Jump to content

Talk:Beer Hall Putsch

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source for section: "At the front of the march"

[edit]

I believe there is quite a bit of misinformation in the above mentioned section.

Unfortunately it gives no reference or source to ascertain where the information was taken from, however the information on the page is contradictory to a first-hand account from Alfred Rosenberg in the first volume of Blut und Ehre (Pg. 96-97).

In this he states that Hitler was at the centre of front row, flanked to the right by Ludendorff, Göring, Graf, and Streicher, and to the left by Gräfe, Feder and Kriebel. Rosenberg himself was in the second row, directly behind Hitler, with Schickedanz to his left and Körner to his right.

The above account corresponds to many photos from the anniversary marches in later years, which roughly mirrored the locations of the men in 1923. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FormalRS (talk • contribs) 06:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ataturk

[edit]

I have removed material from this article which claims that Hitler's Beer Hall Putsch was inspired by Kemal Ataturk. This theory is held by a single person writing in a recent book. This theory is not generally accepted by subject experts, and, as such, it is WP:FRINGE and per WP:DUE should not be in the article. As disputed FRINGE material, I do not need a consensus to remove it, but per BURDEN, the editor involved needs a consensus to restore it to the article.

The editor is edit-warring against its removal, arguing that it has been there for "a long time", but in fact it was added to the article (by the editor in question) less than a year ago. Further, when it was added, the editor downplayed the part Mussolini's March on Rome had on the Putsch, when, in fact, the vast majority of historians and scholars see it as one of the strongest influences on Hitler. No subject expert -- aside from the one author -- accepts the Ataturk theory, at least to my knowledge. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: The book of Ihrig had postive responses from review articles, so it is not a fringe claim. This review by Leo van Bergen praises the book as such: "It is rare to read a work of history that is both startling and true"[1] This review states that Ihrig's argument is "convincing". There are lots of other reviews that praise the Ihrig's work which shows that this is not a fringe claim as the reviews agree with Ihrig. I will restore the stable version for the last time. You shouldn't revert it without having concencus.--V. E. (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you examine these reviews you will see that he is not the only author that "accepts the Ataturk theory".--V. E. (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, FRINGE and BURDEN claims are not valid here as the info is appropriately sourced and supported by other academicians.--V. E. (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reviews of the book do not count as reliable sources unless they are written by subject experts, and the subject here is Hitler, not Ataturk or Turkish history. The book in question is Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination by Stefan Ihrig. Ihrig is a historian, but not a specialist on Hitler or Nazi Germany, his special interest is German-Turkish relations, which may have predisposed him to overstate Ataturk's influence on Hitler.
If Hitler was inspired by Ataturk in deciding to stage the Beer Hall Putsch, then other actual subject experts should mention this. Let's see:
  • Burleigh - The Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk
  • Bullock - Hitler: A Study in Tyranny - no mention of Ataturk
  • Bullock - Hitler and Stalin - no mention of Ataturk
  • Evans - The Third Reich trilogy - no mention of Ataturk
  • Fest - Hitler - 2 mentions of Ataturk (pp.157 & 168), but not in relation to the Putsch
  • Kershaw - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk
  • Shirer - The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - no mention of Ataturk
  • Toland - Hitler - no mention of Ataturk
  • Ullrich - Hitler (2 vols) - no mention of Ataturk
  • Weber - Becoming Hitler - 3 mentions of Ataturk (pp.214,275,310), one about how German right-wingers admired him, one about an article written by Hans Tröbst about Kemalist activity (Hitler wanted to meet Tröbst but never did), and one about Hitler's speeches in his trial; none are about Ataturk being an inspiration for the Beer Hall Putsch
From these sources, it's clear that Hitler knew about Kemalist activities, and that they "resonated" with him (in Weber's words), but none of these subject experts goes so far as to say that the Beer Hall Putsch was "inspired" by Ataturk. That theory is clearly FRINGE, and as such should not be given parity with Mussolini's March on Rome as an inspiration for the Putsch. Beyond My Ken (talk)
Reviews articles are important to understand how profound a view is among other academicians. In this case there are lots of academicians agreeing with Ihrig. Quoting from Buidhe:

