Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 2

OK, moved in the rewrite and archived earlier talk

Still improving the article and waiting for more reference books to arrive, but I believe it to be a considerable improvement. Both National Socialism and The Holocaust also need work. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:19, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I just compared the first paragraph of the new version with the first paragraph of the "old" version. The old version is much better suited as an introduction: It does what an introduction should do -- it summarises the main facts, while the new one compares him with Stalin, a comparison that (at most) makes sense in context much later. --Peter Schmitt 02:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The best Citizendium introductions to complex historical subjects synthesize and contextualize. A major thrust of Hitler scholarship, from about 1970 onward, is more explanation. By that, I don't mean psychohistory, but what the functionalists call how he exercised power. Contrasts with Stalin are quite important in this. The point that there would have been no Naziism without Hitler is critical.

Specifically, which crucial facts are missing from the introduction? What do you define as "main facts"? Howard C. Berkowitz 02:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Taking the Introduction sentence by sentence "As a leader, he differed from the other great dictator of the time, Joseph Stalin, in that his authority was based on charisma rather than ideology." This sententence introduces the controversial claim that Stalin's authority was based on ideology; - he was a notably unimpressive ideologist, and I thought it was rather more conventional to believe that Stalin's authority was based on terror. The next sentence reads "In other words, Nazi ideology was what Hitler believed." In what sense is this the previous sentence "in other words"? This sentence is a non-sequitur and expresses another controversial claim that is not developed in the article - the claim that there was no ideological basis to National Socialism. It goes on: ""Like Stalin, Hitler deliberately gave overlapping responsibilities to subordinates, keeping them from growing too powerful and making him the ultimate authority." Deliberately gave them rather than accidentally? And is there anything particularly unusual in giving overlapping power to subordinates, or anything about that in particular that stops them getting too powerful, or anything unusual in a leader being the ultimate authority? You say that the point that "there would have been no Naziism without Hitler" is critical. Well, those of us who have worried about the lessons of history can all rest easy then - but this critical point is not argued in the article that follows. Nor does that article make those contrasts with Stalin that you say are quite important - so important that they appear in the lead. Clearly we need an academic expert in History for this article, but Peter's comments seem obviously true - the present lead introduces a controversial comparison that the article does not in fact go on to explore. Gareth Leng 10:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Gareth, if you have read the addition of Bullock's work on Hitler and Stalin, or the earlier woer from Nyomarkay, or the functionalist vs. intentionalist debate in the Historiography section. Perhaps some of that material needs to move to the lede.

Given the amount of cited academic sources, I'm a little concerned about your insistence on an academic expert. From a military history aspect, this has been an interest of mine for about 40 years, with substantial time in the U.S. Natioal Archives (Suitland and Washington) with primary historical sources. The Historiography section perhaps can be strengthened and some moved to the lede, but I think there is substantial support. May I remind you that I am a Politics, Military and History Editor? I mention politics because since roughly the mid-seventies, the formal literature in international relations and governance has considerably rethought totalitarianism.

Ideology=

May I ask for some academic quality sources on National Socialism being a well-defined ideology, as opposed to perhaps the interpretations of Hitler from the intentionalist school of Hitler historiography? Howard C. Berkowitz 11:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem; have you thought of using Google Scholar to help you? These might be a place to start

• [http://www.getcited.org/pub/101872775 The crisis of German ideology: Intellectual origins of the Third Reich
• Friedrich Ratzel and the Origins of Lebensraum by Woodruff D. Smith
• National Socialism: totalitarianism or fascism? W Sauer - The American Historical Review, 1967
• Reactionary modernism J Herf - Theory and Society, 1981 Gareth Leng 14:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a basic question here, perhaps which might go to the forums. In the more formal literature of international relations, I think you'll find that to be an ideology, something must, at least, be actionable, or translate into a set of governmental functions. If it can't do that, it's political philosophy. Marx and Engels produced political philosophy while Lenin produced ideology. It's harder to trace for the US, but Voltaire, Thomas Paine and others produced political philosophy, where the Federalist Papers (and Anti-Federalist Papers) were sufficiently specific ideology to lead to the writing of the Constitution.

