NationStates Jolt Archive

.

And it's a German film! The title of the movie is: The Downfall.

Read about it at the British "Daily Telegraph" website:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/24/wadolf24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/24/ixworld.html

It couldn't come soon enough. Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

The times they really are a changing. :)

ANd he was gayer than Liberace. I always thought that salute was a clue. ;)

I see nothing wrong with doing so...

Of course, there WILL be ALOT of protest against this film....

Going by what I've been taught in history class and seen in the media as opposed to what I read in Mein Kampf, it is not fair to show him purely as an evil dictator who had nothing good about him...

Hitler was also a paranoid schizophrenic, A quarter Jewish, (just so you know), and also a sexual deviant.
He liked to be dominated by women, and was into "golden showers".

He was a failure in every aspect of his life, from his early childhood, up until his death.


How could you possibly admire that human turd?

Hitler was a prophet, a messiah,....... a mass murdering, paranoid, homosexual psychopath. What's not to sympathize with?

Hitler was also a paranoid schizophrenic, A quarter Jewish, (just so you know), and also a sexual deviant.
He liked to be dominated by women, and was into "golden showers".

He was a failure in every aspect of his life, from his early childhood, up until his death.


How could you possibly admire that human turd?

COme on. Just because he screwed up everything he ever tried to do and died a coward's death is no reason to.... oh, maybe it is. *shrug* Oh well.

a mass murdering, paranoid, homosexual psychopath. What's not to sympathize with?

Are you using homosexual as an insult? Cause that's harsh. Not as harsh as that asshole Hitler, though.

And it's a German film! The title of the movie is: The Downfall.

Read about it at the British "Daily Telegraph" website:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/24/wadolf24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/24/ixworld.html

It couldn't come soon enough. Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

The times they really are a changing. :)

Yes, and claiming that only people born in a certain country are superior to all rest, claiming everyone was out to get him, invading half the world in a war where millions of lives were lost, overthrowing a government system that elected him, is certainly some of his "prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived" traits. Not to mention the famous Holocaust, paranoia, and insanity.

Wasn't there a different movie about Hitler's last weeks? I can remember watching it on History Television.

About time we got a balanced picture without all this Jewish fed crap from hebrewood.

Dear Adolph,


Sex<---------------------------------------------------------->human waste.

Nary shall the two e'er meet.

Signed,

God.


P.S Stop being such a sick little monkey.

whens the movie being released in the U.S.?

About time we got a balanced picture without all this Jewish fed crap from hebrewood.


You are the same person as the original poster.

About time we got a balanced picture without all this Jewish fed crap from hebrewood.
And those 6 million jews just killed themselves. Fight the stupid fight brother.

I always like stirring up controversy. But actually, until 1942, Hitler was the most successful dictator since Napoleon. He put his trust in the German High Command and in particular in Guderian. Blitzkrieg. Ever hear about it? Germany conquered France in 44 days, with very few combat mortalities.
Compare this to what happened when Germany tried to conquer France in WW1.

If the invasion of Russia had been successful - if Stalingrad had fallen etc - Germany would have ruled supreme in Europe. After the setbacks in Russia Hitler took more control over the military and yes, he didn't make the right decisions. But he was closer than Napoleon ever was to the complete military control of Europe. So the idea that he "screwed up everything he ever tried to do" is not really valid. He accomplished almost everything he tried to do, but, sad to say, failed at the final hurdle. BUT... no one is perfect!

For fascists like me the abiding memory is one of admiration. He did the best he could, and while it lasted it was marvellous, an inspiration. :)



...and utterly futile.

I always like stirring up controversy. But actually, until 1942, Hitler was the most successful dictator since Napoleon. He put his trust in the German High Command and in particular in Guderian. Blitzkrieg. Ever hear about it? Germany conquered France in 44 days, with very few combat mortalities.
Compare this to what happened when Germany tried to conquer France in WW1.

If the invasion of Russia had been successful - if Stalingrad had fallen etc - Germany would have ruled supreme in Europe. After the setbacks in Russia Hitler took more control over the military and yes, he didn't make the right decisions. But he was closer than Napoleon ever was to the complete military control of Europe. So the idea that he "screwed up everything he ever tried to do" is not really valid. He accomplished almost everything he tried to do, but, sad to say, failed at the final hurdle. BUT... no one is perfect!

For fascists like me the abiding memory is one of admiration. He did the best he could, and while it lasted it was marvellous, an inspiration. :)

If Hitler wouldn't have been completely ignorant of strategy and not attack Russia (or even let his generals do what they could) he might have pushed off losing. His stupidity lead to the downfall of the Reich, nothing more.

I always like stirring up controversy. But actually, until 1942, Hitler was the most successful dictator since Napoleon. He put his trust in the German High Command and in particular in Guderian. Blitzkrieg. Ever hear about it? Germany conquered France in 44 days, with very few combat mortalities.
Compare this to what happened when Germany tried to conquer France in WW1.

If the invasion of Russia had been successful - if Stalingrad had fallen etc - Germany would have ruled supreme in Europe. After the setbacks in Russia Hitler took more control over the military and yes, he didn't make the right decisions. But he was closer than Napoleon ever was to the complete military control of Europe. So the idea that he "screwed up everything he ever tried to do" is not really valid. He accomplished almost everything he tried to do, but, sad to say, failed at the final hurdle. BUT... no one is perfect!

For fascists like me the abiding memory is one of admiration. He did the best he could, and while it lasted it was marvellous, an inspiration. :)

Oh, please. Hitler had excellent generals. He couldn't plan a decent party. Napoleon was a thousand times the strategist that Hitler was. And I don't worship Napoleon because he was a demented little twerp too.

I always like stirring up controversy. But actually, until 1942, Hitler was the most successful dictator since Napoleon. He put his trust in the German High Command and in particular in Guderian. Blitzkrieg. Ever hear about it? Germany conquered France in 44 days, with very few combat mortalities.
Compare this to what happened when Germany tried to conquer France in WW1.

If the invasion of Russia had been successful - if Stalingrad had fallen etc - Germany would have ruled supreme in Europe. After the setbacks in Russia Hitler took more control over the military and yes, he didn't make the right decisions. But he was closer than Napoleon ever was to the complete military control of Europe. So the idea that he "screwed up everything he ever tried to do" is not really valid. He accomplished almost everything he tried to do, but, sad to say, failed at the final hurdle. BUT... no one is perfect!

