Hitler Then vs Hitler Now

reply to post by OldDragger

You could say that the good ole U S of A had a pristine start and growth process as well... with the murder, enslavement and segregation of indians and blacks in it's first 100 years to the fabrication of two wars; vietnam and the middle east, in it's latest 100 years.

Just imagine what would have been said about the great Red, White and Blue if some other country was "the super power"... all our dark deeds illustrated in the most vivid detail, recycled and embellished upon from decades to centuries to come.

reply to post by queenannie38

Thank you for a well thought out thread, and making it clear that it's purpose is to look at this subject matter from a completely amoral objective stand point. An exercise in the spirit of a true intellectual inquiry, and i think there is a great deal for us all to learn by taking on this taboo in historical research. As much as i find them annoying and distracting, some of these emotionally driven knee jerk reactions shared thus far are i suppose par for the course. I will try to be patient/understanding.


[edit on 1-1-2010 by The Blind Eye]

Well, you have to remember that when Hitler came to power, Europe, a large percentage of people, thought Hitler was "great." Oh, but how the wheel of time awakens.

[edit on 1-1-2010 by SpeakerofTruth]

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
The Holocaust actually killed about thirteen million people, Doc. Roughly half were Jews. The fact that they're the only ones you're remembering is evidence of some pretty strong propaganda efforts clouding up your brain

I am not "clouded"... I understand full well the revisionist "victor's history" of WWII, which has been foisted on the free world through mandatory free education. Even the Nazis themselves boasted of killing far more than 6 million Jews, and the tens of millions of Russians slaughtered between Hitler and Stalin truly dwarf The Holocaust among Mankind's significant efforts in eugenics.

However, all we ever hear is that 6 million innocent Jews were executed. Why this number was chosen is probably because it is the middle-ground between Nazi claims and Holocaust denier claims.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by The Blind Eye
Thank you for a well thought out thread, and making it clear that it's purpose is to look at this subject matter from a completely amoral objective stand point. An exercise in the spirit of a true intellectual inquiry, and i think there is a great deal for us all to learn by taking on this taboo in historical research. As much as i find them annoying and distracting, some of these emotionally driven knee jerk reactions shared thus far are i suppose par for the course. I will try to be patient/understanding.

it is hard, at times
but thank for your patience/understanding!

There's no simple answer to this question. And Hitler 1932 is a different person form Hitler 1942.

One of those historical confluences - he was the right man at the right time.
A lot of well focused aggression and psychotic energy, chrisman and manic appeal, at a time when people wanted an energized leader.

Hasd he been less egomaniacal and not gone overboard on his conquest campaign, he could have maintained control over half of Europe.

but he was too far gone by then.

In the final analysis he single-handedly destroyed what Germany had been. Before WWII, even after WWI, Germany was on the way to becoming the major power of Europe somewhere on the level of Britain. Tremendous accomplishments culturally, economically, technologically, financially, academically. Conceivably they could have attained the position the US has now as world leader.

Hitler brought everything to a crescendo that was crashing down within a decade.

He did introduce cool S&M uniforms to the world.


M

Annie, great post.
Did you see this?

Hitler becomes Time Magazine Man of the Year. 1939

www.time.com...

I didn't see it in the thread or on any of the posts.

Amazing how his atrocities were still unkown by this point

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Hitler becomes Time Magazine Man of the Year. 1939
Amazing how his atrocities were still unkown by this point

Even if they were know, it would have made no difference as the criteria is
"for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.

That is why Stalin has won it twice, 1939 and 1942, Hitler in 1938, Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 etc en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dereks

Originally posted by dragonsmusic
Hitler becomes Time Magazine Man of the Year. 1939
Amazing how his atrocities were still unkown by this point

Even if they were know, it would have made no difference as the criteria is
"for better or for worse, ...has done the most to influence the events of the year.

That is why Stalin has won it twice, 1939 and 1942, Hitler in 1938, Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979 etc en.wikipedia.org...

I see your point. Though is it not a laudable achievement when given?
They certainly wouldn't be handing it out to Ted Bundy for Man of the Year based on his ability to "influence the events of the year" when he slaughtered the most people now would they?

Yeah, Hitler was not perceived as such a terrible menace throughout the 1930s, and there's plenty of evidence that Western civilization was closer to Hitler in ideology than we now care to admit... I mean, even FDR's State Department rejected passenger ships of Jewish refugees from Hitler's regime:

Rejected Jewish Refugees

Not exactly a compassionate and charitable reception for Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi terror.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Yeah, Hitler was not perceived as such a terrible menace throughout the 1930s, . . .

