Talk:Adolf Hitler

1922...

In December 1922, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported: {{Quoteboxfloat

| text = Bavarian Fascisti Advocate Pogroms.

Berlin, Dec. 14 (J. T. A.)—Circulars containing unheard-of accusations against Jews and inciting the population to violence against them, were distributed here in thousands of copies Wednesday by members of the National Socialists of Bavaria, headed by Adolf Hitler, called the “Bavarian Mussolini.”

The broadcasting of these circulars coincided with announcements that ten anti-Semitic meetings were to be held at Munich under the auspices of the National Socialists, the demonstrators to protest against the anti-Semitic meetings of the Fascisti arranged by the Social Democrats. | source = Jewish Telegraphic Agency | publisher = The Reform Advocate, p. 665 | title = Bavarian Fascisti Advocate Pogroms | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=YmQ-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA665

| date = December 30, 1922

}} Willysbillys (talk) 12:05, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

And? Slatersteven (talk) 13:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't have access to the page in order to edit/add it. Willysbillys (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

"Hitlerian" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Hitlerian has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 13 § Hitlerian until a consensus is reached. A1Cafel (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Be careful with the word "dictator"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The lede says he was "dictator" of Germany during the Nazi era. That is unencyclopedic. Better is to call him "leader" of Germany. To keep the idea of dictator, the word or similar word, dictatorship, can be rightfully used in the same paragraph.

Make no mistake, I consider Hitler to be a very, very bad person and do not support Hitler. However, I do support Wikipedia as it strives to be a good encyclopedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Why do you consider the word "dictator" to be unencyclopedic? Here are some definitions of "dictator":

• Oxford dictionary: "a ruler with total power over a country"
• Websters: "a ruler with absolute power and authority, esp. one who exercises it tyranically"

Multiple reliable sources call Hitler a dictator, such as Shirer (p.199); Evans 2005 (pp.42-44). You remove the word "dictator" but add the word "dictatorship", which Oxford defines as "government by a dictator". So I am unclear why you object to the use of the word in the opening sentence? — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

His portrait appears at the top of the dictator page. I see no reason to change this text.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:50, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

The only possible quibble I can see is that it is possible that someone might think 'Dictator of Germany' was his job-title, but the economy of expression seems to justify the (minor) ambiguity here. A dictatorship necessarily has a dictator as surely as a monarchy has to have a monarch!Pincrete (talk) 04:42, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Another possible quibble is that we, the editors, are calling him dictator. Who else is dictator? Is Trump a dictator? How about Fidel Castro? How about Zelinskyy, who is serving but way past his elected term? How about Putin? How about Xi?

Hitler is certainly a bad man but calling him dictator is a value judgment. Should we just stick to the facts?

Currently, the lede does not use the term "Nazi Germany". Sure, you can find citations that use the term, but it's not the official term. It's just Germany or Germany under the Nazi era. That is what got me to think that similar treatment should be used and not initially call Hitler a dictator, like it is his job title. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:48, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

the editors, are calling him dictator. Who else is dictator? Is Trump a dictator? How about Fidel Castro? How about Zelinskyy, who is serving but way past his elected term? How about Putin? How about Xi

Actually almost all serious historians and commentators call Hitler a dictator, ditto some of the others in your list, whereas even Trump's worst critics say that he "has authoritarian tendencies/ admires dictators/ envies their powers/ has little respect for the checks and balances of the US constitution/ etc". They don't say he is a dictator. At least not yet

There are always inevitably text 'quibbles', at the beginning of the Nazi period, the party had democratic legitimacy, but it fairly quickly became a dictatorship, but we say he was "dictator during the Nazi era", not throughout it. Conciseness inevitably involves by-passing some 'quibbles' without losing core accuracy Pincrete (talk) 06:50, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

RS say it, so do we. Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

But we are selectively choosing the RS to suit us. Some US politician articles are really bad for that. We should use our own brain and strive to be neutral. Showing how bad he was is better than just deciding that he's a dictator. Besides, his title was not "Dictator of Germany", it was (translated) Leader of Germany. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:37, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

This article is not about US politicians, what do RS say about Hitler? Slatersteven (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Possible summary:

Reasons for calling Hitler a "dictator" in the lede:

• Others call him a dictator (other sources deemed reliable)
• Hitler is a very bad person

Reasons for not calling Hitler a "dictator" in the lede:

• Could be wrongly believed that Hitler's title was "Dictator of Germany", which it was not
• Is a value judgement too subject and not encyclopedic neutral (could start calling whatever politician you didn't like as a dictator, could be more effectively described.

