became so mainstream rival politicians claimed them as their own". Douglas also criticized [[liberalism]]. <ref>[http://archives.cbc.ca/politics/parties_leaders/topics/851/ CBC historical archive on Tommy Douglas and the NDP.]</ref>

The NDP has traditionally been an opponent to both the [[Conservative Party of Canada|Conservative Party]] and [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberal Party]] as well as the separatist [[Bloc Quebecois]]. From their recent success in the 2011 elections the NDP beat their all time record of 43 seats of the Ed Broadbent era with 103 seats making them the official opposition, although they still have little to no power as the Conservatives have a majority government.

Some of the main issues on the party's platform include;
Increasing social programs such as public health care and eduction and a raise in taxes of all forms.

[[Category:Canadian Political Parties]]
[[Category:Canadian History]]

== References ==
<references/>