...the book's reception was in fact mostly favorable. A more representative example is Erik-Jan Zürcher's review in Holocaust and Genocide Studies: "In this extremely interesting and well-researched book, Stefan Ihrig shows that neither Heimatland nor Adolf Hitler was exceptional: the entire nationalist right followed events in postwar Turkey and expressed admiration for the nationalists and their leader... the papers on the whole were rather well informed on the situation in Turkey and their judgement was often accurate—sometimes more accurate than Ihrig gives them credit for... Among the things considered admirable about Turkey was its “national purification”: the Armenian Genocide and the expulsion of the Greeks... It is clear that for the German Right the World War I Committee of Union and Progress and the Kemalists afterwards were part of the same movement, and that the population exchange agreed in Lausanne in 1923 reflected the same Entente aggression that had pushed Turkey to the earlier Armenian killings. This legacy enhanced the Kemalists’ credentials in Nazi eyes. Ihrig’s most important, well supported, and surprising conclusion is that the Kemalist movement in Turkey, rather than the Fascist movement in Italy, formed the most important inspiration for the early National Socialists in Germany."

Zürcher is a Turkologist. So his take on this topic is very valuable which proves this is not a fringe theory.--V. E. (talk) 13:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The opinion of a Turkologist on what inspired Hitler to mount the Beer Hall Putsch is not relevant here, any more than the opinion of an art historian would be. Only subject experts can be cited for opinions, and the subject in question is Hitler and not Turkish history. I don't think you get that. To validate Ihrig's theory as being in the mainstream, a consensus of mainstream experts on Hitler have to agree that it is valid. As the evidence above shows, that clearly is not the case. If you want to show that the theory is not FRINGE, you need to cite Hitler-experts, not Turkologists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No mainline RS English Hitler historian includes the Ihrig theory or mentions Ataturk, in the context presented. And book reviews are not sufficient evidence of general acceptance of one writers theory. I agree with BMK, WP:UNDUE applies and frankly at this point I would categorize it as a fringe theory based on what has been presented thus far. Kierzek (talk) 13:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with BMK here. Book reviews do not provide solid examples of support of the theory. Unless more evidence can be provided from sources written independently of Ihrig then I don't see how it can be seen as anything but a fringe theory compared to other more widely embraced works. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is not mentioned in the books you cited of which most of them are from 1900s before Ihrig's work was published. However reviews show that Ihrig's work is widely acclaimed between academicians. So, it is understood that this is not a fringe theory. Simply stating that earlier works did not mention this is not a reason to omit a fact which is seen to be accepted by other academicians as reviews suggest. Also being a Turkologist is not a setback that will unable someone to make precise comments on Nazi history especially if it has a relationship with Turkey. On the contrary it helps us to understand Hitler's views on Turkey better. This review written by Francis R. Nicosia who focuses on Holocaust research states that "This book effectively demonstrates that in the discourse on Turkey among far-right nationalists and National Socialist organizations and the media from the immediate post WW1 years through the years of the Third Reich there existed a remarkable unity and conformity one that exhibited admiration and uncritical support for the Turkey of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk." --V. E. (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Kershaw, Ullrich, Weber, Burleigh, and Evans were all published after 1995.
(2) One review (by a "Turkologist") does not establish that Ihrig's theory received "great acclaim" among experts on Hitler, not just "academicians" in general.
(3) That the book "effectively demonstrated" its theory is simply your opinion in the absence of any proof from the acceptable sources
(4) Even if Ihrig is correct, new ideas often take time to be accepted by subject experts. Wikipedia is not the place where new theories are floated, an encyclopedia is by its very nature a conservative (small "c") source of information. We present information what is agreed upon by the subject experts. If and when the subject experts agree with Ihrig's theory, then and only then will Wikipedia present it as verifiable fact. If in the meantime it begins to receive more support, the community can decide that it is an alternate theory with sufficient support to be presented in the article. Right now, this is not the case. It is a new theory, with no substantial support among the only people that matter, the historians and scholars with expertise on Hitler, and as such, it is a FRINGE theory at this time and should not be in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this helps: Citation from Bayrisches historische Lexikon "Sein Ziel war, nach dem Vorbild von Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) und Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938) 1922 (Marsch auf Rom; Kampf gegen die Griechen) von Bayern als gewissermaßen letzter "deutscher Bastion" nach Berlin zu marschieren" If you need it, they have an english version with a similar text. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My German is not very good but I guess this translates to something like "His aim was —by taking the example of Benito Mussolini and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (March on Rome; war against the Greeks)— to march from Bavaria, which —in the manner of speaking— was the last "German bastion", to Berlin."--V. E. (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The English version is here. As far as I can see "Bayrisches historische Lexikon" ("Bavarian historical lexicon") is not an authoritative website. The the author has no CV, just a list of the articles on the website they wrote, [2] nor are the credentials of the editorial staff provided. [3] It does seem to be connected to the Bavarian State Library, so that's a positive, but I doubt very much that this would be accepted as a reliable source as to whether Ataturk was as important as Mussolini in influencing Hitler. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: The author has an article on Wikipedia which states that he is a historian. So, I guess that being a historian makes him authoritative. Besides I have checked the references; and the source The Trial of Adolf Hitler by David King states,
