Question

[spiral]

Does anyone know of any books that outline the positive outcomes of- Hilter and Nazism?


If so, Please give me the titles and authors.

thanks.

[PASAMONSTER]

Hitler---Mien Kempf

[spiral]

No that's not what I'm looking for.

I need something that highlights the political or social advancements which have come forth, due to retaliation towards Nazism and prevention of further similar outcomes as the holocaust.

[PASAMONSTER]

wow
i'm guessing you tryed the web already, now that you're asking in here LOL

how about looking at the formation of the UN as good outcome?

[spiral]

Ya, I'm considering the formation of the U.N.

that's all I've got.

but even on that I need some back-up.

Yes, I searched the net. Nothing.

[PASAMONSTER]

good luck girl!

[jilbagh]

Originally posted by spiral Does anyone know of any books that outline the positive outcomes of- Hilter and Nazism?


If so, Please give me the titles and authors.

thanks.

damn guy didn't finish the job :D

i hate having wall street controlled by them

[Dimava]

look at these 2:

http://www.google.com/search?q=Positive+effects+of+NSDAP&btnG=Google+Search&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Positive+effects+of+nazism

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by jilbagh damn guy didn't finish the job :D

i hate having wall street controlled by them

I'm sure having the entire world under the control of the Nazi party would be far better, right?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral Does anyone know of any books that outline the positive outcomes of- Hilter and Nazism?

The partitioning of Germany led to the Cold War, which resulted in the downfall of the Soviet Union, which, in addition to other things, resulted in the formation of an independent Armenia. It's stretching, but hey . . .

[Anonymouse]

It has been a thrilling pastime for those who want to equate the rise of National Socialism to a few pimply faced teenagers. By pinning National Socialism with the atrocities and war, it ensures to stifle and positive and or open discussion of National Socialism. It is a skillfull art of those who control the past, by controlling the present, to deter any and all honest inquiries into the realm of history with regard to Hitler. And all too often when we hear his name we think of "Holocaust" and "Hater" and "madman", but never the real man.

As someone who has read Mein Kampf, and has taken to a more revisionist approach to history ( if it is the truth it can't be revisionist ), I'll be the first to tell you that there are many myths about Hitler and National Socialism in general, not that I am a supporter, but I believe in historical accuracy, and if Marx, Communism/Marxism and Democracy can get their fair share of attention, why not National Socialism and Hitler?

Thousands of books written on the guy, and not one dare approach it honestly. Hitler, and his views for as long as after WW2, has been demonized in books, films, documentaries, schools, etc. I would offer you a book on Hitler, but I find it no justice and perhaps the best book to read is Hitler's own book, Mein Kampf.

Many have dismissed Hitler's intellectual outlook as simplistic and crude or even crazy, nto because they have studied, but because that is popular. Most mainstream historians, for fear of being blackballed or labeled with the tarbrush of "anti-Semitism" will give up on intellectual and historical honesty and integrity, to save themselves the trouble of being accused as hate mongers, ala David Irving who was in a trial with the xxxish historian Deborah Lipstadt for slander in her book towards Irving regarding his views on questioning the Holocaust, of course he was accused of being a "Denier".

But when one reads into Hitler, one sees a genuine intellectual on a par with Karl Marx, Freud, etc. He's sort of a synthesis of Spengler and Napoleon, and of all the world conquerors he had probably been the most 'philosophical'. Hitler's outlook was very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition. In his combination of an almost religious faith with a revolutionary secularism he represented the continuation of an essentially "enlightenment" style of thought. Nazism, and especially Hitler's exposition of it, represented an attenuated and popularized form of the Enlightenment style of thought, in my opinion, one based on the natural inequalities and imperfections of nature.

[Dan]

Does anyone know of any books that outline the positive outcomes of- Hilter and Nazism?
Why? Was Nazism bad? And in what way was it bad? And who says it is/was bad? Those who won the war, by any chance?
:rolleyes:

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Dan Why? Was Nazism bad? And in what way was it bad? And who says it is/was bad? Those who won the war, by any chance?
:rolleyes:

Boy you should have seen me when I was at Border's when I bought Mein Kampf. As I approached the Customer Service desk to ask if they have a copy of Mein Kampf, I felt a little apprehension, a little excitement. I felt my body growing heavy and burdened. It was comical. I felt an exhausting load accumulating on my shoulders. It's amazing how cultural conditioning can make us think a certain way. Since birth from every orifice of communication I have been taught that "Hitler is bad" simply because he is bad and he killed lots of Communists and xxxs. It is on those grounds we are taught to always hate him and never have an honest inquiry on the guy.

Many people have killed other people, why do we act as if its okay to learn about them? Napolean killed lots of people, so did Stalin, so did Mao Tse Tung, but you could easily hold them in positive light in the class room, but not Hitler. Why was this? I always wanted to know and perhaps it was the curiosity in me that led to me to read up on the man, and on the xxxs as well, yes I'd be accused of xxxphobia by the average lemming. Curiosity killed the cat, but not the mouse.

Well as I approached the desk, there was a punk rocker type chick in her mid 20s at the reference desk, whom you could see is "alternative" and all about "not hating" and "xxxx corporatism" and all these lofty ideals these stupid "rebels" and "counter culture" people hold on to. As I approach her to ask for Mein Kampf, I feel the shame rise up inside me ( why should we feel this feeling if we want to learn about something or someone, why are we conditioned in this manner? ). When I ask for the book the butch appears to avert her eyes as she tells me where to go. It’s as if she recognizes the shameful act that I am about to perform but does not want me to see it in her eyes, that she understands that I want to read a book that no person with decent sensibilities would want to read.

Anyway, just thought I'd share that.

[spiral]

Originally posted by Dan Why? Was Nazism bad? And in what way was it bad? And who says it is/was bad? Those who won the war, by any chance?
:rolleyes:


where exactly did I mention that Nazism was good or bad?

I asked for the books, because I have a paper to write, and I need some books, which take a more objective/positive outlook on the issue.

I couldn't find any. I searched the net, I didn't find any info. So I though I'd ask the forum.

[Dan]

Hey mouse, thanks for sharing. sad, eh? :rolleyes:

hey spiral, don't misunderstand me, dude. just that when you said the "positive outcomes" of Nazism, it just gave me the impression that you considered Nazism to be hideous and wrong. and besides, i was making a general observation. so no need to get all angry, etc. :)

[spiral]

I'm not angry

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral where exactly did I mention that Nazism was good or bad?

I asked for the books, because I have a paper to write, and I need some books, which take a more objective/positive outlook on the issue.

I couldn't find any. I searched the net, I didn't find any info. So I though I'd ask the forum.

I'd recommend Mein Kampf.