For fascists like me the abiding memory is one of admiration. He did the best he could, and while it lasted it was marvellous, an inspiration. :)

I agree in many ways actually. I believe in alot of fascist ideals, although I hesitate to call myself a fascist (since I'm not totally).

If what he wrote in Mein Kampf is to be believed as what he himself truly believed, he was a far greater leader than most historical figures, if only he wasn't so misguided in his beliefs about the source of Germany's downfall.

Hitler was also a paranoid schizophrenic, A quarter Jewish, (just so you know), and also a sexual deviant.
He liked to be dominated by women, and was into "golden showers".

He was a failure in every aspect of his life, from his early childhood, up until his death.


How could you possibly admire that human turd?

Proof? The quater Jewish part is fine, as I knew that. The rest I'd like you to prove, as paranoid schizophrenic is speculation as far as I'm concerned (until I see otherwise), and the stuff about sexual things he was into? Where did you read that? Some tabloid?

And he was far more successful in many aspects of life than you will probably ever be. Leader of a country. (Whether he was a good leader is totally irrelevant, the fact of the matter is, becoming the supreme leader of an entire nation is far above what you're likely to accomplish)

Heres just one from Google.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1582340080/103-6302880-5333412?v=glance

There were many...

as far as Hitler acomplishing more than I ever will.....

Good.

On the other hand.....history will not remember me as a loser, and a pedophile, and a mass murderer.

This new film intrigues me. It is portraying the most infamous man of recent history in a possitive light. But is that a possitive light relative to how he more often seen, or is it portraying him as a saint?

Either way you look at Hitler, he does deserve some admiration for his rise to power. That was nothing short of the work of a true genius; albeit a mad one. I have read Mein Kampf, and looking at it from a purely scientific point of view it trully outines the subtle workings of a man who knows how to talk to people. Hitler could probably be called the greatest orator of the 20th Century, he could address a crowd of millions, but make every one of them feel like he was speaking to them personally. He could even convince the most intelligent doubter of his ways to see his light. It cannot be denied that Hitler was a genius, but he was cruel and ruthless; and in the end, too impatient with military strategy, which is what brought about his downfall.

If this film is released in the US, I will go see it. Whether you agree with it or not in its portrayal Hitler, I think we should all open our minds to alternative points of view.

I'd say that attacking Russia was not the biggest mistake he made. The biggest mistake was declaring war on the US. "Fortress Europe" would have stood without American intervention. The German forces - with the elite SS divisions - Das Reich, Leibstandarte etc not split between two fronts - could have exhausted the Russians long enough for at least a draw. Then the Germans could have regrouped and annihilated communism forever. What a better world we would have.

Most definately. He wouldnt of needed over 60 divisions in the West if the U.S. wasn't in the war. And an extra 300 thousand soldiers in the east would of seriously helped stopped the russian advance. Considering that the russians were losing 10(if not more) men for every german killed. Hitler if he allowed his generals to do what they wanted would of been able to exhaust russian manpower.

You don't give the Russians enough credit. Hitler's biggest mistake was truly the betrayal of Comrade Stalin. The war between Germany and Russia was the most brutal war in the history of humankind. Hitler had even made it a personal goal to crush Stalin, but Stalin proved stronger then Hitler. Who reached Berlin first? Stalin! Who ended up with half of Europe after World War II? Stalin!

Glorious Comrade Stalin will always be superior to Hitler.

Hail Stalin!!

You don't give the Russians enough credit. Hitler's biggest mistake was truly the betrayal of Comrade Stalin. The war between Germany and Russia was the most brutal war in the history of humankind. Hitler had even made it a personal goal to crush Stalin, but Stalin proved stronger then Hitler. Who reached Berlin first? Stalin! Who ended up with half of Europe after World War II? Stalin!

Glorious Comrade Stalin will always be superior to Hitler.

Hail Stalin!!

Eisenhower let Stalin reach Berlin first. Considering the Russians took nearly a million casulities in just taking Berlin it was better for the allies to let the russians take berlin.

Most definately. He wouldnt of needed over 60 divisions in the West if the U.S. wasn't in the war. And an extra 300 thousand soldiers in the east would of seriously helped stopped the russian advance. Considering that the russians were losing 10(if not more) men for every german killed. Hitler if he allowed his generals to do what they wanted would of been able to exhaust russian manpower.

Correction of your history:
The Russian Army did not defeat the Germans. It was the Russian Winter that did it for them. Just like it did to Napoleon's Grand Army about 130 years before.

WARNING: EXTRANEOUS HISTORICAL RANT COMMENCING:

The Nazis still could have won, even on two fronts, if they had:
1) Secured supply lines into Russia, the retreating Russian Army destroyed everything behind them so the Germans couldn't get it. If the Nazis hadn't insisted on the Blitzkrieg tactic into Russia and advanced slowly but surely, the Russians wouldn't have stood a chance.

2) To win on the Western Front, Hitler needed only to secure the Atlantic Wall at Normandy like Rommel Had advised. Rommel toured the Atlantic Wall and was satisfied for the most part, except at Normandy, where he suggested at least a doubling of defenses should be placed. If Hitler had heeded that, the invasion on June 6, 1944, D-Day, would have been stopped dead at the beaches. Yes, even with American help.

3) As many have noted before, if Hitler wanted to win, he should have let his generals develop the military stratgey. He had spent much of his early life trying to become an artist and a poet; hardly the credentials for someone to run a military campaign.

Genocide and conquering aside, I think Hitler was a fantastic leader. Germany thrived under his leadership, militarily, economically, and culturally. Most German households had automobiles during his reign of peace and building, if I'm not mistaken, and everyone but the Jews prospered mightily under him. He grabbed the reins of a recently defeated, depression ravaged nation and took it from the ashes of bitter defeat to the glorious brink of total domination. There has to be something said for that.

Power corrupts, though. Especially when you're ordering the extermination of an entire race, waging the greatest war the world had ever seen, and eating hundreds of sugary pastries every day. In the end I think the power, pressure, and from a few accounts I've heard, drugs, drove him mad.

I dunno about the world being a better place if Hitler would have won, but I will say that I think Europe would have been a better place if he had stuck to governing Germany into super-power status, ignoring the Jews, pruning his lil' moustache and screwing his neice, rather than looking with hungry eyes to other lands and murdering millions...

You're a fascist pig, Pants.

