Hitler

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Hey, George W. Bush has charisma too, and he likes pineapples on his pizza!

I'm glad someone at TSM is willing to bring Dubya into this debate because I see similarities between him and these dictators.

I do too, but I'm not going there. USA! USA! USA!

 

You've just been drafted to serve in Iraq, son.

[Highland 0]

He refused to let any women, even is wife Eva Braun, near him in public. It would have interfered with his cultivated image as being "married to the Riech".

He was only moderately talented as an artist and he was a horrendous military commander and strategist who routinely ignored and countered the (usually correct) advice of his military advisors. He was advised not to invade Russia, was advised to reconsider when things went badly there and at every turn he ignored them.

He was, however, an outstanding public speaker and possessed pulpable charisma. I think we would have had to been there, and have been his audience (without the knowledge of what he planned) to have really appreciated this quality.

[Art Sandusky 0]

Yeah, if anything Hitler's impatience ruined him. The original plan was to hold off on not only Russia, but Britain as well until 1946.

[B. Brian Brunzell 0]

Hitler was close to winning if the war had ended in 1941 or 1942.

Not really. The Russia/Germany battle was imminant, even had Hitler not started it. Stalin did not want a one on one battle with the Germans. So if the Germans were close to winning, Stalin would've joined the Allies. Plus, Germany and Italy did an empeccable job of not communicating with one another, and Mussolini was an incompetant military mind. Germany had to clean up Italy's mess during that period, and it was more of a problem in 1941 than most people think. Had Mussolini not been a total dunce, Germany would have won the war. They were why Germany got blasted by the Soviets in 1941 and 1942. Not to mention Hitler not being informed of the Japs plans to bomb Pearl Harbor, which brought the strongest military country into the war. Communication.

I didn't say that he would have won, but would've been close. It's basically impossible to fight a three front war in a country the size of Russia in the winter. All Adolph had to do there was read up on his history and Napoleon's attempts at Russia. Of course, the entire mission was delayed, so that didn't help. I'm just saying that he would've been closer if it ended in '41 or '42, that's all.

 

And by the way, Hitler married Eva Braun just before they killed themselves in 1945. She was his mistress before that.

[Nighthawk 0]

And IDrinkRatsMilk, he wasn't that good an artist.  I've seen his drawing of Eva Braun, it really isn't much better than that picture in your sig.

Not the best example, you know. If anything, he was technically proficient, but his stuff didn't "breath" properly, whatever that means. He was better at landscapes and still lifes than figure studies and portraits.

 

 

See, that's pretty good.

[Highland 0]

And IDrinkRatsMilk, he wasn't that good an artist.  I've seen his drawing of Eva Braun, it really isn't much better than that picture in your sig.

Not the best example, you know. If anything, he was technically proficient, but his stuff didn't "breath" properly, whatever that means. He was better at landscapes and still lifes than figure studies and portraits.

 

 

See, that's pretty good.

I watched a documentary on his art, and it was because he was unable to properly do figures that he was rejected. He did reasonably well with still lifes and backgrounds, just not people.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Germany lost the war when they failed to take Moscow in December of '41. After that is was all downhill for Germany, even though they achieved their territorial peak in '42, it was apparent that they weren't going to defeat Russia, especially after America entered the war and started to land in Africa. Rommel and many other high ranking officers realised this, but Hitler refused to listen, instead living in a fantasy world with phantom armies and panzer units.

 

As for the Holocaust, Hitler shouldn't receive all the blame. He wanted the Jews gone, regardless of the method, but never actually said specifics as to how they should be disposed of. That fell on Reinhard Heydrich, number 2 man in the SS and Himmler's right hand man, who many thought would succeed Hitler as the next fuhrer. He got the word from Goering to start the liquidation of the Jews and proceeded to initiate the "Final Solution", i.e., the extermination of the Jewish race. He got killed by Czech mercenaries in 1942, and Kaltenbrunner succeeded him and implemented even more effective methods of killing. So pretty much it boils down to this, Hitler wanted the Jews gone, Goering gave the go ahead to start the Final Solution, Heydrich was the mastermind, Himmler was head of the SS and so took a large part in the killing as well, and Kaltenbrunner was Heydrich's successor as the head of the Final Solution.