In the case of the Nazis, I have been careful, for example, to describe Alfred Rosenberg's writings as philosophy, even though they were occasionally called ideology, because it is extremely difficult to identify them as causal. Especially in Hitler historiography, one can think of ideology within the Intentionalist school, where at least goals could be identified.

Since I don't have JSTOR access, I can't look at the two articles there. The Springerlink article is also behind a paywall. As an aside, the problem of Deep Web, or non-open sources, is an issue we will sometime have to address. Nevertheless, that is one reason I tend not to use Google Scholar, although, for appropriate topics, I extensively use MEDLINE since it's likely I can find free full text. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

LL

Not a problem; I've e-mailed them to you. Happy to help with JSTOR access. Gareth Leng 12:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The first and most prominent section is the wrong place for discussing "Historiography". It belongs to the end of the article.

This is an article on Hitler, the person. For this purpose there are far too many details of war activities included. (There is, of course, a place for such details in separate articles).

--Peter Schmitt 11:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I put Historiography first because that makes the Citizendium article something that is unique, not just another general article that restates old material. Instead, it sets the context for the article, and introduces how contemporary scholarship will be used, throughout the discussion, to approach the never-satisfactory matter of explaining Hitler's actions.

As far as too many details of war, I find it difficult to respond. Had Hitler never been engaged in war, at best, he would be remembered as a right-wing politician. The military examples, in no way, are a general discussion of World War Two. They are, however, serious attempts to explain why Hitler's particular personality and decisions affected the direction of the war, or, especially in the case of the Sudetenland, bluffed and avoided war. Other major aspects of the war, however, are not discussed at all. I've also been careful not to discuss the operational details of the Holocaust, which were delegated. I try to focus on where Hitler's decisions were essential to the outcome.

While he was a demonically efficient politician, and had striking insights in early war strategy, he was, in broad terms, a terribly bad general. I recommend Ikle's Every War Must End for case studies of how starting wars are often disastrous for the initiating side. Had Germany consolidated its gains after the Battle of France, for example, attacked neither Britain nor France, and done its best to avoid provoking the United States, I am not alone in believing that Germany would have had an excellent chance of dominating continental Europe and making it extremely defensible. It was Hitler's decisions that caused what Ikle calls "strategic overreach", taking on too many enemies and ensuring his failure.

Now, I am not opposed to putting some specific time period into separate, subordinate articles. That is very much what I did in Wars of Vietnam. Especially when actions are interrelated over time, however, it is much easier to write the article with most source material and then start moving text into subarticles. Howard C. Berkowitz 18:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lead paragraph is inappropriate

It has already been clearly pointed out that the lead paragraph is inappropriate and ineffective as a thesis paragraph for the subject. At least, to my mind, this has been pointed out, and I really don't see the point of going off on a tantrum - beg your pardon - a tangent, about who is a subject Editor or how many sources agree with what.

There is a simple matter of good writing here. One does not have to be a subject specialist to know that an introduction should introduce a topic, be germane to the topic, and contain a thesis sentence (topic sentence) or two, if you can't manage it in one.

This is a biographical article. It should introduce the subject, state why he is interesting as a biographical subject, and give an idea of the biographic entry that is to follow. Full stop.

An opening that compares and contrasts Hitler and Stalin is the opening of a different topic. It may be a perfectly valid topic. That's not the point. It's a different topic. Case closed.

Why is there any discussion of this at all?

Aleta Curry 21:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

That Peter points out that he doesn't like the lead paragraph doesn't mean that it is, or is not, inappropriate. It means he thinks it is. There are no CZ standards for biographical articles, and there has, in the past, been considerable interest in differentiating Citizendium from other wikis, original synthesis being one of those areas.

If it is so fundamental and basic, then perhaps someone will write a better introduction on the talk page and discuss it -- even in bullet points, which actually might be better. I personally don't know what the "major points" are supposed to be, if there are some tablets of stone that say this. There is a regrettable tendency for various Citizens to complain about what is wrong with articles, but not offer constructive alternatives. Personally, I cannot write to respond to vague criticisms.

Given the amount of complaints I have heard in the last couple of months, I am coming to the belief my contributions are not desired at Citizendium. If I am at all bold, and this is an example of boldness, there's nothing but complaints -- complaints not specific enough to be acted upon, and no suggested alternate text. I'd observe that when the UFO article started, there was substantial specific guidance and alternate text on the user page.