Mebbe, but I'm also incredibly sexy.

Winston Churchill is responsible for the Allied win. He organised British intelligence and got the U.S. involved.

By the way, Hitler declared war on the U.S. because he thought we would declare war on him. Roosevelt & co. planted intelligence in the hands of pro-Germany Senator Wheeler, who made public the plans for a massive invasion of Europe. Hitler made no mistake, based on his information.

Eisenhower didn't just "let" Stalin take Berlin. If this was the case then Stalin would have never rushed to reach Berlin. He would have taken his time and had the war draw out even longer. The Americans wanted Berlin, but they weren't as strong-willed as Comrade Stalin.

Also, it does not matter how many casualties were sustained. The point is, Stalin captured the Nazi capital first.

Correction of your history:
The Russian Army did not defeat the Germans. It was the Russian Winter that did it for them. Just like it did to Napoleon's Grand Army about 130 years before.

WARNING: EXTRANEOUS HISTORICAL RANT COMMENCING:

The Nazis still could have won, even on two fronts, if they had:
1) Secured supply lines into Russia, the retreating Russian Army destroyed everything behind them so the Germans couldn't get it. If the Nazis hadn't insisted on the Blitzkrieg tactic into Russia and advanced slowly but surely, the Russians wouldn't have stood a chance.

2) To win on the Western Front, Hitler needed only to secure the Atlantic Wall at Normandy like Rommel Had advised. Rommel toured the Atlantic Wall and was satisfied for the most part, except at Normandy, where he suggested at least a doubling of defenses should be placed. If Hitler had heeded that, the invasion on June 6, 1944, D-Day, would have been stopped dead at the beaches. Yes, even with American help.

3) As many have noted before, if Hitler wanted to win, he should have let his generals develop the military stratgey. He had spent much of his early life trying to become an artist and a poet; hardly the credentials for someone to run a military campaign.

definately.

The part I find amazing with the whole russian supplyline issue is after the German advance was halted the Russian winter was killing off thousands of Germans Hitler insisted on diverting deseperately needed railcars that could of been used to bring supplies closer to the front and used them to bring Jews to concentration camps.

Eisenhower didn't just "let" Stalin take Berlin. If this was the case then Stalin would have never rushed to reach Berlin. He would have taken his time and had the war draw out even longer. The Americans wanted Berlin, but they weren't as strong-willed as Comrade Stalin.

Also, it does not matter how many casualties were sustained. The point is, Stalin captured the Nazi capital first.


Thats not military genuis...

Thats just a willingness to throw wave after wave of your own people at the enemy, until all of his guys are gone.

Yeah...that Stalin was a great guy.

Eisenhower didn't just "let" Stalin take Berlin. If this was the case then Stalin would have never rushed to reach Berlin. He would have taken his time and had the war draw out even longer. The Americans wanted Berlin, but they weren't as strong-willed as Comrade Stalin.

Also, it does not matter how many casualties were sustained. The point is, Stalin captured the Nazi capital first.


The allies wanted the Russians to take Berlin so they didnt have to engange in heavy street to street fighting with thousands of fanatical german defenders.

Correction of your history:
The Russian Army did not defeat the Germans. It was the Russian Winter that did it for them. Just like it did to Napoleon's Grand Army about 130 years before.

WARNING: EXTRANEOUS HISTORICAL RANT COMMENCING:

The Nazis still could have won, even on two fronts, if they had:
1) Secured supply lines into Russia, the retreating Russian Army destroyed everything behind them so the Germans couldn't get it. If the Nazis hadn't insisted on the Blitzkrieg tactic into Russia and advanced slowly but surely, the Russians wouldn't have stood a chance.



It always comes back to the Russian Winter. Although the Russian Winter did play a part, it is not the ONLY part that enabled the Russians victory. The Germans used the Bltizkrieg tactic because they wanted a quick, decisive win against the Russians. They wanted them out of the way. The Blitzkrieg was very effective but not effective enough. Russia's vast size and the will of the Red Army to fight to the bitter end stopped Hitler's advance at Stalingrad (which, by the way, was the first major Allied victory of WW2). In reality, due to Soviet mass industry and its conscription, Germany would have never been capable of defeating Russia.

and a pervert, and a mass mudererer, and a paranoid schizophrenic, and a pedophile...

and most importantly....

A Loser.

It always comes back to the Russian Winter. Although the Russian Winter did play a part, it is not the ONLY part that enabled the Russians victory. The Germans used the Bltizkrieg tactic because they wanted a quick, decisive win against the Russians. They wanted them out of the way. The Blitzkrieg was very effective but not effective enough. Russia's vast size and the will of the Red Army to fight to the bitter end stopped Hitler's advance at Stalingrad (which, by the way, was the first major Allied victory of WW2). In reality, due to Soviet mass industry and its conscription, Germany would have never been capable of defeating Russia.

The only reason russian industry was able to operate was because of the massive lend lease program given to them by the U.S. the U.S. provided the Russians with almost all there trucks, a good deal of railcars, not to mention medicine, food and clothing. Without that Germany would of been able to just exhaust the russians as Stalin sacrificed millions of Russians into German lines. Germany would of still taken alot of casulities just because of the sheer number of men but would of been able to hold out if it wasn't for lend lease.

And it's a German film! The title of the movie is: The Downfall.

Read about it at the British "Daily Telegraph" website:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/24/wadolf24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/24/ixworld.html

It couldn't come soon enough. Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

The times they really are a changing. :)

Just thought I'd point out that there can only be ONE messiah. :rolleyes:

About time we got a balanced picture without all this Jewish fed crap from hebrewood.

And yet, if the Jews were allegedly so powerful, wouldn't this movie have been crushed in pre-production?

Genocide and conquering aside, I think Hitler was a fantastic leader. Germany thrived under his leadership, militarily, economically, and culturally.

Culturally? Hitler purged German culture of anything he didn't like. How was that "thriving"? What cultural innovations or developments happened during the Reich?

Most German households had automobiles during his reign of peace and building, if I'm not mistaken, and everyone but the Jews prospered mightily under him.

More like everyone except the Jews, Gypsies, Poles, Slavs, and anyone that disagreed with him (this included some Christians, as well as political opponents, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc...). Hard to "prosper" when you're in a camp or being forcibly sterilized or deemed "sub-human".

