NationStates Jolt Archive

Now, before I begin let me state I'm a black, Catholic, with Jewish grandparents. So this is not some Stormfront rant, but instead an interesting observation I've made.

This morning I was trawling Google (http://www.google.com.au) for a quote of the day to use for Rotovia.com (http://www.rotovia.com) and found some quotes by Adolf Hitler.

After reading twenty or so quotes I picked upa theme, Hitler seemed more of a genius than an evil madman. He came up with a way to convince an entire nation to abandon all their individuality and blindly follow his doctrine.

Not since Jesus were so many people past and present bound to the word's of one man... he's like the Anti....Jesus ;) Sorry, got sidetracked with a poorly constructed joke there.

Heres a classic example:
What luck for the rulers that men do not think. - Adolf Hitler

Ps. The title is for effect only. I respect Hitler's ability to rally a crowd, I'm not that hot on the whole Holocaust thing.

He was a very, very, very good public speaker. For sure. But when he assumed power he kinda went nuts. Like invading the USSR and following horoscopes instead of his generals when making military decisions.

First one to invoke Godwin; yes!!!!

I still admire Stalin over Hitler.

Ohhh... Can I be the resident right-wing commentator on your website?

Now, before I begin let me state I'm a black, Catholic, with Jewish grandparents.
That's some mixed bag you got there.

Other than that I don't really have a contribution...

"I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong."

At least he didn't hate Asians...

* "It is through the peasantry that we shall really be able to destroy Christianity, because there is in them a true religion rooted in nature and blood"

* "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of human failure."

* "Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless— A negro with his taboos is crushingly superior to the human being who seriously believes in transubstantiation."

* "Christianity is the worst of the regressions that mankind can ever have undergone, and it is the Jew who, thanks to this diabolic invention, has thrown him back fifteen centuries. The only thing that would be still worse would be victory for the Jew through Bolshevism. If Bolshevism triumphed, mankind would lose the gift of laughter and joy. It would become merely a shapeless mass, doomed to grayness and despair."

* "Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love."

* "It is a great pity that this tendency towards religious thought can find no better outlet than the Jewish pettifoggery of the Old Testament; for a religious Folk who, in the solitude of winter, continually seek ultimate light on their religious problems with the assistance of the Bible, must eventually become spiritually deformed. The wretched Folk strive to extract truths from these Jewish chicaneries, where in fact no truths exist. As a result they become embedded in some rut of thought and, unless they possess an exceptionally commonsense mind, degenerate into religious maniacs."

* "It is Christianity that is the liar. It is in perpetual conflict with itself."

* "It is not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that is left is to prove that in nature there is no frontier between the organic and the inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."

* "It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to reestablish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between the systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. It is not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified— and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little."

* "Pure Christianity— the Christianity of the catacombs— is concerned with translating the Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics."

* "Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith."

* "The Christian religion tries to get out of it by explaining that one must attach a symbolic value to the images of Holy Writ. Any man who made the same claim four hundred years ago would have ended his career at the stake, with an accompaniment of Hosannas. By joining in the game of tolerance, religion has won back ground by comparison with bygone centuries."
o Referring to inconsistancies between scientific and traditional Christian dogma.

* "The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect."

* "The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And that is why they are heading for ruin - for science is bound to win."

* "The priests of antiquity were closer to nature, and they sought modestly for the meaning of things. Instead of that, Christianity promulgates its inconsistent dogmas and imposes them by force."

* "What is this God Who takes pleasure only in seeing men grovel before Him? Try to picture to yourselves the meaning of the following, quite simple story: God creates the conditions for sin. Later on He succeeds, with the help of the Devil, in causing man to sin. Then He employs a virgin to bring into the world a Son who, by His death, will redeem humanity!"

* "When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let us be the only Folk who are immunized against the disease."


Lets go Hitler Hunting! *cocks Cross shaped Shotgun*

OBEY THE GODWIN! It compels you!

