Hitler Then vs Hitler Now

Originally posted by OldDragger
You are more patient with these guys than want to be.
I've decided to pretty much bow out of their "amoral intellectual" discussion. There is really no such discussion going on, they just are NAZI sympathizers. Sorry to be so blunt, but I can be honest even if they can't.

good.



you aren't adding anything valuable to the discussion, anyway, imo
other than the same-old same-old rhetoric-by-rote

just being honest

Originally posted by neformoreThe propaganda side. The Nazi's were very good at it

so were the Americans:

During World War II, America produced some of the most successful propaganda campaigns in history. The pushes for increased production, labor, and conservation may well have won the war for America.

as well as you, across the sea:
Ministry of Information

WWII was, in great part, a war of propaganda. more than any other major conflict before and after.

We're judging the man himself.

:shk:

it was not my intention to imply that this thread was for the purpose of judging any person or group
what is on trial here is the mainstream accepted historical record.

He did not want to negotiate a surrender because he believed that the people were not worthy of it. I think that says alot about the man, don't you?

What about Churchill's We Shall Fight on the Beaches speech, given on June 4, 1940?
(emphasis mine)

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this Island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our Empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, would carry on the struggle, until, in God's good time, the New World, with all its power and might, steps forth to the rescue and the liberation of the Old.

And while we're on the subject of Churchill... haven't we already established earlier in thread that Chamberlain was the PM at the outbreak of WW2, and not Churchill? The decision to declare war didn't come from Churchill.

yes, we conceded that.
but really it is just a technicality that does not take Churchill out of the equation.

in 1938, from spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:

The union of Germany and Austria (Anschluss) had been specifically forbidden by the Treaty of Versailles. Some members of the House of Commons, including Anthony Eden and Winston Churchill, now called on Chamberlain to take action against Adolf Hitler and his Nazi government.

spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk, describing Churchill:

On the outbreak of war in 1914, Churchill joined the War Council. However, he was blamed for the failure at the Dardanelles Campaign in 1915 and was moved to the post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Unhappy about not having any power to influence the Government's war policy, he rejoined the British Army and commanded a battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers on the Western Front.

After Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party gained power in Germany in 1933, Churchill became a leading advocate of rearmament. He was also a staunch critic of Neville Chamberlain and the Conservative government's appeasement policy. In 1939 Churchill controversially argued that Britain and France should form of a military alliance with the Soviet Union.

On the outbreak of the Second World War Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admiralty and on 4th April 1940 became chairman of the Military Coordinating Committee. Later that month the German Army invaded and occupied Norway. The loss of Norway was a considerable setback for Neville Chamberlain and his policies for dealing with Nazi Germany.

On 8th May the Labour Party demanded a debate on the Norwegian campaign and this turned into a vote of censure. At the end of the debate 30 Conservatives voted against Chamberlain and a further 60 abstained. Chamberlain now decided to resign and on 10th May, 1940, George VI appointed Churchill as prime minister. Later that day the German Army began its Western Offensive and invaded the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg. Two days later German forces entered France.

Churchill formed a coalition government and placed leaders of the Labour Party such as Clement Attlee, Ernest Bevin, Herbert Morrison, Stafford Cripps and Hugh Dalton in key positions. He also brought in another long-time opponent of Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, as his secretary of state for war. Later that year Eden replaced Lord Halifax as foreign secretary.

there's a whole lot of hidden politics right under the surface.

reply to post by shamhat


reply to post by neformore


reply to post by Regenstorm


reply to post by queenannie38


Hi guys, I have been following this thread closely so far and have come across many topics with different views. I was wondering if all 4 of you guys can post your version (as per your views) regards to Hitler following upto end of WWII in one post. I would greatly appreciate if you guys can do that, if not no worries. Thanx.

reply to post by December_Rain


i'm not sure what you mean, exactly?

reply to post by queenannie38


I mean can you list the series of events relating to Hitler upto the end of WWII as per your view. As to how and why the events unfolded as they did in that period in your opinions.

Originally posted by neformore
Now that, I have to say, is a particularly low blow.

I am terribly sorry to have got you in the delicates there, but from where I was sitting you were coming across a little myopic, verging on two world wars and one world cup. I stand corrected it must be that Union Flag you have flying there, distracted me for a moment and led me to presumptions.

Originally posted by neformore
Up until this point I was enjoying the conversation and the exchange of information. A little heated banter yes, but nonetheless educational all ways round and quite stimulating.

