Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

→

Archive 30

Charisma

This was indeed discussed some time ago. Calling this sociopath charismatic is not a compliment so there's no reason to qualify it with distracting "weasel" language. Lots of unhelpful, murderous people, including genocidal sociopaths like AH, have charisma. Wyss 08:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I have to repeat myself a few hundred times. It is not like I'm talking to illiterates. Please read what has been written, repeated and emphasize in the sections above - charisma is not being debated, its role is. -- Simonides 00:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Brute force

Please provide citations from major biographers and other historians published in verifiable secondary sources to support the use of the vague op-ed term brute force in the header of this article, thank you. I see no reason why AH's police-state methods can't be referred to as what they were, the use of para-military and police power. I guess I should add, since AH is so (justifiably) hated, that my concern here is the use of encyclopedic and helpfully descriptive language. Speaking among friends, I'm sure I've characterised Mr Hitler's political machine or tactics as "brutal" but the term is too vague for an academically sound description. I mean, I've also called him a psychotic, murderous asshole who set back civilisation at least a generation but wouldn't support that language here. Moreover, for the first several years lots of Germans didn't find him brutal at all. Wyss 15:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Brute force may be op-ed language, but it is not untruthful; if you want references and scholarly material, look up the acclaimed "Nazi Germany and the Jews" by Saul Friedlander. Here's a quote from the early pages in my copy: "Anti-Jewish violence spread (my note: SPREAD, not BEGUN) after the March elections... In Breslau, Jewish lawyers and judges were assaulted in the court building... in Gedern, the SA (Storm Troopers) broke into Jewish homes and beat up the inhabitants... The list of similar incidents is a long one. There were also killings... (etc.)... Much of the foreign press gave wide coverage to the Nazi violence." Also note, on the previous page: "The primary political targets of the new regime and of its terror system, at least during the first months after the Nazi accession to power, were not Jews but Communists." Also look at the works "Holocaust: A History" by Deborak Dwork and Robert Jan van Pelt, "Holocaust" by Martin Gilbert. Jews were being publicly humiliated in the streets by police, arrested, their homes were broken into and wrecked, and groups of Jews started being transported to concentration camps almost right away. All the scholars mentioned are reputable, not hacks like Goldhagen or other agenda-driven ultra-Zionists.

Brute force or some variant needs to be reinstated. I think the onus is on you to prove the contrary, particularly this absurd statement "for the first several years lots of Germans didn't find him brutal at all". -- Simonides 00:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No, if you include the characterization you must be able to support it. Please do so. Wyss 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I added "violent" which cannot be considered an op-ed word. See below. - Simonides 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have inserted the word "violent" before para-military and so on in the header. Speaking of op-ed language and weasel terms, what is the incredibly vague "keen political skills" doing there? -- Simonides 00:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, they used violent means. However, I'm not sure the use of violence is remarkable for a dictator and hence the word wontedly doesn't show up in introductory paragraphs about this particular violent, murderous sociopath. Wyss 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how "remarkable" it is. Violent is a neutral word, it is factual and attributable, it belongs in the header. Adding it says more than merely mentioning that police forces were involved. -- Simonides 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

His political skills are widely noted and I don't consider that an "op-ed" or vague remark, but a concise and supportable one. If you want to start going around in confrontational, semantic circles, please do, it will make it much easier for me to deconstruct your edits. ;) I would, however, prefer a rational, cooperative and civil discussion, ok? Wyss 00:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to point out where I have irrational, uncooperative and not civil above.

