Customer Discussions > History forum

Hitler's mistakes

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 151-175 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 6:51:26 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2012 7:05:58 PM PDT
Rachel says:
Jeff:

AH's ideas about pollution are weird. he also thought that Catholicism had been polluted and he wanted a clean break with the OT. The Hebrew Canon. AH called that "Positive Christianity," Pius XI would have nothing to do with this because all the prediction and connections about Jesus depended on the OT.
Despite Pius XI with the help of the future Pius XII signed nervously an agreement, or as it is called in the Vatican a Concordat, so that Catholic property and Catholic religion should be respected in Germany.
It wasn't. Furthermore, this Concordat was a validation to Hitler. The First international document recognizing his government so to speak. The signing of that Concordat, made Hitler's government valid in the eyes of the world. Yet, by signing the Pope tied the hands of all Catholics in Germany to abide and forced them too, to shut up. AM I correct?

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 6:53:49 PM PDT
Rachel says:
Jeff:

Fascinating and disgusting at the same time. I agree with Joe Anthony. You musthave strenght to read it in one shot and with a full stomach? Naaaa.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 7:03:58 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2012 7:07:27 PM PDT
Rachel says:
Joe Anthony:

Comparative history is a little bit tricky. One must be careful not to use Presentism. That is our own moral thinking in comparison to the past; to embed this in the past is not in the History discipline.
There must be a crucial mass of people who see a moral wrong, if all think it is OK to kill the Amerindians for their own good because they were pagans, or for greed. We don't see things that way now, but then they did not think as we do. Hence, we must be careful with comparisons. A similar issue would be slavery until a crucial amount of countries saw this as immoral, even though it was always immoral, but they had to come to the conclusion themselves.

I am in agreement that Amerindians were mistreated in horrendous ways and killed. I say Amerindians because if you were born in America you are also a native.

I see,too that you say that is not comparable to Holocaust. Obviously not, what Hitler's Genocide was: the most technological killing in history.

Sadly,we haven't learned and Genocides continue. As with slaver, we must come to the conclusion as a total human group that this is wrong. We are far away from that in the present.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 7:23:55 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2012 7:36:55 PM PDT
Leslie Funk says:
Hi Gregory

Your post describing the Germans seen as liberator sounds identical to the Russians first impression of Napoleon on his march to Moscow. The realities of Borodino and Smolensk opened their eyes.

Cheers, Les

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 7:25:57 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Joe Anthony says:

[As for America, the genocide against Native Americans seems to have been quite harsh.]

The CIA invented terrorism I think, at least in modern times. They knew how to assassinate the leader of a foreign country for example and put the blame on some poor innocent sap.

Conspiracy theorists feel they turned their terrorism machine against JFK and the patsy was Lee Oswald.

I don't want to sound anti American but I think there are some foreign countries that have valid reasons for not trusting the U.S. based on historical events.

England has a long history of imperialism I think.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 7:29:44 PM PDT
Gregory Mays says:
>>Invading The USSR was not a mistake; you must remember that Germany did force a surrender of Russia in 1917, perhaps for the first and last time in history.<<

I think that's a mis-read of the situation. In the Bolshevik mindset, Germany had been a protectorate of Lenin and the birthplace of Marx. The Bolsheviks were simply turning their back on the Imperial Russian hostility toward Germany. And more importantly, turning their back on Russian participation among the Allies. So, I don't think the Germans forced a surrender militarily, so much as provided a safe haven for a political movement the undermined the Czar and the Czar's strategic alliances.
And Hitler really seized on this reality. That it was largely German groups that were spearheading the Communist movement in Eastern Europe. And....within Germany, the radical left, which included Communists, was heavily populated by Jews. Blaming the Jews for everything that went wrong in 1917-18 was a very easy sale in Germany. Within Germany, much of the Nazi anti-Semitic rhetoric rang true.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 7:50:55 PM PDT
Rachel says:
Jeff:

I would say in this case that Latin- America would have that attitude. It is not anti- American. It is history.

Rachel

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 7:55:32 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Hello Jeff Marzano,

You're correct, Hitler's was "a very strange reason for killing so many people." He saw everything in racial terms, however, and that seems to be the basis of National Socialism insofar as I can tell.

I'm borrowing this hypothesis from a German historian, Professor Eberhard Jaeckel. It only makes sense if you're a Nazi.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 8:02:28 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Dear Rachel,

It is kind of you to absolve me of inherited guilt, and I understand that you are correct. Hitler and his Third Reich are, however, a stain on German honor which cannot be glossed over and should never be forgotten.

