Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: TheWobble on March 31, 2001, 09:10:00 PM
-
I was watching an special on the history channel today about hitler..not about WW2, or the holocaust..or anything war related..but about his life before that.. and I must admit, He has to have been the best Public speaker I have ever seen, not in message (of course) but in the way he could deliver a message and captivate a crowd. It was amazing to see how the huge crowds would be swept up in his words and and the way he use pitch and gestures and the way he used his posture in concert to mesemerize his crowds.
Its sad that such talent had to be used for such absoulte evil.
-
I can't remember the last time a politician's speech meant jack-s*** to me.
And since i don't understand German, Hitler's screaming, gesticulations, and facial expressions look ridiculous to me.
Sorta reminds me of a bad Charlie Chaplin impression......
Cabby
[This message has been edited by cabby (edited 03-31-2001).]
-
cabby does being completly predictable ever bother you ? you are like a bbs archy bunker.
-
Absolutely, Wobble... Hitler had public speaking down.
Even without understanding german, his speeches are incredibly powerful.
------------------
cheers,
sand
screamin blue messiahs (http://www.screaminbluemessiahs.org)
The SBM's are hiring! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/Forum11/HTML/000263.html)
-
im telling you, its the little mustache. Chaplin had it, he was good wasn't he? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Just wondering, what if Adolph had died ... say in a auto accident ... before giving the final orders to go case white.
What do you speculate that the world would think of him today?
It is of course a moot point but what do you all think? and why?
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
-
It's not only the talking talent that captivated the germany of the day, it was the fact that he brought germany out of post-ww I economic depression.
He gave hope to the nation in a way that seemed a downright miracle.
It's no wonder that his people believed in him. It's just really sad that he was a megalomaniac antisemitist, a very bad person to follow..
If we see into the life in 1930's germany it will be much easyer to understand why Hitler could get the power that he did.. Life was amazingly different then, only 70 years ago..
-
Quote:
cabby does being completly predictable ever bother you "
No more than being unintelligible seems to bother you......
Archie
-
Reading a few books on Hitler (not Mein Kampf) can give you an idea about the man. From what I've read, if you got him into a conversation he'd give you his entire point of view. Not forcefully, but honestly. He'd listen to your points, tell you his, and then explain anything you didn't get. As for his speaking ability, I used to have two of his speaches a good friend translated. She recorded them on tape using the same inflections and everything. Some of the ideas didn't come out right, because as in all languages there's words you can't translate. So it was a sort of mixed bag of English and German.
The manager at the local B&N store said he'd read Mein Kampf and hated it. Not the book, the contents of it. He said it was a well written, carefully compiled, and meticulously edited 500-page book. What it contained on the other hand, was useless crap. "Philosophical belching" to use Goebbels expression regarding another book. Baldur von Schirach said something about the same book Goebbels was referring to: "He sold more copies of a book no one ever read than any other author". Both fit. If you want to know, they were both talking about Alfred Rosenberg's Myth of the Twentieth Century. This guy published the mystic nonsense that pased for Nazi doctrine.
THN has an article about Nuremberg trials and people involved here: www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/11953_text.htm (http://www.thehistorynet.com/WorldWarII/articles/11953_text.htm)
[edit]Useless trivia: Mein Kampf was originally titled "4 1/2 years of struggle against lies, stupidity, and cowardess".
-----------------------
Flakbait [Delta6]
Delta Six's Flight School (http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6)
Put the P-61B in Aces High
"With all due respect Chaplian, I don't think God wants to hear from me right now.
I'm gonna go out there and remove one of His creations from this universe.
And when I get back I'm gonna drink a bottle of Scotch like it was Chiggy von
Richthofen's blood and celebrate his death."
Col. McQueen, Space: Above and Beyond
(http://www.worldaccessnet.com/~delta6/htbin/delta6.jpg)
[This message has been edited by flakbait (edited 04-01-2001).]
-
If there is a hell, I'm sure he is a popular speaker there.
-
What he actually did was to spend huge amounts of public money on improving the infrastructure of Germany, to gain his 'lebensraum'. He then needed to expand Germany and gain more resources, to pay for those improvements.
Goebbels was the genius behind the throne - uniting the classes in the common hatred of the Jews and the belief that the Germans were a master race. He exploited a traditional anti-semetic vein running through German society.
In the end both were cowardly individuals, without the balls to surrender and face the music. Instead they added thousands of German citizens to the death toll.
Great example of leadership, that.
The only redeeming feature of Adolf is that he is dead.
-
Adolf Hitler's talent of speaking and posing during his public appearances was not totally based on talent. It is known that he mostly practised in front of a mirror usually before he gave a speech. Hitler was also influenced by the Benito Mussolini at the beginning of the 30s,at that time Benito Mussolini was more famous than Hitler.
Trotsky was also a famous Russian speaker, the first of his this kind and style.
I speak German fluently and I will say that anyone who understands a powerful language like German has to be swept away be such powerful speeches like from Adolf Hitler.
It is like the essence of Life and Beauty was speaking to you and you could fell the power and glory in his words. His words replace your streaming blood in your body and flow through your mind.
I am sure if the Jews were not Jews they would have also been screaming Heil Hitler! (and it is known some actually did)
But anyway, even though if the message is brought to you with such beauty, the words of the Adolf Hitler are a mighty wind that blow you directly to the gates of Hell.
-
MrSid -
Dowding touched on this, but just to make clear...
Hitler brought Germany out of post WWI economic depression by mobilizing for war on a very large scale. This meant weapons to manufacture, jobs, etc.
Point being, if he hadn't been a megalomaniac antisemite, he likely wouldn't have pulled Germany out of the depression.
He was obviously a very captivating leader.
My wife has a really awful boss (who has some behavioral traits in common with Hitler - honestly!) for the next month, and she has said "I can't believe that I made such a bad mistake and thought that she was nice and that this was a good idea." I tell her "Don't feel bad. Hitler duped an entire nation."