You tend to discuss stuff by avoiding the issue and throwing editors' assertions back at them, which makes it seem you're implying bad faith and/or hypocracy on their part and may border on being a personal attack. I find that unhelpful, is all. Wyss 01:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the issue? ALL I do is try to bring a page BACK to the REAL issues, ie keeping historical narratives in line with both facts and context. I provide quotes, argue my points, prove my assertions and/or accept mistakes if/when I make them; I admit, I get annoyed if I have to repeat myself over and over. It's true, the latter may be unhelpful. However, it usually comes AFTER I meet with IMMENSELY unhelpful resistance to making small but necessary changes. Look at all the words wasted in trying to explain the simple truth that charisma should not be projected as the prime cause of Hitler's totalitarianism! -- Simonides 01:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please also explain what political skills you are talking about. Since no one can tell, the phrase qualifies as evasive language. -- Simonides 00:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Browse these cites for example. Wyss 01:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I cited some stolid scholarly works, and you cite an internet search which throws up results in school essays and other Wikipedia pages? I want to assume good faith, but your replies aren't quite satisfactory- again, can you please what you mean by "keen political skills"? -- Simonides 01:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't deliberately mischaracterize the link for debating purposes and have another look. Wyss 01:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wyss, I'm serious, there is really nothing I can find at the link which explains what the phrase "keen political skills" means. All you have done is matched up Adolf Hitler with "political skills" in some web pages - however, once again, this gives me no information on what is meant by keen and precisely what political skills you are talking about! Manoeuvring bills, gerrymandering, discreet corruption, or things already mentioned like making economic promises or effective propaganda, the latter being quite specific and clarifiable information? -- Simonides 01:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have trouble believing you don't see support for the statement by clicking into some of those articles. Are you asserting AH was not politically skilled? Wyss 01:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Wyss, I don't know how much clearer I can be, but please point me to at least one or two pages that EXPLAIN WHAT IS MEANT BY "keen political skills". If you do, then I'll admit I was lazy/mistaken in not perusing all the sites that came up. Otherwise, it is basically opinion, and whether we share this opinion or not is irrelevant! -- Simonides 01:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] for starters. AH's political skills are widely noted. I don't know why you couldn't click into these yourself but all three support the assertion. Wyss 01:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, all of the sites you linked support the fact that anti-Semitism was a major factor in Hitler's popularity, and that violence was frequently used by Hitler, both of which you tried to play down with your edits. As for his political skills, they don't seem to point to much that is specific other than what is mentioned, namely his ultra-nationalism, rhetorical skills, anti-Semitism, economic promises, use of propaganda etc. and they also discuss his crackpot theories and personality which don't qualify as "skills", apart from other factors that have little to do with Hitler; the salient exceptions are Hitler's choice of symbol for the Nazis, which is of course good marketing, and the rivalries he allowed to develop to strengthen his own position. I was wrong to miss these, but I think you'll agree you made it unfeasible by simply throwing up a search with mostly redundant material. However, they don't seem to add up to a whole new set of skills after mentioning "use of propaganda" or "charismatic oratory". Perhaps we could keep "political skills" and remove the adjective "keen." -- Simonides 02:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The links I provided all support the use of the word "keen" (I've no problem with other readers remarking on this). I propose you and I leave the intro paragraph as it is (your last edit) and wait for some other comments and edits, thanks. Wyss 02:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Reverts and RfC

I would appreciate it Wyss if you stop reverting facts as your intro is too whitewashy and not as accurate as what Lacatosias and I agree on.

I will post this page at Requests for Comment and see what third parties believe. In the meanwhile let's leave the header as it is. -- Simonides 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Whitewashy? That's not the first time I've seen you use that term and I guess your accusations that others are "whitewashing" this article characterize the PoV issues you can't seem to recognize in your edits.

Anyway you're now in violation of 3rr after being warned and your edit summaries have been too accusatory and uncivil for me.