I don't get heated on the subject, I have no emotional attachment to events that occured almost 30 years prior to my birth, and I would much rather see my country in the cold light of day and understand those events from all sides that to simply look at who was to blame. There are a whole spectrum of influential events that led to WW2, not all of them can be heaped at the feet of Hitler and the Nazis. Without international funding, British, US, Switzerland, and Sweden in particular, Hitler would never have achieved the position of power that he did or have been able to rearm to the extent that he did without the complicity of other nations.

Originally posted by neformore
But... the accusation that I see this as an affront to my national identity is off base -

Your inability to recognise that Britain was as capable of playing as dirty as Germany seems to indicate that though. Have you for example seen some of the propaganda that we churned out during that period? I have a fabulous photo that our lot doctored of Hitler in full uniform holding his circumcised penis in his hand. We got rough, and of course, I suppose we had to, we had absolutely no chance of winning against Germany in a clean fight.

Originally posted by neformore
I simply don't make excuses for those who commit genocide, and see no point in trying to justify their actions or see a "nice side" to them, whatever nationality they are.

Nor do I make excuses for genocide. The Nazis were humans though, and I for one, think that the only way in which we can ever comprehend those events and stop them from happening again, is to see them as such and take away the veneer of evil imposed on them in retrospect. Evil is so often used as a banner to cover up human ineptitude and corruption. And to say Hitler and the Nazis were evil is to ignore the fact that thousands of individuals were complicit in those events and that without each individual playing their part it could not have happened.

Genocide happened, as it happens now, while the rest of the world watched. Britain knew about it, and according to documents that have been released helped exacerbate the situation by encouraging Germany to invade Russia on the basis that we may have formed an alliance with them against Russia. It is not Britain's fault that millions died as a result, directly and indirectly of that campaign, but it should still be taken into account when looking at the bigger picture.

Because Britain refuses to release documents from the period as it considers them still, 60 years later, to be a threat to national security (I mean tell me How?), we cannot complete the picture. I know enough about my country's history to know that no-one fights harder and dirtier than we do. Look at Drake and see where it began. It is what we had to do to retain independence from European or Holy Rome, and I grudgingly admire it, but, the world is a # hole and people are still dying in purges and pogroms, wars are still directed by bankers and profiteers. What have we learned? And how can we ever hope to learn if one of the biggest players is still holding onto it's cards?

Originally posted by neformore
Any accomplishment made by such a person is tainted by the death and destruction they bring.

I agree, but nor do I stop at the Nazis when making that 'judgement'. First we were so frightened by Bolshevism, or rather we were brainwashed by our leadership into being afraid of Bolshevism, because they the landed and the monied were...so we helped to turn it into totalitarianism by our monetary support for those that opposed Lenin, Churchill even sent an assassination team...no one intended for it all to turn out as bad as it did, but that doesn't mean that their actions should not be taken into account.

I could go on...but I'm hoping you're getting my jist.

Originally posted by neformore
And finally, if you think that I, or any other moderator on this site, would remove posts that are simply contrary to their opinion, in a thread where they are participating, then you have no idea how this site is run, or the standards the moderators work to. To suggest such a course of action is downright insulting.

I apologise for the insult, in mitigation, it was tongue in cheek. Withrawn.

Hitler speech of September 19, 1939.

Subject, invasion of Poland.

www.hitler.org...

More Hitler Then, Hitler Now

Hitler Then:

www.hitler.org...

reply to post by SteveR


thank you, SteveR, for those links

i hope someone reads them
besides me, that is

i had forgotten about that letter concerning Hitler's time in jail and early release
it's consistent with every other personal account i've come across

also, there was a whole lot more to the Poland issue, wasn't there?

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by queenannie38

 

I mean can you list the series of events relating to Hitler upto the end of WWII as per your view. As to how and why the events unfolded as they did in that period in your opinions.

That's asking a lot from those members but if they did , I would like to read it.

The voice of those opposed could list the contributions of Karl Marx and his
Bolshevik, Communists followers.
What do you think?

i plan on answering this, December Rain and Donny 4 million...it's given me lots to think about in a new way, and i appreciate the nudge.

but i've got too many irons in the fire, it seems!

soon

That period of time was extremely complicated, but there is more to the story than is obvious. This part is something you almost never hear about.

This is a series of two articles which I urge you to read in the interest of greater understanding of what happened. I am quoting a little from them to get you started.