To avoid whitewashing Hitler, maybe mention that he led a totalitarian state or that Nazi Germany was a dictatorship, or that he went from an elected leader to a totalitarian leader within a year? Any one of those can be backed up with reliable sources. What that means is we need to decide and cannot just say there's a reliable source. There are reliable sources for all of the above.

While each WP article is independent, there should be some consistency. So do we all believe Putin, Xi, Hitler, Idi Amin are all dictators and should be called a dictator in the lede? Vanguard10 (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

Being, or not being a 'dictator' has nothing to do with someone being 'a bad person'. It refers to a style of governance in which all the power of the state is invested in a single individual, absolute monarchies can be similar. Whilst modern Western democracies tend to use 'dictator', and similar words to criticise, in history there have been wise, effective dictators, just as there have been foolish/venal/corrupt/weak or plain stupid democratic leaders and monarchs.

With most WWII leaders, (FDR, King George, Churchill, Hirohito etc) it's fairly easy to give their job title and then the reader is only one link away from knowing what the PM's or President's or King's role/powers etc were. Hitler is not like that, giving his title tells the reader almost nothing since both the title itself and the powers he rapidly accrued, were unique to him. If almost all reliable sources described Winnie-the-Pooh as a dictator, so would we, it's as simple as that, but of course they don't. But all such souces DO describe Hitler as a dictator, just as they describe George as King of the UK and FDR as President of the US at that time. We don't need to get into esoteric comparisons with Putin, Castro, Mao, Amin, Xi, Stalin or anyone. I confidently expect that some of those are described as dictators/effective dictators, some are not, and with some the designation may be disputed. The difference relates to coverage in best sources and rendering the information concisely on individual articles. Pincrete (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

"all the power of the state is invested in a single individual" The description seems to fit an autocrat. Dimadick (talk) 22:13, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

The description seems to fit an autocrat. Is there a substantive difference between an autocrat and a dictator? If there is, I've no idea what it is. One word is Gk the other latin in origin, but beyond that I'd be hard pressed to say how they differ either in definition or actual usage.

My comment wasn't meant to be an authoritive definition of 'dictator', so much as an instant short form description of the kind of regime Hitler led and the political powers he held, neither of which has anything to do with whether we think he was good/bad. Please feel free to correct me as to how best to summarise what a dictator is. Pincrete (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright time to insert myself into the conversation.

I would agree that dictator and autocrat are basically the same word, as a dictionary definition. But the word dictator has negative associations, so in a practical application (like speech, writing, etc), using the word dictator implies that the person is evil.

The question is whether or not the associations are strong enough that it falls under MOS:LABEL. I personally don't think so, but I don't see any real issue with switching it to autocratic leader just to be safe.

Uncreativenaming (talk) 11:08, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

"But the word dictator has negative associations" So does the term autocrat. Per the main article: "Autocrats maintain power through political repression of any opposition and co-optation of other influential or powerful members of society. The general public is controlled through indoctrination and propaganda, and an autocracy may attempt to legitimize itself in the eyes of the public through appeals to political ideology, religion, birthright, or foreign hostility." We cite as examples the regimes of the empire-builder Sargon of Akkad, the dictator for life Julius Caesar, the military dictator Yŏn Kaesomun, the Bonapartist leaders of both the First and the Second French empires, and the caudillos of Latin America. Dimadick (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Since it's a less used term, it's used less in reference to dictators (who are usually bad), which I feel means that it's associations with evil rulers are lesser.

Uncreativenaming (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

Incorrect. This is not covered by MOS:LABEL. There is nothing at all contentious about calling Hitler a dictator. TarnishedPath^talk 22:56, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

You, Pincrete, put it well by writing "Whilst modern Western democracies tend to use 'dictator', and similar words to criticise,...." That is one of the reasons why I am hesitant to use "Dictator" so early in the lede. It is because use of the words is a good way to say "I criticise the man". In Wikipedia, we are supposed to be neutral and use facts to criticise, not name calling. Similarly, we would not start out the article with "Adolf Hitler was a very evil dictator in Nazi Germany worthy of execution" even though you might be able to find a reliable source for every word. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hitler was very obviously a dictator. Reliable sources say as much and so should we. Trying to argue that we shouldn't is a non-starter. TarnishedPath^talk 22:54, 18 June 2026 (UTC)

  Please show citations that state that he was "the dictator of Germany", which is the language in this article. Perhaps, if you are set on using the word "dictator", you should substitute it with the word politician, so as to make it less of an opinion. All sources that I have seen give the opinion but do not provide evidence that he was a dictator and none say he was "dictator of Germany".

