|
| Thread: The Mistakes of Der Führer? |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
TonyJT2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
posted April 24, 2003 11:42 PM |
|
|
Totally my bad
Jeez, you guys know what I am talking about. I know Hitler won elections at the lower level, but he did not win the election of "Supreme World Leader Appointed By The German People To Reign Forever".
C'mon now.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 24, 2003 11:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And its obvious you know your history well, but i dont think you understand the human mind. People has and will problably always be led by strong leaders. And strong leaders usually can get their will through, Hitler could. Hitler was a strong leader and at that time that was exactly what the germans wanted, someone who could lead them some way.
Now that I do partly agree with, they did show leanings towards a return of the Kaiser prior to hitler becuase they were sick of their experiment with democracy. I don't think this meant they wanted a leader who killed 6 million people in gas chambers and dragged them through 6 years of war uneeded though. Wanting a strong leader and a will to trust him 100% are not something that always go hand in hand. They wanted a return to a strong germany, they wanted a return to prosperity. They did NOT want genocide and 6 years of death and destruction and yet another humiliating defeat.
Quote:
But he made the jews scapegoats for what had happend earlier, and step by step he took it further and further. Which at the end stopped at nazi camps.
But at the same time the steps hitler took had been followed before in places such as spain and italy during the middle ages* including the segregation and wearing of distinctive clothing without developing into organised slaughter, there's no way of people knowing for sure that it would have done so with Hitler. Besides this Hitler's move from blame to persecution was done after he seized power and established his control. Any objections people may have had, or thoughts that it was wrong were hardly going to have been able to actually mention them or publicise them in such a climate.
*I can dig up some of the proof for this. The sole difference between that period and Nazi's is simply they never took the slaughter to the same organised way.
Quote:
As for the thing you said about germany vs 3 super powers... well why not? Hitler made them believe. Hitler fulfilled his other promises and he made them believe again. Just look at everything else he accomplished in germany.
Why not? People were'nt stupid! They could see week in week out germans dying on the front and at home, Hitler's increasing inability to do ANY of his promises after 1942 or so, the germans being pushed back on all fronts, the rhetoric of Hitler geting more and more insane and hate driven. Almost ALL of his accomplishments were pre WWII, he himself was not responsible as such for the military sucesses from 1939-1941/42, his generals were. His promises fell apart from mid 1942 onwards. People were aware of this, hence why oppositiion, where it could rose from then onwards. After 2 or 3 years of broken promises and defeats all but the brainwashed were likely to doubt that any future promises could be fufilled.
Quote:
Then if that person says that they can take over the world...why not? he has showed them alot of other things they never thought were possible. He had made them feel good about themselves once again.
Because he didn't take the world over? Because by 1942 he was clearly doomed? He made them feel better prior to WWII, but then proceeded to destroy the "feel-good factor" with 4 years of death, defeat and hardship and did NOTHING that they could see to solve it.
Quote:
And concerning camps, so you got
A) ghettos where all jews just disappears
B) You have crystal nite where all jew stores and churches and stuff got totally destroyed
C) People from other places saying that the jews where they are living just disappeard aswell
D) People telling you that there are camps where jews works to they die basically.
draw your own conclusions, i doubt many germans thought that all jews all of a sudden got taken away by aliens...
A-C were common events during preceeding centuries, no reason to assume they would end in D. D still would have been Rumour, not fact and rumours get you killed in dictatorships. There is some argument for the notion that prior to WWII the germans did have the idea of re-settling the Jews outside of the Reich and europe (namely would you believe madagasscar!), there was even serious talks between the british/french and the reich about the issue. Jews had been deported prior to WWII rather than being killed, and were detained in camps prior to deportation. Some camps like Belsen were mere holding camps were Cholera and other diseases were breeding, so often the locals said they thought the camps were something close to isolation camps. There's enough rumour and doubt to mean that the average german either
A) Wouldn't have cared
B) Did not want to hear and trust the rumours for fear of reprisal
C) Did not believe the rumours because the notion was inhumane and beyond their comprehension and logic.
D) Would not believe rumours from a discredited people anyway in either the poles or the jews.
People would have known and believed what they wanted to believe. The gullable and brainwashed would either be A) or tell themself C) was true. The less gullable would fall into B). All though would be influenced by D, namely that the words of a humiliated and discredited people in the poles or jews counted for little in german minds. They had no reason to believe them.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
TonyjT2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 12:11 AM |
|
|
The real culprit
in this situation wouldve been the European states applying economic sanctions to Germany after the first WW.