"Indeed, Scheubner-Richter had been one of the many people encouraging Hitler to launch the beer hall putsch. Drawing upon the lessons of the Bolshevik Revolution, he noted how Lenin and a small, determined minority could, by a daring act, change the course of history. Mussolini had done the same in Italy and Mustafa Kemal (later given the surname Atatürk) had in Turkey as well. The right-wing conspirators in Munich could not fail either, he argued. The corrupt regime of Berlin was tottering. It was time to sweep it away."
and also,
"Hitler went on to criticize Berlin for failing its people with its lack of nationalism and fighting spirit, which caused the defeat in war and the current misery. World history, he added, confirmed that capitals cannot lead a national revival. It was not Constantinople that produced Atatürk, but Ankara; it was not Rome that gave rise to Mussolini, but northern Italy. That would also, Hitler said, be the case for Munich and the rebirth of Germany."
As you see there are other historians that think Atatürk influenced the Putsch.--V. E. (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are historians, and there are historians. The historians we're interested in are those who specialize in Hitler. Ihrig is not such a historian, as his Wikipedia article makes clear. You have presented no new evidence, and -- at least so far -- the consensus of editors in this discussion is opposed to adding the Ataturk information. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: Your "There are historians, and there are historians." point is faulty. There is no need to be a Hitler-specialised historian to do accurate research on Hitler. For example William Shirer is not even a historian himself but rather a journalist. The topic is about reliationship between Hitler and Turkey. So, Stefan Ihrig and Zürcher are good candidates for the topic. You say that the authors you cited do not mention the influence of Atatürk on Hitler, but their work is old school. They won't mention the new research naturally. However when we study the recent works we see that it is well accepted that Atatürk influenced Hitler and there is nothing wrong with adding something new to the article, especially if it is approved by academicians which seems to be the case here based on the sources I shared.--V. E. (talk) 22:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
++I have searched the word Atatürk in Weber's book and it seems that he even himself cited Ihrig's work in his book. He wouldn't cite his work if it was something fringe.--V. E. (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have Weber's book, and have read it, and as I reported above, he does not mention Ataturk in the context of the Beer Hall Putsch, so it is not evidence that is useful to your argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: So, if you have Weber's book you can see that he cites Ihrig as a source which proves that he is an authority on the topic contrary to what you claim. Besides I have cited a source by David King above that supports the statement. If your only argument is "He is not a hitler historian", neither is Shirer whom you cited as a reliable source.--V. E. (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Besides searching in Google Books I can see that Weber states that, "Hitler cleverly used his courtroom appearances to put himself in a tradition of Kemal Pasha and Mussolini, arguing just as they had done in Turkey and Italy, he committed high treason so as to bring "freedom" to Germany." This quote supports that Hitler was influenced by Atatürk on the coup.--V. E. (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pinging me - I am aware of this discussion.
No, it means no such thing. Authors use many sources, but it does not mean that they necessarily accept the totality of what those authors write. The fact that Weber does not ascribe the Beer Hall Putsch to Ataturk's influence on Hitler is what is pertinent here. It appears to me that you're trying to use Weber's words about a different subject (the trial) as evidence for Ataturk's influence of Hitler regarding the mounting of the Beer Hall Putsch. That's not going to work.
BTW, please cite here the exact words that Ihrig uses when he says that Hitler was inspired by Ataturk (and not by Mussolini) to mount the Putsch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of parts stating that a will add the few for copyright reasons:

"This attempted seizure of power, contrary to current wisdom in historiography, was inspired much more by Mustafa Kemal and the events in Anatolia than by the example of Mussolini’s “March on Rome." (p. 68)

(Authors tell why earlier historiography thought Mussolini had a bigger impact in between)

"Similarly, Joachim Fest, Bruno Thoss, and Hagen Schulze acknowledge that both Mussolini and Atatürk helped create the sense of unrest and crisis that signaled possible changes for nationalist circles, again in passing." (p. 69)

--V. E. (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"It appears to me that you're trying to use Weber's words about a different subject (the trial) as evidence for Ataturk's influence of Hitler regarding the mounting of the Beer Hall Putsch. That's not going to work."