 

Those five men bear almost all the blame (also Adolf Eichmann, another high ranking Nazi official) for the attempted extermination of the Jewish race and are equally guilty in my eyes. They all got what was coming to them though, even if took thirty years for Eichmann to get his.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Just to be a nitpicker , Rudolf Hess was the one whom Hitler had write Mein Kampf in prison, not Joseph Goebbels. Sorry, Bruznell, history-major douchebag speaking here

[The Metal Maniac 0]

In my eyes Hitler was a genius he was a military genius he knew when to attack and how to attack

 

Such a genius that he tried to invade Russia, while fighting practically everyone else on the planet. Such a genius that, even though he was an admirier of Napoleon, he made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE. Yeah, that's GENIUS.

 

France no matter what they were in since WWI France advanced in trench tactics they had trenches all lined up, some historians call them super trenches for how advanced they were, but since France was stuck in the trench ages, Germany having more advances in weaponry and fighting they slaughtered them.

 

I'd think that if you majored in history, you'd know what the Maginot Line was and how badly that hurt the French. Since you don't seem to know, they built the most advanced line of defense ever (to that point) along their German border, and centered their troops there. This made the French a little confident, because they figured there was no way in hell the Germans would get through that line. And in fact, the Germans never did go THROUGH it; they went AROUND it. Stupid French.

 

France fell in 2 or 4 weeks they were ready for the Germans it wasn't a suprise attack so there are no excuses.

 

Actually, it kinda was. They didn't think it would have been possible for the Germans to get their heavy equipment and tanks and whatnot around the Maginot Line (since the road through Belgium whch the Gemrans actually took was in rought shape; heavily wooded and such) so they were surprised, somewhat, when they realized the Germans were already in their country without having to deal with the Maginot line. And if I'm not mistaken, the Germans even kept troops facing the Maginot Line the whole time other troops walked around it, so the French would expect it even less.

 

IDRM: You make an interesting point about serial killers (and I did know who Fish was, actually) but the thing is, in that case, they've all actually committed evil deeds. You originally asked:

 

If one man kills millions, and another man would, but is incapable, is the first man more evil?

 

To which I said he was, because he's actually DONE evil things. With the serial killers, they ALL did evil things, but some things could be seen as more evil then others. The hypothetical guy who WOULD kill millions, but can't, can't really be THAT evil because he hasn't actually killed anyone. Hypothetically.

 

So no, I don't think that evil should be based on sheer numbers, but at the same time, the desire to do evil things doesn't make one evil; performing evil deeds makes one evil.

 

I didn't mean to make it seem that all I was concerned about were sheer numbers; just that even if one thinks about doing evil things, that, alone, doesn't make them evil.

 

Oh, and

Yeah, but we weren't talking about whether he was a criminal, we were talking about whether he was evil.

 

I'm aware of that; I just found it was easier to word my response if I used criminal.

 

Also, was Ishii the guy they traded with? I seem to recall hearing about a Japanese fellow who traded the data he collected from human experimentation tests with the Allies, in return for not being tried as a war criminal. Was that him, or am I imagining things?