This gave Hitler the oppertunity to rally a new generation of Germans to his side.....why should they pay for the previous generations mistakes?
The famous economist of the time, (the name escapes me at the moment!!!ah!!), predicted shortly after the first WW that Germany would rebel.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 12:20 AM |
|
|
That would be france, they pushed for the heaviest reparations post WWI. We wished for lesser payments and were more lenient about the treaty in later years.
Then again America was at the table for Versailles. If they had felt strongly enough it was wrong they surely should have done something to stop it happening. All the allies face the blame for that mess-up.
Quote:
why should they pay for the previous generations mistakes?
That remark I find interesting since the British war debt owed to America from WWII was paid back only recently WITH interest. Britain paid for our generations contribution to fighting hitler for generations after the war ended. And that was to our own allies!!!!
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
TonYJT2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 01:20 AM |
|
|
Yes, PH I agree
thats why I made the statement about such harsh economic sanctions aplied to Germany. I know the US was at the table (though not a major player at the time). I believe the economists name was Keynes....right? He was made famous for his statements about post WW1 Germany and his fortune he made trading currencies.
But remember here, the economic sanctions on Germany after WW1 were by her enemies, Britains was by her ally. Would you rather pay money to someone who holds you down by the throat or the person who knocks that person off your back?
I do not justify any of these means, for in war, not only do civilians suffer, so do the state and stateheads, while when economic sanctions are imposed....only the civilians suffer.
____________
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 02:00 AM |
|
|
hehe just realised that this talking about psychology with you PH aint going very far.
But for the record, i never said that the germans were stupid. They were in a position where they were desperate, people who is desperate can do most things and believe in most things. Unless you realise that there is no need to further discuss that matter IMO 
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 02:07 AM |
|
|
Dunno, not heard of the guy, so I'll assume you're right
Mind you even after WWI's disasterous end, still the British and French failed in their duty to peace by allowing the rise of hitler and not doing more to prevent his meglomaniac ideals that were evident from the start of his reign of terror.
Quote:
Would you rather pay money to someone who holds you down by the throat or the person who knocks that person off your back?
I'd rather not be made to pay it back at all. Debt or not, allies or enemies, our country was forced to repay massive amounts of money (probably dwarfing any marshall plan aid we did recieve) for decades which cannot but have harmed our post war economy and any recovery plans. Other countries in comparison like france had their national reserves of gold shipped to Canada and held in storage for the period of the war, using not one Franc of it before her liberation.
It just feels like we were being made to pay for being dumb enough to have fought on against logical sense in 1940. We held out and bankrupted the country to continue the war. Well into the late war, by 1944 british manpower was spent and yet we still made a serious contribution to both Asia and Europe, Air land and Sea. It just seems unjust that we, unlike others were dumped our own debts for doing what was right........
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 02:29 AM |
|
|
I would have thought it better to point out where you disagree than just make an overall statement like that stiven. You are of the opinion that the wider german public knew and either supported or could not oppose the holocaust.
I don't think they did, and I have offered some reasons why. If you can in some way discredit those reasons then feel free, but until then they are still valid, and therefore still affect the issue at hand, namely did the majority of germans KNOW there was a holocaust, or did they merely SUSPECT there was a holocaust. Without some form of testimony from germans of the time, which would be likely to be laced with untruths because of guilt etc people will never fully know what the public KNEW.
You see your argument that even in 1943 or 1944 the majority of germans still believed hitler their saviour just simply doesn't work. Enough germans were willing and plotting to kill him, the army was turning against him and even the common people could guess things were not exactly rosy. You say he fufilled his promises, but I would say that 2 years of broken promises were making them more than a little weary of his rhetoric and rantings by then.
You want to discuss the minds of germans when you have no clear way of telling what they might have thought, and offer no evidence that what you claim is true other than debatable logic about the natural process from persectution to organised slaughter, and the words of a people who are by nessecity biased against the germans under Hitler. The argument comes down to what either of us think the german people at large thought and reacted at the time, when by necessity this is a generalisation.
So just saying "see the way I put things or stop discussing it" is frankly lame. Whether they were desperate or not, this does not prove they knew the slaughter was occuring. It merely shows they had they known they would have had the capacity to carry on as normal, NOT that they knew.