[This message has been edited by Kratzer (edited 04-01-2001).]
-
"it was the fact that he brought germany out of post-ww I economic depression. "
He did that through a massive re-armament effort. That's where all the jobs came from.
-
There an echo in here?
-
Echo lol yes....
If you have crisis on your hand than the best way to go through it is the war....
------------------
Best regards
Dmitry aka vfGhosty
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
He has to have been the best Public speaker I have ever seen, not in message (of course) but in the way he could deliver a message and captivate a crowd. It was amazing to see how the huge crowds would be swept up in his words and and the way he use pitch and gestures and the way he used his posture in concert to mesemerize his crowds.
Its sad that such talent had to be used for such absoulte evil.
Keyword here...captivated. You'd be captivated too if you had 6,000 guys standing behind you with guns pointed at your head...
-
Keyword here...captivated. You'd be captivated too if you had 6,000 guys standing behind you with guns pointed at your head
.....are you an idiot?
do you know who hitler is...he's not a teletubby......
-
But how do you get 6000 guys with guns to stand behind somone?
Germany wasn't forced to put Hitler into power. He was well supported, and his true nature well camouflaged from the German population.
-
JFK was another that was renowned for delivering a good speech.
-
I am sorry Kratzer, but Hitler's true nature was not camouflaged from the German people. That's just an argument to shift blame away from the German nation after the war. Apologist, if you will.
How could anyone think Kristal Nacht in 1938 was justified/normal?
I think the truth is that the German people were too intimidated to try and do anything about Hitler. For THAT they should not be blamed, but I think it is wrong to say that they had no knowledge of Hitler or his policies.
I'll never understand how a nation could allow itself to be lead into such a conflict. But I wonder how many Germans were actually happy that their country had subjugated half the European conflict? When things were going well, in 1941, I bet there were plenty.
-
I read the Mein Kamph (In English) - every single page, making marks and highlighting.
There is no question the man was a genius. Ten years in advance he layed out why, what and how he was going to do it and did it - by the book.
There is no "useless crap" in the book. When you read it, you should remember that the man was not a writer, but an orator. Some of the stuff there is better heard then written.
He actually explains how to talk to the public, The basics of propaganda. Many historians call him an idiot by reading his speeches. They forget that the speeches were intended to inspire a bunch of blue-collar guys, not impless college professors.
The guy was not just a natural talant, he was fully aware what he was doing o achieve the effect on the public.
There are also facts of his personallife that actually make me respect him - there is an advantage to the memoirs written ten years before a man becomes sombody.
I also lost a lot of respect to my ancestors and westrn governments. When Hitler came to power in 1934 and before he started his most heinous acts in 37, the book was available for 10 years. Few peope (except Stalin) made any conclusions.
Hitler was an idealist willing to sacrifice himself and everything else towards his goal of saving civilisation. That his goal was evil, he was a genius and western governments uncompetent was very unfortunate.
He was not a politician. He did not do compromises but used total solutions to everything. He could persuade peope to do anything he thought needed to be done. He was by no means a book-worm but a very brave and practical person.
The book is hard to read when you know the results and your people were on the receiving end of the worst of it. But it is a necessary reading. The book is sold for $16 at any Barns & Noble, I cannot believe how many people supposedly interested in history never opened it.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-02-2001).]
-
hmmm... funny, i haven't heard anyone lament the plight of the gypsies yet - they were also persecuted in huge numbers and almost extinguished as an ethinicity.
maybe someday, someone will make a movie about them and then pop culture can grieve them as well.
-
Dowding, you can't rise to power by standing in the street and shaking your fist at everyone. Hitler didn't get power on his own, and he didn't get it by saying 'I plan to cause the deaths of untold millions, and eventually grind this country into the ground'. Was he openly critical of the Jews? Yes. Did the Nazis use violence as part of their seizure power? Yes. But if the nation had thought he was crazy from day 1, he wouldn't have risen to power.
He brought power and prosperity to a nation that had been humiliated by the first world war, and people loved him for it. Once someone has power, it is easier for them to keep a hold of it, and by the time that the real nastiness began, Hitler and his cronies were well entrenched.
To say that Germany was bullied into putting him in power is too simple, as, granted, it is also to simple to say that they were unaware of much of what was going on - but the relative times that events happened really play into the overall picture.
In my view, he charmed the country, and then provided national identity, purpose, and prosperity to them - why wouldn't they like him for that? If a couple people got hurt along the way, it could be explained away by saying, "Look at all he has done for the country! He must have been right all along," this being reinforced from 39 - 40 while the Germans had great success on the battlefield, as you mentioned, "these people who got hurt were going against the good of Germany."
Combine that with a raging propoganda machine that dispelled any rumours of atrocity, etc. and once the Nazis had power, it was obviously much easier for them to retain it.
Remember that we locked up thousands of Japanese-Americans and the country hardly batted an eyelash... it is very easy for people to think 'what has been done has been done for the good of the nation' and to assume that rumours of death camps, etc. was just enemy propoganda...
However, I admit I am also guilty of oversimplifying in my original post...
-
and misspelling propaganda 2x... lol
oopsy.
-
Quote:
"an idealist willing to sacrifice himself and everything else towards his goal of saving civilisation. "
God save us from people like this.....
BTW, i don't care if "MK" is the work of a "genius" or not. Anyone who initiated a World War, murdered millions, "sacrificed" his nation and his people to untold loss of life and property, was a hideous military tactician, can ultimately be considered only one thing:
An idiot.
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Dowding:
I am sorry Kratzer, but Hitler's true nature was not camouflaged from the German people. That's just an argument to shift blame away from the German nation after the war. Apologist, if you will.
How could anyone think Kristal Nacht in 1938 was justified/normal?