 

Also, on the other genocides, like the Native Americans: I may be kinda crazy, but I don't consider that AS BAD as the Holocaust. Hitler wanted to kill all the Jews because he didn't like Jews. While I won't deny that a lot of early American settlers probably didn't like Native Americans either, they were killed mostly because other people wanted their land/gold (although you might be able to argue that many of them were killed mostly by accident; I've heard that upwards of 80% of the Native Americans died due to diseases that came with the Europeans). To me, killing someone because you want their land/gold isn't AS BAD as killing someone because you don't like them. I mean, I'm not trying to say that it's ok; it's still wrong and evil, but I, personally, don't consider it AS wrong/evil. Like, did Hitler actually stand to gain anything by killing all the Jews? Well, okay, I suppose that would've made more room on the planet, but I doubt he himself was thinking about that at the time. He just wanted them dead.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Hitler was by no stretch of the imagination a military genius. He may have made a good division or corps commander, but as an army or army group commander he would have been subpar. He gained a lot of respect after his successes in France and Russia, but the truth is he didn't come up with the French invasion plans (Manstein did), and his invasion of Russia, while extremely successful at the start, was still badly managed and had potential to be even more of a success in the right hands.

[... 0]

Well, if I may jump in hip deep here, and please keep in mind that most of my knowledge of realpolitik comes from Eddie Izzard, Russia was a nation that was frequently the target of invasion (Napoleon, WWI and II) and after that experience it was felt best for Russia (and obviously not for those nations conscripted into the Bloc) that the Iron Curtain be set up. Plus consider that in WWII, Russia lost some 50 million civilians and soldiers (correct me on that if I'm false), so naturally they'd be a little protectionist.

[Guest uyaljg]

Fuck Hitler, it's because of him that I can't grow my mustache only under my nose without somebody thinking I'm some neonazi bum or a piece of white trash. Wake up suburbia! IT'S FASHIONABLE! Fuck Hitler, of all the things to sport during the holocaust he chooses the most kickass facial do of all time. If he had been wearing parachute pants during the holocaust Hammer wouldn't have taken off, so I guess we're even.

[Precious Roy 0]

That dog looks exactly like Hitler. Creepy....

[Nighthawk 0]

IDRM: You make an interesting point about serial killers (and I did know who Fish was, actually) but the thing is, in that case, they've all actually committed evil deeds. You originally asked:

 

If one man kills millions, and another man would, but is incapable, is the first man more evil?

 

To which I said he was, because he's actually DONE evil things. With the serial killers, they ALL did evil things, but some things could be seen as more evil then others. The hypothetical guy who WOULD kill millions, but can't, can't really be THAT evil because he hasn't actually killed anyone. Hypothetically.

 

True. I had presumed that my hypothetical example had killed as well, though not as many. My fault. I don't want to make Hitler more evil because he was better at it than somebody else. I know a good example: Charlie Manson. He was into the genocide thing as well, in his own unique way, had people killed, and probably killed himself. Is he more evil than Hitler? Now it's a numbers game. Also, Hitler was a moderately good artist and Manson was a moderately good singer. Hm...

 

Oh, and

Yeah, but we weren't talking about whether he was a criminal, we were talking about whether he was evil.

 

I'm aware of that; I just found it was easier to word my response if I used criminal.

 

It does change the meaning though. If we count every person dead in the Holocaust as a crime, Hitler shoots way up the ladder of the most criminal (again falling to Stalin, however). Criminal is a tricky issue as well. Chalres Keating embezzles a trillion dollars. He's undoubtedly more criminal than a guy who sets up a meeting with a 12 year old boy on the internet and chickens out at the last minute, but I know which one I'd rather have over for dinner.

 

Also, was Ishii the guy they traded with? I seem to recall hearing about a Japanese fellow who traded the data he collected from human experimentation tests with the Allies, in return for not being tried as a war criminal. Was that him, or am I imagining things?

 

Yeah. This isn't concretely substantiated, but word is we got some pretty good use out of that data in Korea as well. See, now here's a guy who, by almost any standard, was more evil than Hitler. But he didn't have the name value, so he gets to cut a deal, while Hitler's grave gets pissed on half a century later. The Japanese government, by the way, see no problem with what Ishii did to this day (and it was bad stuff, if you haven't researched the specifics for yourself). Their official stance is that that's the nature of war. The public is coddled and fed propaganda. There's some truth in it. There aren't really good guys and bad guys like we're sometimes told.