The 1930s Economic Boycott of Germany - Prelude

Simultaneous with Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany, an international boycott was organized with the intention of destroying the National Socialists and keeping Germany subservient to the Treaty of Versailles.

One reads of the "violation of Jewish rights" in Germany in 1933 in the context of the international boycott orchestrated against that beleaguered nation. For a historian, however, this approach is not satisfactory, because events must be seen in the light of the fact that "the others, too"- in this case the Germans - had the same right to fight for their existence. If one wishes to be objective, it just will not do to speak only about Jewish rights having been violated without mentioning in this context that the whole German nation had been deprived of its rights by the Treaty of Versailles.

Countless Germans were unemployed, many had their property expropriated or were otherwise economically ruined; in fact, between 1919 and 1933, poverty, civil war and chaos reigned, with little hope of survival for many. Nor can it be passed over in silence that the conditions prevailing in Germany during that period had been largely influenced by victorious political and economic forces abroad, in particular those who took advantage of multi-national citizenship and who exploited their contacts with international authorities.

Dr. Nahum Goldmann, for many years president of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, wrote:

"As president of the largest Jewish organization, I disposed of budgets of hundreds of millions of dollars; I directed thousands of employees, and all this, I emphasize again, not for one particular state, but within the framework of international Jewry." [1]

And was German Jewry suffering as the propaganda in the United States and Great Britain suggested? Here's Goldmann again:

"German Jewry, which found its temporary end during the Nazi period, was one of the most interesting and, for modern Jewish history, most influential centers of European Jewry. During the era of emancipation, i.e., in the second half of the 19th and in the early 20th century, it had experienced a meteoric rise . . . It had fully participated in the rapid industrial rise of Imperial Germany, made a substantial contribution to it and acquired a renowned position in German economic life. Seen from the economic point of view, no Jewish minority in any other country, not even that in America, could possibly compete with the German Jews.

"They were involved in large-scale banking, a situation unparalleled elsewhere, and, by way of high finance, they had also penetrated German industry. A considerable portion of the wholesale trade was Jewish. They controlled even such branches of industry which is in general not in Jewish hands. Examples are shipping or the electrical industry, and names such as Ballin and Rathenau confirm this statement. I hardly know of any other branch of emancipated Jewry in Europe or the American continent that was as deeply rooted in the general economy as was German Jewry. American Jews of today are absolutely as well off as or relatively richer than the German Jews were at the time, it is true, but even in America with its unlimited possibilities the Jews have not succeeded in penetrating into the central spheres of industry (steel, iron, heavy industry, high finance, shipping) as was the case in Germany."

Goldmann again:

"I have no hesitation to say that hardly any section of the Jewish people has made such extensive use of the emancipation offered to them in the nineteenth century as the German Jews. In short, the history of the Jews in Germany from 1870 to 1933 is probably the most glorious rise that has ever been achieved by any branch of the Jewish people." [2]

The 1930s Economic Boycott of Germany - Execution

This amounted to nothing less than Wise's followers, without a mandate by German Jewry, brazenly demanding that Germany should forget about her right of self-determination in favor of these foreign spokesmen representing world Jewry - an impossible and irresponsible attitude in terms of world politics.

Wise simply regarded the prevailing situation as a state of war. He looked on the Jews as being "in the first trenches of the front." At the Second Preparative Conference in Geneva in early September, 1933, he stated:

Once again the Jewish people is called upon to suffer, for we are the suffering servants of humanity. We are called upon to suffer that humanity and civilization may survive and may endure. We have suffered before. We are the eternal suffering servants of God, of that world history which is world judgment.

We are ready if only the precious and the beautiful things of life may survive. That is once again the mission of the Jews. We stand on the front line, in the first row of trenches. [8]

Prior to this, representatives of German Jewry had repeatedly and emphatically protested against this agitation by Wise and others in the United States. For instance, the editors of a prominent Jewish newspaper in Hamburg had sent the following telegram as early as March, 1933:

GERMAN JEWS ACCUSE YOU AND ASSOCIATES TO BE TOOLS OUTSIDE POLITICAL INFLUENCES STOP YOUR SENSELESS OVERRATING OF OWN INTERNATIONAL IMPORTANCE AND LACK OF JUDGMENT DAMAGE LARGELY THOSE YOU PRETEND TO WANT TO PROTECT . . . BETTER SHUT OFF YOUR OWN LIMELIGHT AND USELESS MEETINGS AS SUREST MEANS AGAINST ANTI-SEMITlSM . . . THIS IS YOUR MOST IMPORTANT DUTY TO REPAIR YOUR CRIMES AGAINST US.[9]

By bringing these to your attention, I am not condoning what Adolph Hitler ultimately came to be.....just trying to shed some light on what happened, through the words of the people who lived through it and were directly involved.