I think the truth is that the German people were too intimidated to try and do anything about Hitler. For THAT they should not be blamed, but I think it is wrong to say that they had no knowledge of Hitler or his policies.
I'll never understand how a nation could allow itself to be lead into such a conflict. But I wonder how many Germans were actually happy that their country had subjugated half the European conflict? When things were going well, in 1941, I bet there were plenty.
Think world wide economic depression, world war aftermath, and lack of anything resembling a government.
Everyone responded in radical ways to the depression of the '30s. One only needs to look at what FDR got away with as far as shattering through government power restrictions. US citizens allowed FDR to exercise an almost totalitarian rule on policy in order to get out of the depression.
The German people were no different. Or any of the other nations that subjected to totalitarianism during the period. But Germany got subjected to armament snow-balling once Hitler came to power. He had proved himself in the eyes of the people that he was an able leader by doing exactly what he'd said he do...get Germany out of the depression.
Right or wrong, their actions are certainly understandable given the curcumstances, desperation, mob mentality, and all that jazz.
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:
God save us from people like this.....
BTW, i don't care if "MK" is the work of a "genius" or not. Anyone who initiated a World War, murdered millions, "sacrificed" his nation and his people to untold loss of life and property, was a hideous military tactician, can ultimately be considered only one thing:
An idiot.
Cabby
I concur, god save us from guys like Hitler. But if your mind cant allow that even the darkest, most evil man you can imagine (and Stalin was even worse in that regard) was a genius on his own then I have to say that I'm sorry for you, because closes your mind to many things.
I, By myself, find Adolf Hitler one of the most fascinating personalities in History. How a man can go all the way up from being a homeless poor man in Austria, to be the instigator of the biggest massacre and war in history. How?. Why?.
That he was not psiquically stable is well known, he was NOT normal. Period. But even in his abnormality there was charm.
Ask the people who knew Hitler in person (not his generals <G> ), and they will tell you that he was simply magnetic. He had a very charming presence, he knew how to cautivate the one talking with him. He was, literally, one of those men who made his interlocutor to think that it was night in the middle of the day, if Hitler told him so.
And his public speeches. Dude, I have no idea of German, but seeing his speeches you can feel that there was electricity on the air each time he talked to the masses. There is sheer POWER in each word he said.
All in all, it is easy and hard,at the same time, to explain how did he reach the power on Germany.
Hard, because bassically Hitler was an incompetent for everything else: he knew to work in nothing but painting, and he was mediocre at that. You see the 1919 Hitler and you simply think he was a lost soul and that he would be an obscure man for the rest of his life.
Easy, because the ways used were completely right to reach where he did. He had the right message to deliver in the proper moment and situation.
-He called for national pride when Germany's pride was down the floor
-He called for work for everyone when 50% of the people was without work, and for cutting down inflation, while bread was at a cost of ONE MILLION REICHSMARKS THE UNIT
-He used a minority as the one to be blamed (dont fool yourselfs, dudes, We ALL are racist in a sense, some more some less. Some of us have problems with the black guys, some of us have problems with the asiatic ones, some of us have problems with the Gypsies...etc. Simply because we are different, and some of their customs may seem bad, and even we feel repulse at some of them. Of course none of us is going to send a jew to be gassed, nor a black man to be burnt alive KKK-alike, but we all have a minority we like less than us.).
-He used one of the strongest messages for the human kind. Hate. Many of you have never been there, I've been. When you are treated bad by almost everyone around you you tend to get agressive and you tend to do things not normal in a normal guy. Been there, tempted to do that -long story, off topic here, wich happened back when I was 13-.
Germany was a nation beaten by Versalles, and violence was on the streets since the WWI. Hate was a escape way. Just remember that hate was on the streets since 1919 up to 1945. First with the anti-bolshevik groups, then with the paramilitar groups, then with the Nazi SA and SD...
Simply said, that message was the most appeasing for a nation whose pride was beaten down, and wich people was morally routed.
And Hitler was there, with the right message, the right collaborators and the right charm to do that thing work.
I think that the man was not evil by himself, but he was mad. His actions are evil, and he favored evil demons under his command (Almost all the SS chiefs were worse than him...Himmler, Heidrich...). But I think that in his madness he genuinelly though he was right.
Evil or mad, right or wrong, the guy was brilliant on his own. And fascinating.
BTW I'll repeat it because I'm sure someone will think wrong things reading this. I'm deeply anti-nazi and I HATE extremists (right or leftists). My family suffered a lot under Franco's rule (familiars of me dissapeared).
and now that I've let that clear... flame on. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
-
Originally posted by TheWobble:
.....are you an idiot?
Nope...but Hitler was...
do you know who hitler is...
Yup...wasn't he that psychotic drug addict that had tens of thousands of people executed because they didn't fit into his little plan? Any man that shoots his dog and then shoots himself sucks...
he's not a teletubby......
Nope...but I get the same sick feeling in my stomache when watching either one on Television...
[This message has been edited by Brat (edited 04-02-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Brat:
...wasn't he that psychotic drug addict that had tens of thousands of people executed ...
well, millions...
but who's counting.
-
Originally posted by cabby:
Quote:God save us from people like this.....
God saves thoses who save themselves. That includes meticulusly studying every single evil genious of the past so that we could recognise them in the future. If you do not study "Mein Kampf", how would you recongnse the next charismatic leader who promises to solve all your problems for what he is?
Anyone who initiated a World War, murdered millions, "sacrificed" his nation and his people to untold loss of life and property, was a hideous military tactician, can ultimately be considered only one thing:
An idiot.
Oh, that what it was! So simple. No need to study and analyse, then.
idiot
1: a person affected with idiocy; especially : a feebleminded person...
2: a foolish or stupid person
Unless you use some other definition or language other them English, Hitler was not that. He was spectacularly successfull in implementing his plans.
The most brilliant strategist of WWII is undoubtedly E. Mainstein. He had no particular love for Hitler either. Have you read what he wrote about Hitler, especially his intelligence and tactical talents? Of course not.