 

Also, there was plenty of racial motivation in the Native American genocide. They dressed it up a bit, but it was there. It's called Manifest Destiny. There was racial motivation in the Japanese biological experimentation too, if not in the ideal, in the way it was carried out. Racism in history is another thing it'd hard for us to view objectively, what with the modern slant on it.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

He gained a lot of respect after his successes in France and Russia, but the truth is he didn't come up with the French invasion plans (Manstein did), and his invasion of Russia, while extremely successful at the start, was still badly managed and had potential to be even more of a success in the right hands.

Germany would have defeated the Russians had they not have been foreced to help out the italians in the South. It pushed their May invasion back until July...which in turn left them stranded in the brutal Russian winter. If they started earlier in the spring, they would've soundly defeated the demoralized and ill equipped Russian army. It was the roadlessness and freezing conditions that helped Russia more than anything else. But you're right in some instances, Hitler did take a few unnecessary short cuts and made changes by the original war plans on the fly, which hindered them greatly. He was

 

a. oil hungry

b. looking for jews

 

Both of which diverted Hitler's attention away from the more pressing issues. Had he stuck by his original gameplan of a May start time, and focused on the war at hand, they would've won.

 

so yes, I 50% agree with you.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

Well, if I may jump in hip deep here, and please keep in mind that most of my knowledge of realpolitik comes from Eddie Izzard, Russia was a nation that was frequently the target of invasion (Napoleon, WWI and II) and after that experience it was felt best for Russia (and obviously not for those nations conscripted into the Bloc) that the Iron Curtain be set up. Plus consider that in WWII, Russia lost some 50 million civilians and soldiers (correct me on that if I'm false), so naturally they'd be a little protectionist.

Russia's historical problem is that there is entirely flat land from the Western borders all the way to the Ural Mountains. It is very easy to invade Russia, and thus it has been invaded several times. Only the winter saved their country during the invasions of both Napolean and Hitler. So yes, when the Cold War came about, Russia found it in their best interests to create a sort of buffer zone to protect their nation.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Been a while since the last Hitler thread, y'know?

[nl5xsk1 0]

Wait, about the whole "Hitler was a womanizer" thing ... wasn't he into scatalogia? I swear I remember hearing that he got off on getting shat upon. Most likely an urban legend, but still, am I the only one that's heard that?

[Ace309 0]

I don't have the book handy, but one of the articles in William Irwin, ed.,'s book The Matrix and Philosophy (or is is Philosophy and the Matrix? I can never remember) deals briefly in Hitler's scat fetish. It's a surreal read to begin with, so pick it up, but don't pay full price for it.

 

Actually, just steal it.

[AboveAverage484 0]

He gained a lot of respect after his successes in France and Russia, but the truth is he didn't come up with the French invasion plans (Manstein did), and his invasion of Russia, while extremely successful at the start, was still badly managed and had potential to be even more of a success in the right hands.

Germany would have defeated the Russians had they not have been foreced to help out the italians in the South. It pushed their May invasion back until July...which in turn left them stranded in the brutal Russian winter. If they started earlier in the spring, they would've soundly defeated the demoralized and ill equipped Russian army. It was the roadlessness and freezing conditions that helped Russia more than anything else. But you're right in some instances, Hitler did take a few unnecessary short cuts and made changes by the original war plans on the fly, which hindered them greatly. He was

 

a. oil hungry

b. looking for jews

 

Both of which diverted Hitler's attention away from the more pressing issues. Had he stuck by his original gameplan of a May start time, and focused on the war at hand, they would've won.

 

so yes, I 50% agree with you.

Nobody knows for sure if he would have defeated the Russians or not. He probably would have captured Moscow and Leningrad but he still would have had thousands of miles of territory to go and millions of Russians left who weren't going to just give up now that Germans were in their homeland raping and pillaging.