AFAIK Hitler was talking about the putsch on his trial, so I can't see what is wrong with using that.--V. E. (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You "know" incorrectly. Hitler used the trial to talk at great length about everything and anything. It was a great propaganda success for the Nazis. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I see the precise words that Ihrig wrote, I can say with even more definiteness than before that his theory is very much not generally accepted. Weber may, but he doesn't say so -- and, in any case, Weber is the least authoritative of the sources I listed, something that I pointed out years ago on another talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're pretty much reached the end of the line here. You don't have any evidence at all that Ihrig's theory is generally accepted by the consensus of subject experts on Hitler, and I've presented fairly definitive evidence that it isn't. Maybe at some time in the future it will be, and at that time the material will be acceptable for inclusion in the article, but that time is not now, and the material remains FRINGE. The consensus in this discussion is not to include it, and nothing you've said here has provoked anyone to change their opinion. So I'm going to bow out of this discussion. If another editor (not you, please) decides that the material should be included, I would appreciate a ping to come take a look at their argument, but in the absence of that, I won;t be participating further. Beyond My Ken (talk)'

@Beyond My Ken: what's your opinion about the new sources I added?--V. E. (talk) 07:34, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only source which was directly on point was the Global Biography, which I'm not familiar with. The other sources are, again, not about the Beer Hall Putsch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are all old school, simply not valid, so no you really didn’t provide any “fairly definitive evidence”, its almost like reading very old medieval textbooks and get surprised that those textbooks don’t mention anything about airplanes or rockets. Ihrig did professional research, if you have read the book you can see its well sourced and mostly based on old newspaper articles of the era, personal diaries of high ranking Nazi officials, and other realible sources like Hitlers table talks. How I view this, you are denying the audience essential information that shows a connection between the Armenian Genocide and the Holocaust. If you have read Ihrigs other book on the Armenian Genocide you will know this information shouldn’t be hidden from the public. My advice to you, read the books first before you try to dismiss valid points being made against you. Redman19 (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi martyrs ??

[edit]

Propose renaming this section to 'Nazi Casualties' Martyr is too positive a word to describe people who lost their lives in an illegal grab for power through a coup. Moreover, I would think hardly anyone can associate the word 'martyr' with Nazism Suksane (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC) Suksane[reply]