He grabbed the reins of a recently defeated, depression ravaged nation and took it from the ashes of bitter defeat to the glorious brink of total domination. There has to be something said for that.

It's all about your POV. As a Jew, I find myself incapable of looking at Germany during this period from any perspective other than the bottom rungs.

If you were an Aryan and didn't speak up, I guess life was ok. If you were on the Nazis' bad side...

You were shit.

Even from the Aryans' POV, it doesn't seem like Nazi Germany would be a very nice place to live. That whole "living in constant fear of being killed if you disagree with the government/want to read banned books/like 'degenerate art' " thing. Just a little oppressive for my tastes.

Are you using homosexual as an insult? Cause that's harsh. Not as harsh as that asshole Hitler, though.I just threw that in to yank this neo-nazi's chain, most of these racists are homophobes too. He was actually more of a sexual deviant than a true homosexual.

a mass murdering, paranoid, homosexual psychopath. What's not to sympathize with?

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but weren't the homosexual rumours basically debunked a few years ago as they found out the groups that had been funding all this 'research' were all Zionist groups and things like the JDL? - Plus no one really believed them in the first place anyway - After all, all of the people close to Hitler laughed when they heard that in interviews.

And plus - When he went to arrest Ernst Rohm in a hotel, he barged into a room were two men of Rohm's SA Bodyguard were in bed together. And he said:

"You pigs! You should be shot!"

Those rumours are a joke.

Though I'm no Hitlerite, I for one cannot wait to see this movie. It sounds really interesting, and I think it would be worthwhile to check out.

I see nothing wrong with doing so...

Of course, there WILL be ALOT of protest against this film....

Going by what I've been taught in history class and seen in the media as opposed to what I read in Mein Kampf, it is not fair to show him purely as an evil dictator who had nothing good about him...

Oh he THOUGHT what he was doing was right.
And he thought of himself as being an essentially good person.
He was more mad than evil.

Even so, he should not be forgiven the crimes he performed against other humans.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, but weren't the homosexual rumours basically debunked a few years ago as they found out the groups that had been funding all this 'research' were all Zionist groups and things like the JDL? - Plus no one really believed them in the first place anyway - After all, all of the people close to Hitler laughed when they heard that in interviews.

And plus - When he went to arrest Ernst Rohm in a hotel, he barged into a room were two men of Rohm's SA Bodyguard were in bed together. And he said:

"You pigs! You should be shot!"

Those rumours are a joke.

Well, first, just because something might have been funded by Zionists and the JDL (is that actually true? Doesn't sound like something they would spend money on) wouldn't necessarily be enough evidence to dismiss it out of hand.

Second, a quick Google search reveals that the "Homosexual Hitler" issue is far from debunked:

http://www.insightmag.com/main.cfm/include/detail/storyid/174917.html

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=80&story_id=1367 (more critical, but not a "debunking", per se)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,564899,00.html

http://www.welchreport.com/comment2.cfm?rank_cho=187 (obviously biased, but quotes potentially accurate data)

http://users.cybercity.dk/~dko12530/homo_hitler.htm

So maybe Hitler was bi-sexual, but some sinister Freudian theories are launched somehow connecting the evilness of the man with his homosexuality. This spin-doctoring will play well to a lesser educated Christian audience, just wait and see.

Sadly, this seems to have been prophetically accurate. Books such as "The Pink Swastika" attempt to draw direct lines between Hitler's alleged himosexuality and the attrocities he and his followers carried out.

The bottom line, as far as I'm concerned, is that it doesn't matter who Hitler had sex with. He was, in my estimation, a loathsome excuse for a human being, regardless of where he put his genitalia.

It couldn't come soon enough. Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

The times they really are a changing. :)

It's actually been a couple of days since I *had* to call out the STFU Sword Strike
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Sword_Strike_Gundam-01.gif
STFU!!

And it's a German film! The title of the movie is: The Downfall.

Read about it at the British "Daily Telegraph" website:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/24/wadolf24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/24/ixworld.html

It couldn't come soon enough. Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

The times they really are a changing. :)

Well good for Hitler. I can see him smiling in his grave right now. Oh wait, he doesn't have one, nevermind.

Seriously, what do you want em to do with that? So fine, a movie that sympathizes Hitler. Great! What do I care?!
He didn't died to make the world a better place.

He committed suicide, because he got his gas bill :D
Ah, you won't understand, I guess.

Hitler was also a paranoid schizophrenic, A quarter Jewish
Was he? :confused: I heard this alot. But noone ever backed up this claim.

the will of the Red Army to fight to the bitter end.
There was something bout this on Discovery last week. Something bout punishing battalions. Who were send to the battlefields and the soldiers homes to keep the Red Army troops "motivated".

People often forget the good that Hitler did, he built up the Germany's economy by encouraging business. He also constructed many public works, put the people back to work, overhauled and rebuilt it's military. Started some of the first civilian airports. All these things installed feelings of pride for Germany and it's citizens. There are those that say that had Hitler died before the second world war, the Germans would in all likelyhood have considered him a saint.

People often blame everything on Hitler as well. I do not think this is quite fair. It was the Treaty of Versielles that sowed the seeds and created the whole mess in the first place. Also, the whole Hitler/nazi/anti-semetic thing may have not been pre-planned, but rather an effect of "historical momentum" - one thing may have just let to another, getting out of hand and to big for a single individual to handle.

There are those that say that had Hitler died before the second world war, the Germans would in all likelyhood have considered him a saint.
The US probably would have given him a Congressional Medal of Honor for taking care of the Communist threat.

It's funny how Fascists try to grasp at every straw to validate their misguided beliefs.

It's funny how Facists try to grasp at every straw to validate their misguided beliefs.
Who? Where?

People often forget the good that Hitler did, he built up the Germany's economy by encouraging business. He also constructed many public works, put the people back to work, overhauled and rebuilt it's military. Started some of the first civilian airports. All these things installed feelings of pride for Germany and it's citizens. There are those that say that had Hitler died before the second world war, the Germans would in all likelyhood have considered him a saint.

People often blame everything on Hitler as well. I do not think this is quite fair. It was the Treaty of Versielles that sowed the seeds and created the whole mess in the first place. Also, the whole Hitler/nazi/anti-semetic thing may have not been pre-planned, but rather an effect of "historical momentum" - one thing may have just let to another, getting out of hand and to big for a single individual to handle.
It doesn't make any difference. Hitler was responsible for so many horrible things that helping few old ladies across the street in his youth doesn't quite make up for what he did later.