There were outright errors in the Jensen article on Hitler, such as statements that there were single clearly accepted historical reasons for Hitler's behavior. I posted, both in the Forum and talk pages, my intention to revise. There was no response until I started writing, and writing boldly. Then, however, I get complaints that I'm not writing to what individuals want.

Now, I just was informed that perhaps the best, and hard to find, reference on Hitler's early days in Vienna is now at the library, after spending some effort to get it from another library. We just had a moderate snowstorm, and I am not especially motivated to go slog to the library to get it. This is material I'd like to include, but, since I am hearing nothing but negativity about my work, I have to wonder why I should work in this allegedly collaborative environment.

If everyone knows how my writing should be better, why don't you go do it, or write about something of interest to you? Tell me why I should bother. Boldness clearly is not desired. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's just that comparing Hitler to Stalin is unsuitable for the lead. Be not too bold. Ro Thorpe 22:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC) The original opening was very measured, I thought. Synthesis (a crime at WP) is welcome---but later in the article.

Writing is not the only way to collaborate. Offering (constructive) critical remarks is collaboration, too. You often complained that your work is not read. If it is read and commented, you complain, too. --Peter Schmitt 22:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Shall I make it 4-1 in EC editors about the lede paragraph? It is a *fine* paragraph for an article called Hitler and Stalin. It is a totally inappropriate paragraph for an encyclopedia article about Hitler. It's as if you started an article about Churchill and spent the entire first paragraph comparing him with Roosevelt. You may be a History Editor, Howard, but I myself took many many courses in history at Universities whose names I am quite willing to name, unlike you, who apparently have no academic education at all that I can find, and I could have just as well have graduated with a degree in History as with a degree in English. I would hope that if you find four members of the Editorial Council agreeing that the opening paragraph is totally inappropriate you might ask yourself if perhaps it really *should* be drastically revised. If you are truly unable to do so, I think that I myself might be able to craft a 50-word lede that would meet the standard requirements of an encyc. article. Hayford Peirce 23:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hayford, you don't have access to all my background, I will mention work in the master's program in national security program, School of International Service, American University. Much of my written work outside computer science has been more in actual politics, congressional testimony, and intelligence than in academic publication.

Ro, your comment is the only one I find welcoming, and I'd ask your guidance here. If we can agree that synthesis has a role, let's think how best to place it. The Hitler-Stalin comparison, while I think something that can draw interest, is something that can go elsewhere. It's less important than the special challenges, recognized by numerous academics and journalists I cite, especially in the Historiography section, in writing meaningfully about Hitler. There really has been an increasing amount of new research and insight, starting in the mid-seventies but a good deal being quite recent. There is some fairly substantial evidence that conventional wisdom about him, at least with respect to motivation, cannot be supported.

Hayford and Peter, would you be happier with As a leader, he differed from the other great dictator of the time, Joseph Stalin, in that his authority was based on His leadership was based on personality and charisma rather than ideology, one reason there have been few Nazi revivals.

I will note this could be meaningful discussion, rather than what comes across as hostility to my contributing anything. I am very, very serious that there has been a rethinking about Hitler, and this new scholarship was simply not reflected in the previous article. In a broader context, this scholarship tells us more about how demagogues gain power -- a very real and current danger. A personal note: I have studied Naziism and other right-wing totalitarianism since a high school honors history project led me to the opinion that if there ever is dictatorship in the United States, it will come from the right. Not to overwork poor George Santayana, those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:27, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Howard, one more (and last) time:

You are missing the point. There is no need for meaningful discussion on so straightforward a matter.

There is no 'hostility' to your 'contributing anything', that's a gross exaggeration. There is simply irritation that words need to be wasted.

Aleta Curry 00:11, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Did you even LOOK that I took the Stalin material out of the lede, perhaps giving me a few minutes to do so? Was't that the "straightforward matter" everyone was complaining about? The "meaningful discussion" is about how best to introduce the synthetic and recent scholarship issues.