I think the fact that Germans were such an educated, cultured people actually makes what is now called "the Holocaust" even more ghastly. You lost loved ones in that yourself, possibly to my kinsmen.

It shouldn't have happened. I share your concern that it might be happening again given the rising tide of anti Jewish propaganda we're seeing online these days.

It is very gracious of you to make such a reply to me and I appreciate it.

Love,
John

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 8:06:32 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
I think you're incorrect in your conclusion that "the CIA invented terrorism," Jeff Marzano. The CIA didn't exist until WW II when it evolved out of the OSS, which was started during WW II. Before that, I don't think the US had an intelligence apparatus of any kind.

Other countries did. The Russian Ochrana, or Secret Police, annoyed President Lincoln during the American Civil War. They've been assassinating leaders and conducting espionage longer and more successfully than most others.

The CIA is a joke compared to them.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 8:11:52 PM PDT
Gregory Mays says:
And make no mistake..the US view on the Pacific goes WAYYY back. The reason that Washington and Oregon were territories even before the Mexican Wars, was because a gateway to Pacific trade was highly desirable. In the 1840's a beaver pelt that sold for 1 Pound in England, sold for 10 pounds in Hong Kong. America has always been focused on Pacific trade. And...you notice it's still true today. How much of our Navy is dedicated to protecting Pacific trade routes? Most of it?
America has always thought that we are the logical Power of the Pacific. The only logical contestant to that has been Japan, and we know how that turned out.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 8:27:12 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
I think you should include Russia in the equation, Gregory Mays, otherwise I agree with your post.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 8:57:23 PM PDT
Gregory Mays says:
I don't accept that Russia figures into the Pacific equation. Because....the only Russian port in play is Vladivostok. And Vladivostok is about as far away from Moscow as you can get. And...it has always been a separate consideration. Russia has never considered the Pacific as something controllable or an aspiration. To witness, the Russo-Japanese War of 1905. Russia lost because it was simply too far away. That reality is not lost on Russians. And I don't think they have ever considered seriously asserting themselves in that part of the world since.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 9:00:16 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Rachel says:

[I would say in this case that Latin- America would have that attitude. It is not anti- American. It is history.]

There's countries in the Middle East who also don't trust America such as Pakistan.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 9:07:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 28, 2012 9:10:05 PM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
John M. Lane says:

[You're correct, Hitler's was "a very strange reason for killing so many people."]

The Nazis took a crackpot, beer hall ideology and imposed it on an entire country.

There's so many angles with Hitler and the Nazis with the sexual issues, the drug addiction, the occult, the death camps, etc..

I have this book but haven't read it yet:

The Coming Race

Based on what I have heard that book contains the seeds for the Nazi's racial ideas.

The entire situation got very weird with the death camps. They turned mass murder into an industry.

Stalin did the same thing but to his own people. One of those people was Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who will be remembered by many as the greatest writer of the 20th century.

Solzhenitsyn miraculously survived his experiences under Stalin and lived in Vermont for many years before returning to Russia. He was almost like a force of truth that could not be destroyed.

Jeff Marzano

THE FIRST CIRCLE

The Gulag Archipelago Volume 1: An Experiment in Literary Investigation (P.S.)

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 28, 2012 9:13:26 PM PDT
John M. Lane says:
Stalin murdered as many innocent, unarmed people as Hitler, maybe more, Jeff Marzano -- and they weren't all Russians. He murdered because of "class conflict" and to defend the revolution against "bourgeois influences." Hitler murdered because of "race", or whatever he thought "race" was.

Both led totalitarian movements and that may be where the real answer lies.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 6:59:56 AM PDT
Boz says:
IMHO, wasnt the fact that he thought he knew better then his Generals how to conduct battles, and confused his ability to spar politically with France and Britian as some sort of evidence that he was some sort of genius who really didnt need his stupid General Staff and that all the commanders had to do was listen to his advice on when and where to attack. Leaving thousands of Wehrmacht soldiers to freeze to death because he was in a rush to take down Stalin.

I would like to think that the attempts to assasinate him by the regular Army generals was not only to put an end to the war and maybe find some way to honorably surrender, spare Berlin, and save the lives of young men put into awful battle situations to satisfy the whims of some self deluded lunatic who had lost all grasp of reality?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 7:02:52 AM PDT
Gregory Mays says:
>>which was started during WW II. Before that, I don't think the US had an intelligence apparatus of any kind.<<
That's because the US didn't really foresee any international situation that could draw us into war. But that also explains how the Press could conjure the facts surrounding the USS Maine blowing up, and draw us into the Spanish American War. The government didn't have independent sources that could challenge the conclusion that Spain had done it. And we now are almost certain that Spain didn't do it.
I think not being able to foresee events in Asia and Germany that became the biggest war in human history, convinced everyone on the need for peace time intelligence gathering.