If Hitler had done just a few things differently, WW2 would have ended much differently.

It's possible that Germany would now be a large country extending well into Russia. His racial policies were his undoing in a couple of very important ways. Germany lost some it's greatest scientists and they lost the goodwill of people who looked at the invading Germans as liberators on the Eastern Front. Getting through the Russian winter would have been a lot easier with the people on your side as support and as conscripts into the German army.

Hitler was a brilliant but deeply flawed politician. Germany today is everything that Hitler hated in a nation; mercantile, moderate, internationalist, cooperative and tolerant.

Referring to the quote, above, I think that if the war had ended with some kind of even standoff on the Eastern Front and if Hitler had managed to make peace with the Allies in the west, his various crimes would have been hushed up and forgotten by all but those who lost relatives to his predations.

The world's governments would have 'made nice' and gotten along with life and business, as they do now with the US despite the crimes of the Bush administration.



[edit on 2-1-2010 by ipsedixit]

Originally posted by ipsedixit
If Hitler had done just a few things differently, WW2 would have ended much differently.

Truth told, Adolf Hitler was sloppy and amateurish.

He lacked the very sensitive and very delicate approach. His were definitive blows struck repeatedly — like a swordsman cleaving away at the perceived evils in his world. He liked to imagine himself as an armored swordsman, a knight, in fact.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d66b4d04a14c.png[/atsimg]
Yeah, Dr. Seuss even captured it.

But you can't sell this hard-ass, steel-edge ideology to the masses — you impose it on them, yes, but they don't like it.

The only sure way to reach the masses and align them to your cause is to massage their sensibilities, soften them up, draw them in, tell them it's okay, we understand and we're going to elevate you to heights unimagined, crunching underfoot the bones of those who oppressed you.

That's what people want to hear.

Hitler took this so far, then he regressed into an obsession with race and family trees and all sorts of nonsense. And his generals were all, like, what dude?? But it was too late and Hitler was consumed in hellfire... The End

YET... Following WWII, Western Civilization continued to pursue Hitler's dream! We strive for anatomical and cosmetic perfection, we are building a master race, we abort 800,000 humans annually in America, most of whom are of negroes.

Hey, call it what it is, sista! We gots de NAZISM in Western Civilization.

— Doc Velocity

reply to post by queenannie38


I have always been curious of events and life surrounding Hitler because it is simply very complex. There always seems so much controversy surrounding this topic that any research into his topic seems an uphill task and nearly impossible to grasp the real facts surrounding Adolf Hitler. It seems each and every source whether pro or against is contaminated with dis-info, incorrect versions for eg. it was believed for long time that the skull found in bunker was of Adolf Hitler but now it has been disclosed it was of a female and the Russians swept swept his body remains in a river nearby. There is two version of each event linked to his story.

I tried sometime ago researching on him but reached blind alleys and gave up, as even the major historians who studied him could not agree which version was correct and which is not so what chance possibly do I have? What fascinates me more are laws in countries like Germany, USA, France etc. which prohibit researching events into life of Adolf Hitler or the events surrounding him.

Infact, not only in case of Adolf Hitler but other personalities like Columbus, Isaac Newton, Tesla, Churchill etc. all these people have one or diff. kind of controversy related to events in their life for which there is no scope of finding things as they were in real life.

Somehow there is a big "something" in this period of history which is hard to pin point but can be felt. I do not know what it is, but instead of answers this period in history raises more questions for which answers are nearly impossible, It can be safe to assume that any answers died with them itself and will never come up.

Originally posted by December_Rain
There always seems so much controversy surrounding this topic that any research into his topic seems an uphill task and nearly impossible to grasp the real facts surrounding Adolf Hitler. It seems each and every source whether pro or against is contaminated with dis-info, incorrect versions for eg. it was believed for long time that the skull found in bunker was of Adolf Hitler but now it has been disclosed it was of a female and the Russians swept swept his body remains in a river nearby. There is two version of each event linked to his story.

I tried sometime ago researching on him but reached blind alleys and gave up, as even the major historians who studied him could not agree which version was correct and which is not so what chance possibly do I have? What fascinates me more are laws in countries like Germany, USA, France etc. which prohibit researching events into life of Adolf Hitler or the events surrounding him.

Infact, not only in case of Adolf Hitler but other personalities like Columbus, Isaac Newton, Tesla, Churchill etc. all these people have one or diff. kind of controversy related to events in their life for which there is no scope of finding things as they were in real life.