As for seconardy books, I'd deeply recommend "Into The Darkness", by Lothrop Stoddard

Here is a link to Amazon.com for it:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0939482592/qid=1074559249/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9963674-5425566?v=glance&s=books

And here is a review from the link which I thought was superb for the book as the person summarized it better than I can:

Twentieth-century America's most perceptive, influential, and prophetic writer on race -- Lothrop Stoddard -- spent four months in late 1939-early 1940 covering National Socialist Germany, as its leaders and its people girded for total war. Stoddard criss-crossed the Third Reich to observe nearly every aspect of its political, social, economic, and military life, and he talked with men and women from all walks of life, from Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, and Joseph Goebbels to taxi drivers and chambermaids. The result -- Into the Darkness -- is not only a classic of World War II reportage, but a unique evaluation of Germany's National Socialist experiment. For Stoddard was no ordinary journalist. A Harvard Ph.D in history, the author of The Rising Tide of Color and other works that played a key role in the enactment of America's 1924 immigration act, fluent in German and deeply versed in European politics and culture, Stoddard brought to Into the Darkness a sophistication and a sympathy impossible for William Shirer and a myriad of other journalistic hacks. To be sure, the New England Yankee Stoddard was no supporter of the Hitler dictatorship, but he was deeply interested in National Socialist policies, above all in the social and the racial sphere. Reading Into the Darkness brings you to hearings before a German eugenics court, to an ancestral farm in Westphalia, to the headquarters of the National Labor Service, to German markets, factories, medical clinics, and welfare offices, as keenly observed and analyzed by Stoddard. You'll read, too, of Stoddard's conversations with German policy makers in all fields: Hans F. K. Guenther and Fritz Lenz on race and eugenics; Walther Darré on agriculture; Robert Ley on labor; Gertrud Scholz-Klink on women in the Third Reich; General Alexander Löhr on the Luftwaffe's Polish campaign, as well as Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and many other leaders. And you'll travel with Stoddard to Slovakia, where he interviews Monsignor Tiso, the national leader later put to death by the Communists, and to Hungary, where the Magyars, still at peace, gaze apprehensively at Soviet Russia. Into the Darkness (so named from the mandatory air-defense blackout that Stoddard found so vexing) shines a torch of sanity and truth against the vituperation of all things National Socialist that has been practically obligatory for the past sixty years. Knowledgeable, urbane, skeptical, and above all fair, Stoddard's book is a unique, an indispensable historical document, a time capsule for truth, and a stimulating page-turner for everyone interested in the Third Reich and the German people.

[spiral]

Thank you

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by spiral Thank you

Go get that book. That's about all I can offer.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan Hey mouse, thanks for sharing. sad, eh? :rolleyes:

hey spiral, don't misunderstand me, dude. just that when you said the "positive outcomes" of Nazism, it just gave me the impression that you considered Nazism to be hideous and wrong. and besides, i was making a general observation. so no need to get all angry, etc. :)

There is nothing inherently "wrong" about Nazism that isn't wrong with just about any form of government. The problem with dictatorial regimes is that they typically come under the control of a person who was the most willing to sacrifice principle, or kill whoever he needed to kill, to get into his position. Rarely is an enlightened, moral, and sane person put into the position of dictator. It isn't necessarily that power corrupts, but that people who were corrupt to begin with came into power.

Hitler, like any other man with his intelligence and ferocity, had plenty of great ideas, most notably, as the mouse has already pointed out, the purification of the German gene pool. I think he went about it the wrong way when he began to focus on religious and racial purification rather than intellectual, but he did have the idea somewhat close to right in the beginning. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the murder of millions of people who are essentially innocent is always wrong, whether they be mentally impaired, physically handicapped, or of an ethnicity other than the party in power at the time.

There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.

[Dan]

There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.
hmmm, actually... i disagree.. think about it this way: if Nazi Germany had won the war, wouldn't the Allies have been the 'evil' people who bombed the hell out of Dresden and massacred the 'poor Germans'? :rolleyes: Whereas now, not a lot of people know about the fire-bombing of Dresden and even a smaller number of people talk about it. My point, I guess, would have to rely on the famous quote "history is written by the victors" (or something along those lines)... if Hitler had not made a few strategic mistakes and opened a Russian front, he would've won and maybe today, we would've been praising Hitler and treating the Allies (including good ol' USA) in the same way Nazism is treated historically (by popular culture), and in the same way groups that work to preserve European/White heritage are treated (i.e. White Pride = Nazism, racism, etc.) :rolleyes:

[SALTnPEPA92]

Originally posted by PASAMONSTER Hitler---Mien Kempf

that reminds me, have you seen the movie American History X, that's what one of the characters in the movie wrote about. right? :) ~Tatev Avoyan

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by SALTnPEPA92 that reminds me, have you seen the movie American History X, that's what one of the characters in the movie wrote about. right? :) ~Tatev Avoyan

That movie is just Hollywood Judeocized bunk. Such "white supremacist" or "neo Nazi" images having nothing to do with what Hitler or National Socialism were.

To gain a fair understanding one must read the actual mans work.

[Dan]

hmm, i haven't seen the movie,, but.. what is 'wrong' with White supremacy, mouse? and how was it portrayed in that movie?

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname There is nothing inherently "wrong" about Nazism that isn't wrong with just about any form of government. The problem with dictatorial regimes is that they typically come under the control of a person who was the most willing to sacrifice principle, or kill whoever he needed to kill, to get into his position. Rarely is an enlightened, moral, and sane person put into the position of dictator. It isn't necessarily that power corrupts, but that people who were corrupt to begin with came into power.

Wow, you finally said something valid. The "wrongess" is within all governments.

Originally posted by loseyourname Hitler, like any other man with his intelligence and ferocity, had plenty of great ideas, most notably, as the mouse has already pointed out, the purification of the German gene pool. I think he went about it the wrong way when he began to focus on religious and racial purification rather than intellectual, but he did have the idea somewhat close to right in the beginning. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the murder of millions of people who are essentially innocent is always wrong, whether they be mentally impaired, physically handicapped, or of an ethnicity other than the party in power at the time.

I think there need to be some ideas that should be cleared out. Hitler never wanted "racial purification". Contrary to popular belief, Hitler never supported notions of breeding a homogenous blond "hyper Aryan" race. Just because modern documentaries cherry pick only footage of a little blond boy shaking Hitler's hand, doesn't mean anything. Accepting the reality that the German population consisted of several distinct sub racial groups, he stressed the German people's national and social unity. A certain degree of racial variety was desirable, he thought, and too much racial blending or homogeneity could be harmful because it would homogenize and thus eliminate superior as well as inferior genetic traits.