Ohhh... Can I be the resident right-wing commentator on your website?
Definately, right now we have three lefties and I would love to have an equal amount of rightists. If you know any conservative, perticually socially, rightists, let me know as well.

What we're doing on the site is picking an issue and all writing a colum on it. I may change the format so one rightists writes alongside one leftist on one issue and then the second pair write on another topic and so on. So every week or so there are new articles.

I'll TG you with more coherant details.

Hitler was the king of getting people on his side. He was the master manipulator of words. However he made serious mistakes and went over his generals in certain situations. IMO if he had not invaded the U.S.S.R. then the Axis would have one World War II. The could have easily blown England off the map after softening her up...however Hitler was being a jackass and decided to invade the soviets.

That's some mixed bag you got there.

Other than that I don't really have a contribution...
I know, the trifecta of minorities. It rocks my socks. ;)

I would be a great Right-Wing Commenter on your site!

Definately, right now we have three lefties and I would love to have an equal amount of rightists. If you know any conservative, perticually socially, rightists, let me know as well.

What we're doing on the site is picking an issue and all writing a colum on it. I may change the format so one rightists writes alongside one leftist on one issue and then the second pair write on another topic and so on. So every week or so there are new articles.

I'll TG you with more coherant details.

SWEET!

Got some nice resume material.

Before the outbreak of the war, Hitler had Germany at 100% employment, the Germans, previous to the outbreak of war, had one of the most amazing prosperous turn-arounds in their history under his organizing & economic policies.

However, it's very true Stalin is seen as less evil by the politically correct today.... However, what did it take historical leaders previous to modern times to be great leaders, it's very simple; They did good for their people while doing much damage to the enemies of their people, had strictly defined terms of their people/nation and enemy peoples/nations. Charlemagne, Alfred the great, Alexander the great, all ancient leaders this was their terms of success.

Stalin, under his regime, staved his own people, worked his own people to death, and distrusted his closest associates, tried to have abstract definitions of what the enemies of the people were and even what the people were, even though 'the people' were more of something 'universal' to him.

Hitler built up those things which, defined along pretenses that he got the nation to follow him and agree with him on, were seen exclusively as his sphere of 'lordship' over. There wasn't an international sentiment of some universal cause the likes of which current society has instilled in national leaders since.

A leader like Stalin, in ancient times, and except for winning one war, would have been seen as a very inauspicious leader, Hitler however, if looked at by age old standards of peacetime leadership, would have been seen as an extremely prosperous leader. One could assume that the entire mindset of what's right for those in one sphere over those of others would have continued if world war two had pulled in the other direction, and the fabric of moral social judgments would universally differ from what they are today in terms of social responsibility.

Godwin! That's three Godwins, and you're out!!!!

Gee... such a nice guy. :rolleyes:

Actions speak louder than words.

Hitler actually isn't a bad guy if you knew him presonally, he was a good public speaker, but not the best military tactitian, if he didn't invade Russia(U.S.S.R.) he would have won, or if he waited for 5 years until he had the Atombomb.(U.S. didn't try to make the A-Bomb until they found out Germany was trying to make one as well.) I admire his will-power, and his speeches, but killing off one entire race/religion/commmunity of people because they were jewish/christian/muslim/whatever, just sounds, and is mean, and an evil thing. But he still suffered from some maladies, as gas, stomach problems, and some brain stuff(insaniness comes from this).

Mark of Glory: On Wikipedia.com(net, not sure) I wrote about 1/10 of the stuff on hitler, and nazi germany, and WWII, all combined. I'm so proud. :D (I'm a "history geek")

When I saw your title, I nearly had a mental breakdown. Nervy spaz? Anyways, I want to say something about the people we call great leaders of the past, and great leaders of the present.

Was Martin Luther King Junior a great leader? I think so! After all, he practically spearheaded the black rights movements.

Was Alexander the Great a great leader? According to historians, yes. But what did he do? He ran all over Europe and North Africa and killed people going 'Bow to meeee!!! Bow to meeee!!!! Do what I say! Or I'll KILL YOU!'*

But he was brilliant. And he did his own people very well.