It's the same thing with teenagers. They're all cuddly and adorable as children, but they all end up evil and just-asking-to-get-shot.

It doesn't make any difference. Hitler was responsible for so many horrible things that helping few old ladies across the street in his youth quite don't cover what he did after.

It's the same thing with teenagers. They're all cuddly and adorable as children, but they all end up evil and just-asking-to-get-shot.

Does it know? Well, what if you lived in pre world war II Germany during the depression? You know, when it took a wheelbarrel ful of marks just to by a loaf of bread? When you and you nieghbors were all suffering from malnutrition? When you were always starving? When there seemed to be no end or hope in site? Then all of a sudden, someone named Hitler comes around and promises all these wonderful things - and delivers! Well I don't know about you, but I would be thankful, to say the least. He did do a great deal of good for Germany!

I think that qualifies as far more than "helping a few old ladies across the street" downplay routine you spew up.

Does it know? Well, what if you lived in pre world war II Germany during the depression? You know, when it took a wheelbarrel ful of marks just to by a loaf of bread? When you and you nieghbors were all suffering from malnutrition? When you were always starving? When there seemed to be no end or hope in site? Then all of a sudden, someone named Hitler comes around and promises all these wonderful things - and delivers! Well I don't know about you, but I would be thankful, to say the least. He did do a great deal of good for Germany!

I think that qualifies as far more than "helping a few old ladies across the street" downplay routine you spew up.

Yeah, he had the opportunity to become a great man, but he wasted it on fantasy. Living space.....ironic since the birthrate in Germany is so low now. I saw a documentary a few weeks ago that showed many villages that are uninhabited there now because of the low birth rate. Labensborn (sp) might help that out. ;)

Does it know? Well, what if you lived in pre world war II Germany during the depression? You know, when it took a wheelbarrel ful of marks just to by a loaf of bread? When you and you nieghbors were all suffering from malnutrition? When you were always starving? When there seemed to be no end or hope in site? Then all of a sudden, someone named Hitler comes around and promises all these wonderful things - and delivers! Well I don't know about you, but I would be thankful, to say the least. He did do a great deal of good for Germany!

I think that qualifies as far more than "helping a few old ladies across the street" downplay routine you spew up.
Okay. Things were better for some people (a majority, I'll admit) in the 1930's in Germany, but things definitely didn't improve for the German Jews. It still doesn't make Hitler any less of a monster.

Nobody's claiming that Hitler was an idiot, cause no idiot could have really acchieved what he did. When you compare Hitler's good deeds with his bad deeds he's still off the scale on the bad end.

Okay. Things were better for some people (a majority, I'll admit) in the 1930's in Germany, but things definitely didn't improve for the German Jews. It still doesn't make Hitler any less of a monster.

Nobody's claiming that Hitler was an idiot, cause no idiot could have really acchieved what he did. When you compare Hitler's good deeds with his bad deeds he's still off the scale on the bad end.

For the vast majority yes. I think the total jewish population only accounted for about .005% of the population at the time. Also of note, Hitler and the Nazi party originally wanted to DEPORT the jews rather than exterminate them. However, only one country, the USA, excepted some deporties. And even the USA only excepted about ten to fifteen thousand jews per annum.

Really makes you think, does it not?...

Furthermore, I didn't think you (or anyone else) thought Hitler was an idiot. He was, in my opinion a political genius. However, toward the end he suffered from a mental condition (Alzhiemers?), possibly more than one such condition.

For the vast majority yes. I think the total jewish population only accounted for about .005% of the population at the time. Also of note, Hitler and the Nazi party originally wanted to DEPORT the jews rather than exterminate them. However, only one country, the USA, excepted some deporties. And even the USA only excepted about ten to fifteen thousand jews per annum.

Really makes you think, does it not?...
First. Many countries today limit the number of people they allow into their country, which has nothing to do with the discussion here.

Second. Killing millions of Jews was still one of the most horrible acts humans do to each other, even if the thinking went: "Well, I guess we can't deport them. I suggest we kill them, unless anyone else comes up with any new suggestions."

Last, but not the least. I'm pretty sure the Jewish population was a lot more than 0.005% of the German population, and even if it had been so small, it still sucks to start harassing one group because of their religion.

Actually, Germany had 565,000 Jews prior to the Holocaust (http://www.ujfhc.net/1-2.html) or approximatelty 0.75 percent of the population.(http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005276)

The USA, Britain, and other countries forbade Jews to immigrate. (and the Jews' homeland, Israel/Palestine, was controlled by the British, who only allowed a number of Jews to immigrate there (see movie Exodus, or the book)

Anyhow, Hilter certainly was one of this millienium's great orator, along with Osama Bin Laden. He was in many ways an excellant leader, for although he failed in some areas, he killed over 6 million Jews and others whom he disliked too. Great for him, horrible for the world.

I don't think this film seeks to sympathise with Hitler, merely to present an honest impression of what his last 12 days were like as opposed to the standard portrayal of Hitler as a shouting, ranting meglomaniac. From all accounts, he was genuinely soft-spoken in private, and he must have had a softer side. That isn't trying to make him into a good guy, just a human being.

As for WW2: Stalingrad was a stupid mistake. Hitler should have taken Moscow first before diverting forces down to Stalingrad. By dividing his forces, he made himself vulnerable and allowed the Soviets to counter-attack.

Hitler should never have attacked the Soviet Union when he did. He should have defeated Britain first. If he had done so, it wouldn't have mattered that he declared war on the US, because without Britain the US would have had nowhere from which to launch a practical invasion of Europe and so he would have been able to concentrate his forces on defeating the USSR.

Personally, I've long been of the opinion that if you let everyone have their say, what happens with the people that are mad, abhorrent, malicious, or otherwise not so great is that their madness, abhorrence, maliciousness, or not-so-greatness is exposed, and they get more opponents than converts.

Look at the Unabomber -- all he wanted was some newspaper to publish his manifesto. Finally, someone did. Not only did practically everyone recognize the guy was SEVERAL bubbles off plumb, his brother recognized a couple of his particular turns of phrase and realized that's who it was, and turned him in.

Do I disagree with the notion that Hitler was a sympathetic character? Damn skippy. But am I opposed to someone creating a documentary that attempts to paint him in a more flattering light? Nope. To some extent, giving them the forum is giving them enough rope, I've found.