So, there is no hostility? Nice that you can read my mind. When you complain that something might be testosterone-laced or woman hostile, I listen. The perception of hostility is necessarily subjective. I find it contemptuous when you simply dismiss it. Howard C. Berkowitz 00:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, these changes have (in my view) not improved the lead. The Stalin argument was only one additional issue. It is the whole approach of the new introduction compared to the old one. --Peter Schmitt 01:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

So, Peter, you are saying that all new ideas presented in the new introduction should be removed? Do you reject the charismatic versus ideological analysis, which has certainly been a basic idea in international political analysis for many years? I probably first saw it in Kissinger's textbook in the early 1970s if not the late 1960s.

Personally, I think any new approaches -- and not so new ones, which are thoroughly sourced -- that help understand the phenomenon of Hitler should be tentatively welcomed, and discussed. This is an important topic. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The Editorial Council has been asked to intervene

An EC member, Aleta Curry, has just made a formal Request for a Decision concerning this matter. The process may be viewed at http://locke.citizendium.org/cz_ec/DR-2010-007. At this moment there is a 48-hour period during which the Request must be seconded by at least two other EC members in addition to Aleta. The Secretary, Hayford Peirce 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a violation of at least Article 40 of the Charter, introduced with the language,

• Whenever possible, disputes shall be settled informally at the lowest possible level by subject matter Editors.

In this case, the matter was sent directly to the EC, with no effort made to involve History Editors, the Managing Editor, or Ombudsman. Further citing Article 40,

• All Citizens shall have the right to a fair hearing, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following: the opportunity to present one's case in one's defense, the right to be heard by a fair and unprejudiced body, the right to have others offer testimony on one's behalf.

How can the Editorial Council be a "fair and unprejudiced body" when the primary author is an EC member, and the four Citizens complaining on the Talk Page, are EC members? Is it "fair and unprejudiced" for EC members to refer matters to themselves, not attempting lower-level resolution? I should note that even with Hayford's public criticism of my history background on this page, I am a History, Politics, and Military Editor, all of which are relevant to the topic. None of the other four are Editors in these area, nor have they written a significant number of history articles that might give some metric of their experience.

I have very mixed feelings about seconding in this one case. On the one hand, I don't think this should immediately have gone to the EC. On the other hand, this is now the third time when my competence has been attacked by EC motion. One proposed to strip my Editorships because I was somehow, as one of seven members, was preventing the EC from functioning. The relationship was not clear.

In the second case, two other articles were attacked as incompetent, including being blanked by one individual. The response was to lock them, and then drop the accusations without any opportunity to present my case and clear my reputation.

I am perfectly willing to discuss specifics, but I'm afraid this is turning into a personality contest. I literally don't know how many history articles I have written, some with collaboration with History Editors, but the number is certainly in the hundreds. Other than Dr. Jensen, a History Editor has never taken me to task, and he never charged incompetence -- we disagreed, noisily at times.

I'd simply like to get back to improving this article, without it needing to be assigned to the Melodrama Subgroup. Howard C. Berkowitz 05:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is not a sanction against an individual, it's a ruling on content, on which the Editorial Council is the final authority. This case also raises some general issues of importance relating to content, - and also raises some issues of behaviour, in particular the apparent "rights" of editors to "own" articles that they have written, and exactly what constitutes relevant expertise. An early principle was that when an editor writes an article he or she is acting as an author not an editor and should not exercise editorial authority over that content. This is a principle best exercised lightly, but editorial authority is generally best exercised lightly. If an article is truly specialist and intended for academic reading, as some here are, it is likely to be written by an expert and unlikely to be challenged unless by other experts. However, if an article is intended for lay readers then its structure and content must be open to challenge and constructive input from those it is intended to reach. The art of good writing is to convey ideas clearly and concisely from one mind to another, and the task of an expert is to achieve that while ensuring that the process is a balanced and objective representation of current knowledge and understanding. Now anyone has a valid contribution to make by questioning whether such an article does in fact achieve those aims. Anyone may question whether the logic of an article is clear, whether the language is fluent and accessible, whether the structure is helpful, whether the evidence is appropriately sourced, whether the content is interesting and appropriate, and no expert judgement is required for these things - for these are the things by which the quality of an article must also be judged. It must be open for readers to judge whether changes to an article are an improvement, and they should not be intimidated from making such judgements; quite the contrary - an expert who ignores his readership is no expert.Gareth Leng 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly reasonable for readers to make such a judgment -- but it is also incumbent on the reader to listen to the case of the author, regardless of whether the author is an Editor or not. In this case, the Historiography section is key to the approach. Is it truly reasonable to make a snap decision that the Historiography is completely irrelevant and the approach taken, based on the Historiography, makes no sense? Should the expert have no opportunity to explain?