So no, you cannot use psychology to prove anything more than their ability or otherwise to cope with the knowledge, you need FACTS to prove that they knew, not suspicions based on generalisations.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 01:19 PM |
|
|
in general i guess this is just the difference between you and me then PH, you need everything written on paper. The facts all clear to you...black is black and white is white and those are the only ways things can be. I dont work that way, i believe in things inbetween, i believe in thinking of my own and put what i know on the subject together and from that come to my own conclusions. Not reading some other ones.
And for the record i have been giving reasons for why the germans felt bad and i have an eye witness telling things. But if you wanna judge all that as biased opinions there is not much i can do is there?
Off course i could always start to question every fact you bring up here with that they are either biased or wrong. "Hey, if you havent been there, how would you know"?
Like for example the knowledge of a camp... to me its just common sense that people did know. I mean if all of a sudden all people from a certain race here disappeared after being mistreated for a time... And people were saying that there are camps where the people of that race basically work til they die... After seeing everything what has been going on i would believe that what these people were saying were true, especially if things was like they were in germany at that time. To me that is just common sense to put those things together, while you obviously would either need to see it by yourself or has it written as a "fact" by an "unbiased" person.
And Hitler did earn their trust, as stated he got elected to power. But its kinda obvious then when fighting a war and on the verge of losing it, people do lose faith. But i never said he had their belief all the time either, because its obvious that some people will stop believing when things are going to well anymore. Not to mention when you are on verge of getting invaded. But the facts still remains, he did earn their trust and made them believe. Otherwise the war never would have gotten so far because they would have stopped him.
I would also like to point out that you are totally entitled to your opinion, and i respect that we think different here. But as stated in top of this post, i believe in things to be more relative in you. If you dismiss my arguements as "biased opinions by an eye witness" or the fact that i want to use common sense there is no point for me in continuing. Because neither of us were in WWII so basically no one of the two of us can really tell what was going on. And talking about the camps i have based my answer due to many things.. what ive read, from what ive heard an eye witness tell me "live", what ive seen people say on TV and so on. But if you dismiss that as biased opinions and no good facts...well there is not much i can do, i wasnt there as i said before.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 01:41 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The famous economist of the time, (the name escapes me at the moment!!!ah!!), predicted shortly after the first WW that Germany would rebel.
Keynes
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 01:59 PM |
|
|
Quote:
The facts all clear to you...black is black and white is white and those are the only ways things can be. I dont work that way, i believe in things inbetween, i believe in thinking of my own and put what i know on the subject together and from that come to my own conclusions. Not reading some other ones.
Nice assumption, but wrong. I debated your "common sense" and offered reasons why not. I believe in in-between, but I also believe in the idea of non-generalisation of saying everyone knew these facts. I don't doubt some germans knew, I have said as much, but everyone?
And how exactly have you come to the conclusion I don't think for myself? Because I read other people's books? Because I agree with other people's opinons? I had hoped that prolonged absence would remove your need to continue to judge those people that agree with others as nothing more than "unthinking and unable to produce their own conclusions" apparently I was wrong. So much for progress.
Quote:
Off course i could always start to question every fact you bring up here with that they are either biased or wrong. "Hey, if you havent been there, how would you know"?
You could try, but since many of mine are based on facts and research rather than the word of people you yourself accept could be biased then you'd find it harder. Please try though.
Quote:
I mean if all of a sudden all people from a certain race here disappeared after being mistreated for a time... And people were saying that there are camps where the people of that race basically work til they die...
Could they not have been deported? Why would anyone listen to a person such as a pole or Jew who would not have been considered a worthy eye-witness by the average german? YOU might have believed, but you (like me) are talking from hindsight and the safety of a comfortable life.
Quote:
To me that is just common sense to put those things together, while you obviously would either need to see it by yourself or has it written as a "fact" by an "unbiased" person.
More than one eye-witness would help. Secondly the eye-witnesses there on all sides are unlikely to be unbiased, the germans are unlikely to admit they knew whether they did or did not, so I would not automatically believe them if they said they did NOT know.
Quote:
But i never said he had their belief all the time either, because its obvious that some people will stop believing when things are going to well anymore.
You said earlier they believed in him until germany was invaded. I don't think they did other than die-hard nazis.
Quote:
Otherwise the war never would have gotten so far because they would have stopped him.