As far as the murder of millions...what has Hitler done that hadn't been done by those before him, and even those during and after him, perhaps on scales far more horrendous. One can show that the overall effects of Communism in Russia and China and Eastern Europe, killed far more people than Hitler or the Nazis ever did, yet people can still praise about Marx, and I'm even taking a Marxist history class on Historical Materialism. You don't see anyone do that about Hitler or Nazism. The point is ideas have consequences, and ultimately Marxism has caused for worse on the scale of tragedy, than Nazism, but the average plebians don't know this.

Originally posted by loseyourname There is a very good reason that Hitler is vilified. He attempted to conquer most of the civilized world, and in the process, he pissed off a lot of people. I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.

Another gross misconception. Hitler never wanted to "conquer the civilized world" nor did he want war at the time, for anyone who studied National Socialism knows that Germany never achieved war footing on its economy until I believe 1943 or 44. First of all you must ask yourself how Hitler came to power, who funded him? Who funded the Bolsheviks? In both instances you'll see that powerful banking interests assured the rise of both powers which were based in Wall Street. The ultimate question for the rational person would be why?

As it follows since Hitler and the Nazis lost it is expected that he will be vilified and forever ostracized since well, history is written by the victors. The amount of propaganda that was spewed about Nazi Germany, before, during and after the war right up until now is- well- simply beyond belief. All that was needed was a show trial no different than Stalin's, called Nuremberg for one accusation after another to be mounted.

The Allies had enslaved 3/4 of the world in resources and in manpower ( meaning France, Britain, the Soviet Union, and America ) and all Hitler wanted to do was against was some white Poles and xxxs.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Dan hmm, i haven't seen the movie,, but.. what is 'wrong' with White supremacy, mouse? and how was it portrayed in that movie?

I don't care nor am interested in what is wrong or right with white supremacy.

The movie presented it as the violent expressions of pimply faced teenagers who just said "Heil Hitler" and beat up Mexicans. That's just smearing it as usual.

Well, I know "white supremacists" have the argument that whites are superior and well most of the contributions are owed to whites. I even remember this phrase someone told me, "White people invent but they forget. Asians copy but remember. Blacks do neither".

With that said, I don't care who has "contributed" more than another, and if thats supremacy for you well then so be it. I personally don't mind those whites who are seperatists, as I believe it is within the right of us all to live how we want to, and I do not agree with the Federal Governments forced integration and "equality" being the law of the land.

I just don't like government because government is able to mobilize all our fears and insecurities, in the form of collective thinking and mass mindedness and use it for destructive purposes, to scales unimagined. Individuals always committ crimes, but can we really compare the damage individual criminals or bands have done, with what government has done historically?

[Dan]

Well, mouse, I agree with everything you said, except that I want to add to what you said an observation about communism.. while a lot of people are communists these days (i suppose they could be called bandwagoners, since half of them don't know what communism is all about), communism, to a certain extent, has been demonised by capitalism and capitalistic countries/societies. Firstly because, I think, it was an attempt by xxxs to place the holocaust in front of communism (communism being yet another creation of xxxs -- lenin, trostky, etc. were xxxish). and now we're seeing a movement towards re-claiming communism and its victims as being the product/victims of human nature (like any/all revolutions), thereby making communism something to be looked upon not with contempt, but with a more or less objective attitude. the case with Nazism is not like that AT ALL. because Nazism has been SO demonised by the xxxish owned media.. and even now, with all the White supremacy groups and how the ADL goes on with its propaganda against them, calling them hate groups, etc., that's really not the case at all. White supremacy groups do not advocate killing non-white people. they just want White heritage to be conserved and frankly, it really is something they should be worried about, considering the fact that in another 50 years, the chinese and other non-whites (mostly muslims) will take over Europe.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Dan Well, mouse, I agree with everything you said, except that I want to add to what you said an observation about communism.. while a lot of people are communists these days (i suppose they could be called bandwagoners, since half of them don't know what communism is all about), communism, to a certain extent, has been demonised by capitalism and capitalistic countries/societies. Firstly because, I think, it was an attempt by xxxs to place the holocaust in front of communism (communism being yet another creation of xxxs -- lenin, trostky, etc. were xxxish).

You don't need to tell me this. I know they were all xxxs, as was Hitler, well 1/3 xxxish. But then again U.S. President Wilson was alleged to be a xxx, originally his family from Germany were Wolfson, when moved to England they were Wohlson, and then Wilson. The Roosevelts were also rumored to have been xxxish, at least Franklin, as well as Truman, and even Clinton. The Wall Street bankers who funded Bolshevism also funded Hitler, although Hitler had no knowledge. When Stalin took over the Soviet Union, those xxxs who had established it, lost control, so a force, a polar opposite had to be brought into existence, and that was Nazism, to combat Stalin, and ironically it was xxxish physicians who killed Stalin, his death is amazing how he was poisoned. Even Marx was of xxxish origin, as well as Mr. Adam Weishupt, of the Illuminati, who later converted to being a Jesuit, then later formed the Illuminati. Of course, both Weishupt and Marx were influenced by xxxish mysticism and the Kabbalah which has all sorts of strange mystical teachings about man is God, etc., etc.


Originally posted by Dan and now we're seeing a movement towards re-claiming communism and its victims as being the product/victims of human nature (like any/all revolutions), thereby making communism something to be looked upon not with contempt, but with a more or less objective attitude. the case with Nazism is not like that AT ALL. because Nazism has been SO demonised by the xxxish owned media..

Well you have to understand that to make Nazism as horrendous as possible, is needed for xxxish group solidarity and survival. The creation of Israel was pretty much because of their persecutions in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. This is "anti Semitism" and its relation to xxxish group survival. Anti Semitism is essential for it, for xxxs are conditioned to survive and see the world anti-Semetically, and Hitlerism is the epitome of this, that is why it must be equated with the most"evil' thing for xxxs to realize this and survive. Few even remember the strong alliance that existed between the Nazis and the Zionists.



Originally posted by Dan and even now, with all the White supremacy groups and how the ADL goes on with its propaganda against them, calling them hate groups, etc., that's really not the case at all. White supremacy groups do not advocate killing non-white people. they just want White heritage to be conserved and frankly, it really is something they should be worried about, considering the fact that in another 50 years, the chinese and other non-whites (mostly muslims) will take over Europe.

Yes, given current immigration trends, whites will be a minority in America by 2050, and in Europe for the most part by 2090. Now I believe it is within the right of every people to preserve their selves and heritage but whites cannot due that and "Hitlerism" was essentially the last attempt to prevent and sustain this, and now that is is lost, you see that Europe is changing.

In a real sense, Hitler's defeat implicitly became the defeat of the European nation-state and the Enlightenment values that underpinned it. Germany's heirs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were both fundamentally transnational, multiracial empires whose territories were seemingly unlimited. As a result of this, for half a century we have been living in a "consumer capitalist" world in which the hierarchical order of sex and race which had originally sustained bourgeois nationalism has been disintegrating and in which the increasing relativization of values is encouraged by the ever greater globalization of the economy and consequent emergence of a multinational business elite.