Somehow there is a big "something" in this period of history which is hard to pin point but can be felt. I do not know what it is, but instead of answers this period in history raises more questions for which answers are nearly impossible, It can be safe to assume that any answers died with them itself and will never come up.

There is absolutely no difficulty researching Hitler or any politically important historical person. Writers, journalists, historians, academics have been doing it for decades. One has to use the proper research sources and tools.

One needs to read recognized authoritative books and follow up on their citations just for starters.

The Internet often spews up warped absurdities if you rely on ordinary Googling. The conspiracy and whacko stuff usually comes up on the first pages. There is often tons of nonsense serious scholars wouldn't consider for a second.

If a source isn't credible and properly cited it has to be ignored or one can waste their time trying to incorporate disinformation. This is particularly true with controversial or sensationalistic subjects.

One has to be able to learn to tell the difference between established facts and garbage information. Research is a learned skill, not a game played to reinforce pet theories.

Originally posted by mmiichael
One needs to read recognized authoritative books and follow up on their citations just for starters.

Recognized by whom? Each and every source, book has something or other wrong. What one says something, someone other presents different "facts" backed up with more sources and it goes on and on. When I tried looking into it almost every historian who researched it agreed with each other and at same time refuted each others version of events. It's like a revolving door which one cannot slam.

There should be a separate panel of researches without influence (funds, association, ideology) from any govt. or group at all. Until then no it's extremely rare to find the truth.

Another questions is why is it so complex? why is it not a straightforward thing? Why so many controversies regarding a person? What is it that no one can pinpoint everything clearly? Why simply it is not in black and white? Why so much secrecy? Was he really what majority of history shows if so why so many different areas and events? Why laws not allowing to research? What was his motive? What he wanted to achieve? What drove his mindset? What was he like in personal life? The actions he took why he took? The list of whys are infinite and the answers limited.

Another person like Tesla..did he really only thought his theories and simply worked on them after a long session of thinking? Why was he interested in science? Why US Govt. confesticated his notes on his death? Why did he said free energy is possible? How did he managed to think all that in one long session? Why were his inventions stolen and given to other people?

For Columbus..why he set sail at all? Why was he sure he would find a place anywhere on earth? What drove him to sail? Was he actually first person to find American land? What motivated him to set sail? Why he took the route he took? Why so much controversy after he found America? What happened in reality when he found the place?

Originally posted by December_Rain
Recognized by whom? Each and every source, book has something or other wrong. What one says something, someone other presents different "facts" backed up with more sources and it goes on and on. When I tried looking into it almost every historian who researched it agreed with each other and at same time refuted each others version of events. It's like a revolving door which one cannot slam.

There should be a separate panel of researches without influence (funds, association, ideology) from any govt. or group at all. Until then no it's extremely rare to find the truth.

I'm not trying to be adversarial here, but you're taking a negative approach here. Serious writers, scholars, researchers, investigators have been dealing with the biases and unreliability of sources since the beginning of time.

Each subject requires it's own set of reliability parameters. In the sciences it is usually controlled experiments with double blinds, or data from a lage enough representative sampling.

With something like history the use of primary sourced material, documentation, first hand testimony, personal memoirs, etc are important.

The view that scholarly and academic material is somehow tainted by authoritative override is misguided. Some of the freest thinkers, the most independent minded, politically radicalized people in existence have researched subjects incorporating conventionally sourced information.

It's all about learning how to differentiate what is impartial and full information from the one-sided and incomplete.

I don't know if I'm explaining this very well. There are works that explain it more comprehensively.

All I can say for now is the more you read, research and investigate the better you become at developing skills and intuition. The more often you get fooled and mislead the better you become at telling when a source is unsound. This takes a lot of time but can be fast tracked by communication with someone who has been down the path and knows where the icebergs and land mines are.

Generally it's better to be researching something while maintaining contact with someone who has done their own searching in the same area. It hastens and improves the process.

Again a warning, if you don't know how to navigate on the Internet you will find yourself in a hellhole of disinformation on a chosen subject especially if it is contentious. There are people and organizations out there purposefully disseminating false data and testimony to create falsified history, science, culture, etc.

Sorry if this sounds like a lecture and sorry for semicoherence. With informal discussion lists I only type first draft and fast.

M

Originally posted by Doc Velocity
Yeah, Hitler was not perceived as such a terrible menace throughout the 1930s

Wrong.

Hitler was percieved as a huge menace, but the European Powers had no taste for a repeat of WW1 (which is why they had such moderate governments in place) so they appeased him instead, which was ultimately the wrong thing to do.