Why? A martyr is someone who is killed for advocating a cause, and the main article already lists "political martyrs" who were killed in defense of their respective political causes. Dimadick (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how wikipedia itself describes martyr - 'A martyr (Greek: μάρτυς, mártys, "witness", or μαρτυρία, marturia, stem μαρτυρ-, martyr-) is someone that suffers persecution and death for advocating, renouncing, or refusing to renounce or advocate, a religious belief or cause as demanded by an external party' Martyr
I would say that had the Nazi party members been violently attacked / killed while defending their rights to be Nazi party members, THAT would make them martyrs. In this context, the loss of lives was not for advocating any cause or failing to renounce any beliefs or ideology. In this case these group of people were engaged in an illegal grab for power through a coup or putsch.
I would say that though from the Nazi party's perspectives , they might and were martyrs (as mentioned in the opening sentences in the paragraph following the heading 'Nazi Martyrs'), it would hardly be in synch. with the widely and scholarly accepted meaning of the word 'martyr' and its association with these group of Nazis.
For example, would the 9/11 hijackers be called 'Jehadi Martyrs' merely because they believed in the justness of their actions and their cause?
Again from wiki, the word that best describes these group of people perhaps is the word 'terrorist' - 'Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence and fear to achieve an ideological aim'. There is no doubt that violence was used by the Nazi party and its members who were directly linked to the beer hall putsch to achieve their aim of toppling the then Government.
But this is wiki and section headings like 'Nazi Terrorists' etc. are not needed , while also not being in consonance with Wiki's standards.
I would argue that re-wording the section to 'Nazi Casualties' , while actually perhaps being too soft on the Nazi members who lost their lives as a result of the violent means undertaken to overthrow the then government , is perhaps also nore neutral, more pertinent and between the extremes of 'terrorist' and 'martyr'.
Suksane (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick Any comnents? Or any other editors of this page? I strongly recommend re-wording the section heading 'nazi maryrs' Suksane (talk) 11:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't checked this talk page for a few days. "the word that best describes these group of people perhaps is the word 'terrorist'" To be honest, the word that I would use to describe them is fanatic, due to the definition of fanaticism as "pursuit or defence of something in an extreme and passionate way that goes beyond normality". Most people who are willing to either kill for a cause, sacrifice themselves for a cause, or both at the same time, have elements of fanaticism beyond the average human. In any case, casualties is accurate, but fails to describe how their "martyrdom" was used to further advance Nazism's rise to power. Martyr cults tend to be a modern equivalent to hero cults, with the dead venerated for their perceived heroism. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick- I think 'fanatic' is more appropriate than 'terrorist', but that again doesn't look like an appropriate section heading. The section is all about how the Nazis marked and remembered the 16 fallen fanatics.
Going by the content of the section , would it perhaps be more appropriate to change the section heading to 'Nazi Remembrance' ? The section contents is all about how the Nazis in the years after the beer hall putsch, paid tributes to the memory of their fallen party members.The section contents are not about the details of the Nazi party members who lost their lives, rather it is about how the Nazi party subsequently remembered their fallen comrades. Wouldn't 'Nazi Remembrance' be more appropriate and more neutral? Suksane (talk) 06:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, though remembrance should not be capitalized. Dimadick (talk) 06:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick I think I will wait for a week in case other editors have some views and then go ahead with the section name change Suksane (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Martyrs is a neutral word for people who died for their convition. Regardless how this believe is assessed by others. It doesn't have per se a positiv connotation. Hence it could stay even in a Nazi context. Nillurcheier (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nillurcheier As I mentioned before and from the definition of martyr in wiki. Here is how wikipedia itself describes martyr - 'A martyr (Greek: μάρτυς, mártys, "witness", or μαρτυρία, marturia, stem μαρτυρ-, martyr-) is someone that suffers persecution and death for advocating, renouncing, or refusing to renounce or advocate, a religious belief or cause as demanded by an external party' Martyr
I would say that had the Nazi party members been violently attacked / killed while defending their rights to be Nazi party members, THAT would make them martyrs(being killed for defending or refusing to give up their political convictions), irrespective of our personal opinions about their ideology.
In this context, the loss of lives was not for advocating any cause or failing to renounce any beliefs or ideology or being forced to give up on their sociopolitical convictions. In this case these group of people were engaged in an illegal grab for power through a coup or putsch. Therein lies the difference.
For example, would the 9/11 hijackers be called 'Jehadi Martyrs' merely because they believed in the justness of their actions and religious convictions? Moreover, the section actually does not have any details (list of names, birthplaces) of the 16 Nazi party members who lost their lives, rather the section actually goes to describe how the Nazi party subsequently interpreted and paid tributes to their fallen 16 party members.
I propose to wait for more opinions on this and am not going to make any changes till we get some other views as well Suksane (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanations, I can fully agree to them. Fact is that the Nazi called them Blutzeugen, claiming them to be martyrs though they were not. Since there is even an english article on Blutzeuge and a longer German one, this can easily be clearified and a positive impression can be excludied. The names can also be found on the german page easily. if needed.Nillurcheier (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nillurcheier Thanks for your time,I will wait for some more days before making this change directly in the article, just to give some time for other opinions or views Suksane (talk) 17:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the section could be changed to legacy. That would be objective and not POV. Kierzek (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kierzek- Think that makes more sense, the section immediately above is named 'Fatalities' and this one can be called 'Legacy'. This sounds way better than 'Remembrance'.
@Dimadick and @Nillurcheier, what do you think? Suksane (talk) 14:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

100 years later, no photo...

[edit]

We have the photo after the police troops shot & arrested the putschists, with crowds of civilians wanrind around the public space. We have photos during the putsch with the putchists. We have a photo of a couple of the police troops waiting for the putschists, still preparing I believe.

Still... there's no photo of the moment (or moments before, face to face) the police troops & putchists clash. There's an image from a postcard but it is clear that it isn't an original. It's a photo of the place, with the putchists drawned in. The future dictator is said (I can't quote it out the top of my mind) to have been behind the first or second line, safe and sound. It's also the reason why he wasn't killed like so many, that it's a myth which he was at the front. 86.120.224.52 (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler wounded in action

[edit]

The infobox states that Hitler was wounded in action, but I can't find mention of it in the article (unless I'm being blind). What was the nature of this injury? I could find that "he injured his arm", but details beyond that. — Czello (music) 07:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beer_Hall_Putsch&oldid=1252923862"