So what did Hitler do? He ran across all the German speaking countries, and killed people who he thought of as foreigners. Jews, Blacks, Gypsies. Anyone who wasn't 'Aryan'. I could have been arrested just because of how I look.**

Shana tova by the way.

* Not a direct quote
** I am not an expert on WWII.

As a Fascist I just can't bring myself to respect Hitler for anything more than his ability to speak. Maybe it's because I would have been killed [I'm technically half-aryan as far as the nazis were concerned], maybe it's because he corropted a system I follow and left it as a shell and maybe it's because he ruined a good thing Mussolini had going, but in the end I just can't think of him as anything more than the silly little monkey that Il Duce refered to him as.

After reading twenty or so quotes I picked upa theme, Hitler seemed more of a genius than an evil madman.

He was probably an evil genius.

You have to remember though the times he lived in. Imagine if America had joined a bloody war, lost millions of lives, and then been forced to pay reparations that bankrupted the nation and created over 50% unemployment. Imagine if it were then held down by foreign powers as externally funded Communist insurgents tried to take over the government. I think a lot of Americans would be furious. And anger clouds judgement.

I still admire Stalin over Hitler.

Stalin said one death is a tragedy, but 1 million deaths is a stat, or something like that.

Let the Invasion Begin :mp5: :sniper: :mp5:

well, i do have to say, Hitler was the most 'brilliant idiot' ive ever seen...he was brilliant, but an idiot for trying to achieve world domination through war...If Hitler had used the Schlieffen Plan that was oganized during The Great War, tweaking it a bit for his needs, then i think he might have been ablt to effectivly take out all of Europe, i feel that he would have had an early advantage, and Stalin knew that Hitler was going to invade anyways, and would have (in my opinion)declared war on Germany anyways. When the Invasion of Britain took place on the coast of france, if Hitler had aimed the V2's at military targets instead of civil ones, he would have completely obliterated them, he understimated the strength of British Will and Morale......

Related Articles:Schlieffen Plan (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWschlieffenP.htm)

Hitler actually isn't a bad guy if you knew him presonally, he was a good public speaker, but not the best military tactitian, if he didn't invade Russia(U.S.S.R.) he would have won, or if he waited for 5 years until he had the Atombomb.(U.S. didn't try to make the A-Bomb until they found out Germany was trying to make one as well.) I admire his will-power, and his speeches, but killing off one entire race/religion/commmunity of people because they were jewish/christian/muslim/whatever, just sounds, and is mean, and an evil thing. But he still suffered from some maladies, as gas, stomach problems, and some brain stuff(insaniness comes from this).

Mark of Glory: On Wikipedia.com(net, not sure) I wrote about 1/10 of the stuff on hitler, and nazi germany, and WWII, all combined. I'm so proud. :D (I'm a "history geek")

No from what I learned he was an asshole in person too. He was implicated in several mysterious murders and disappearances way before rising to power, including that of his step-sister Angela and her jewish husband Leo Raubal. He would often launch into verbal tirades against his advisors as well as the leaders of other fascist countries. And towards the end he was accusing nearly all in his inner circle of betrayal and treason. I'd say he was a pretty mean guy.

another thing to remember is Hitlers very odd personality, he would NEVER look ANYONE in the eye, when he walked up to you and greeted you, if you looked him in the eye, he would avert his eyes upward, or anywhere but yours.....

I still admire Stalin over Hitler.

'Admire?' Can anyone with any sense admire people who are sociopaths? Creatures like Stalin, Hitler, Pot Pol, etc., whatever there gifts might have been, caused untold damage to the human race; their victims and the descendants of their victims still bear the marks of the horror that these men inflicted on us all.

I would be a great Right-Wing Commenter on your site!
Nice. Just out of couriosity, are you religous in anyway?

Ok, I'm pretty much half-aran, but I look the part of aGerman, so I wouldn't be killed or anything....But I can't speak German, so I would be first to be recruited into war to die.Hitler should get some commemoration, or such for being charismatic, but overall, he should not get a single bit of praie for what he did.