Unlike you, I've read "Mein Kampf" (besides other relevant books) and I recognise Hitler in you, cabby.
Whatever you do not agree with - treat it with contempt, present it as idiocy and deviation. Never analyze but stereotype. Refuse to consider. Design your own system of values and meanings - that is what Hitler did and persuaded Germans to do. I am sure that those germans were all well-meaning folk like you. They probably just did not want to study the evil Napoleon Buonaparte and other historical figures and did not recognise Hitler for what he was.
Included are my ancestors who were supposed to be very smart. Lot of good it did most of them. Some of them recognized the problem, escaped and survived. The rest were given an ample warning but likely did not want to read books like MK.
Go ahead, Cabbie, read Dr Zeuss. Just do not be surprised if you end up under the knife or wielding the knife - all with the best intentions, of course.
miko
[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 04-02-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Kratzer:
well, millions...
but who's counting.
executed...not losses during the war...but you may be right...i have no idea how many persecuted races died at his hands...
my point...by the same account...Jeffrey Daumer (sp?) was a genius...as was Hanibal Lecter (sp again?), but it's not something we care to think about and their actions are definately not something we praise...
maybe idiot wasn't the correct term...but I don't know of any words to describe him for what he was...
-
Originally posted by miko2d:
2: a foolish or stupid person
Nuff said! Any fool can be intelligent...
-
That's quite a stretch Miko. I'll let your insult slide as it's sophomoric logic at best....
Let me quote a true genius's words to you:
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Cabby
-
Originally posted by Brat:
executed...not losses during the war...but you may be right...i have no idea how many persecuted races died at his hands...
Well, he 'executed' 6 million jews in concentration camps alone... so I'd say that qualifies.
-
Well somebody in this long thread said something about having to understand the 30's. Yeah, in those days people beleived what they heard on the radio. You didn't question whether or not they were telling the truth. And when Hitler ,"who in the minds of the German People was their saviour", said " Poland has attacked our border" then they beleived him and that started the ball rolling. Every time germany attacked someone he said they hit us first. If you compared his lifestyle to those of other leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt, he looked like an upstanding fine person. I had an email one time that looked at that very aspect I wish I could find it. But this rambling is too long now as it is
-
Let's just all hold hands for a moment, and thank whatever being we worship, that this man totally fediddleed up the Battle of Britain, the management of the Luftwaffe, the decision to fight on two fronts, the refusal to upgrade, update, and re-build the U-boat fleet, and completely mis-manage his ground forces in the end.
Whew!
I would hate the to think what would have happened if he had concentrated only on English fighter bases and AC production, built a large, long-range bomber, pushed along 262 production and used them wisely, gotten better sonar etc. for the U-boats, jerked Stalin along instead of going head-on with him right away, and listened to more of his generals in the field.
The war may have been prolonged long enough for him to get the bomb, and a great way to deliver it very, very long distances.
Mk
-
Hitler didnt start by charming the nation. He terrorised it. He made it impossible to goverern. Then he "saved" it. Strangly enough once his thugs stopped killing polititians the country became more managable.
It is easy to lead the uninformed to believe that there was some merit in the early rule of Hitler. That he was elected to lead the country and went astray after. That is not the case. He was never elected by any democratic standard that we in the west would acknoledge as legitimate. He gained power through terror, maintained it through terror and tried to cover the world in terror.
Was he a product of the times. Yes.
But also a product of his nation.
Could he mesmorize. He had an increadible gift for persuasion in person and in front of huge crowds. But if he did not get his way even years befor the war he would lose total control of himself and become a carpet biter.
The depression had run its course. He never ended it. It ended all over the world arround the same time. Did he end it in Peru?
Yes he spent largly on public works and armements but that money never appeared from thin air. It had to be raised or borrowed. He had some very able financial help in the early years that he later imprisioned or killed I believe.
Intellectualy he had a phenominal mind for detail.
Politically and Diplomatically he simply understood fear.
Stratigically he was a huge risk taker. When that works it looks genius like. When it fails we have an idiot. He achieved both.
Some of his greatest risks even the successful ones where not even well reasoned. They relied on cowerdice and incompetance on the part of his adveseries. In the early years he was often granted that. In later years rarly so. Yet his plans still had that fundimental underpinning. Cowerdice and incommpetence on the part of his enemies.
He is a facinating character. As is Churchill. Dont know much about Roosevelt. Stalin was a boor.
-
I really find the world events that happened from the end of WWI to the outbreak of WWII as interesting as anything that actually happened in either war. There are a ton of lessons to be learned there. One was the foolishness of imposing unreasonable reparations on a country already devastated by war as opposed to helping it right itself as quickly as possible. After WWI, Germany was left in a shambles upon which the allies heaped sanctions and reperations that left it barely able to exist. In addition, the whole world was going through a depression at the time. Its people had it extremely tough. The knee jerk reaction is to say rightfully so, they started a world war. But the problem is that this created a climate and public psyche where a man like Hitler could come into control. If a man is dying of hunger, and is watching his wife and kids die of hunger, then you can bet he'll accept a loaf of bread from the devil...
It is interesting to contrast that with the way the vanquished foes were treated after WWII ended (at least Japan and West Germany) and how they have managed since then. We didn't grind them in the dust and leave their people to suffer through a decade of severe depression. We made sure that their economies recovered from the war relatively quickly and established stable (pseudo) democracies. The result: Instead of a country filled with starving people that could easily be exploited by a despot appealing to nationalistic pride you have two countries that have become model citizens in the global comunity. I wish we would act so intelligently when it came to dealing with our own downtrodden citizens, but that is a different subject (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Another interesting tidbit: I can't remember the exact quote, but I read it in one of Churchill's books about WWII. Paraphrased, he said that if England were ever to be conquered, he could only hope that a man as wilfull as Adolf Hitler would arise to lead it out of ruin.