 

That's just my opinion from reading more than a thousand pages on the subject this semester, though since it's only speculation on both our parts nobody is really wrong.

[PLAGIARISM! 0]

I'm glad this thread didn't just get closed as a knee-jerk reaction, it was fairly interesting. Ron Mael of Sparks successfully wore a Hitler moustache. And released a song called 'White Women'. Good lad.

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

Nobody knows for sure if he would have defeated the Russians or not. He probably would have captured Moscow and Leningrad but he still would have had thousands of miles of territory to go and millions of Russians left who weren't going to just give up now that Germans were in their homeland raping and pillaging.

 

That's just my opinion from reading more than a thousand pages on the subject this semester, though since it's only speculation on both our parts nobody is really wrong.

Oh la-di-da, you've read *gasp* a thousand pages on the issue.

 

Its impossible to say what would've happened, but by all intents and purposes, Germany had the momentum that coincided with Stalin's lack of preperation would've yielded positive results had the Nazis not been slowed down by the cold weather. Their first 6 months in Russia was dominant, so much so that even Stalin holed himself up and refused to appear publicly out of shame. By October, or November by Russia's calender, he made his first official statement to rally the Russian population to rise up. That certainly helped, but his big statement was at their same time the roads got muddier, the tanks started to break down because of the cold, supplies were becoming more or less sparse because travel was so difficult. Don't forget that the Russians had shelter from the cold, the Germans did not.

[The Metal Maniac 0]

Charlie Manson. He was into the genocide thing as well, in his own unique way, had people killed, and probably killed himself. Is he more evil than Hitler? Now it's a numbers game.

 

Damn. That IS a good example, especially if you look at it from the perspective that he may NOT have killed anyone. I don't know too much about Manson as far as specifics go, but the simple fact that you said "probably" reminds me that it's very possible that he didn't kill anyone with his own hands. But undoubtably, he was still an evil man.

 

Which kinda brings up the question: If I told you to kill someone, and you went out and did it, am I more evil for telling you to, or are you more evil for actually doing it? Or are we equally evil? I suppose once you get high enough that kinda becomes irrelevant (like in the case of Hitler; he was telling everyone to kill the Jews, and they all pretty much had no choice because he was running the country; I wouldn't call every single soldier in the German army evil, even though they DID all contribute, in some small way) but when you're only talking about 3-4 ordered murders (though Manson had what? Almost a dozen? like I said, I don't know much specifics about the man) I think it could be an interesting question to ask.

 

As for the Native Americans: Honestly, I don't normally think of Manifest Destiny as being a purely racial thing, although now that you mention it, I can see the strong racial undertones. I think that was just the way I was taught about it though; anyway, my original point was that there was more to the Native American genocide then JUST racial motivations; while it's debatable how large a role it played, I think that the desire for the Native's land/gold played a part in it. Like, I suppose that if the Natives had nothing of worth and the land wasn't worth living on, they just would've started another slave trade there and shipped them back to Europe by the boatload. So while I agree that race did play a role, I think that there were also other motivations that Hitler did not have when he decided to kill all the Jews.

 

On Ishii: Can you give me a link so's I could learn more about him? All I know about what he did is that he apparantly made POW's stand in sub-zero temperatures until they died, and would record how long it took. I was also told he did the same thing with diseases; they'd give them something horrible, then time how long it'd take them to die. Kinda testing the limits of the body, I guess.

[{''({o..o})''} 0]

This is a fair one. Slight warning, they do have a couple pics on it.

[Guest Astro]

A single death is a tragedy, a Million deaths is a statistic

 

- Stalin

[AboveAverage484 0]

Nobody knows for sure if he would have defeated the Russians or not.  He probably would have captured Moscow and Leningrad but he still would have had thousands of miles of territory to go and millions of Russians left who weren't going to just give up now that Germans were in their homeland raping and pillaging.

 

That's just my opinion from reading more than a thousand pages on the subject this semester, though since it's only speculation on both our parts nobody is really wrong.