RfC's ok, I've no problem with other editors helping out here. Wyss 03:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why "violent" is not redundant & op-ed langauge

At least three users don't seem to understand the diff between saying police powers were involved and violent police power was involved. It's very simple, it helps if you know a little history:

1. Stalinist Russia was a police state in which millions were deported, tortured, executed without fair trial, etc. Police and para-military forces were involved, of course. However, unlike Nazi Germany, these forces did not beat up people on the streets, in their homes, in full view of others, and so on. The Post-Stalinist era did not see great changes in method; of course, the arbitrariness, censorship and death toll decreased drastically, but the Soviet Union remained a very strict police state.
2. East Germany, practically micro-managed by the Stasi, was a police state which used similar methods, again with lower numbers of victims and with less visibility, but with equally dangerous consequences for anyone implicated in any "subversive" activity. The same extends to other Soviet "satellite states" like Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.
3. North Korea, and certain Latin American, Middle Eastern and African countries are among modern police states with the grimmest human rights records. Once again, military and police forces are always under the government in these countries, but they do not all engage in public violence against citizens.

As shown above, all of the Nazi violence was of a different order and the words chosen are perhaps better than "brute force".

However, other op-ed language has crept into the header which in my opinion is not substantial enough and therefore does not belong. This includes "keen political skills", which has been debated above and which I will repeat stands for very little more than the specific propaganda and oratory skills already mentioned; and now the newly introduced "schadenfreude".

This is a header and not really a summary. I think violence and anti-Semitism belong in the header because they were significant aspects of Hitler/Hitlerianism which affected thousands if not millions. I wouldn't say that vague language like 'political skills' or that documented but not all that relevant 'schadenfreude' affected thousands if not millions. However, I'm open to suggestions about the latter.

Finally, NPOV is not about giving equal time to every single opinion and making every personality look like a mix of good and bad. It's about using unbiased information to project a contextually accurate picture. Trying to throw in information about, for ex., how much Hitler loved little furry animals to "balance" an article is no longer about NPOV, it's about being un/able to judge the value of facts. -- Simonides 04:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that North Korea, Guatemala, and Zimbabwe are "not violent." We simply don't have to spell out every single method in the intro; that's what the article is for. Establish who he is, without specifics or judgment. --Golbez 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Zimbabwe, from time to time yes. I don't know enough about Guatemala; North Korea - the streets are practically deserted a lot of the time. Please look at what I'm saying - secret/ military police are violent, but not always publicly, and that's what I want to emphasize. It's not about "spelling out methods". Are you deliberately being trivialising? Do you think the difference between public violence and humiliation and secret torture is just a question of method? In the Soviet Union it was possibly to deny torture and it is true that even now many people don't know/ don't believe in Stalinist crimes, in Russia. In Nazi Germany the crowds cheered on. Talking about his violent methods is specific. Mentioning "keen political skills" is judgement. I find your judgement on the header rather skewed, not for any partisan reasons, but probably simply because you don't want any changes. -- Simonides 10:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Violence and Request for comment

I came in through WP:Requests for comment/Politics, on whether or not "violence" and "anti-semitism" are suitable terms for the into.

I've read it over a few times, and feel it to be quite balanced at the moment (dont know whose reversion it is, and dont want to know!). There are some issues with the phrasing imho, for example the mild suggestion that violence was a tool he used to come to power, which was not really the case. Some intimidation, certainly, but the true paramilitary and police violence came later.

Also, as a mild grammar issue, the sentence "Hitler gained popularity through his appeals to German nationalism, his anti-Semitism, his charismatic oratory, schadenfreude and promises of economic improvement" suggests that he made appeals to his charismatic oratory , which is kind of odd. I'll try a rephrasing. Feel free to play around with it. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 09:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, I think the open violence should be mentioned along with anti-Semitism, and I think we tried to point out that he used the violence to gain totalitarian control, not popularity! Your rephrasing is fine except for a nit in the second line - power is mentioned a second time too soon, sounds jarring. Alternatives? -- Simonides 10:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic Standards and mealy-mouting

Here is an excerpt from a professional peer-reviwed encylopedia, "The Encylopedia Americana". The entry is called "Adolf Hitler" and it is attributed to one Wolfgan Sauer of the University of California, Berkely. The intro says:

"...Riding on a wave of European fascism after WWI...he built a Fascist regime unparalleled for barbarism and terror. His rule resulted in the destruction of the German nation-state and its society, in the ruin of much of Europe's traditional structure, and in the extremination of about 6 million Jews. He was eeventually defeated, but his temporay success demontsrated frightenongly, at the brink of the atomic age, the vulnerability of civiliztion."