Gordo
EDIT: Good post, Pongo. I would only state one thing you said a bit differently. I wouldn't say that I think he terrorized Germany to come into power. I think he terrorized his opponents while charming the people to come into power.
[This message has been edited by Lance (edited 04-03-2001).]
-
But also a product of his nation. [/b]
Pongo, Hitler was Austrian, not German, do you remember? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Originally posted by Pongo:
Hitler didnt start by charming the nation. He terrorised it. He made it impossible to goverern. Then he "saved" it
False, and by a wide margin. Germany was terrorized by different factions as soon as in 1918 when the Spartachists (sp?) (bassicaly a bolshevik move) were rampant all over the country. WIth the army paralized after the defeat on WWI (but still not disbanded as Versalles had been still not signed) and even with soviet cells in it (the officers orders had to be approved by the correspondent cell, go figure), an anti-revolutionary internal group was started, called the Freikorps.
The Freikorps was in everything a paramilitar group but with militar atributes and many ex-soldiers on its files. The problem with them was that the soldiers of the Freikorps started feeling stronger loyalties to the men who gided them than to the German nation, and that was the first of the famous paramilitar groups in Germany, and a very strong one for that matter.
In the meantime, the loyal army officers remained on their posts, with almost no real decision power, theorically commanding soldiers wich followed none of their orders. Many of them were executed by the bolshevik cells after giving "unnapropiate orders", many of them simply had to stand insults to their honor, and to stand them in the name of the German army.
when Versailles was signed, in 1919, the German government accepted a reduction of numbers down to 100.000. That meant that many,many of the same officers who had risked their life by staying on their spots instead of joining the Freikorps, the same officers who had seen how some of them were hanged by the spartakists, now were abandoned by the government, demobilizated and sent to home with no further compensation.
Many, many of them were to join later the SAs,where they gave much needed military-organization, and some of them were to form the core of what it eventually was the Wehrmacht.
For the time the Nationalsocialist Sturm Abteilung (SA) paramilitar branch was created, there was a wide,long, painful past of street violence in germany, and many many paramilitar branches in action,some of them belonging to the different parties on the REichstag.
Hitler didnt create the violence on the streets in Germany. He took advantage of it for his own purposes using a very powerful toy, that is a quite different thing. And this also shows that he was brilliant in using the political stormy climate on the moment for his own advantage.
Eventually the Sturm Abteilung grew too strong, more than 400000 members on it by 1934 (again, officially the German defence army could be only 100000 soldiers-strong under the Versalles treaty. The SA had grown VERY powerful).
Hitler was too much conscious that the same SA wich he was using for wiping out all the political oposition in germany, were able to wipe him from the Chancellor seat at once. That was the reason why he beheaded the SA in the Long knife night in 1934 using the -for that time- small SS groups to destroy the SA leadership.
BTW in 1931-32 one bread costed one million reichmarks. Hitler didnt made that possible, either. It is true that Germany raised its head out of depression more or less at the same time than the other nations. But also is true that Germany started, by far, from the worse economical situation between all those nations, and ended up between the most dynamic economies by 1938. Not a bad work for 5 years, to take a nation so economically lost and to reactivate it to turn it into one of the world economical and industrial powers. He started the last of the list and ended in the leading ranks. Like it or not, is a BIG achievement.
Brilliant. He was brilliant. The fact that he was the instigator of the darkestpage of history doesnt mean that we can't see more than it.
REgarding its military skills, much is said about Hitler's ineptitude. Pongo, your affirmation that he was a risk taker is simply wrong. in fact he was all the way opposite. He was fearful to lose his priceless army,luftwaffe or navy.
He was not educated on military matters yet he thought himself to be a brilliant stratega. He was not. Still, he was a very decent one. He did many many blunders, but most of them not on the strategic level, but on the operative level (the blurring separation between tactical and strategic levels).
One cannot help but remember that Von Manstein's Sichelschnitt (the plan for the invasion of France wich destroyed the French army) had fallen into deaf ears until Hitler gave it full support. Brauchitsch and Halder had even "promoted" Manstein to Command an army corps, far from the western front, to not having to receive yet another petition to his plan to be examinated again.
Happened that one of the Hitler's adjutatns heard of Manstein's plan and told Hitler about it. Hitler called Manstein and asked him to explain Sichelschnitt step by step. Contrary to all the German OKW advice, Hitler called for this plan to be followed (well, in fact he claimed to be the creator of it (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Hitler also helped the creation and develop of the Panzerwaffe in a time when many powerful elements in the Wehrmacht were,if not against it, yes against the Blitzkrieg concept. Hitler gave complete support to it, so further discussions were stopped, and we all know what happened later.
Dunkerque was not a blunder by Hitler's part,at least not in what concerns him stopping the Panzers. He was fooled by Goering to thing that the Luftwaffe could stop the evacuation single handedly, but the Panzers needed time to get back on line to the final offensive to finish off France.
The BoB failure was more mistake from Goering's part than from Hitler's. Its quite evident that the LW stopping attacks on the RAF and changing to London was a blunder, but it was a propagandistic neccesity at the time. Bombs were falling in BErlin and Hitler needed to do the same in return. Still, it was a big mistake from his part.
Barbarossa was, tough as it may sound, a bassically sound plan. The fact that it not worked was due two factors, the first was the Balkans campaign, wich delayed 6 weeks of time on Barbarossa schedule, and Hitler's orders to use the panzers on the Kiev's pocket instead of going directly for MOscow. if one of those two had not happened, Moscow would've been German in October'41.
One of the hints that the Strategist in Hitler was not that bad was Case Blue. The push on Southern Russia in summer'42. Most of this plan was designed by Hitler himselfm and as much as critized as he was, the Volga was a vital line for the USSR, and cutting it would've been proven fatal for the Soviet Union. As a strategic objective, Moscow was more tempting......but was fortressed, and no blitzkrieg could've been used there. Case blue was a very sound plan in concept, with attainable targets and sound strategical objectives.