But things were happening. The French reinforced the Maginot line (for all the good it did them), the UK built its radar network on the quiet, and where do you think all those Hurricanes, Wellingtons, Lancasters and Spitfires came from? Its not like people were sitting on their laurels completely.

People knew there was a war coming. They just did every single thing possible to deny it in their own minds out of hope that they were wrong. Sadly it didn't work out that way.

Edgar Dugdale
James Murphy Reynal
William Soskin
Ralph Manheim
Hugh Trevor-Roper
Eberhard Jäckel
Gerhard Weinberg
Milan Hauner
Gunter Moltmann
Meier Michaelis
Andreas Hillgruber
John Keegan
Albert Speer
John Toland
Konrad Heiden
Guenter Lewy
Richard Steigmann-Gall
Ian Kershaw
Richard Carrier
Joseph Goebbels
Martin Bormann
Arthur de Gobineau
Lucy Dawidowicz
John Toland
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke
Joachim Fest
Lothar Machtan

are just few of the many historians who tried to reveal facts surrounding Adolf Hitler, events and his life. All of them provide their "opinion" and "thoughts" in attempt to why but not facts. There have been severe debate among themselves in almost each event. Why they debated with each other if their version was correct? Also I do not believe just because one known publisher publishes thoughts and opinions does not reveal truth and does not make them authoritative figures.

Originally posted by December_Rain
few of the many historians who tried to reveal facts surrounding Adolf Hitler, events and his life. All of them provide their "opinion" and "thoughts" in attempt to why but not facts. There have been severe debate among themselves in almost each event. Why they debated with each other if their version was correct? Also I do not believe just because one known publisher publishes thoughts and opinions does not reveal truth and does not make them authoritative figures.

One has to synthesize all the sources available. Rule of thumb, information closest to the original source often has the best hard data and testimony.

Good later writers who understand research know how to separate the wheat from the chaff building a broader picture with a lot of the mythology and bunk filtered out.

On Hitler an interesting book is the Diaries of Bridget Hitler (forget the title)
Addy's sister-in-law, she claims he visited England for a few months. Many scholars dismiss this book, but one good historian, Robert Payne, thinks it bonafide and important.

Hitler presents problems for novice researchers as there is so much rubbish out there. One laughable book is by his supposed psychiatrist that came out around 1941. All invention as are at least half the books and articles bout Hitler. And a big problem is racists are the ones doing the most research on the Nazi era. So an extra level of misinformation is floating around.

One really has to open a line of communication with a serious scholar on this or years can be wasted on dead end leads.

I would stick to print and ignore 90% of what's online. People just cherry pick bits and pieces out of context to forward their special snapshots. And there is a lot of outright lying on the Net too. Claims of events that never happened, altered documentation, etc. I'm afraid conspiracy sites are almost useless as they are with many controversial subjects.

Originally posted by queenannie38
BUT if Hitler wanted war, and was preparing for it, ostensibly by improving technology, then why did he undertake such things as improving jobsites, building housing, and helping young families get a start?

It was Hitler's decision to invade Poland and Russia. Yes, he did help some people, but he hurt a lot more. He only helped people if they fit a certain racial classification; this was directly tied into his political beliefs. And he hurt a lot of those same people he supposedly wanted to help.

Essentially he wanted to enslave the Slavs and everyone else. Why? Because he thought he could get away with it and no one would be able to stop him. Thankfully, he was stopped. Now it is up to us to find a better way, a more enlightened and positive way. The old ways don't work anymore.

this doesn't seem to be "state"-oriented, at all:

"We have not broken down classes in order to set new ones in their place; we have broken down classes to make way for the German people as a whole. Our education also trains men to respect intellectual achievement: we bring one to respect the spade, another to respect the compass or the pen. All now are but German fellow-countrymen, and it is their achievement which determines their value...
What is necessary is to teach each class and profession the importance of the others. All together form one mighty body; labourer, peasant, and professional man."
- Adolf Hitler

www.adolfthegreat.com...

It very much has to do with his conception of the State. He wanted to homogenize the Germans into identical robots under his direct control. So of course among his robots there would be no class distinction. Everyone would be servants of the Fuhrer, existing only to serve him.

In the end Hitler cared about one person: himself. He fooled a lot of people along the way with his ideology. I'd hope that in today's day and age we can see that his teachings were wrong and that positive hope lies in more enlightened and compassionate (yet intelligent) views.

[edit on 2-1-2010 by ForAiur]