Oh please, of course it could have, it's a police/army run state. The people's ability to stop hitler was almost non-existent without army support. Their will to fight on mattered almost no amount if the army wished to.
Quote:
or the fact that i want to use common sense there is no point for me in continuing
I don't deny your right to use common sense. I deny that it IS common sense, not even close to the same thing. I also debated the way you use few facts you offered to draw the conclusions you did, this is not saying your facts are wrong, just that I utterly disagree with the consclusions you draw from them.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
TonYJT2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 04:52 PM |
|
|
PH...
...I said after my statement about paying back that I didn't think it was fair...you tryin to argue with me when I agree with you ....LOL
Anyways, good points, carry on my wayward friend
PS bort, I already posted that it was Keynes before you, so ha!
____________
|
|
Sir_Stiven
Honorable
Legendary Hero
banned
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 05:16 PM |
|
|
And people tell me that im a word twister
anyways, this is obviously getting more personal than productive to the debate in general.
And therefor (as usual) we should agree to disagree here.
I could go "i never said bla bla bla" forever here, thats how it feels. And its no fun spending half my posts explaining that i didnt say bla bla bla its just how you twist it by taking it out of context and make assumptions.
One thing though, i never said that you werent able to think of your own. I meant that you are more reliable to facts and what is a fact and not than i am. You seem to need something written down as a fact to believe it, i dont.
have fun debating
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 25, 2003 06:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I could go "i never said bla bla bla" forever here, thats how it feels. And its no fun spending half my posts explaining that i didnt say bla bla bla its just how you twist it by taking it out of context and make assumptions.
You want to try being specific about what you did mean and where I "twisted the context" then?
Quote:
One thing though, i never said that you werent able to think of your own.
So you don't count the words "i believe in thinking of my own and put what i know on the subject together and from that come to my own conclusions. Not reading some other ones." as an suggestion of inablity to draw independant conclusions then? You directly suggested that because of the different stances I was not of the same mould, drawing independant conclusions, but basing them on others.
You might have tried to seperate the point from your direct comparison between ourselves and how we disagree. To compare two stances and say the above is to indicate that the other does not do the same. You should clarify your points better if you don't wish people to draw a logical link between the two. As you'd put it, it's common board good manners you see
Again I challenge you that if you think my points are irrelevant or innacurate, or up for the accusation of bias then say so specifically about each, otherwise they stand.
And without wanting to get down to a lower level, when you begin to make specific comparisons between people rather than arguments you make the discussion personal, if you cannot then handle criticism of your methods or arguments and wish to stop the debate then fine, but *shrugs* why it's my fault when you're hardly ever specific in your comments is beyond me I guess.
Quote:
You seem to need something written down as a fact to believe it, i dont
Again you're wrong here, there's more to facts than written things. Why you draw this conclusion is beyond me, when I have also offered some views of people involved in the war. I guess I'm just a little less willing to accept the views of eye-witnesses, whether they prove my point or otherwise when they aren't backed by anything but "common sense" and logic that is, as I stated debateable (as always, but there you go).
Views of those involved are important, but when the facts cast doubt on the views then questions need to be raised about the views. You have to combine all of them and determine the likely legitimacy of the argument. It's not that I completely discount the views of any of the poles or jews, but if we're going around taking their accounts in, you really should look into the views and eyewitnesses of the germans and debate them also.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 05:31 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Again I challenge you that if you think my points are irrelevant or innacurate, or up for the accusation of bias then say so specifically about each, otherwise they stand.
And without wanting to get down to a lower level, when you begin to make specific comparisons between people rather than arguments you make the discussion personal, if you cannot then handle criticism of your methods or arguments and wish to stop the debate then fine, but *shrugs* why it's my fault when you're hardly ever specific in your comments is beyond me I guess.
Yes, let's not make this personal. What goes around comes around ,right!?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 01:07 PM |
|
|
Careful, that sounds dangerously too logical to me Wolfman, you'll be accused of personality arguments soon
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 02:46 PM |
|
|
Oh great! Now what to do, what to do.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 03:00 PM |
|
|
Now you have to disagree with me before someone accuses you of not having your own opinion
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 27, 2003 03:19 AM |
|
|
No, I will not have my own opinion! I refuse, I completely disagree with you!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 27, 2003 01:37 PM |
|
|
That's funny, I always thought you did that anyway, no matter what 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
| |
|
|