So in this sense, Capitalism and "Democracy" are just a substitute for "Communism". "Communism" was merely test, you could say. Or you can argue that it was created as a boogey man to get people to be scared and thus run to this "alternative" which in many ways is not different at all. It is just the Hegelian Dialect in full effect. This new world order is less durable than it might appear. The collapse of the multi-ethnic, multi-racial Soviet Union portends similar problems for the American empire. Even a mere contraction of the economy could threaten to dissolve the United States into several races.

What Hitler said in the thirties is thus what our racial nationalists are saying today, namely, that a genuinely inclusive multiracial nation violates the natural order of things. The United States must either be a white dominated state or a collection of breakaway republics made up of this or that group. Thus Hitler pointed to history and all prior civilizations and noted that the rise and fall of civilizations always accompanied in his words "the defiling of the blood" when the original people of that civilization were replaced by people alien or hostile to that civilization. So in the end if Hitler is right, America is an increasingly unnatural and artificial construct that does not deserve to survive, and will not survive, rather will collapse. Hitler's fight against the British empire won him the admiration of colonial peoples from Ireland to India because they recognized Hitler was for the self preservation and determination of each group, not inclusion as was characteristic of multi racial societies.

To anyone who views the past with an open mind, history demonstrates the utterly fantastic nature of the goal laid out by by those that rule, from thinkers to Bill Clinton, a vision no less utopian than Marxian Communism. In any case, to meld the American population into a "universal" racial cultural entity would require government repression on a scale unimaginable today. In other words in order for making everyone blend and "equal" we need a repressive totalitarian regime that will institute this. Thus you can see why only America, Canada, and Europe or Australia embrace "diversity", not anyone else. Japan certainly doesn't want to flirt with it.

[PASAMONSTER]

you know that move with the guy kissing the curb and the kick to the back of the head.

It doesn't work.

The best a guy gets is a broken jaw and a lot a lot of loose teeth but unfortunetly still stays alive after consecutive kicks.

[spiral]

I think we should pull a 'Hitler' on all the new newbies.

:p

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Wow, you finally said something valid. The "wrongess" is within all governments.

I agree with you a lot of the time, you dumbass. You just don't seem to notice.

As far as the murder of millions...what has Hitler done that hadn't been done by those before him, and even those during and after him, perhaps on scales far more horrendous. One can show that the overall effects of Communism in Russia and China and Eastern Europe, killed far more people than Hitler or the Nazis ever did, yet people can still praise about Marx, and I'm even taking a Marxist history class on Historical Materialism. You don't see anyone do that about Hitler or Nazism. The point is ideas have consequences, and ultimately Marxism has caused for worse on the scale of tragedy, than Nazism, but the average plebians don't know this.

The average person knows plenty about holocausts other than that perpetrated by Nazi Germany. The fact that he wasn't the only one doesn't make what he did right. Although I agree that communism is far more despicable than national socialism, purely on principle, regardless of the consequences of either.

Another gross misconception. Hitler never wanted to "conquer the civilized world" nor did he want war at the time, for anyone who studied National Socialism knows that Germany never achieved war footing on its economy until I believe 1943 or 44. First of all you must ask yourself how Hitler came to power, who funded him? Who funded the Bolsheviks? In both instances you'll see that powerful banking interests assured the rise of both powers which were based in Wall Street. The ultimate question for the rational person would be why?

He very nearly conquered all of Europe, Mousy. That's grandiose, and it got him into trouble. If he had just stuck with the original bit of Czechoslovakia containing Germans, he might very well still be in power.

I don't know as much about history as you do, and I have no idea who was behind Hitler coming to power. I realize he wasn't solely responsible for the war, but I do think he tried to do a bit much. His fixation on Stalingrad was particularly stupid of him.

As it follows since Hitler and the Nazis lost it is expected that he will be vilified and forever ostracized since well, history is written by the victors. The amount of propaganda that was spewed about Nazi Germany, before, during and after the war right up until now is- well- simply beyond belief. All that was needed was a show trial no different than Stalin's, called Nuremberg for one accusation after another to be mounted.

The Allies had enslaved 3/4 of the world in resources and in manpower ( meaning France, Britain, the Soviet Union, and America ) and all Hitler wanted to do was against was some white Poles and xxxs.

Again, I'm not saying the allies or most other governments are a whole lot better. Ultimately, Judeo-Christianity and Islam are probably responsible for more deaths than any other belief systems that have ever existed, although I will admit that their proliferation alone has made this all but inevitable. Hitler was still wrong to do what he did.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by spiral I think we should pull a 'Hitler' on all the new newbies.

:p

As opposed to the old newbies?

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan hmmm, actually... i disagree.. think about it this way: if Nazi Germany had won the war, wouldn't the Allies have been the 'evil' people who bombed the hell out of Dresden and massacred the 'poor Germans'? :rolleyes: Whereas now, not a lot of people know about the fire-bombing of Dresden and even a smaller number of people talk about it. My point, I guess, would have to rely on the famous quote "history is written by the victors" (or something along those lines)... if Hitler had not made a few strategic mistakes and opened a Russian front, he would've won and maybe today, we would've been praising Hitler and treating the Allies (including good ol' USA) in the same way Nazism is treated historically (by popular culture), and in the same way groups that work to preserve European/White heritage are treated (i.e. White Pride = Nazism, racism, etc.) :rolleyes:

You just repeated what I said. Hitler pissed people off, and so he was vilified when they defeated him. Exactly what do you disagree with?

[spiral]

Originally posted by loseyourname As opposed to the old newbies?

Yes, you are considered an old newbie. I thought we could spare you and some others, so I mentioned -New* Newbies.

But if you'd like...

[Dan]

Exactly what do you disagree with?
This:
I think it is fair to say that he got a little out of hand, and historically, he has gotten what he deserved. His ideas were not all that original and they are studied by many.

[loseyourname]

You don't think the invasion of just about every European nation and the systematic murder of millions of innocent people was out of hand?

His ideas do not necessarily merit vilification. His person does.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname He very nearly conquered all of Europe, Mousy. That's grandiose, and it got him into trouble. If he had just stuck with the original bit of Czechoslovakia containing Germans, he might very well still be in power.

That is no where near the "whole civilized world" unless you consider only Europe to be "civilized". Aside from that, you must understand this in the context of the times of why war errupted. When there was war, he had no other choice and was only forced to conquer, or be conquered, that is the way it goes. Those, mostly xxxish, banking interests that funded Hitler into existence from Wall Street, never intended to go beyond its stated aim, namely as an alternative source of power to contain the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union was taken hold of its original founders by another dictator, Mr. Stalin.

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't know as much about history as you do, and I have no idea who was behind Hitler coming to power. I realize he wasn't solely responsible for the war, but I do think he tried to do a bit much. His fixation on Stalingrad was particularly stupid of him.