Actually, Germany had 565,000 Jews prior to the Holocaust (http://www.ujfhc.net/1-2.html) or approximatelty 0.75 percent of the population.(http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/article.php?lang=en&ModuleId=10005276)

The USA, Britain, and other countries forbade Jews to immigrate. (and the Jews' homeland, Israel/Palestine, was controlled by the British, who only allowed a number of Jews to immigrate there (see movie Exodus, or the book)

Anyhow, Hilter certainly was one of this millienium's great orator, along with Osama Bin Laden. He was in many ways an excellant leader, for although he failed in some areas, he killed over 6 million Jews and others whom he disliked too. Great for him, horrible for the world.

Exactly my point, the refusal by various other countries to accept jewish immigrants shows that they too were likely anti-semetic. As for the percentage, you'll forgive me if I was off by a decimal place or two. Oh well, [shrugs shoulders] math was never my strong point...

From all accounts, he was genuinely soft-spoken in private
Unless he started talking about politics.

[QUOTE=BackwoodsSquatches]Hitler was also a paranoid schizophrenic, A quarter Jewish, (just so you know), and also a sexual deviant.
He liked to be dominated by women, and was into "golden showers".
QUOTE]


but you must realise, that none of this was ever proven, its all speculation and rumours.

films are always doing that. in the film braveheart william wallace was portrayed as the hero and robert the bruce the backstabber whereas robert the bruce is a scottish hero. eamonn de valera portrayed as a backstabber in the film michael collins. just typical hollywood i guess

Im from Great Britain so im NO Hitler fan but his ability as a politician was fantastic. Yeh he killed millions of innocent people, BUT America are doing it now in Iraq (including killing Brits). He was doing what most World Leaders do - work for the glory of their country (or themselves in some cases). Most European Countires have done it trying to see whos got the best Empire and have killed people to do it. But i agree when we did it it was face to face not them being tired up and gases. But the principals are the same.

exactly, good point. i dont see any post here complaining about napoleon for his attempt at world domination.

i know yeh, and nobody is complaining about the crisis in North Korea with all its nuclear weapons - its suprising how they can threaten Iraq and Sudan etc but not North Korea

Im from Great Britain so im NO Hitler fan but his ability as a politician was fantastic. Yeh he killed millions of innocent people, BUT America are doing it now in Iraq (including killing Brits). He was doing what most World Leaders do - work for the glory of their country (or themselves in some cases). Most European Countires have done it trying to see whos got the best Empire and have killed people to do it. But i agree when we did it it was face to face not them being tired up and gases. But the principals are the same.
Millions dead in gas chambers? Are you delusional? The US isn't doing anything of the sort.

it didnt affect you and it never will so who cares

Hitler was democratically elected, people have me oppressing and murdering jews for 1000s of years, he certainly lead his country to glory (for a while), the pope never objected to the holocaust, he may have died a cowards death (suicide) but had he been caught he probably would have been executed within hours.

None of this means what he did was right or justifyable but to many he was a great man.

I bet in history lessons at school you were never told about hiroshama or how more civilians were killed in one night of allied bombing of berlin than in the entire of the blitz, or that 15 spies including 3 women were executed by firing squad in the tower of london in 1943.

Hitler was an evil man, but does that mean that we cant see a war from the enemies point of view?

I warn you all, this is going to be exceedingly long. I'm a WWII enthusiast and have read entire books specifically about this for fun.

First of all, I despise what Hitler stood for. Genocide was one of his stupid moves as anti-Jewish sentiment on a national scale kinda ruined big pieces of the economy. He was for big business, which was often held by Jewish persons. Don't get me onto that one, I have nothing against the Jews at all, and I am not a Jewish overlord conspirator either. Hitler also did not let his generals do their thing. Bad move, but predictable considering his past career in the military.

However, I respect Hitler in that he did bring Germany out of the Depression faster than any other nation. By 1935, Germany was totally rebuilt and ready to go, as opposed to every other nation that was desperately trying to struggle around. The public works especially helped this out, and gave people work. The German people had been and currently do, enjoy working and producing. People in general like to make things they can be proud of. He gave them the opportunity to own cars, and the Volkswagen Company he started sold my mother her car, which really is nice.

Hitler was the most explosive and powerful speaker I have ever heard. There is something to be admired in that for me, as I am going to be doing a lot of public speaking myself I assume (missionary work). The Party Rallies were a thing of frightening majesty. I am still awed by them to this day for shear numbers and power of the symbols, armored divisions, organization and the music choice. Hitler was a master of the masses, with natural talent, trained by a professional stage worker, and practiced frequently.

I will grant you, Germany was a powder keg for any leader to take up the reigns. Hitler just happened to be incredibly good at what he did.

I will say this however. Hitler's arrogance doomed his troops in Russia. If he'd just sent them winter clothes, they'd have been fine. If he'd treated the local people as peoples liberated, they would have been happy to follow Hitler. Instead, he treated them as conquered people, a bad move. Hitler didn't listen to his generals as the war progressed, again dooming more of his army units. The Germans never developed a heavy bomber like the US did. The United States was brought into the war by Japan. Italy screwed up Hitler in Africa and diverted troops to Greece that would have gone to his Russian campaign because of Mussolini's stupidity. If Japan had tried a land war with Russia, the whole nation could have been taken by the end of 1942. If Germany had crushed Britain before moving on to the USSR, then the Americans would never have had a place to launch their attacks. The Germans never finished work on their nuclear program.

These are just a very FEW errors, each of which could easily have completely turned around the entire war. Hitler was incredible, though arrogant. I could go on for days about how Ernst Roehm and the raid on his hotel room had been carefully planned since the beginning of the SA. I could go on forever of the psychological state of Hitler throughout the war. I could banter to you that Hitler's empire was really a dualistic shambles, and that it's a wonder that it worked at all. I could flip out on all the reasons that despite all of the problems with Germany, the Allies were such stumbling fools for the first three years of the war that I'm surprised they didn't ALL die.

I respect what Hitler accomplished, but it was not all his doing, and I respect little to nothing of what He stood for. He was no messiah, he was no prophet, and his words ring only in our ears because of our shock that he got so far. No one shall ever rise again under the Nazi banner as he did. It is a lost cause, and an evil one. Very rarely can I truly use the word evil, but the mass murder of 11 million people, almost all innocents, is an evil act.