I still admire Stalin over Hitler.
did you know Stalin couldn't pronounce his P's (r's for those who don't know any Russian.)

If you look hard enough, you can always find something good in anybody. In Hitler's case, I would say it was the fact that he was responsible for the creation of the Volkswagon.

He was a very, very, very good public speaker. For sure. But when he assumed power he kinda went nuts. Like invading the USSR and following horoscopes instead of his generals when making military decisions.
That's because he got given methampthetamines by doctors, which is probably a good thing. He was crazy before that, but not stupid. Probably the only reason they lost so quickly is the Germans invaded Russia.
I'm no WWII scholar, but it seems that the first years in the war, at least on the European Front, Hitler was winning. Then he invaded Russia and it turned to crap

Lets go Hitler Hunting! *cocks Cross shaped Shotgun*

yes constantine.... :rolleyes:

but seirously he was a very good public speaker (alibeit twisted) and ya gotta have some smarts to play on people like that. (unless he had a team of psycologists helping him)

That's because he got given methampthetamines by doctors, which is probably a good thing. He was crazy before that, but not stupid. Probably the only reason they lost so quickly is the Germans invaded Russia.
I'm no WWII scholar, but it seems that the first years in the war, at least on the European Front, Hitler was winning. Then he invaded Russia and it turned to crap

Russia would probably have invaded Germany, given a couple of years to build up their forces if Hitler hadn't done it first.

Russia would probably have invaded Germany, given a couple of years to build up their forces if Hitler hadn't done it first.Stalin was waiting for an Allied landing in the West and for his "reforms" of the Red Army to be completed...

I still admire Stalin over Hitler.
Stalin who was just as guilty of mass-murder and genocide as Hitler?! We just didn't point that out at the time since we needed him!

He was a somewhat gifted and in a weird way genial orator -given his time- and very adept at manipulating the media...one of the first.

He also had a likewise gifted backup team, e.g. Goebbels was highly intelligent..guess sometimes it`s better to be dumb.

Yes, for being the inventor of media-mass-manipulation one should give respect...but for nothing else!

Godwin! That's three Godwins, and you're out!!!!

Godwin's law doesn't apply for threads that are ABOUT Hitler. It's for people who make analogies about him.

Stalin was waiting for an Allied landing in the West and for his "reforms" of the Red Army to be completed...

Yep.

Just imagine if they had time to build up an army without their industry being shattered, and went on a blitzkreig across Poland...then steamrollered through Germany...and beyond.

That's because he got given methampthetamines by doctors, which is probably a good thing. He was crazy before that, but not stupid. Probably the only reason they lost so quickly is the Germans invaded Russia.
I'm no WWII scholar, but it seems that the first years in the war, at least on the European Front, Hitler was winning. Then he invaded Russia and it turned to crap
4 things contributed to Germany loosing the war;
1) Having Italy as an ally. Without Italy the Germans would never have opened another front in Africa when they could put a strangle hold on the Med. from bases in France (west and south). They lost desperatly needed battle hardened troops in Africa.
2) Hilter ordering the Luftwaffe to start concentrating on cities instead of continuing the utter destruction of the British Air Force that was loosing more planes and pilots than they could replace at that time. This enabled them to rebuild and be too much of a threat to an invasion.
3) Opening a second front with Russia too soon, though it is estimated that Russia would have invaded within the year 2 at most! This was further agrivated by Russia's scortched earth policy and yet another invader not being prepared for the HARSH Russian winter, read as Napolean!
4) Hitler taking direct control of the armed forces and making it too difficult for his generals to get the units to where they were needed when they were needed. One theory is he was being poisoned, probably arsenic, and this made him see plots where there were none. Another that the old saying was all to accurate: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. The more contriversial is based in Christianity saying that he was possesed and the possession eventualy became too much for him to be effective.

Ultimately historians all agree that without Hitler towards the end of the war WW2 would have gone on for at least a couple of more years or not been a "complete" victory. We may have been forced to give them some concessions for peace and may have been forced to leave Germany as a major force in Europe.