Not in execution, though. Again Hitler showed his complete ineptitude on the operative level, giving erratic orders to the panzer formations instead of letting them achieve their specifical objectives. Stalingrad could've been taken almost bloodless in the first days of summer '42, but for that time one of the Hitler's directives had called the Panzer divisions south, for no effect because when they arrived the opposition had been crushed already. For the time the advance on Stalingrad was resumed, the city was already fortified.
The city chosen was also wrong. There is general consensus that, given that Stalingrad was fortified and would be defended till the last man standing, the Panzerwaffe could have turned left and move towards Saratov, an equally important city on the soviet Volga supply line. Saratov was almost defenceless at the moment.
But stalingrad had the name of Hitler's archenemy...and well, we all know how the battle ended (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
Ouch! long long post...I hope you are not asleep now (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 04-03-2001).]
-
A much shorter reply.
To state Hitler was not a risk taker is extemely extremely interesting. Then you go on to describe some of his most famous and costly risks. Ones that made his general cringe. Barborossa was only sound if you completly ignore logistics.
Your statements about Hitlers mistakes in the BOB and Moscow are commonly held misconceptions.
You must read Brute Force by John Ellis.
Britain never even came close to losing the BOB. I would just be restating Ellises excellent points in to contest your view, read the book you would enjoy it.
Anyone that praises the economic miracle of germany must be very careful to clearly understand what was done by Hitler and what he inherited that was allready in progress.
Your points about Hitler and the army basically boil to saying hitler saved the honor of the army. That is just propaganda from the time. He did no such thing.
Gordo
By terror I am refering to the state of paralisis he created in the country through political terror. Much of the early 30s destabilization was created by him. In accordance with his plan in MK. Its not opinion. Its what he did. All described in advance in MK. Its part of his genius that some admire so. And one of his greatest acomplishments.
He valued will above all else and thought that the mere force of will could overcome any obstical.
-
Clinton was the Hitler of the 90's? Something to think about. Speaking wise of course.
------------------
Sturm6 StaffelKapitän
JV44 Platzschutzstaffel
Airfield Defense Squadron
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
A much shorter reply.
To state Hitler was not a risk taker is extemely extremely interesting. Then you go on to describe some of his most famous and costly risks. Ones that made his general cringe. Barborossa was only sound if you completly ignore logistics.
Barbarossa, as first planned, was quite a sound plan. Truth is, it was not HIS plan, -unlike Case Blue,wich was designed by him personally-,It was a plan designed by the OKW to follow his orders. IF you ask me if the attack on the USSR was to take a risk?. Sure, it was. The whole war was a risk, the invasion of Poland was a risk. Hitler dared to take risks in the strategic level but was an utterly coward at the operative level. THat is what I meant.
Logistics are a problem each time you are going to do such a huge offensive. Barbarossa at the strategic level was a very sound plan, more if we remember that the Panzerwaffe in 1941 was a group of elite troops forged during three years of direct aplication of Blitzkrieg. Very very good things were to be expected from this troops
And then there is the fact that if Hitler had not struck first, Stalin would've done it for him. The degree of knowledge that Hitler had on this, I dont know.
Your statements about Hitlers mistakes in the BOB and Moscow are commonly held misconceptions.
You must read Brute Force by John Ellis.
Britain never even came close to losing the BOB. I would just be restating Ellises excellent points in to contest your view, read the book you would enjoy it.
I will look for the book, as it seems an interestig read. HOwever I think you are misunderstanding me.
BoB was an ill-planed aerial assault on UK still was very near success. Germany was not able to win BoB?. Depends what you get as success.
THe German objective in the BoB was to attain complete aerial superiority over the Channel and the southern part of the UK for operation seelowe to be launched. This was a very difficult task and yes, was about impossible to achieve.
HOwever the Germans only needed to NEGATE the air superiority to the ENglish, not to establish their own, to "win" the BoB. And they were VERY near of achieving this. Hitler's change of orders and Goering close escort orders changed the ballance towarsd the RAF, but the Luftwaffe achieved to put the RAF in the extreme.
This is a moot point anyway. Seelowe WAS unnatainable. It was impossible to land the Wehrmatch in England and keep it fully supplied, Germany simply lacked the naval resources to do it.
Anyone that praises the economic miracle of germany must be very careful to clearly understand what was done by Hitler and what he inherited that was allready in progress.
[/b]
He inherited a nation with rampant unemployement and astronomical inflation,still he turned it into an economic superpower of the era. Sorry, Pongo, in this we disagree at all.
Your points about Hitler and the army basically boil to saying hitler saved the honor of the army. That is just propaganda from the time. He did no such thing.
[/b]
? where did you read me saying that?.
Hitler literally pissed over the army honor. first by changing the officers oath from giving their oath to Germany to giving it to Adolf Hitler himself; that is bad enough to start with and this was already done in 1934.
Then in 1939 Hitler clearly explained to Brauchischt, and all the OKW major staff, that he would UTTERLY DESTROY ANYONE in his path to achieve HIS plans.
In 1940 he passed over all the OKW suggerences and ordered Manstein's plan to be launched; in 1941 despite fierce opposition from the OKW he attacked russia, and finally in december 1941 he dismissed Brauchischt as senior officer of the OKW and appointed HIMSELF as such. Hitler had no respect for his commanders, and frankly, most of his generals and marshals hated him.
From 1943-1945 the German wehrmatch fought endless battles under impossible tactical and operational directives, the army commanders were changed in months because they were not able to stand against impossible odds, and all in all Hitler pissed over the German army again and again. Not to mention the famous rage attacks in presence of his generals...(at this stage, from 1943, Hitler was clearly falling in a degenerative mental illness)
Dude....the ones who saved the German army honor were the soldiers and army officers who were capable to fight the way they did. I only said that Hitler, contrary to what is believed, was a decent strategist (but an awful tactician and operative commander).