Let's just say that those that were behind both the rise of Bolshevism and Hitler, were powerful men with loads of money aligned with powerful business and internationalist interests. The Allies were actually more responsible for war, than Hitler was, but this is an unpopular position to argue these days, since academia - well - basically there is always bias and anti intellectualism in academia, in whatever society you come to, but for critical thinkers it is important to see throught he veneer presented.

The Hague Conventions that were in effect during that time, stated explicitly, and you can find this online if you search for the Hague Conventions, that a declaration of war, or an ultimatum that would lead to a state of war, were considered the same thing, and still are today for that matter. So by the rules of the time, Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany, therefore Britain started the war. And if you want to develop this even further, why was only Germany singled out by the "Allies" regarding Poland? Why did Britain not declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east? Clearly this shows that the Allies already intended to go to war against Germany. One can even point to the United States one-sided "neutrality" with regard to Germany and Japan, which prompted both to eventually declare war on the U.S.



Originally posted by loseyourname Again, I'm not saying the allies or most other governments are a whole lot better. Ultimately, Judeo-Christianity and Islam are probably responsible for more deaths than any other belief systems that have ever existed, although I will admit that their proliferation alone has made this all but inevitable. Hitler was still wrong to do what he did.

What was Hitler wrong in doing that the Allies hadn't already done? That is my only question.

As far as Christianity and Islam, I would be more hard pressed to say that Governments operating on political systems have caused more damage in the 20th century alone ( 200 million people ), than Islam and Christianity will have ever done combined.

[Anonymouse]

Oh by the way, just for the record, it was Britain that introduced bombing civilian targets in WWI.

[Dan]

Originally posted by loseyourname [B]You don't think the invasion of just about every European nation and the systematic murder of millions of innocent people was out of hand?

No, I don't... which revolution hasn't killed thousands if not millions of people? Communism had millions of victims, yet I'm a communist, or at least when it comes to certain aspects of it... It's the nature of human beings, and the survival of the fittest. And what do you mean by 'systematic' in this context?

[loseyourname]

That is no where near the "whole civilized world" unless you consider only Europe to be "civilized".

I was, actually. It was a half-joke, to be honest.

Let's just say that those that were behind both the rise of Bolshevism and Hitler, were powerful men with loads of money aligned with powerful business and internationalist interests. The Allies were actually more responsible for war, than Hitler was, but this is an unpopular position to argue these days, since academia - well - basically there is always bias and anti intellectualism in academia, in whatever society you come to, but for critical thinkers it is important to see throught he veneer presented.

Unfortunately, Mousy, most people really don't have the time and don't care to do the amount of research that you do. They rely on education. You aren't going to get anywhere by encouraging people to learn this material for themselves. You would do better to simply teach it to them and hope they listen.

The Hague Conventions that were in effect during that time, stated explicitly, and you can find this online if you search for the Hague Conventions, that a declaration of war, or an ultimatum that would lead to a state of war, were considered the same thing, and still are today for that matter. So by the rules of the time, Britain issued an ultimatum to Germany, therefore Britain started the war. And if you want to develop this even further, why was only Germany singled out by the "Allies" regarding Poland? Why did Britain not declare war on the Soviet Union for invading Poland from the east?

Because Germany was still stigmatized, and this was without any doubt unfairly, from the first world war. Any sign of military aggression on their part was not going to be taken kindly to. They simply weren't trusted. Nobody yet knew what to make of the Soviet Union.

What was Hitler wrong in doing that the Allies hadn't already done? That is my only question.

As far as Christianity and Islam, I would be more hard pressed to say that Governments operating on political systems have caused more damage in the 20th century alone ( 200 million people ), than Islam and Christianity will have ever done combined.

I don't see how you can group together all governments operating on political systems. If you're going to stretch that far, I can say the caucasian race has caused more damage than anything else.

The only thing Hitler was guilty of that the allies were not, and this is what I trying to say to begin with, was being too open and too brazen about what he was doing. Had he taken things a little slower and not been so fanatical, his ideas might have taken hold. As I have said before, I think the United States' own displacement and genocide of the indigenous people of this continent is a far more eggregious sin than anything Hitler ever did. Not to mention the numerous interventions in third world countries perpetrated in the name of "democracy" that have in fact been nothing more than ploys to install friendly regimes, mostly totalitarian regimes, since the second world war.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan No, I don't... which revolution hasn't killed thousands if not millions of people? Communism had millions of victims, yet I'm a communist, or at least when it comes to certain aspects of it... It's the nature of human beings, and the survival of the fittest. And what do you mean by 'systematic' in this context?

Communism got out of hand, too, Dan. Hitler didn't require a revolution. He had Germany firmly in his control, and had he not tried to extend that control to nations he had no business in, he would likely still be in power today.

I mean he had a system in place that was designed solely to exterminate people who he did not deem desireable as part of the gene pool.

[Dan]

The only thing Hitler was guilty of that the allies were not, and this is what I trying to say to begin with, was being too open and too brazen about what he was doing. Had he taken things a little slower and not been so fanatical, his ideas might have taken hold.
i disagree again. :o the xxxs were on the Germans' ***es... they were boycotting German products and had taken the economy to a desparate state.. not to mention the number of German babies that starved to death as a result.. who blames the xxxs now? :rolleyes:

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan i disagree again. :o the xxxs were on the Germans' ***es... they were boycotting German products and had taken the economy to a desparate state.. not to mention the number of German babies that starved to death as a result.. who blames the xxxs now? :rolleyes:

Again, Dan, what are you disagreeing with here? I never said Hitler should not have done something about the problem Germany had with the xxxish people. There are steps he could have taken that would not have led to his eternal vilification and the extinction of his ideas before they ever went through a proper gestation period. There was no imminent threat to the point where he needed to forcibly enslave and murder every single xxxish person in his nation. That is going too far. Murder begets murder and solves nothing.

[Dan]

Originally posted by loseyourname Communism got out of hand, too, Dan. Hitler didn't require a revolution. He had Germany firmly in his control, and had he not tried to extend that control to nations he had no business in, he would likely still be in power today.

I mean he had a system in place that was designed solely to exterminate people who he did not deem desireable as part of the gene pool.
he was not trying to 'take over' and make all of Europe German. He simply wanted to get the 'pests' out of Europe, the pests being xxxs and gypsies. He obviously saw the state of Europe well ahead of any of his contemporaries, and he was damn right about it -- and that is why he wanted to do something about it... now the Russians are another issue. The Russians wouldn't have been faced with that had they not been all too 'proud' of their Slavic background and refusing a unity with the rest of Europe. Hitler could've been a control freak for all I care, but the guy SAW what Europe would be like if the xxxs were not exiled. Like Benjamin Franklin said, if the xxxs are not removed from USA, they will become the bane of the country.... and he was right.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan Hitler could've been a control freak for all I care, but the guy SAW what Europe would be like if the xxxs were not exiled.