Yep.

Just imagine if they had time to build up an army without their industry being shattered, and went on a blitzkreig across Poland...then steamrollered through Germany...and beyond.
The problem there is that without the second front the Russian inferior and unreliable weapons of war would not have allowed them to successfully invade Germany. The only reason they were able to invade and keep their momentum was that the allies had so badly damaged the German ability to manufacture their weapons, particulairly their Panzers, that the Germans could not even replace 1 tank for every 15 damaged/destroyed.

As a Fascist I just can't bring myself to respect Hitler for anything more than his ability to speak. Maybe it's because I would have been killed [I'm technically half-aryan as far as the nazis were concerned], maybe it's because he corropted a system I follow and left it as a shell and maybe it's because he ruined a good thing Mussolini had going, but in the end I just can't think of him as anything more than the silly little monkey that Il Duce refered to him as.
Il Duce was considered by his people during and after his "reign" as a putz and a joke! History will FOREVER remember him as a footnote and lapdog for Hitler! Even his rescue from Allied hands he had to rely on German special forces.

Hitler seemed more of a genius than an evil madman.

Coupla things... "Genius" and "evil madman" are not mutually exclusive, and nothing prevents both characteristics from existing in equal parts within the same individual.

Adolf Hitler was an extremely charasmatic man. He found a scapegoat (Jews, obviously) and convinced an assembled populace that his scapegoat was responsible for everything wrong with their country and, in fact, the world. But he was evil and he was mad, more so than he was 'a genius'.

And, FTR, 'that Holocaust thing' was one of the worst 'things' of the 20th century. I understand why you chose the phrasing you used, but it's not cool to minimize the wholesale slaughter of millions of people who were doing nothing but following the religion to which they were born.

The problem there is that without the second front the Russian inferior and unreliable weapons of war would not have allowed them to successfully invade Germany. The only reason they were able to invade and keep their momentum was that the allies had so badly damaged the German ability to manufacture their weapons, particulairly their Panzers, that the Germans could not even replace 1 tank for every 15 damaged/destroyed.

Their equipment wasn't inferior. For example, the T-34 tank; probably the best all-around design of the war.

If the Russians had an extra year or two to prepare, they could certainly have won.

...Anyways, I want to say something about the people we call great leaders of the past, and great leaders of the present.

Was Martin Luther King Junior a great leader? I think so! After all, he practically spearheaded the black rights movements.

Was Alexander the Great a great leader? According to historians, yes. But what did he do? He ran all over Europe and North Africa and killed people going 'Bow to meeee!!! Bow to meeee!!!! Do what I say! Or I'll KILL YOU!'*


About Martin Luther King Jr. & Adolf Hitler. I'm not meaning to be pejorative here either, but they are very similar individuals, If Hitler had been assassinated in 1938, he'd be universally seen as the German Martin Luther King Jr. Both in so many words favorably supported moderate socialism in a Capitalist context, placed their concerns first and foremost with race, and were concerned with civil rights, becoming leaders of its causes. Most similarly between them; their speech style, MLK held himself, and delivered his words when orating, more like Hitler than any other speaker that comes to mind in all recorded history. Look at footage of both speakers back to back, also considering the way & angles they had the cameras facing themselves, all strikingly similar.

As for how Alexander the great is remembered, that very point is popular sentiment, i.e. winners write history and all & sentiment follows favorably. With a WWII German victory, genocide might have eventually been construed into what would be popularly considered a healthy culling process, necessary to societies part in human evolution, as stance, opinion, and media mindset prevades the future generations from an Axis point of view.

Stalin who was just as guilty of mass-murder and genocide as Hitler?! We just didn't point that out at the time since we needed him!

I wouldn't go that far. Yes, Stalin did kill a lot of his own people, but he had more time and worked them to death or starved them. Hitler, on the other hand, killed people, including children, through gas chambers because of their race/religion, etc.