Point 1) You see, THAT's a lead. It does exactly what it is supposed to do: it summarizes Adolf Hitler and the results of his actions, what they mean for humnaity. The rest of the articel is suposed to flesh out the details. The lead of an article should not be about this or that speficic aspect of the subject's life in the first place: he obtained power by thais or that means. That's what the body of the artcile is for: early years, Hitler's childhood, Hitler's rise, etc,..

Point 2) The langauge is obviously quite straightforward and blunt. Not POV, just blunt and honest. It is a fact that Hitler built a Fascist regime unparalled in brutality, barabraims and terror. To elimeinate such terms is to present a false and dangerously misleasing picture of what happened during those years. The article should just tell the truth. But if we must onsist on the doumcnation of every single word, then deos anyone mind if I throw in "unparalled barbarim and terror" since it is used by a historian in a peer-revied professional encylcopedia. --Lacatosias 10:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a little breath of sanity. Now if only we could explain the same at Joseph Stalin and various other "NPOV" bios. -- Simonides 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Errrrr... i hate to go against the Encylopedia Americana, but i actually rather disagree. I think "unparallelled" is a very a-historic and very unencyclopedic term. How about the Spanish Inquisition, or how about the Gulags? Who decides this is the most barbaric regime ever?! This adds a qualification which is definitely POV, and to my mind, even highly unnecessary. To quote from WP:NPOV:

Karada offered the following advice in the context of the Saddam Hussein article:

You won't even need to say he was evil. That's why the article on Hitler does not start with "Hitler was a bad man" — we don't need to, his deeds convict him a thousand times over. We just list the facts of the Holocaust dispassionately, and the voices of the dead cry out afresh in a way that makes name-calling both pointless and unnecessary. Please do the same: list Saddam's crimes, and cite your sources.

Its just not necessary. The guy was a murderous asshole. The article already conveys that perfectly, Lets keep it true, but dry. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 11:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Minister, it's not that we should call Hitler a murderous asshole or modify the NPOV policy of Wikipedia for this article, it's just that some people seem to think NPOV means giving every aspect equal measure without an understanding of tone / significant matters. -- Simonides 22:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, 100%. Op-ed reassurances that he was a murderous asshole will hurt the article's credibility for many serious readers, who are looking for facts and already know how bad he was. The question, which the body of this article helpfully does address, is how someone so dangerous could ever have become so powerful. Simply put, lots of people thought he was saving the world in Germany's image. Few educated Germans, even the hardened-from-birth anti-semites, would have supported him in 1933 had they known the industrial slaughter camps would result (never mind the rest). Wyss 18:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Charismatic oratory and keen political skills...

