PDA

View Full Version : World News Hitler



Atomik
10-09--2006, 10:15 AM
Gonna get flamed for this probably but I admire Hitler for being the politician that he was. Can't help but find it briliant how he brought a whole nation into following his lead.. especially because Mein Kampf was published as early as 1925 wherein he pretty clearly stated his opinion about Jews and 'the masses'. Anyone who read that could have seen it coming yet apperantly they were all too willing to vote for him (and after the war state "wir haben es nicht gewußt". Now that guy knew how to play a nation.. manipulation at it's best.How about starting a thread? I have some things to say on this but we're about to go way off topic. :D

velvet
10-09--2006, 10:27 PM
There ya go.. so folks.. Hitler.. discuss :)

Atomik
11-09--2006, 06:29 AM
I think his political genius is vastly exaggerated. It was more a case of being in the right place at the right time. If he'd been all that clever, Germany would be ruling the world about now. He made too many simple mistakes - opening the Russian front being a biggie, and allowing America to get drawn into the war to be another. Oh, and stalling the invasion of Britain didn't help.

And "Mein Kampf" seemed to me like the ramblings of a halfwit.

velvet
11-09--2006, 09:02 AM
I think his political genius is vastly exaggerated. It was more a case of being in the right place at the right time. If he'd been all that clever, Germany would be ruling the world about now. He made too many simple mistakes - opening the Russian front being a biggie, and allowing America to get drawn into the war to be another. Oh, and stalling the invasion of Britain didn't help.

And "Mein Kampf" seemed to me like the ramblings of a halfwit.

One of Hitlers problems I think was that he had no clue about warfare. The key to his succes was his mastering of the means of propaganda (and having Goebbels to work out the details).

You're not completely correct on Hitler and Britain though. The Battle of Britain was as early as 1940 and had the sole purpose of decimating the RAF so the path would be made clear for operation Sealion (actual invasion of Britain). The Luftwaffe outnumbered the RAF with 4:1 but they had the huge disadvantage of having to fight IN Britain which meant that the RAF was close to their own airfields whereas the German planes couldn't stay above the UK for longer than 1,5 hour before having to retreat to their mainland homebases for refueling. The battle was going pretty well and the RAF was close to defeat... but it was only here that Hitler made a huge mistake by commanding the attack to focus on civilian targets instead of continuing the raids on airfields, factories and docks. Which was incredibly stupid because the RAF only had three airfields left by then. This was nothing but a vengeance measure of a lunactic, because it was a reaction to the bombing of Berlin. In these few months in the summer of 1940 the RAF lost well over 700 planes and about 500 pilots were killed. The first civilian attack was on the 7th September and targetted London, killing almost thousand civilians over the course of two days and injuring many many more. During the Blitz (sept 1940-may 1941) the Germans lost a lot of planes but more importantly they lost a vast number of pilots because every crashing German plane meant that a pilot was stuck in the UK.. whole point being is that Hitler did attack Brittain at a very early stage but was just a complete fuck up when it came to actual tactics. If he hadn't switched to civilian targets you'd be speaking German right now :)

About the Eastern front was another stupid deciscion indeed.. Russia and Germany had a standing even though they didn't trust eachother that much, attacking them, especially at that time wasn't exactly a smart move. The German T34's where nowhere near build for the Russian colds which posed a bit of a problem with Hitler holding off before the fall of Winter even though they were deadclose to Moskow.. again another bad descision.

Oh and about the US getting involved.. that was way more on the hands of Japan than Germany.. there was no way Hitler could have formed an alliance or at least a standing with Roosevelt after his blatant attacks in Europe. The US wasn't involved in the actual warfare here but (like now in the middle east), the US helped supplying Britain but didn't actually engage fights untill Pearl Harbour, which had nothing the do with Hitler. Same goes for the African front, which was Mussolini thinking it was a good idea to start taking over Ethopia and Egypt.. they got into trouble and needed their nazi friends to come and help. Effectively forcing Hitler to fight three fronts at the same time.

My whole point being.. Hitler had good plans for conquering the world so to say (from his point of view) but should've delageted way more and listen edto people who were specialised in warfare, wartactics etc. He should've just stuck by actual leading of the masses.. not leading of the military. I do however feel that he was briliant as a politician.. ofcourse he needed the time to be right (which it was during the interbellum) but the fact that he saw it and brought his plans into action in the way that he did does show mastery of leadership I feel.

And about Mein Kampf.. I love his bits about the masses and propaganda and he makes very strong points there.. his ramblings about the Jews however are nothing more than that of someone a few sandwiches short of a picknick. Madness and genius however are pretty close.. and if he would've been able to control his shear hatred and just focus on the genius part the Third Reich would've been a fact... at least in my opinion.

Atomik
11-09--2006, 09:26 AM
One of Hitlers problems I think was that he had no clue about warfare. The key to his succes was his mastering of the means of propaganda (and having Goebbels to work out the details).Worse than that, he wasn't prepared to listen to those who did. Any leader who can't accept advice is doomed to failure.