I wouldn't go that far. Yes, Stalin did kill a lot of his own people, but he had more time and worked them to death or starved them. Hitler, on the other hand, killed people, including children, through gas chambers because of their race/religion, etc.

So, Hitler discriminated with who he killed, and Stalin killed everybody equally?

Well, Stalin was an egalitarian, so they say.

And, FTR, 'that Holocaust thing' was one of the worst 'things' of the 20th century. I understand why you chose the phrasing you used, but it's not cool to minimize the wholesale slaughter of millions of people who were doing nothing but following the religion to which they were born.

It really had nothing to do with religion and everything to do with race. Even Hitler stated in Mein Kampf that "The Jew has always been a race and never a religion", he clearly separated 'Judaism' from "jewishness in blood" as some kind of ethnic racial trait.

In fact, racially non-semitic Jews served in the German military and even in the SS. The major example of this were the Karaite Jews from Turkey. They were allowed to continue to practice their religion openly while serving. Some German SS officiers who held their anti-semitism out of their belief in Christianity complained to Himmler about this, but Himmler held firm and asserted that he believed they should be allowed to practice the religion of their indigenous culture. Reflecting a bit of Himmlers romanticism for the religion(s) of German pre-Christian indigenous culture.

Also, the fact that converted Catholics & Protestants of Jewish ancestry were equally persecuted along with all of the other racial Jews further shows this to be the case.

First one to invoke Godwin; yes!!!!

How is that a Godwin?

I wouldn't go that far. Yes, Stalin did kill a lot of his own people, but he had more time and worked them to death or starved them. Hitler, on the other hand, killed people, including children, through gas chambers because of their race/religion, etc.

Stalin had countless women and children shot by his secret police, and worked them to death as well. I don't see much of a diffrence, except that Stalin did those things to his own people. They both had their own fair shares of mass graves, and they both eventually went insane.

Stalin had countless women and children shot by his secret police, and worked them to death as well. I don't see much of a diffrence, except that Stalin did those things to his own people. They both had their own fair shares of mass graves, and they both eventually went insane.

And Hitler didn't kill German Jews, and any other "inferior" German peoples?

They were never insane. They're just sane in a crazy world.

Stalin had countless women and children shot by his secret police, and worked them to death as well. I don't see much of a diffrence, except that Stalin did those things to his own people. They both had their own fair shares of mass graves, and they both eventually went insane.

I agree. Those who see a difference in level of atrocity between 'articulated prescribed policy beforehand killing', and 'killing as you go' believe they are distancing themselves from the mindset of Nazi racist mentality, but they're in fact acting on it because of their closeness to the thought processes involved.

To find genocide more offensive than indiscriminate mass-murder is to be a racist oneself. An individual who would be truly indifferent to race would realize that they as individuals could only be killed once, and that there would be no bearing on the further killing of those like themselves as opposed to the further killing of anyone else not ethnically similar to oneself. It would have the same valuation as a continued loss of life either way and not mean an iota more that those of a closer phenotype to oneself or not are the chosen victims. The more meaningful genocide is over democide to someones sentimentality, the more racist one is. Racism is any valuation of the nature of race for good or ill.

What if Hitler truly believed that what he was doing was right? What if he felt that if the Jews were not confronted then his people would ultimately die? Maybe not a lucid and "sane" idea, but if he believed it were true then I have a hard time condemning the man. I will still condemn the overall action in the light that the jews seem not to have been a direct threat or even an indirect threat to the German people, but I cannot condemn a man who believed that he was saving his people...

"How can I be condemned for my 'sins' if my intentions were good?" - Kamelot (off The Black Halo album).

When people complain to me about how politicians are liars, I always say that Hitler was the only honest politician: he did exactly what he said he'd do. If you think about it, though, no one appreciates how Hitler rose to power and did his actions. He did not decieve anyone (or at least in his own mind), he did everything he promised before his Chancellorship, and he held firm. It's a little sad that his horrible and monstrous actions covered up a very subtle beauty: the power of honesty and integrety.