And what did he do about it? He died, his holocaust led to the formation of a xxxish state, and Europe is in exactly the state he was trying to avoid. Seems like he failed pretty miserably, which proves my point when I say he went about solving his problem the wrong way.

[Dan]

There are steps he could have taken that would not have led to his eternal vilification and the extinction of his ideas before they ever went through a proper gestation period.
like what?


There was no imminent threat to the point where he needed to forcibly enslave and murder every single xxxish person in his nation.
who says he murdered xxxs? the conflicting 'memoirs' of 'survivors'? "wait, they burned us in ovens', 'no wait, i forgot about it, wait, no, they didn't burn us in the ovens, they sent us to the gas chambers." i suppose they were fantasizing, huh? sick, but let me tell you one thing -- xxxs would toy with anything if it means money. and well, guess what they got? money!

[Dan]

He died, his holocaust led to the formation of a xxxish state, and Europe is in exactly the state he was trying to avoid. Seems like he failed pretty miserably, which proves my point when I say he went about solving his problem the wrong way.
excuse me? holocaust? oh you mean the holohoax, huh? :rolleyes: he died because the American lemmings wanted to be more powerful than Hitler. consider the state of the USA had Nazism succeeded..... USA was just getting on its feet at the time. lemmings who bought the xxxish propaganda. how did the xxxs have time for such propaganda if they (and their families) were being 'slaughtered'? :rolleyes:

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan like what?

Hell if I know. I'm no state problem solver. All I know is that what he did didn't work.

who says he murdered xxxs? the conflicting 'memoirs' of 'survivors'? "wait, they burned us in ovens', 'no wait, i forgot about it, wait, no, they didn't burn us in the ovens, they sent us to the gas chambers." i suppose they were fantasizing, huh? sick, but let me tell you one thing -- xxxs would toy with anything if it means money. and well, guess what they got? money! [/B]

If you're going to dispute accepted historical fact, you'll need to provide more backup than an illustration of inconsistent memories on the part of people who had been through extreme psychological trauma and would be expected to be a little shaken up.

[Dan]

accepted historical fact
thank you for proving my point. :rolleyes:

an illustration of inconsistent memories on the part of people who had been through extreme psychological trauma and would be expected to be a little shaken up.
yeah, and is that why we don't see any inconsistent memories on the part of the Armenians who survived the genocide? :rolleyes:

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan excuse me? holocaust? oh you mean the holohoax, huh? :rolleyes: he died because the American lemmings wanted to be more powerful than Hitler. consider the state of the USA had Nazism succeeded..... USA was just getting on its feet at the time. lemmings who bought the xxxish propaganda. how did the xxxs have time for such propaganda if they (and their families) were being 'slaughtered'? :rolleyes:

Am I wrong, Dan? Did his techniques work, or is Europe in exactly the state he wanted to avoid it being in? As I said already, if you're going to dispute accepted historical fact, please provide evidence that the documented murder of millions is a hoax. He didn't just kill xxxs and Gypsies, Dan. He murdered Germans as well. But please, let's get off of this, because it is beside the point. My point is that what he did did not work, and the reason it did not work is because he was severely lacking in subtlety at a time when any aggressive action on the part of Germany was not likely to be taken well. He got the concessions he wanted initially, and then he got greedy, and he paid the price.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Dan yeah, and is that why we don't see any inconsistent memories on the part of the Armenians who survived the genocide?

Show me enough documentation of inconsistent memories on the parts of xxxish survivors, then show me convincing evidence that the physical artifacts are all mistaken, and I will begin to listen. But if you insist, please start another thread, because this is all beside the point. The point of this thread is not to discuss the historicity of the holocaust.

[Dan]

You are avoiding my questions.

Like I said, his plans did not work because of interference on the part of the 'lemmings.' You are using a fallacy by saying that if it's not proven that it didn't happen, it did happen..... so if I can't prove that God doesn't exist, that means that he exists? Your premises are incorrect to begin with. As for the 'proof' that 'millions' of xxxs were 'slaughtered', statistics say (and I am yet to get a hold of the source I read it from) that if xxxs had been massacred by such numbers, the survivors would've had to breed 1 baby/minute for 24/7/365 in order to be at the population number post-'holocau$t'...

[loseyourname]

I'm not saying it did happen. I'm saying it's an accepted historical fact. I'm also saying it's beside the point. My point is that what Hitler did did not work. You cannot dispute that point, so you deflect and talk about the holocaust instead. Your lemming rhetoric is not being backed up by anything, Dan. Hitler, like any other initially successful military conqueror, overstepped his bounds and paid the price. Even after taking over most of Europe, he still likely would have succeeded if not for Stalingrad. It was hubris that ruined him, just as it did Napoleon and Robert Lee.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Because Germany was still stigmatized, and this was without any doubt unfairly, from the first world war. Any sign of military aggression on their part was not going to be taken kindly to. They simply weren't trusted. Nobody yet knew what to make of the Soviet Union.

That is unimportant in the context of events, for it was originally the Allies once again, who can be blamed for Hitler coming to power, since it was the Allies who instituted the conditions necessary for such a man to rise. Now if you are versed on the Hegelian Dialect and see history as a chain of causation, controlled and manipulated by powerful forces, then you would see that World War I Germany lost, it's peace treaty was organized the allied governments, in reality, the people behind the curtains of government. It was necessary to create conditions for the eventually rise a person such as Hitler, and rise he did. While all the negotiations on Versailles were going on, prior to it, it was also some of the same elites in the Allied countries that supported the rise of Bolshevism.

Hitler merely did what was only logical to any nation that we agree has self determination, arm itself, and build up its economy. To assume this means war is stupid. So when Hitler tried to avoid war, he had it brought to its door, by a careful maneuvering of the Allies manipulating the Danzig-Corridor event with Lord Halifax ). Unless he committs the crime of starting war, it is not valid to try to police over him in the event that he might start war.

Originally posted by loseyourname I don't see how you can group together all governments operating on political systems. If you're going to stretch that far, I can say the caucasian race has caused more damage than anything else.

You can certainly argue that. But by and large governments are nothing more than institutionalized violence.

Originally posted by loseyourname The only thing Hitler was guilty of that the allies were not, and this is what I trying to say to begin with, was being too open and too brazen about what he was doing. Had he taken things a little slower and not been so fanatical, his ideas might have taken hold. As I have said before, I think the United States' own displacement and genocide of the indigenous people of this continent is a far more eggregious sin than anything Hitler ever did. Not to mention the numerous interventions in third world countries perpetrated in the name of "democracy" that have in fact been nothing more than ploys to install friendly regimes, mostly totalitarian regimes, since the second world war.