Since Hitler's keen political skills consisted, for the most parr, precisely in his charimatic oratory and appeals to anto semitism, etc... adding it now would be a redundacy. The current version seems satifactory.--Lacatosias 10:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are in favour of keeping the term charismatic in the intro, rather than keen political skills - in my view User:The Minister of War is right to restore the term, and it also has quite a useful link. The current version is satisfactory.--shtove 11:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I never was opposed to the use of the term "charismatic". Here I was just pointing out that it would be unnecessary to have both terms: we end up with not only the laundry-list effect again but redudancy. In my other comment, I wasn't seriosuly isnsiting that we follow the Encylopedia American in using the word "unparalled", etc.. but just making some general observations about NPOV and what lead sections are supposed to do. --Lacatosias 11:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I support both terms. AH was charismatic, oratorically gifted and had highly developed political skills, which all contributed to how he was able to do so much damage to Europe. Talented people can do bad things too, etc. Wyss 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the pargraph once again. Please mind what you revert Wyss. I have included "keen political skills", although i find them somewhat redundant. He was popular because he was a good speaker, he knew how to exploit it because he had "keen political skills". Still the term "keen political skills" is too vague, sounds too high-schoolish to me. If you really want to include that, i suggest you specify which skills (besides his gift for speaking) you want to include. The Minister of War ^(Peace) 16:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Before I try to address your concerns, I have to understand them better. What is it about keen political skills that you find highschoolish? (I hope it's not because you think the word keen is being used in the sense of cool, which i is not, for example). Wyss 18:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Minister of War has nailed exactly what I was really thinking about "keen political skills" but I just coudnìt out my finger on it. Nothing ideological or biased, just seemed high-schoolish, with all respect.--Lacatosias 18:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of his biographers attribute AH with highly developed political skills, especially by the early 1930s. He didn't wrest control of all Western Europe by 1940 through dint of oratory alone. AH's political abilities are widely noted and supported. Wyss 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Hallo, I know I started this but by now the opening paragraph has become "overcrowded" with attributes, some of them not that fitting (e.g. Schadenfreude). If we cannot do add a simple reference to a few of Hitler's attributes I must suggest moving this further down, say to the section on his early rise. Str1977 16:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think moving it down might not be a bad idea. Along the lines of what I wrote above (somewhere), the lead should be a summary not explain the rise of Hitler, all of the attributes of Hitler ot anything like that in any case. Just a suggestion but it is actually a kind of informal policy, I undertsand, in encypedia artciles.--Lacatosias 18:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is "spin." Lots of people like to portray AH as a cartoon character of evil, thinking that giving him credit for any talent or skills is to endorse what he did with them. He wasn't a cartoon character of evil, but something much more sophisticated and dangerous. Wyss 17:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely, I fully endorse this view. Also, I've been waiting to see if I'm the only German speaker here, but thankfully Str1977 has confirmed my view - schadenfreude is currently totally misplaced. It's just a hunch, but I'm afraid its German semantics might differ quite a bit from the English one. Jbetak 19:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Good, so we can remove "schadenfreude". And Wyss, about "keen political skills", let's quote your own words - If it's so generally held, finding a suitable citation in a secondary source by a peer-reviewed author shouldn't be much trouble. (ie not just a handful of web pages.) As with charisma, it's not the inclusion that's being debated so much as its relevance next to other factors that are already mentioned and provide more specific information. -- Simonides 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I suggest replacing disputed adjectives with facts. I speak German also and I share the doubts about using "schadenfreude" in the introduction. That word describes a passive sort of mean-spiritedness. "Charismatic" is less informative than to note that he came to power at the lowest point of the Depression.

Hitler's early economic program included halting reparations payments to World War I victors and increasing German defense spending. These measures improved the German economy and were popular domestically although they violated international treaty. A central part of Hitler's beliefs was that the problems of Germany were caused by Jewish people. He put this into practice soon after he gained office by firing all persons of Jewish descent from civil service jobs and replacing them with non-Jewish Germans. Increasingly severe restrictions followed over the next decade, removing Jewish people from all aspects of economic and civic life, and culminating in the Holocaust (follow with figures already in the article). More than any other individual, Adolf Hitler was responsible for causing World War II. (As the World War II introduction states), "Approximately 62 million people died as a result of the war."