That has nothing to do with honor.
By terror I am refering to the state of paralisis he created in the country through political terror. Much of the early 30s destabilization was created by him. In accordance with his plan in MK. Its not opinion. Its what he did. All described in advance in MK. Its part of his genius that some admire so. And one of his greatest acomplishments.
He valued will above all else and thought that the mere force of will could overcome any obstical.
That what he did was explained in Mein Kampf doesnt erase the fact that from 1918 -way way before Hitler achieved public notority-, Germany was seeing this kind of terror and violence day after day. Hitler increased it using ruthlessy the SA, to achieve political power. But it was something that was not strange in those days. After all, as I said, it was normal since 1918.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 04-03-2001).]
-
R4M:
All your(too long) posts fail to make the case Hitler was a "genius". A mentally unbalanced thug yes, genius no........
Cabby
-
Ram
I prefer not to paste quotes from your long messages to show you where you are saying basically that hitler saved the German Armies honor. Never the less I take that meaning from chapter one of your posts.
The economic recovery we will have to disagree on. I know he had a major part to do with it. How much is the issue.I take my understanding from Rise And Fall and several other books specicically about Hitler.
Whether or not Hitler was an extreme risk taker is something you apperently have trouble deciding. That the whole war was a huge and unaccepable risk only supports my point not refutes it. You are the first well read person I have conversed with or read that didnt accept that as a fundimantal facet of Hitlers personality and history.
That air superiortiy was not required by the Germans to win the BOB implies that Air Parity was required. That was impossible as well. You state that sea lion was impossible. I maintain the same is true for Barborossa. Barring a collaps of the soviets from the operational defeats and lossess. The Germans could not win. It took 6 barrels of fuel to get one barrel of fuel to Moscow. Allready facing severe logistical shortages the German Army could not win.
They obviosly did far better then could be expected by anyone or is generaly accepted by history. But thier task was so close to impossible that we should consider it so.
Genius has no requirment for sanity or stability cabby.
-
Quote:
"Genius has no requirment for sanity or stability cabby."
Duh.
Hitler still doesn't qualify as a "genius".
Heh, the word "genius" reminds me of a time in the early '80's when the San Francisco 49'ers were running over the rest of the NFL and making the rest of the league look like semi-pro teams in comparison.
After one particular game, an obviously not-too-bright 49'er lineman was being interviewed on TV, and the interviewer asked the player what he thought of the then 49'er head coach:
Quote: "Bill Walsh?? He a genius!!"
Takes one to know one i guess (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
Cabby
-
Saying Bill Clinton was the hitler of the 90's while sounding rather odd does sort of make sense.
If you talk to anybody who has met him (even his enemies) they will tell you the he really has this ora about him that just makes him very enjoyable to be around.
To me clinton seemed like a nice guy..GUY not president, as in GOOD person BAD president.....i dont mean good as in cheating on wife with the cow woman was good but as in...aww toejam nevermind.
-
Originally posted by Pongo:
I prefer not to paste quotes from your long messages to show you where you are saying basically that hitler saved the German Armies honor. Never the less I take that meaning from chapter one of your posts.
Please, do it, because I look back to my posts and I dont understand where do you read that...
Whether or not Hitler was an extreme risk taker is something you apperently have trouble deciding. That the whole war was a huge and unaccepable risk only supports my point not refutes it. You are the first well read person I have conversed with or read that didnt accept that as a fundimantal facet of Hitlers personality and history.
I've already said it. HItler was daring and very self-confident on the strategic level. On the planning stage. Looking at the map, before the things started going, he was very prone to take very high stakes. The war was a very risky bet (wich he lost). the attack on NOrway also, the attack of France too. The attack on Russia was a high bet...but not that risky if we remember that everybody was overconfident on the Wehrmacht capabilities after the Battle of France. And indeed Moscow would've fallen in october'41 had the Balkans not happened or had Hitler let his generals alone to do their duty.
So, in the strategic level, HItler was a risk taker. I agree on that.
But then when we fall into the operative level, the field orders he gave to his commanders when the fight was actually going on were those of an over-conservative (in fact nearing the cowardice) man.
in other words, he vas very daring before the action started but got really nervous as the fight was going on. He was not a risk taker OR a coward. He was both, depending on which situation are we talking about.
You state that sea lion was impossible. I maintain the same is true for Barborossa
Lets put the facts straight: Seelowe was impossible because Germany had not enough sea assets to lauch a succesfull seaborne invasion, and the Royal Navy had the assets to destroy the little ones wich Germany had.
In contrast, Barbarossa objectives WERE attainable. Barbarossa main objectives were to seize the two major cities in Russia: Leningrad and Moscow, to then advance all the ground possible towards the Urals.
Moscow could've been taken with no major problem in the early october of 1941,Had Hitler not diverted the panzer advance on MOscow, and had the attack started on the first scheduled date (without the 6 weeks delay imposed because the Balcans campaign).
Leningrad was under siege since October 1941, and could not be relieved. WIth Moscow taken and Leningrad sieged by early october 1941, reaching the Urals was not that impossible task.
Barbarossa,as planned, WAS attainable. The Balkan campaign was the biggest factor in making it much difficult to work, but was still workable. Barely, and with almost no ground for failure but workable. And indeed it was working OK.
Then came hitler on one of his famous operative directives and sent Guderian tanks to the south, to Kiev, where he won a massive battle, but he lost the war.
Regarding logistics, nope, Pongo. Logistics were not a problem during Barbarossa. The logistical side of the plan had been carefully planned, and the only moment where the German army ran out of supplies was when they did the assault on moscow...and that was in early December 1941. In December 1941, had the things have been done as planned in the initial plan, German forces should've been already well East from Moscow, nearing the Urals.