What was Hitler "open" and "brazen" about? I'm sorry I'm missing what you're saying.

[Anonymouse]

Can we stick to the intended topic of the thread, namely Hitler?

[Dan]

The point of the thread was about Nazism and it's outcomes. And we are discussing just that.

Moreover, just because there were "rooms" doesn't mean they were "gas chambers."

http://www.codoh.com/gcgv/gcdiesel.html

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n4p-2_Okeefe.html

Perhaps most remarkable, we discovered that it was not until the summer of 1980 -- that is, after he decided to respond to the IHR challenge -- that Mermelstein first made his key "eyewitness" claim about seeing his mother and sisters enter a gas chamber. In none of the numerous newspaper interviews he gave prior to 1980 (that we were able to discover) did he make any mention of seeing anyone go into any gas chamber. (note). Similarly, Mermelstein makes no mention of seeing his mother and sisters enter any building or "gas chamber" in the first, 1979 edition of his detailed memoir, By Bread Alone (written before the reward offer). (note).

Instead he makes only an ambiguous reference (p. 119) to seeing them for the last time as he and his father watched from near their barracks building ("The column neared our barracks. Separated only by strands of barbed wire, I could see them ..."). He even suggests that, instead of being gassed, his mother and sisters had been "burned alive. Specifically, he recounts (p. 129) the words of his father during a conversation a few days after their arrival at Birkenau:

"Your mother and sisters are..." He paused a moment, unable to go on. "And you must not torture your minds [sic] about their fate. Yes, yes. Look! There!" And he pointed to the flaming [sic] chimneys. The vision of my mother, Etu and Magda being burned alive made me feel faint.

More to the point, what Mermelstein wrote on this matter in his memoir actually contradicts his later claims. In By Bread Alone he specifically relates that it was only at the end of the war, after his liberation from Buchenwald, that he first heard, second-hand, that his mother and sisters had been gassed. Believing that his brother and sisters and likely his mother were still alive, he made his way back to Munkacs, where his uncle, Moshe-Aron, told him that none had survived. Moshe-Aron said he had heard that Mermelstein's mother and sisters had been "led to the gas chambers at Birkenau." (note)

Yet, in a letter published in a California daily paper in July 1980 (responding to the IHR challenge for proof of a Nazi gas chamber), he wrote: (note).

I witnessed my own mother and two sisters driven among others to the tunnel for their final station, the Gas Chamber No. 5 at Birkenau. It was on May 22, 1944, at dawn. I remember it. I was but a stone's throw away from the gas chambers and crematoriums...

Enjoy reading.. :D

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname
I mean he had a system in place that was designed solely to exterminate people who he did not deem desireable as part of the gene pool.

These are a bit of harsh indictments. I'd consider this to be one of the propagandas about National Socialism. It is clear Germany was intended for "Germans", not anyone else. Expulsion maybe, extermination, well unless you're terribly religious and not a rational mind basing conclusions on evidence, well there is no reason to assume that he was set out to exterminate anyone of the "gene pool". Rather there was Sterilization of non German offspring that resulted from German Women and Black French soldiers stationed around the Rhineland, as part of the Nazi Sterilization Law. In fact it is no secret that Nazis were involved in Eugenics. The United States moans about this today, yet it itself had eugenics instituted in the early teens of the last century.

[Anonymouse]

No Mr. Mermelstein. I've seen all these arguments before, and have participated in the revisionist forum, the older one, many times. Of course I have since no time to engage in side pursuits of interest, but indeed it is a compelling argument brought forth by revisionists.

Let's not get too much into the details for the average Dan, but focus on the ethical issues such as, why are there laws in Germany, France, and Canada, that punish individual for questioning the Holocaust? To me, that itself seals the case. If there is incontestable fact, why the need to use coercion to have everyone religiously believe it?

The answer of course is because this was the basis of the modern State of Israel, with the xxxs there now, having learned nothing of their persecutions, are persecuting the Palestinians.

[Dan]

If there is incontestable fact, why the need to use coercion to have everyone religiously believe it?
exactly. and that makes their "story" suspicious even to the average listener..... :rolleyes: And they are yet to answer that question, btw.. any/all xxxs I've asked this question to are yet to answer it.. instead they try to change the subject...

[Anonymouse]

Hopefully when I move back to Armenia in the future, all this will be inconsequential xxxx for me.

Tens baner. Kakem irants orenkneri vran. HAR HAR HAR!

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse These are a bit of harsh indictments. I'd consider this to be one of the propagandas about National Socialism. It is clear Germany was intended for "Germans", not anyone else. Expulsion maybe, extermination, well unless you're terribly religious and not a rational mind basing conclusions on evidence, well there is no reason to assume that he was set out to exterminate anyone of the "gene pool". Rather there was Sterilization of non German offspring that resulted from German Women and Black French soldiers stationed around the Rhineland, as part of the Nazi Sterilization Law. In fact it is no secret that Nazis were involved in Eugenics. The United States moans about this today, yet it itself had eugenics instituted in the early teens of the last century.

He killed off people that were mentally ill and physically handicapped, including Germans. They were undesirable to the gene pool. I never said the US was any better. I have no issue with eugenics, but I would restrict it to encouraging people with more desirable genes to breed and giving some form of incentive to idiots and ugly people not to. I would not sterilize or kill anyone, as that is an unacceptable breech of freedom. And don't come back arguing about all the things governments already do that are a breech on personal liberty. I already agree with you.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse That is unimportant in the context of events, for it was originally the Allies once again, who can be blamed for Hitler coming to power, since it was the Allies who instituted the conditions necessary for such a man to rise. Now if you are versed on the Hegelian Dialect and see history as a chain of causation, controlled and manipulated by powerful forces, then you would see that World War I Germany lost, it's peace treaty was organized the allied governments, in reality, the people behind the curtains of government. It was necessary to create conditions for the eventually rise a person such as Hitler, and rise he did. While all the negotiations on Versailles were going on, prior to it, it was also some of the same elites in the Allied countries that supported the rise of Bolshevism.

Granted, you put it a little more eloquently, but that is what I was trying to say. It is the Treaty of Versailles that caused World War II. But Hitler, for his part, was stupid to go as far as he did as quickly as he did. He got the concessions he wanted in the Sudetenland (however that's spelled) and he should have just kept at that. Ultimately, he probably could have gotten away with everything up to the point where he invaded Russia. If not for Stalingrad, it is likely he would have kept what he had already won.


What was Hitler "open" and "brazen" about? I'm sorry I'm missing what you're saying.