These are statements that no serious scholar can dispute and that illustrate why another encyclopedia characterized his rule as "unparalleled barbarism." Such expressions are not hyperbole in the case of Adolf Hitler, but it is better to show the dispassionate facts behind them. As each new generation approaches maturity it encounters this history afresh. The better they understand it, the fewer will make this mistake. Durova 19:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think hese comments are helpful. I would disagree however that the term "charismatic" not informative. AH was charismatic. People flocked to see and hear him. Readers are betrayed if they're not informed how attractive this sociopath seemed to millions of people during the 1930s. Wyss 20:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Again and again, no one ever disputed that Hitler was considered charismatic by some. However, there is a long stretch between being charismatic and finding an audience of 30 million based on your charisma alone - the latter is rubbish and has been debunked at length in the Talk sections above. Read them. -- Simonides 22:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I would just leave the question of charisma alone. It's been beaten to death already and I don't understand why you still have to oppose it so vehemently. As someone who has lived there and was to some extent part of the collective contemplation of how this happen it is fairly clear that he was someone who has brought his particular skills to bear at the right time and exploited a certain opportunity, which might not have existed in this exact form before or after. Charistmatic authority (for the lack of more fitting expression) was one of them. It's certainly much more valid than schadendfreude, which has finally been removed. Jbetak 23:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Who are you addressing? I pointed out above the schadenfreude was a new inclusion that I found inappropriate.

And for the millionth effing time no one is disputing that some people found Hitler charismatic or that it played a role - however it was not magically, solely responsible for the popularity of Nazism. Does one need to put out an ad in the paper before people stop repeating the same crap? To say otherwise is to oversimplify history and paint some Pied Piper like fairytale. -- Simonides 23:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I was addressing both of you. Before we continue, please do us all a favor. If you take upon yourself the role of a verbally gifted NPOV übereditor, please at least have the patience and civility that such a role requires. I don't see where Wyss was saying that Hitler rose to power on charisma alone.

If we all agree that most historically notable events typically arise from a combination of circumstances and catalysts, then let's put that argument away. That's all I'm saying.

Since you have been putting your focus on the circumstances, I'd like to point out something another editor has mentioned before. Without the Great Depression, which rendered almost half of the German workforce unemployed, Hitler would have hardly found 30 million supporters. Why else would they be flocking to a mix of warmed over ideas of pan-Germanism and anti-Semitism? They were not exactly new. Even some of the most gifted Germans were affected. Ferdinand Porsche, to pick a name with wide recognition in the US, was out of work because of the circumstances and he too was impressed with Hitler and his plan for a better Germany. Jbetak 01:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You were very quick to revert me and others and yet left schadenfreude in the article for almost two days until it was finally removed by Wyss. This term was inserted anonymously by an AOL user without any prior discussion whatsoever. I think this deserves a mention to put my comment in perspective.

Firstly, I want to apologise for my outburst. It's frustrating that people keep repeating something that has been explained away at great length and edit without making reference to the Talk pages; but I didn't mean to accuse you of anything personally.

Secondly, I commented on schadenfreude but left it there as it was a very new inclusion and didn't want to get embroiled in more discussions than I already was. The charisma and its variations, however, had been around for longer and seemed a lot more egregious.

Finally, yes, there was a combination of circumstances and catalysts, and all I wish to emphasize is that certain articulations of the intro strongly imply that Hitler's charisma was a primary factor or the basis on which all the other factors came into play, where Hitler's/Nazism's popularity is concerned. The intro needs to be balanced, that's all. Please look at the current version, your comments are very welcome. -- Simonides 03:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need the picture of the teen racists in Hitler T-shirts. Surely we can find something more representitive of modern-day Hitler supporters?. DJ Clayworth 22:10, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I've rm'd it again. It has sensationalistic value effect and I think there are other reasons why some people seem to like it there but truth be told, they are not representative of contemporary NNs or of AH's legacy. Wyss 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding charisma: this word tends to glamorize people. I'd prefer "effective" or "skilled" to describe Hitler's public speaking. That was one of many elements that led to his power. However, that particular element is hard to quantify. His domestic popularity is an interesting subject. It would be better to discuss that in context later in the article. I suggest that the introduction focus on elements that lend themselves to simple and uncontroversial summaries. The role the great depression played in the Nazi rise to power is one such element. Durova 06:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)