  A compromise described above could be:
  

  Adolf Hitler[a] (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German dictator who led Germany during the Nazi era from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[b] becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.[c]

  The advantage of this is also because the second sentence ties in better to the first. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:52, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

One has to go to no further than turn to section, "Reflecting on Hitler", page xxxii of "Hitler: A Biography", were Ian Kershaw writes, "Hitler's dictatorship has the quality of a paradigm for the twentieth century." He then goes on to state how and why that was so. Clearly, I would also point to the laws passed and the bicycle wheel spoke style of rule around Hitler, which flowed out from him. Both the Nazi Party (of the single party government) and the national rule depended on him alone. It also gives clear evidence of the type of rule and leadership of the country during that era. Kierzek (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

• How does this address "we should call him a dictator", by removing the word "politician"? Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

I was responding to the recent editor above who wrote: "Please show citations that state that he was 'the dictator of Germany', which is the language in this article." I have done so. Clearly what is stated in the article is supported by a strong RS cite and I don't see any reason for what is written therein to be changed. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

And I did not indent as a reply to you. Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

The citation excerpt that you wrote does not cite that hitler was "dictator of Germany". It only cites "dictatorship". We must be precise in Wikipedia. Vanguard10 (talk) 13:05, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

We say what RSSs say, it's that simple. If those sources vary or their quality is questioned we should focus on the best ones which will usually be peer reviewed, independently published and written by subject experts. I think the only point of contention is at what point Hitler became a dictator, because it was not from the date he became leader of Germany. I agree about the persistent misuse of the term 'Nazi Germany' to mean Germany. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

So that's a new issue.

• at what point did he become dictator because it was not the date he become leader.
• his title was not "Dictator of Germany"
• is an opinion.
• Better to show facts or show facts then make the conclusion, not put an opinion in the first sentence of the lede.

Disclaimer: hitler is bad. I do not support hitler even a little bit.

Vanguard10 (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

I have read this discussion. In my opinion you have not made the case for going against a great number of reliable sources. Yes, it wasn't his title, but that's true of many dictators. Yes, it doesn't say when he became dictator, but that's for the body of the article to elaborate on (and probably sources disagree on details). As for "opinion", we report the opinions of experts in wikivoice all the time; to make an argument on those lines you would need to find expert opinion that disagrees with it. Zero^talk 02:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

It wasn't his title so that is admission of my point as well as the point of another editor (see above if you want her or his editor name). As for "opinion, we report the opinions of experts in wikivoice all the time". Using the logic of others doing it "all the time" That is horrible and could conceivable be used by supporters support for the Holocaust justifying it by saying as in "we kill people all the time". Disclaimer: not an accusation of Holocaust support against anyone in this discussion. Amended comments are in italic and strikethroughs

Your points are well taken but until you can cite where WP can use wikivoice, it's not a good idea.

Ultimately, a possible compromise is:

1. Hitler was a dictator in Germany, so it doesn't look like a title.

2. Generally accepted that Hitler was a dictator.

3. Hitler was the head of state and acted as a dictator (or something similar).

Wikivoice shouldn't be used. I suppose an extremist could argue that Hitler was elected fair and square then proceeded to quash opposition.

Disclaimer: do not interpret my posts as support for Hitler. He was a very bad man.

Vanguard10 (talk) 23:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Hitler was never elected for anything. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 01:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

@Vanguard10: This discussion is not constructive because it is not policy-based. It is a waste of time for the community to debate whether Adolf Hitler was a dictator when historians have already universally settled this "debate" years before anyone here was even born. You can say multiple times you think Hitler is "very bad" and you are not defending him, but you are the only person in this discussion arguing that he should not be called a dictator in the first sentence because of something as technical as it not being the correct title or office, and decrying the dictator label as a "value judgement" while making a value judgement yourself that it is too loaded. Wikivoice should not adopt your preference of euphemizing particular historical individuals, especially when a multitude of reliable sources, including those already cited in the article, go against your preference. You cannot debate your way out of basic policies like WP:RS and WP:V. Yue🌙 (talk) 03:22, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

False accusation. Please do not accuse me. Pincrete raised the idea that Hitler was not "Dictator of Germany". He or she may change his or her mind but Pincrete did raise the issue above.

My various solutions include maintaining the word "dictator" but not to be confused with the title of dictator of Germany. Nobody has opposed this idea so far. Vanguard10 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Since this discussion is already longer than most people would read, I summarize the following:

current version:

Adolf Hitler[a] (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was the dictator of Germany during the Nazi era from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[b] becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.

proposed version:

Adolf Hitler[a] (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was a dictator over Germany and conquered areas during the Nazi era from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[b] becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.

advantages:

• no confusion that Dictator was his title (mentioned by 2 editors)
• his dictatorship was more than just Germany
• reinforces that he was a bad man, not just dictator in Germany but also Austria, Slovakia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, parts of France, parts of Russia, parts of Poland, etc.
• appears to satisfy editor Yue's concern about WP:RS and WP:V. I do not think Yue can dispute the above proposal by citing where the changes do not have any RS or V. (Thank you Yue for your RS and V idea).