Once the way began, he took it too far. Invading Africa and Russia took it too far. I'm not speaking about the holocaust here, and really, I think the holocaust is a peripheral concern. The allies did not even have any knowledge of it until after the war. I'm only questioning Hitler's military tactics. As I said before, he made the same mistake that Lee and Bonaparte made. His hubris got the best of him.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by loseyourname Granted, you put it a little more eloquently, but that is what I was trying to say. It is the Treaty of Versailles that caused World War II. But Hitler, for his part, was stupid to go as far as he did as quickly as he did. He got the concessions he wanted in the Sudetenland (however that's spelled) and he should have just kept at that. Ultimately, he probably could have gotten away with everything up to the point where he invaded Russia. If not for Stalingrad, it is likely he would have kept what he had already won.


Once the way began, he took it too far. Invading Africa and Russia took it too far. I'm not speaking about the holocaust here, and really, I think the holocaust is a peripheral concern. The allies did not even have any knowledge of it until after the war. I'm only questioning Hitler's military tactics. As I said before, he made the same mistake that Lee and Bonaparte made. His hubris got the best of him.

For the purposes of not going too off topic, I will end it here for this is a whole new can of worms and maybe if you want to discuss the historical aspects we can erect another thread. However, with that said, and I will lightly touch up on this, even if Hitler wanted to avoid war, which is the case since he never wanted war with either Britain or England, he couldn't since the allies themselves wanted war.

If we delve into this far and deep enough, and if we consider the "revisionist" viewpoint on the conflicts that led up to war, one can see that it was the Allies themselves that maneuvered for Hitler to make the first strike, in the Danzig Corridor event, and the British knowing they would not have come to Polands air, and Poland in a way being duped into British promises. Lord Halifax was the person who was involved in this plan. The great question which is unanswered by historians is the paradox of why was Germany declared war upon and not the Soviet Union? Ultimately it was the British that tried maneuver Poland into withstanding the German talks of conceding the Danzig area which Hitler was trying to reclaim. It had nothing to do with invading Poland.

And as far as invading Russia, if you read Hitler's Reichstag speech you will see that Stalin was planning an offensive. Hitler's actions were preventive measures. It was Stalin that was far more cunning than Hitler and eventually outmaneuvered Hitler. The fact that Hitler got the advantage early on on the Soviets was because he striked first, as a preemptive measure, because the Nazi economy was not yet on a war footing, showing that Hitler never intended for a long drawn out war. Of course the 'other side' of history is perhaps more interesting to me because it goes deeper beyond the mere conventional aspects of the war, but rather the inner driving forces that lied behind the said powers that wanted war.

[PASAMONSTER]

Thread take over detected.


The suspects appear to be very inteligent, with high political and social views. Also noted that their typing speed is very high.

[loseyourname]

Originally posted by Anonymouse For the purposes of not going too off topic, I will end it here for this is a whole new can of worms and maybe if you want to discuss the historical aspects we can erect another thread. However, with that said, and I will lightly touch up on this, even if Hitler wanted to avoid war, which is the case since he never wanted war with either Britain or England, he couldn't since the allies themselves wanted war.

I was never trying to say the war was Hitler's fault, but I think he knew the consequences of what he was doing as soon as he began to remilitarize the Rhineland. Now if you want to go back further, you can simply argue that he had little choice if he ever wanted his country to regain its respectability, and the allies, well before any of the plotting you speak of, forced the issue both by disallowing militarization of the Rhineland, which would be essential if Germany was ever to be safe from France, and by imposing stringent war reparations. The only hope the German economy had was the crash industrialization brought on by military buildup.

If we delve into this far and deep enough, and if we consider the "revisionist" viewpoint on the conflicts that led up to war, one can see that it was the Allies themselves that maneuvered for Hitler to make the first strike, in the Danzig Corridor event, and the British knowing they would not have come to Polands air, and Poland in a way being duped into British promises. Lord Halifax was the person who was involved in this plan. The great question which is unanswered by historians is the paradox of why was Germany declared war upon and not the Soviet Union? Ultimately it was the British that tried maneuver Poland into withstanding the German talks of conceding the Danzig area which Hitler was trying to reclaim. It had nothing to do with invading Poland.

You could also argue that if the British had simply stopped Hitler from annexing the Sudetenland, well before he ever went into Poland, the conflict might have been stopped then, as at that point, Hitler really could not have offered much resistance.

And as far as invading Russia, if you read Hitler's Reichstag speech you will see that Stalin was planning an offensive. Hitler's actions were preventive measures. It was Stalin that was far more cunning than Hitler and eventually outmaneuvered Hitler. The fact that Hitler got the advantage early on on the Soviets was because he striked first, as a preemptive measure, because the Nazi economy was not yet on a war footing, showing that Hitler never intended for a long drawn out war.

I still don't think it was good military strategy. Hitler should have known that a drawn out war in Russia was almost inevitable, and the only chance he really stood was to go straight for Moscow, which he didn't do. Germany was already well cushioned at that point by its annexing of smaller nations to its east and it could be argued that an invasion by Stalin would not have been successful, though that probably wasn't the point anyway. Ultimately, fighting a war on so many multiple fronts is what brought down the Nazis anyway. Still, Stalingrad was the turning point at which the Nazis really never again had much of a chance. I can't help but think what might have been had Hitler either taken a defensive stance or gone straight for Moscow. Ultimately, we'll never know. But as with my analogy to Lee - what would have happened had he never floundered at Gettysburg? As weak as the Confederacy was at the time, Union resolution was wilting and everybody but Lincoln was ready to give up, and Lincoln might not have even be reelected. If only the men who made these mistakes had known what we now know. Anyway, as you pointed out, we've gone pretty far off topic.

I suppose my original point was only that, if not for a few military blunders, and if not for the forced labor camps that allowed the allies to bring righteous indignation against the Nazi regime once the war had ended, we might either have had a chance to see how Naziism would have worked out or at least been able to study it without the connotation of evil that is inevitably attached at this point.

As far as positive effects of the Nazi system, the only thing I can think of is how quickly Germany did get back on its feet. To spiral's question of "does might make right?" I can only say that I don't think it does on any moral ground, but it can certainly be argued that a strong, central government is essential for any nation to rise very quickly to power. If you study the history of empire building up until the last century, you'll notice that almost every one was built by a strong, highly centralized, totalitarian government, usually one led by militarily inclined men. Furthermore, most of them fell when the government was either weakened or decentralized.

Nothing rallies a nation like war and expansion. The problem comes after the conquering is complete. A parallel can be seen in our current conflict in the middle east. Most of the US was firmly behind going into Afghanistan and even Iraq, and rallied behind Bush and the US flag. Now that both unfriendly regimes have been removed and the sobering fact is revealed that we may not have made things any better and likely had no business there in the first place, you can see support for Bush and for US foreign policy in general waining. The primary difference is that in a democracy such as the US, instead of the government being weakened and replaced through violent revolution and losing its empire, we just get a new party in place four years later, as if that is really going to make any difference.