Bless you
sezsue

didn't read all comments, sorry if this already noted

[edit on 8-1-2010 by sezsue]

reply to post by December_Rain


Well, Heres a post I made in a thread in April 08 which just about covers the subject I guess.

Will that do?

Edit to add heres some maths on auschwitz from the same thread.

[edit on 8/1/10 by neformore]

Originally posted by Donny 4 million

Originally posted by December_Rain
reply to post by queenannie38

 

I mean can you list the series of events relating to Hitler upto the end of WWII as per your view. As to how and why the events unfolded as they did in that period in your opinions.

That's asking a lot from those members but if they did , I would like to read it.

The voice of those opposed could list the contributions of Karl Marx and his
Bolshevik, Communists followers.
What do you think?

I'm quite happy to offer up my interpretation based upon my reading, which is all it would be, but where would you have me start if you want the influence of Bolshevism on Hitler to be taken into account?

[edit on 8-1-2010 by shamhat]

Hitler was brilliant, he was Time magazine's man of the year in 1933 after all. It's just a shame that megalomania, paranoia and genocide spoiled it, but then we all have our faults.

Do not pass judgement, good or bad, on Hitler until you have seen at least the Holocaust episode of The World at War, a British documentary which features interviews with eyewitnesses from senior politicians, generals, soldiers and a jewish woman who, as a young girl, survived being shot and climbed out of mass grave from underneath the dead bodies of her family, friends and neighbours:

"My father didn't want to undress completely and kept on his underwear. When he was lined up for the shooting he was told to undress, he refused; he ws beaten... They tore his things off and shot him. Then they took mother. She didn't want to go, but wanted us to go first. Yet we made her go first. They grabbed her and shot her. There was my father's mother who was eighty with two grand children in her arms. My father's sister was also there. She, too, was shot with children in her arms. Then my turn came. My younger sister also. She had suffered so much in the ghetto, and yet at the last moment she wanted to stay alive, and begged the German to let her live. She was standng there naked holding on to her girl friend. So he looked at her and shot them both. Both of them fell, my sister and her girl friend. My other sister was next."

Rivka Yoselevska, quoted in Holmes, R. (2007), The World at War, London, Ebury Press.

The only travesty of Hitler's legacy is that he is seen as worse than Stalin.

reply to post by Naboo the Enigma


Great post.
Remember though, this thread is an amoral intellectual discussion.
It's only emotional propaganda when real facts of psychotic barbarism like you presented. Hitler was a poor misunderstood guy/

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Naboo the Enigma

 

Great post.
Remember though, this thread is an amoral intellectual discussion.
It's only emotional propaganda when real facts of psychotic barbarism like you presented. Hitler was a poor misunderstood guy/

You discuss politics in an amoral fashion - if Hitler hadn't been a genocidal lunatic then we would proably look at him in a different light. That said if Jeffrey Dhamer hadn't been an alcoholic, sex offender, serial killer, necrophiliac and cannibal we might remember him for a distinguished career as a soldier.

Well, it dependes. It is easy to take something someone said out of context. The fact is that when Hitler came to power in 1933 Germany was borken by years of hyperinflation and in less than 6 years he built the strongest army in Europe. So he was clever no doubt but that dosen't make him a gread leader. The devil is clever also...

Originally posted by Naboo the Enigma
You discuss politics in an amoral fashion - if Hitler hadn't been a genocidal lunatic then we would probably look at him in a different light.

that's just it!

what if it turns out that the genocidal lunatic was just an ordinary man?
(and it IS possible - anything is possible)

i'm not counting on it but i'm not counting it out, either...
whatever truth turns out to be, i'll be glad to see it

reply to post by queenannie38


And that is just the problem. Demonizing him as if he was some monster no body could ever be. IMHO that is a MAJOR mistake as he was just a normal person that did some horrible things. He wasn't some alien or mutant after all. The potential to commit the sort of evils he did resides within ALL of us. And trying to divorce ourselves from him and pretend he was not human is actively avoiding learning from is mistake, setting the stage for more atrocity. And then you have those that trend towards idolizing so called "monsters" simply because they are called such. "Lure of the darkside" err whatever.