Vanguard10 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am okay with "was an Austrian-born German politician who was dictator over Germany and conquered areas" — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

I am ok with that, too. This is not fighting but an attempt to be the very best wording possible. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The article does not call him "Dictator of Germany", it calls him "dictator of Germany". Vanguard10, when a word is used as the title of a government position, it is a proper noun and is capitalized (as Führer und Reichskanzler is in the subsequent sentence). However, when not capitalized, it is not a proper noun nor a title and is not intended to be interpreted as such.

And did you seriously try to draw an equivalency between reporting the opinions of experts with supporting genocide?! As for "opinion, we report the opinions of experts in wikivoice all the time". That is horrible and support for the Holocaust as in "we kill people all the time". Strike that disgusting remark immediately or you will be reported to AN/I. You may not have meant it as such, but taking the sentence at face value as you wrote it, it is a flagrant personal attack against Zero0000. --Sable232 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

No personal attack was intended but I will go back and look to see if somethings was sloppily written. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Sable232, thank you for your idea but do know that you presented it in a very confrontational and hostile manner. I agree with your comment that I "may not have meant it" and have clarified the comment a minute or two ago.

Others who read this should know that Sable232 has a prior dispute with me because I raised an issue where one Wikiproject has guidelines that contradict WP policy and that a former Arbitration Committee member commented that sometimes a small group of people try to own articles, sometimes through a Wikiproject and use non-WP rules. That is not a direct quote but just the gist of what he seemed to write. The Wikiproject guidelines in question required that corporate press releases (which are primary sources) are required and secondary sources, such as mainstream news media, are insufficient.Vanguard10 (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I have changed the text to "politician who was dictator over Germany and conquered areas during the Nazi era ". Discussions about behavior should be taken elsewhere; this is not the place to do that.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

dictator over Germany and conquered areas ?

Sorry to be re-open this and perhaps be pedantic, but previous text seems simpler and clearer (and more aligned with sources?). The relevant fact is that he was dictator of Germany, his powers in territories that Germany had conquered/incorporated are relatively incidental. Stylistically IMO, the sentence becomes needlessly clumsy as a result of the addition.Pincrete (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do not think it is necessary to include this. After all, Nazi Germany also refers to the "Greater German Reich". Mellk (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Since that seems to be the current consensus, I will take that part out.— Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I've also restored 'of' (dictator of Germany) rather than 'over' (dictator over Germany), 'over' seems to attach to only a small number of verbs (rule over, reign over, preside over), whereas most functions take 'of' (leader of, driver of). If I've missed some reason why it was changed to 'over', please feel free to revert.Pincrete (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with the changes herein and believe “of” should be used, instead of “over”. The word “of” is more exact and not vague. Kierzek (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

That, then, creates a problem identified by two editors as suggesting he had the title of "Dictator of Germany", which is false. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

This seems very bizarre. The conclusion was made and now vetoed. Now the version has problems.

I believe the Wikipedia way is to restore the last stable version, which was the version of the purple box above. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

" his powers in territories that Germany had conquered/incorporated are relatively incidental" is not correct. There was a huge war with millions dead over the land that you call "incidental".

Furthermore," After all, Nazi Germany also refers to the "Greater German Reich"." is not correct. You are calling France and Belgium part of the Greater German Reich? Not true.

Because of the following huge misunderstandings, I really question if a vote is valid when the participants of the discussion are writing some very incorrect statements. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:31, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Authorized Version - see purple box Adolf Hitler[a] (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born German politician who was dictator over Germany and conquered areas during the Nazi era from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[b] becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.[c]

Current Version Incorrectly changed before consensus, so not really valid.

Proposed Compromise Version which addressed discussed problems Adolf Hitler[a] (20 April 1889 – 30 April 1945) was an Austrian-born politician who was a dictator ruling Germany, including the annexation of Austria, and occupied areas during the Nazi era starting from 1933 until his suicide in 1945. He rose to power as the leader of the Nazi Party,[b] becoming the chancellor of Germany in 1933 and then taking the title of Führer und Reichskanzler in 1934.[c]

This addresses the issue that he was not "Dictator of Germany" (He was Fuhrer). It also is more specific that he was the ruler (dictator) over Germany and Austria, which was annexed but without too much international recognition of the annexation. He was also the dictator over occupied areas even if the head of state title was someone else.