You're not completely correct on Hitler and Britain though. The Battle of Britain was as early as 1940 and had the sole purpose of decimating the RAF so the path would be made clear for operation Sealion (actual invasion of Britain).That's besides the point though. If Hitler had directed his resources at Britain instead of opening the Eastern front, the whole outcome of the war could've been very different.


.. whole point being is that Hitler did attack Brittain at a very early stage but was just a complete fuck up when it came to actual tactics. If he hadn't switched to civilian targets you'd be speaking German right nowYup. Another example of Hitler's idiocy.


Oh and about the US getting involved.. that was way more on the hands of Japan than Germany.. there was no way Hitler could have formed an alliance or at least a standing with Roosevelt after his blatant attacks in Europe.Not an alliance, no. But you have to remember that American public opinion was hugely set against involvement in the war. Although Peal Harbour gave Roosevelt the excuse he needed to engage, that decision was only finally made possible by Hitler prematurely declaring war on America. Hitler could very easily have made it political suicide for Roosevelt to commit to the European conflict.


My whole point being.. Hitler had good plans for conquering the world so to say (from his point of view) but should've delageted way more and listen edto people who were specialised in warfare, wartactics etc. He should've just stuck by actual leading of the masses.. not leading of the military. I do however feel that he was briliant as a politician.. ofcourse he needed the time to be right (which it was during the interbellum) but the fact that he saw it and brought his plans into action in the way that he did does show mastery of leadership I feel.I think he had undeniable skills, but I think you're overstating his genius. No leader who is unable to delegate is truly a gifted leader. The main damning aspect of Hitler's rule is that he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. WWII was his to win, but he allowed his impatience, bigotry and ill temper to get the better of him. That's not good leadership.


Madness and genius however are pretty close.. and if he would've been able to control his shear hatred and just focus on the genius part the Third Reich would've been a fact... at least in my opinion.Yeah, but then he'd have been a different person. We could all achieve great things if we could just focus on our strongest traits. ;)

velvet
11-09--2006, 09:37 AM
gotta agree with me on the propaganda bit though.. he was excellent at that. My main point of calling him a genius was because of how he was able to get Germany to stand behind him like one front.. well until the bombing on Berlin probably ;)

And it was sorta the point that you said Hitler stalled the invasion on Britain.. Sealion couldn't really have started without taking out the RAF first. It was his mistake that he failed to do that but he never stalled the invasion itself for other than good reasons (waiting the outcome of the attack). Just invading Britain would've been pure suicide with his planes only able to reach the souther part of the island.. his groundtroops would've been doomed from the start.

Atomik
11-09--2006, 09:44 AM
gotta agree with me on the propaganda bit though.. he was excellent at that.Oh, totally. But I still think a large part of that was timing. He'd have sounded like an idiot at any other point in history.


And it was sorta the point that you said Hitler stalled the invasion on Britain.. Sealion couldn't really have started without taking out the RAF first.Agreed. But the RAF - as you alluded to earlier - were on the verge of defeat towards the end of the Battle of Britain. If the Germans hadn't switched tactics, the RAF would've been broken and a land invasion could've taken place.


It was his mistake that he failed to do that but he never stalled the invasion itself for other than good reasons (waiting the outcome of the attack).But the point is, he could've laid the groundwork for a land invasion that didn't need to be stalled. If the resources that had been committed towards opening the Russian front had been directed towards Britain - or if the RAF had been correctly engaged - a groudn invasion of the UK would've been possible. Hitler's mistake was to delay this. If Britain had been made his priority, America would've had no ally in Europe and would never have become involved in that theatre of conflict.

velvet
11-09--2006, 09:48 AM
yeah sure he made lots of mistakes.. my only point was that it's a fact that he did attack britain in a very early stage. If he just had handed over full control to Goering it would've had a very different outcome.

But we're on the same page about him being stupid when it comes to tactics and timing so yeah :)

Atomik
11-09--2006, 09:54 AM
yeah sure he made lots of mistakes.. my only point was that it's a fact that he did attack britain in a very early stage.I wasn't disputing that point. Just arguing that he didn't sufficiently prioritise it. Had the willpower and resources been spent in the right direction at the right time, Britain could've been crushed.


If he just had handed over full control to Goering it would've had a very different outcome.Undoubtedly. Thank fuck he didn't! Makes me curious to read some of these "alternative history" novels. :D


But we're on the same page about him being stupid when it comes to tactics and timing so yeah :)Machiavelli's "The Prince", page 48 by any chance? :D

"When, therefore, servants, and princes towards servants, are thus disposed, they can trust each other, but when it is otherwise, the end will always be disastrous for either one or the other."

velvet
11-09--2006, 10:03 AM
Machiavelli's "The Prince", page 48 by any chance? :D

"When, therefore, servants, and princes towards servants, are thus disposed, they can trust each other, but when it is otherwise, the end will always be disastrous for either one or the other."

Wish.. thanks to a certain someone the only thing I've been reading is gay porn stories :harhar:

Anyway.. Hitler...