IF you tell me that the USSR wont have surrendered, that's another thing fully debatable. But I have to disagree. MOscow was too important for the Soviet Union,both as industral and as communications center. In 1942 Case Blue would've been launched as was in reality, and the Soviet ability to answer would've severely limited. If germany had achieved to take MOscow and cut the Volga supply line, the USSR would've have lost the war for sure.
[This message has been edited by R4M (edited 04-04-2001).]
-
We have to disagree. The logistics of Barbarossa were near impossisble. Hisory proves this in hind sight but it was clearly evident in forsight as well.
Of course hitler was erratic. He didnt know how to deal with success or failure on the battle field. Fundimentaly dishonest people make real interesting decisions when their original plans are proved unachievable.
Barbarossa could only have worked if the rusians were not willing to fight. Like the french or worse. That was not the case and it was doomed. Period. Attrition warfare was doom to the germans and the precondition for non attrition warfare was collapse of the enemy. The russians would not collapse and Hitler couldnt issue an edict to make them.
All of Hitlers plans had an underlying assumption of superiority of the german soldier. He was often correct in that. But they went farther and assumed some fundimental flaw on the side of the enemy. The flaw that he counted on in russia didnt exist. It didnt exist on day one. It didnt exist in May 45.
"Lets put the facts straight: Seelowe was impossible because Germany had not enough sea assets to lauch a succesfull seaborne invasion, and the Royal Navy had the assets to destroy the little ones wich Germany had.
"
Exactly.
The germans lacked the strength to take russia. Unless you assume the russians would capitualte. It was amazing that they made it as far as they did. The germans generals told hitler that capitulation was required for victory as they lacked the strength to destroy the russians. And they never new anything like the true strength of the russians when they said that.
-
The main problem with the Heer post 1941 was the birth of the Waffen SS and Luftwaffe divisions, which put strain on the old hand divisions, which were not reinforced or resupplied as needed because of the new 'personal armies'. Also, Hitler re-raised 6 new divions after the destruction of the 6th Army in Stalingrad, while again not reinforcing his current divisions that were in dire need of equipment. This happened throughout the war.
After Guderian had been appointed as Inspector of Armored Troops in February 1943 he and Hitler had many disagreements as far as the use of armor. According to him, Hitler had a certain affection for assault guns, these were produced in great numbers--which Guderian beleived would put strain on the production of tanks and tank destroyers. Which it did. Guderian also beleived that Germany should pull back her Panzerwaffe so that sufficient numbers of new Tigers and Panthers could be used in one large offensive, and that using these new tanks in small actions would only nullify the enemy's belief of these tanks superiority. Field Marshall von Manstein and Colonel-Genral Model both agreed with Guderian on pulling back the Panzers, however, Hitler wanted to avenge Stalingrad with an offensive in the south, which ultimatly became the battle of Kursk. Which was, ironically, launched by German divisons which were not fully equipped as neccesary because of the new personal armies.
The Waffen SS and Luftwaffe divions always got first priority on supplies. In terms of fighing the SS divions were very successfull though it is better to have a few fully equipped divions than alot of underequipped ones. The Hermann Goering divion was also very low in terms of fighting ability of its troops, and they still had priority on equipment.
------------------
Nath_____
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
(http://pobox2.zyan.com/~nath/haha.jpg)
"He just slapped me around like a yard dawg. First time Ive ever been shut out in a ladder, here or WB's. Tha Bastige!" -hblair
-
Oh yea,
imo, the invasion of Britain by Germany would have seen the use of the Falshimjaeger force, which was at the peak of its power at this time. A seaborne landing accross the narrow Dover straight wouldn't have been difficult, especially with Luftwaffe air superiority and the Kreigsmarine, remember the U boat forces was also at the peak of its power at this time, which could have assisted in preventing any RN ships from attemping to inflict on the landings.
Rommel belevied that an invasion of Britain should have been risked in 1941.
Once Britain was taken, North Africa was Germany's.
-
I think I am with Pongo in this particular one....
Not only the logistics were impossible, given the lack of a fully mechanized army (great portion of the army were still dependent on horses), given the lack of appropiate infrastructure to move the huge pile of materials needed (especially deep in russian territory) and, last but not least, given the sabotage and resistance that the deception that russians overan by Whermacht suffered on seeing german attitude brought about. Specially white russians but, at the end, all russians.
But, as I say, not only this, but also the fact that Germany was not able, at the time Barbarossa began, to sustain a multi-front war. Neither the war production machine was ready for that effort, nor the men were numerous enough/trained enough to achieve such an enormous task.
Finally, Blitzkieg in Russia is questionable at that time. The scale is too big, the vehicles' range was too short. The pockets left behind too big to be ignored as a threat... Again, the logistics were crucial, and were not, at all, solved. Even if Hitler could made sound tactic decissions, and strategics were perfect, I think It would fail nonetheless. Germany lacked the critical mass to achieve their final goals, especially divided in a multi-front war.
All in all, Barbarossa would be a very difficult task with a fully mechanized army, with better preparation, with an adequate intelligence about opposing forces, and with Germany's back safe. As it took place, It was an impossible one. History tells so.
Cheers,
Pepe.
-
I have read in several different books that many Russian's welcomed the Germans as liberators, also that the russian troops early in the war was a first class fighter, later becoming a first class soldier as well. Early they were armed with quite inferior equipment later with superior arms.
In discussions about Barbarossa 40 years ago, (I started wargaming in 1956) the debates always focused on the idea of each invading unit having a cadre to arm and incorporate Russians into the Wermacht, would it have made a difference? (It worked for Rome (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif))
Finally in answer to my own question poised above .... I believe the world would view Hitler as a Kennedy type figure, Who did much good and died to soon.
Just my opinion I could be wrong (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
OhNooo
smile awhile
[This message has been edited by MrBill (edited 04-04-2001).]