A request to explain the approach taken is hardly "ownership". I would raise the point that it would be fair to discuss if the Historiography section, and the associated reasoning, could be improved -- not an immediate demand to have it deprecated, moved to a subpage, etc. It is not "ownership" for an author to explain why she or he has chosen to write something, and even ask for advice -- not shouted down that it is irrelevant

I do not accept that it is not an individual sanction, if for no other reason that it totally violates the Article 40 principle that disputes should be settled at the lowest level possible. Only my work has been the target of more than one EC escalation without a serious attempt to resolve it at lower levels, in at least three articles. For two of those, the allegations were then dropped, after a month or so of article locking, so I was never allowed to present my case as called for in Article 40. The EC is ultimately responsible for content, but, when it has on several occasions bypassed other processes, and, by pure coincidence of course, the author is an EC member and the objectors are a group of EC members, the fairness of the EC as adjudicatory body cannot be assumed.

Further, I regret that you have offered these opinions, at least without some way, perhaps, you had named an Ombudsman's representative that was not involved in the discussion. At this time, I cannot call for Ombudsman assistance from you, which would have been an Article 40 option, since you have already expressed opinions. I don't suggest, Gareth, that you should not be able to offer opinions. I do suggest that before you do so, as in this case or Wikileaks, that you name a delegate that can act as a neutral mediator. The Charter really doesn't address the idea of Ombudsman delegation, but I don't think it forbids it. It's something to discuss. Howard C. Berkowitz 17:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Article 40 is not violated. Informal dispute resolution (via talk page) has failed, obviously. By Art.40.2 a formal decision by the EC may be demanded (and seems necessary here). This is not a personal matter and not about "sanctions". This is ("only") a matter of content and how to present it. Arguments and evidence have been presented and can still be added. --Peter Schmitt 20:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, there has been no informal dispute resolution here, so it has not failed. The first stage of dispute resolution involves assistance from an Editor, preferably an Editor who has not been involved. Did anyone invite an uninvoved History or Politics Editor to intervene? No. I was too busy defending myself against indignant "it is obvious" claims, and being told that the points I raised, dealing with methodology and historiography, were "irrelevant".

There has been no systematic presentation of evidence or arguments. A talk page back-and-forth doesn't allow for it. At a minimum, I would start with the Historiography section and explain how the ideas there guide the article. A systematic argument would at least address the points made there, rather than simply dismiss them as irrelevant or not to the point.

If there is no available Editor, the next level would be the Managing Editor or Ombudsman. Since the Ombudsman took positions in the matter, he is no longer a neutral party. Why not ask Daniel?

Rather than confront you in public, I have sent you a personal email with some suggestions on reducing the flaming here. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Such a pity that I resigned as a Politics Editor, else I would be able to arbitrate in this dispute :-) For what it's worth, the comments by Gareth and Peter are spot-on. The lead should outline salient points, and these may be argued by any intelligent non-expert. Comparison with a contemporary political leader are too subjective and opinionated to be more than a peripheral paragraph in this matter. CZ is an encyclopedia (in principle) rather than a location for opinion pieces. Martin Baldwin-Edwards 21:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary political leader? Do you refer to Stalin? Not that Old Joe is still there, and ot worth arguing about, but he was a contemporary of Hitler, not of any of us. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if my English is not up to your incredibly high standards, Howard. The formal word would be "contemporaneous" but I thought it was fairly obvious what was meant without resorting to academic formalities. Or are you just trying to be clever here? Martin Baldwin-Edwards 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Martin, I was honestly baffled. When I see "contemporary" leader, I think of someone such as Gordon Brown. If you prefer someone of closer political persuasion, I suppose we can add Sarah Palin.

On the other hand, if one is talking about a contemporary of Hitler, this is hardly my own opinion; I sourced quite a few historians on the matter. Howard C. Berkowitz 22:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)