Don't get me started on Stalin. He was much more despicable in his acts than Hitler, with a 20 million person body count.

-R. S. of UC

Oh, and don't get me started on the Allies war attrocities either. Yes, I know the statistics. 120,000 civilians at Hiroshima alone. More in carpet bombing. We had our own concentration camps. We were in general unnice folks.

-R. S. of UC

Okay, I generally avoid these Hitler/Nazi threads, but I'm going to try on this one. Hitler is considered by a great many people to be a monster, and understandably so. But by regarding Hitler AS a monster, over time his actions (and those of the Nazi party), begin to seem...unreal. Like those of a movie villain, or a character from a comic book. We can't relate to that on a personal level, in the same way that we can't possibly relate to massively high numbers of victims of the Holocaust. The scale is just too large for us to digest it all. Horror numbs the senses. What we need is to keep our senses keened.

I think it's important to remember that Hitler and his cronies WEREN'T monsters- rather, that these were the actions of human beings- hateful, hurtful, but unfortunately for us all- human. That's where the horror sinks in for me. I've come to realize that by treating the Nazis as a monstrous aberration, a historical bogeyman, by simply saying that it "can't happen again", we're unconsciously laying the foundations for the NEXT bunch of genocidal goons. Guaranteed, they won't be flying a swastika flag (much to the relief of my Jain buddies), but it's not the trappings that we must concern ourselves with. If we think of Hitler & Co. as monsters, we diminish the obscenity of their actions.

All it takes is an economic downspiral, a charismatic strongman, and a scapegoat. Sound familiar to anyone?

Oh, and don't get me started on the Allies war attrocities either. Yes, I know the statistics. 120,000 civilians at Hiroshima alone. More in carpet bombing. We had our own concentration camps. We were in general unnice folks.

-R. S. of UC

We may have had Concentration Camps (examples being the detention camps for Japanese Americans), but we didn't send people for 'showers' and then gas them. I'm not justifying our camps, but there's a big difference.

Yes there were Allied atrocities. There were atrocities on both sides. It was Total War, these things happen. Its a Human Nature unfortunately. However, with the exception of those committed by the USSR, most Allied atrocities pale in comparison to those committed by the Axis. A particular example to cite is the Japanese treatment of Allied PoWs. The Americans may have interred Japanese citizens unjustly, but at least they didn't work them to death, beat them for leisure, or deliberately let them die of malnutrition.

Don't get me started on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Tragedies yes. Atrocities maybe. Necessary? Definitely. Personally, I'd rather have a couple of hundred thousand dead with 2 A-Bombs, than several million dead (civilians and military) in an invasion. The atom bombs ended the war and saved the lives of millions of Allied soldiers as well as millions of Japanese.

By the way, I'm a military history student. I've also read many many many books on this, and studied it in great depth.

The Americans may have interred Japanese citizens unjustly, but at least they didn't work them to death, beat them for leisure, or deliberately let them die of malnutrition.

I think you mean "American citizens of Japanese descent", mister moral relativist...

A couple of things about The Passion of the Hitler, or whatever this Round 2 of Let's Drum Up Anti-Semitism for No Good Reason...

1. Hitler's stupid arrogance lost the war. The U.S. remembers its generals, including Patton and Eisenhower, who actually got to strategize now and then. Hitler handcuffed his generals and told them how to fight a war because he thought he could do it better. I won't knock the German generals, who were probably Germans first and Nazis second, but let's be honest - if the generals wanted to take Moscow and cripple the USSR, stir up trouble within the Soviet republics, and try to fight the war like good little pragmatists, Hitler should have let them. Hitler fought a war along ideological lines, throwing pragmatism out the window, while Stalin was begrudgingly pragmatic when he had to be. That's why Stalin won.

2. I don't know if Hitler was gay or bi or straight or was attracted to ducks, but a lot of people seem to forget the following: BISEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If Hitler is bisexual, he is therefore not homosexual. This is why people accuse Elton John of being gay when he isn't. Not that I am comparing Elton John, a hell of a talented musician, with Hitler, who should have stuck to painting.

ANd he was gayer than Liberace. I always thought that salute was a clue. ;)
Yea, the gay little hand flip thing? And have you seen the cover of Mein Kampf? He is sitting like a gay dude.

exactly, good point. i dont see any post here complaining about napoleon for his attempt at world domination.
yeah because this is the thread about Hitler (an evil murdering a**hole)
not Napoleon.

Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

You do this for laughs don't you?
I'm on to you, Fascist Ideals... ;)

FI is crazy. I suggest you ignore him. He seriously supports fascism.

Okay, I generally avoid these Hitler/Nazi threads, but I'm going to try on this one. Hitler is considered by a great many people to be a monster, and understandably so. But by regarding Hitler AS a monster, over time his actions (and those of the Nazi party), begin to seem...unreal. Like those of a movie villain, or a character from a comic book. We can't relate to that on a personal level, in the same way that we can't possibly relate to massively high numbers of victims of the Holocaust. The scale is just too large for us to digest it all. Horror numbs the senses. What we need is to keep our senses keened.

I think it's important to remember that Hitler and his cronies WEREN'T monsters- rather, that these were the actions of human beings- hateful, hurtful, but unfortunately for us all- human. That's where the horror sinks in for me. I've come to realize that by treating the Nazis as a monstrous aberration, a historical bogeyman, by simply saying that it "can't happen again", we're unconsciously laying the foundations for the NEXT bunch of genocidal goons. Guaranteed, they won't be flying a swastika flag (much to the relief of my Jain buddies), but it's not the trappings that we must concern ourselves with. If we think of Hitler & Co. as monsters, we diminish the obscenity of their actions.

All it takes is an economic downspiral, a charismatic strongman, and a scapegoat. Sound familiar to anyone?

no they were monsters
and yes, it is possible for us to become monsters too

FI is crazy. I suggest you ignore him. He seriously supports fascism.
No way. I'm on to his warped game. ;)

He pretends to be a nazi just to get a reaction, basic attention-seeking. He's sat there (probably seriously overweight) laughing away at the bollocks he conjours... And - to be fair - so am I! :D

I'm at a loss as to where the.......ahem......."danger" is in portraying Hitler as a human being.

After the rabbi re-write of "Hitler-portrait of Evil" farce last year, I am looking forward to a realistic movie with Hitler in it.

Whatever the result it'll be FAR more realistic than that trash.


What about this article?


