Talk:The Meaning of Hitler

Notable articles

According to List of books by or about Adolf Hitler, "There are thousands of books written about Hitler". I am therefore puzzled why this article should exist, despite journalist Sir Max Hastings calling it 'among the best' studies of Hitler. That kind of comment doesn't make this book notable. I suggest that the article should be deleted, unless evidence is provided that it has had significant influence on our understanding of Adolf Hitler. Have major historians made use of this study? Rwood128 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the article appears to really be about Hitler, summarising chapters from the book. And there is no discussion of why it is important or its influence on subsequent historians. Rwood128 (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Grammar; in this context, 'its', not 'it's.[Corrected] For clarity's sake, should an article about a book purporting to be written by 'Sebastian Haffner' make constant reference to 'Raimund Pretzel'? What are WP guidelines on pseudonymous nonfiction? Crawiki (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC) Crawiki (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the repetition is clumsy, but this was only a stop-gap, to draw attention to a problem (Raimund Pretzel is named as the author in the lede). The whole thing badly needs re-writing. And why shouldn't it be deleted? Why is this book so important? That's a reasonable question. Rwood128 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Is this a quotation? "Germans can no longer dare to be patriots". Rwood128 (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2017

It is sort of, but as it stood there until a minute ago the reader of this article will have gotten the opposite impression of what Haffner intended. Haffner thought that Hitler believed in two basic principles, first, a social-darwinistic struggle of people against people; second, Antisemitism. So, even when he began his career, though he was a German (-speaking Austrian), his choosing to fight for Germany did not spring for genuine love of one's homeland (though - which Haffner doesn't say - that may have played some part), but because he saw Germany as the best horse in the race. In this spirit, he fought for the German people, trying to make it ruthless, brutal, and always aiming along the "final victory or utter self-destruction" line, and in the meantime, killing the Jews. When he knew he wouldn't get victory, according to Haffner at the end of 1941 with a source in the Armed Forces diary (this, perhaps, may be Haffner's weak point), he chose three things: first, get the killing of the Jews done; second, prolong the war long enough to have time to get the killing of the Jews done; third, lead the German people to collective suicide, which according to his ideology was the decent thing for a loser to do. But, as Haffner said, it was always the ultimate crime for Hitler if a people did not behave as Hitler wanted it to. Hitler intended to be England's ally, but England didn't want to be Hitler's ally, hence in the war years he hated it much more than (say) France; Hitler in the first place did not intend to conquer Poland, and even Danzig was but a subterfuge; he intended for Poland to play the role of cooperating deployment zone against Russia, but Poland didn't want to be a cooperating deployment zone against Russia, hence Poland was not only occupied but most ruthlessly occupied. For Germany Hitler had the highest plans, it was to colonize land in Russia, to be the one and only leading power over all Europe with the possible exception of the British Isles and to be a promising contestant in the (for Hitler) "natural struggle for world dominion", and in the meantime to kill the Jews. Now Germany, too, failed to live up to Hitler's expectations; it brought up a lot of Mitläufers, sure, but for his real crimes, especially the killing of the Jews, Hitler at least had to give them a chance to not know. He could exploit their cowardice and caution when nothing was know for certain, only people whispered, but after all, they only whispered; but he could not make the mass of them willing and deliberate accomplices. Further, he intended Germany to win, but it did not win; failing that, he intended Germany to die a hero's death, but it did not want to die a hero's death; it wanted (to Hitler's particular ire) to escape into a Western-Allied occupation. Thus, says Haffner, Hitler in his last days went traitor to Germany; "they feared Russia and wanted Western occupation, but into this wheel Hitler still could put a spoke", by opening his Eastern front for Stalin in order to make a desperate attack in the West (Battle of the Bulge). In addition, he gave orders to kill all German infrastructure. If they had been totally complied with, Germany would not have a future.

Long story short: If this is all true, as Haffner thinks, then it is reasonable to infer that if any German did survive, Hitler wouldn't want him to be a German patriot; Germany was a loser. But German (largely) are not patriots, because they are ashamed of what Hitler did (this is a statement by Haffner about how it is, not how it should be). With this (says Haffner) they fulfill Hitler's latest wish.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:5C1E:D3AC:7D41:61E0 (talk) 12:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

the book is important because it's a) written by someone who was a first-hand witness of Hitler's rise to power and of Jewish persecution, and who had the skill and contacts to tell his story; go to the Sebastian Haffner page and read the external links b) it is short, very readable, and extremely shrewd in its analysis. If you haven't read it yet, why not do so? have deleted Pretzel and replace with Haffner; that's the name he wrote under (journalism and books) and searches on Pretzel simply redirect to Haffner. Crawiki (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The article needs evidence that this book is important, my opinion is irrelevant. Rwood128 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

For evidence, see above. No-one ever said your opinion was relevant. the comment simply said, 'read the book'. Crawiki (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I can understand a critical discussion of a major author's work but what's the point of this superficial summary? Is it an attempt at an advertising blurb? Rwood128 (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Disgusting allegation unsupported by any evidence. Crawiki (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Check "Category:Books about Adolf Hitler" for models of better articles. Rwood128 (talk) 12:31, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

To take one example, the following does not discuss the book but provides biographical information about Hitler. It therefore belongs in an article discussing Hitler. How does Haffner's approach differ from that of other writers on this topic and what are the views of historians, etc. about it?

"According to Sebastian Haffner, whereas Hitler's father made a modest success of life, Hitler, uniquely, failed drastically, then succeeded, then failed again. His life lacked education, occupation, love, friendship, marriage, parenthood. A readiness for suicide, of Geli Raubal, Eva Braun and himself, accompanied his career. All soft, lovable traits are missing from his character. He was also full of himself and unselfcritical. Hitler was an 'empty man' who filled himself with pride and hatred."

Hope this will help you improve this article. Rwood128 (talk) 13:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

See, for example, The End: Hitler's Germany 1944–45. Rwood128 (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

This may have been a German speaking. In German, you put the things into the subjunctive and it is made clear that this is a quote of what Haffner does write, if perhaps a not-literal, summarizing one.--2001:A61:260D:6E01:5C1E:D3AC:7D41:61E0 (talk) 15:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)