Atomik
11-09--2006, 10:04 AM
Wish.. thanks to a certain someone the only thing I've been reading is gay porn stories :harhar::eek:

velvet
11-09--2006, 10:07 AM
:eek:

male gay porn at that. At which point I can now say for sure that I'm not gay (or male).. heehee.. :D

anyways... ontopic!! Hitler? Hot or not? Genius or Madman? Cast yer votes today!

Exedous
11-09--2006, 10:42 AM
Me mate asked me a question bout Hitler, that got me thinking..if Hitler had dreads, and had invented reggea, would he be admired or loathed, talking everything into account?????

My answer was....

He's a Nazi..he's scum



Jus thought id share this...

velvet
11-09--2006, 10:53 AM
lol.. that makes a funny mental picture.. hehehe... so funny.. *takes hit of bong*....

"ja man... So habe ich und ich, einstweilen nur im Osten, meine Totenkopfverbände bereitgestellt mit dem Befehl, unbarmherzig und mitleidslos Mann, Weib und Kind polnischer Abstammung und Sprache in den Tod zu schicken. Nur so gewinnen wir den Lebensraum, den wir brauchen!"

tiger
11-09--2006, 10:56 AM
Best thing Hitler did...he created the German highways(autobahn):angel:
all the rest is not worthwhile discussing..
he dug his own grave...like it usually happens..
was he a genius???ask the Germans??

Paul
11-09--2006, 12:37 PM
I see Hitler as mainly being in the right place at the wrong time. Hitler was allowed to get into power by the people who put him there. It's a lesson in history about the darker side of human nature.

Europe was in a depression, Germany more so and the people were looking for someone to blame. I think that Hitler would have been almost a nobody without other circumstances that existed at the time, European foreign policy following WW1 and the economic state of Germany meant that people were crying out for change.

The thing is, his economic and social policies weren't that much different to the views of the far right as it exists today ... a lot of people already shared his ideas but it was his oratory that stirred people up.

Yes he helped to restore the German economy, but like all other politicians he had a team of people working for behind the scenes and influencing him. More interestingly he had infliuential friends that had helped push him into various positions of power in the first place. Remember, several years prior to this he had been homeless and living in abject poverty ... hardly the credentials for running a country.

Stealste
11-09--2006, 04:18 PM
I think he was a sad individual who had taken his anger at the world out on those he believed inflicted it on him. From what i've heard, his anti-semitism was picked up from Prison, but more than that, when he was a young artist in Vienna(?) to make ends meet he became a rentboy... And often it was wealthy jewish people. I'm not so sure this is true, but if it is, at the very least it makes you sympathise with the way he acted somewhat, however perverted.

Doesn't explain his hatred for Blacks, Gypsies or any of the other groups her persecuted though.

As far as Facism goes though, it's one of the few governmental systems (however wrong) that appears to work.

Paul
11-09--2006, 06:19 PM
All the stuff about his Jewish roots, homo/bisexuality cannot be proven conclusively. Anti-semitism was the flavour of the day in Vienna long before Hitler was imprisoned for trying to seize power.

I think, and I'm going by memory here, that Hitler was largly influenced by the anti-semitic occult group, the "thule Society" who funded the original German Workers party that he went on to lead. It was this group that had the swastika as their emblem ... Strangely though they were banned when he became chancellor.

Stealste
12-09--2006, 12:16 AM
All the stuff about his Jewish roots, homo/bisexuality cannot be proven conclusively. Anti-semitism was the flavour of the day in Vienna long before Hitler was imprisoned for trying to seize power.

I think, and I'm going by memory here, that Hitler was largly influenced by the anti-semitic occult group, the "thule Society" who funded the original German Workers party that he went on to lead. It was this group that had the swastika as their emblem ... Strangely though they were banned when he became chancellor.

Like i said, i'm not so sure i do believe it, but it's food for thought nonetheless. It would be nice to think that not all people are inherently evil, that some tragic/traumatic events in his life pushed him to the actions. I don't like to accept that people are naturally bad.

It's a hard thing to convince myself of though :p

Coyote
12-09--2006, 08:25 AM
FFS he was no better or worse than the vast majority of "rulers" ever - the difference is he turned up in an age when his power was amplified by industrialisation..... If Nero or Charlemagne had the same tools they would have done the same :rolleyes:

tiger
12-09--2006, 08:37 AM
Power??uuhuh..what's the use of power nowadays??
get your tankstations full of petrol??ask Bush,Blair??
power..is always setting up people..against each other..
if hippies ruled the world...you bet..someone..will use power as well..
politics..is shit..big shit..look at your taxe bills,please??
if we go to an island..with 50 hippies..you bet..after 1 month..
someone wants to rule??telling the codes..
well...live on..I live by my own codes...
a basket full of apples..stays healthy..if all apples are healthy..
know the story of the 1 rotten apple?
apples...are only fruits..but..we can learn a lot from them..
Tiger:insane:

Atomik
12-09--2006, 08:42 AM
if hippies ruled the world...you bet..someone..will use power as well..
politics..is shit..big shit..look at your taxe bills,please??
if we go to an island..with 50 hippies..you bet..after 1 month..
someone wants to rule??telling the codes..So very true. :(