Oh la-di-da, you've read *gasp* a thousand pages on the issue.

 

Its impossible to say what would've happened, but by all intents and purposes, Germany had the momentum that coincided with Stalin's lack of preperation would've yielded positive results had the Nazis not been slowed down by the cold weather. Their first 6 months in Russia was dominant, so much so that even Stalin holed himself up and refused to appear publicly out of shame. By October, or November by Russia's calender, he made his first official statement to rally the Russian population to rise up. That certainly helped, but his big statement was at their same time the roads got muddier, the tanks started to break down because of the cold, supplies were becoming more or less sparse because travel was so difficult. Don't forget that the Russians had shelter from the cold, the Germans did not.

I didn't say they couldn't have been more successful, I just said that they wouldn't and couldn't have beaten Russia no matter the circumstances. Russia is too big and has too many people to be conquered in just nine months. The only way I could see Germany beating Russia is by not declaring war on the United States and by having Japan cooperate in some way from the east and maybe, MAYBE, they could have defeated Russia.

 

And I knew you would have something smart to say about how many pages I read, I just figured you wanted proof of my comments, instead of just thinking I was spouting off about something I don't know about.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

EDIT: EDITED

[Guest The Winter Of My Discontent]

I didn't say they couldn't have been more successful, I just said that they wouldn't and couldn't have beaten Russia no matter the circumstances.  Russia is too big and has too many people to be conquered in just nine months.  The only way I could see Germany beating Russia is by not declaring war on the United States and by having Japan cooperate in some way from the east and maybe, MAYBE, they could have defeated Russia.

Russia was ready to be destroyed. How close where they to capturing Moscow? After that, it would have been a mere technicality. The German threat was real, and to discount it by saying that they "wouldn't and couldn't have beaten Russa no matter the circumstances" is erroneous in many ways. I can discuss that further with you if you'd like.

[AboveAverage484 0]

Okay, maybe if it was JUST Germany against JUST Russia, then maybe the Germans could have pulled out the victory. The simple truth is that the German offensive failed in Octrober, before the Russian winter even set in. They would have most likely captured Moscow if they would have ignored Leningrad and the Ukraine and concentrated all or most of their forces on capturing the capital of Communism, but that would have still left the lingering question of what to do with the millions of Russian soldiers still alive and fighting.

 

Stalin had disassembled a large number of his factories in the autumn and reassembled them hundreds of miles away near the Ural Mountains and began producing massive amounts of weapons, ammunition, tanks, planes, and other military supplies. The Russians even developed the T-34, which was the most formidable tank of WWII and was better than the Germans' Mark III Panzers in head to head battles.

 

Even if the Russians had started at the earliest possible time, around March, when they could have taken advantage of the good campaigning weather, they still wouldn't have totally conquered Russia by December; when the cold weather started setting in, Stalin started receiving reinforcements in the form of well-trained and well-disciplined soldiers from Siberia, and most important of all, when Germany declared war on the United States, afterwhich the U.S. began sending all sorts of aid to the Russian army. For instance, instead of having horses and panje wagons to haul ammunition and other supplies like the Germans did, the Russians could now use American trucks and jeeps to reliably haul all of their supplies. Because, not only were German tanks breaking down from the cold, they had no fuel to start them with even if they weren't broken down.

 

In conclusion, if Germany would have started in March they still wouldn't have completely conquered Russia by the time the winter set in, and the Russians would have still beat them knowing the circumstances then surrounding the two countries. Now if Russia had weather like Hawaii then they would have most likely lost, but they don't, and Russia as we know it today has never been conquered because they possess the space, numbers, and weather to never let their country be conquered by outside forces.

[AboveAverage484 0]

If the subject really interests you, I'd recommend reading Alan Clark's "Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict 1941-1945." Excellent book.

 

Also Albert Seaton's "Russo German War, 1941-45", another great read.