Vanguard10 (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Supporting the compromise version is how the Charles III article is written. It does not read "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom.". Instead, it reads "Charles III (Charles Philip Arthur George; born 14 November 1948) is King of the United Kingdom and the 14 other Commonwealth realms.[b]" Similarly, Hitler ruled Germany and Austria (Anschluss) and was defacto ruler of France, Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Norway, parts of Poland, etc. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10, the long-term stable version (since at least early last year, but I believe much longer) is actually "dictator of Germany", so that is the version we default to.

You have referred to me as agreeing with you that this version is insufficiently clear (as it could refer to a job title). If there is any ambiguity in what I have said let me make it clear that this is not what I think. Whilst it is possible that someone would read "dictator of Germany" as being his job title, I don't think this is a problem, since we shortly therafter refer to his actual initial and final job titles, and since we use 'small d', I believe you are the only one that thinks this (imo very minor) ambiguity is problematic.

Please also stop misquoting (and seemingly intentionally misrepresenting) me. Hitler's exact role/powers/titles in the various incorporated/occupied territories is what I said was incidental info, not the wars or deaths that occured in those places.

The lead of this article is necessarily a trade off between comprehensiveness and conciseness (necessarily covering nuanced topics such as Hitler's role in the Holocaust). I'm sorry, but I cannot agree to a proposition that we 'push-back' or devote more text to his precise role/powers in annexed and occupied territories than to his culpability in the death of millions or his active engagement in military decisions throughout the war, both of which are major topics, but which nonetheless need to be covered very concisely.

You are actually AFAI can see, completely alone in wanting to make a change. The nature of the change you want also appears to have changed from being that we shouldn't refer to him as 'dictator' to we need to include everywhere that he was effectively dictator. You are free to start an Rfc if you wish, but I see no prospect whatsoever of present editors agreeing to your proposal. Pincrete (talk) 06:49, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

I bring up these points not to win but because certain articles, like Hitler, deserve deep thought and discussion. In contrast, the William Peeples article doesn't demand such drive to perfection. Even if the final version incorporates problems, I am willing to leave it as problematic. I do not want to start a RfC but you may.

You did bring up a point about "Dictator of Germany" and even if you change your mind, your earlier point is valid and part of my concern.

If people don't want to put that he was dictator in Germany and annexed Austria, that's certainly a plausible opinion. However, "dictator ruling Germany" is a better choice. So that's a new option. Vanguard10 (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

SUMMARY

plausible preferred versions

• 1. dictator of Germany
• 2. dictator ruling Germany, including the annexation of Austria, and occupied areas
• 3. dictator ruling Germany and Austria
• 4. dictator ruling Germany

Vanguard10 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

My preference is 2 > 3 > 4 > 1 Vanguard10 (talk) 01:48, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Drug addict?

Is it true that he was a drug addict? Yehoshua667 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

From this article "Hitler took many pills each day for chronic stomach problems and other ailments.[435] He regularly consumed amphetamine, barbiturates, opiates, and cocaine,[436][437] as well as potassium bromide and atropa belladonna." Whether he was technically an addict, I'm not sure.Pincrete (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

What do RS say? Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Hitler speaking Bavarian as opposed to Austrian German

In 1892, the family moved to Passau, Germany, following Alois's promotion to the customs administration in Passau. Hitler was three at the time. Alois was promoted and transferred to Linz, Austria, on 1 April 1893, but the rest of the family remained in Passau. There, Hitler acquired the distinctive lower Bavarian dialect, rather than Austrian German, which marked his speech throughout his life.

Apart from the question of whether a toddler can pick up an accent in two to two-and-a-half years that could mark their pronunciation for life... linguistically speaking, I find this sentence extraordinarily strange.

"Lower Bavarian" is not spoken in Passau; yes, this city is located in the region of Lower Bavaria, but the dialect there is Central/Middle Bavarian, and that dialect is also the form of Bavarian predominantly spoken in Austria, including in Linz and Braunau am Inn. A contrast now seems to be made between Austrian German and Bavarian, whereas all dialects in Austria (except for those in Vorarlberg) are Bavarian; also referred to as Austrobavarian, but in any case: one and the same dialect group.

The text seems to suggest that Hitler picked up his accent in Passau (the dialect of which, belongs to the same group as the dialects of all the previous towns/villages he lived in) and that this Bavarian accent supposedly contrasts markedly with 'Austrian German' ...

The section has quite a number of sources, but I very much doubt any of them is making the above argument... Vlaemink (talk) 11:13, 22 June 2026 (UTC)