A new film which breaks one of the last taboos of German cinema by portraying Hitler in a central role, has premiered in Berlin.
The Downfall, written and produced by Bernd Eichinger, follows Hitler's final days leading up to his suicide.
Rather than showing Hitler as a malicious dictator, it portrays him as a soft-spoken man with a human side.
It has caused controversy in a country still trying to come to terms with the events of World War II.
Dr Rolf Giesen, from the Film Museum in Berlin, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme the film had broken taboos in German cinema.
"It is not the first time that they have shown Adolf Hitler on the screen, but it is certainly the first time that they have tried to discover the human touch in that monster," he said.
"It is aimed at the generation who did not know about the terrors of World War II and national socialism.
"This youth will find it a fascinating insight in to the fatalism of evil.
"We have just seen Mel Gibson's Passion of The Christ, now we have the Passion of Adolf Hitler."
Art historian Isabel Marschall said: "I had very strong emotional reactions to the film. For me it was a little like a nightmare I couldn't get out of.
"I always try to be careful not to feel passion with the wrong person and I was very much aware of my emotions through the film."
Ms Marschall added she believed there was a danger in portraying the human side of Hitler on screen.
"I am pretty sure that there might be some people who are going to use this film in a way that will not necessarily be very positive for Germany," she said.
"But it is a very good film in many ways and it is just the time for this kind of film to come out."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3593608.stm



Think it is more relevant then that of the Daily Telegraph.

After the rabbi re-write of "Hitler-portrait of Evil" farce last year, I am looking forward to a realistic movie with Hitler in it.
Or "Hitler: The rise of evil". All he did in that movie was rant and shout. Always with a burning in his eyes as if he was just escaped from the loony house.

I'm at a loss as to where the.......ahem......."danger" is in portraying Hitler as a human being.

After the rabbi re-write of "Hitler-portrait of Evil" farce last year, I am looking forward to a realistic movie with Hitler in it.

I'm not familiar with that movie, or the re-write you talked about. Could you give us some more info?

I don't think anyone reasonable is BOTHERED that Hitler is gay for itself in so much as that it makes him an even bigger hypocrite than he already is if it's true. Hitler herded all the gay people into camps with the Jews. Forget him MAYBE being a fourth Jewish by blood. If he had even one homosexual thought in his peasized brain, I have even less respect for him than I thought. If he thought gays and Jewish people were so evil and wanted what was truly best for Germany, he'dve exterminated himself. He was a purely selfish man. That said he was also a political genius, which I admit hands down. Much of his rhetoric is truly persuasive. As to him being a schizophrenic...I suppose the case COULD be made, but no one really knows......sociopath is another possibility?? They are truly intelligent and persuasive but without conscience or any sense of ethics. Just a thought.

I'm not familiar with that movie, or the re-write you talked about. Could you give us some more info?


Euh, will go back to the WWII site where I found it and copy it here, will be a preview since the "premiere" is ilate september in Germany (and later in other countries). But as I see it, it is not a pro Nazi fim but more a war movie with a kind of view that a lot of persons don't like. But the film shows us also a lot of the attrocities of the Russians in Germany, the resistance of fanatical Nazi's in the last hours (like the rests of the French W.SS division that defended the bunker as the main troops), the waisted lives of 14 year old Hitlerjugend boys that attacked JSII tanks with a panzerfaust aso...


found it: http://www.de.cineman.ch/search/trailer/

You have to search in the above but:


http://www.german-cinema.de/archive/film_view.php?film_id=1034

it will be know in the USA as

The Downfall: Hitler and the End of the Third Reich

heres a direct link to the movie

http://www.de.cineman.ch/movie/trailer/6044/trailerhigh1.mov

just 1 question, when is the film released in the u.k, this film is supposed to represent hitler as a human being, which, unfortuantly for communists and other organisations, he was.

The movie "Max" starring John Cusack also portrayed Hitler in a sympathetic light.

Hitler was one of the more evil people that walked this planet. He was a murderer, 12 million dead... and just in general a bad guy. Sure, he helped Germany out of the depression, but that is nothing compared to killing 12 million people

The movie "Max" starring John Cusack also portrayed Hitler in a sympathetic light.
It also showed him like he was in Rise of Evil. As if he could snap every second. Always with the look of a fanatic in the eyes. Like he didn't know how to relax even for a moment.

Hitler was one of the more evil people that walked this planet. He was a murderer, 12 million dead... and just in general a bad guy. Sure, he helped Germany out of the depression, but that is nothing compared to killing 12 million people


Wow, we did not know that.. Who? Hitler? Evil?
Please stay on topic, it is about the movie here.

And it's a German film! The title of the movie is: The Downfall.

Read about it at the British "Daily Telegraph" website:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/24/wadolf24.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/24/ixworld.html

It couldn't come soon enough. Hitler was a prophet, a messiah, the greatest man who ever lived. He died to make the world a better place.

The times they really are a changing. :)

More like false prophet and false messiah (aka 2nd Anti-Christ).

As horrible of a person Hitler was, he was a great leader.. We cannot deny that. To the dismay of my highschool socials teacher a few years back, a kid wrote an essay on Hitler when asked to write something on a 'great leader'. That Hitler was. The teacher couldn't deny the essay because it outlined all the characteristics in the cirriculum. However, we cannot say that Hitler's views were very good at all. He did mass murder millions and cause the world to go into another world war. There were both positive and negative results from his ruling and the majority(as do I) usually find that the negative outweigh the positive.

I do find Hitler to be a facinating figure though. I am sure we all can learn from his ruling. As an artist, I find great value in his interest in art prior to his political career. Now, he was a bad person. But shall we deny ourselves a chance to endulge ourselves in a possibly excellent movie? I think the movie is a great opportunity to see it from a different perspective. Everyone sees things differently and so far all we have been told about Hitler in movies and books(unless its from some Nazi or Hitler supporter of some kind) is that he was evil and inhuman. Perhaps this movie will actually offer us some idea how his mind was working at the time, or at least a different view of how it was. This may be our chance to see a movie that possibly can be neutral. Im tired of all the extremists telling us he was one way or the other; 'evil' or 'messiah'. Both certainly are biased and it would be nice to see something that can offer us a different and hopefully original view on his life, or the end of it anyways. We all just have to be open minded. As far as contravercy.. Im sure it will be. But we just have to put up with the protests or whatever goes on and see the movie.