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 7:09:14 AM PDT
Gregory Mays says: "That's because the US didn't really foresee any international situation that could draw us into war. But that also explains how the Press could conjure the facts surrounding the USS Maine blowing up, and draw us into the Spanish American War. The government didn't have independent sources that could challenge the conclusion that Spain had done it. And we now are almost certain that Spain didn't do it.
I think not being able to foresee events in Asia and Germany that became the biggest war in human history, convinced everyone on the need for peace time intelligence gathering."

I think you are pretty much right on the money here, Gregory.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 7:17:37 AM PDT
Gregory Mays says:
>>I would like to think that the attempts to assasinate him by the regular Army generals was not only to put an end to the war<<

It was more about 'how' it would end. The generals assumed that when the Allies broke some threshold, like the Rhine or the Elbe river, the Germans would sue for peace. It was Hitler's assertion that this was a fight to the bitter end that made them panic. He was fully prepared to have Germany destroyed, and that was very much a minority position. But...even if they had killed him and sued for peace, how much better off would Germany have been? The Russians had seen the Death Camps in Poland by then. I still think France and Russia would have demanded the partitioning of Germany. For them, it was all about never allowing the Germans to do this again.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 8:09:01 AM PDT
Jeff Marzano says:
Boz says:

[Leaving thousands of Wehrmacht soldiers to freeze to death because he was in a rush to take down Stalin.]

Hitler was being given methamphetamine injections. This is similar to the meth that is used today.

This drug gives people feelings of grandeur and invincibility.

Jeff Marzano

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 9:18:00 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2012 9:23:59 AM PDT
I read that Hitler spent some time staring, in a trance-like state, at the sarcophagus of Napoleon Bonaparte. Also, many years ago Alec Guinness played Hitler in a TV drama about the last days in the Bunker. In one scene Guinness tells a officer that he wants to die on May 5, the same day as Napoleon, and to hold off the Soviets until then. Is there any truth to this?

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 10:02:45 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Mar 29, 2012 10:23:42 AM PDT
F. Gleaves says:
Rachel,

They had to shut up or they'd be put in a concentration camp, like any other opponent of the Nazis.

Not only did that happen - the concentration camp commanders made it a practice during the war of sending a message to Hitler on his birthday telling him how many Roman Catholic priests they had executed that day in his honor.

I'm sure they were mostly Polish, but there were some well-known German Protestant religious leaders as well as Roman Catholic priests who were arrested in the 1930's and executed before AH shot himself.

You'll recall the old German slogan - "Kinder, Küche, Kirche" - the woman's role was home-making and raising the children, and taking them to Church.

Actually the Nazis changed it to "Familie, Kinder, Haus", but the Church was tolerated to occupy women's minds while men followed more warlike pursuits.

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100829005417AAjM7zl
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinder,_K%C3%BCche,_Kirche

And after all German kids were required to join Hitler Youth or its counterpart for girls, parents had to be careful what they said even at home for fear of being turned-in as traitors by their own children.

In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2012 10:04:32 AM PDT
Ku says:
He did indeed spend time staring and then turned to Giesler and whispered 'you shall build my tomb'.

He then more loudly described what he had in mind.

Les Invalides was the highlight of the tour and the only moment the party were almost reduced to awestruck silence.

On the way there they'd passed the statue of General Mangin who had led the French army into the Rhineland in 1919.

AH's face darkened and he gave the orders to blow it up.

Posted on Mar 29, 2012 10:41:42 AM PDT
AxisBeefyBoy says:
1. The first big mistake was invading Russia

2. The second was declaring war on the US

Re: Russia - Had he not invaded Russia, the germans could've used the would-be Barbarossian forces to easily sweep the British out of North Africa and the middle east, securing vast quantities of badly needed oil and possibly even linking up with the Japanese in Northern India.

Re: US - There was absolutely nothing to be gained by Declaring war on the US on Dec. 11, 1941. It was unnecessary; the terms of his pact with Japan gave him an out (Germany was not bound to stand by Japan, the aggressor). Roosevelt wanted to go to war with Germany, the American people by and large did not. The only thing declaring war on the US did was allow the US and the UK to enter into probably the closest working alliance between two nations in history, creating a force that would throw the Germans out of Africa and France in less than three years' time.
Discussion locked

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  History forum
Participants:  166
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Feb 1, 2012
Latest post:  Feb 13, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 14 customers

Search Customer Discussions