Nice. Just out of couriosity, are you religous in anyway?

I'm a Christian Fundie.

Rotovia-, you're black? lol. I never knew that.

Il Duce was considered by his people during and after his "reign" as a putz and a joke! History will FOREVER remember him as a footnote and lapdog for Hitler! Even his rescue from Allied hands he had to rely on German special forces.
Oh yes, Mussolini had his own set of problems [Most of them gained after his delusions about a new Roman Empire began.], but this topic was about hitler, so I decided not to complain about Mussolini, Stalin, or anybody else from the time period.

I don't think highly of Mussolini after he went to Hitler's side [I consider that to have been a cowardly move], but up until that point I have a lot of respect for him...especially since he was pretty much the only leader to ever stand up to Hitler before the war started [Engelbert Dollfus was basically the only other person who ever stood up to Hitler...but he didn't last very long efterwards].

When people complain to me about how politicians are liars, I always say that Hitler was the only honest politician: he did exactly what he said he'd do.

And many things he said he would not do.

eg, "We have no interest in Western Europe!"

Now, before I begin let me state I'm a black, Catholic, with Jewish grandparents. So this is not some Stormfront rant, but instead an interesting observation I've made.

This morning I was trawling Google (http://www.google.com.au) for a quote of the day to use for Rotovia.com (http://www.rotovia.com) and found some quotes by Adolf Hitler.

After reading twenty or so quotes I picked upa theme, Hitler seemed more of a genius than an evil madman. He came up with a way to convince an entire nation to abandon all their individuality and blindly follow his doctrine.

Not since Jesus were so many people past and present bound to the word's of one man... he's like the Anti....Jesus ;) Sorry, got sidetracked with a poorly constructed joke there.

Heres a classic example:
What luck for the rulers that men do not think. - Adolf Hitler

Ps. The title is for effect only. I respect Hitler's ability to rally a crowd, I'm not that hot on the whole Holocaust thing.



the bigger the lie...the more people will buy it...my all time favorite.

Hitlers truly belived in the stab in the back theory, he was also upset about jews not assimulating into there respective cultures.

But i liked Hindenbergs letter to Hitler shortly before his dealth, in which he basily told Hitler if Jews were good enough to bleed and die for Germany, they were good enough to becalled Germans and keep there Jobs.

The day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the war was lost, every 8 out of 10 german soldgeirs killed in ww2 were killed by the soviets.

And to compound it he declared war on the U.S. right after the attack on pearl harbour, he hoped the Jappenese would attack sibera thru china, it never happend, so stalin was able to send divisions form sibera to the front.

Hitler modeled his war efforts on Napolean, which is why he lost. And the line between Genius and insanity is a hardly distginguisable line, which he probally teetered on. The man had a great ablitly, to bad he used it wrong.

Hitler went into Russia, Napoleon went into Russia. hitler was beaten in Russia, Napoleon was beaten in russia. The rule here is not to attack Russia before, or during winter. You could get frostbite.

Hitlers truly belived in the stab in the back theory, he was also upset about jews not assimulating into there respective cultures.

But i liked Hindenbergs letter to Hitler shortly before his dealth, in which he basily told Hitler if Jews were good enough to bleed and die for Germany, they were good enough to becalled Germans and keep there Jobs.

The day Hitler invaded the Soviet Union the war was lost, every 8 out of 10 german soldgeirs killed in ww2 were killed by the soviets.

And to compound it he declared war on the U.S. right after the attack on pearl harbour, he hoped the Jappenese would attack sibera thru china, it never happend, so stalin was able to send divisions form sibera to the front.

ACtually, 4 million German soldiers died in WWII.

3.6 milliom died in the East Front. (compared to 15+ million soviets. Soviets=Pyhhric Victory)

I thought over 20+ million russians died because of the war. Or was that military and soldiers combined? And also, my textbook states that 7 million German soldiers died during the war. So many differne sources blur the real facts of life and history.

I thought over 20+ million russians died because of the war. Or was that military and soldiers combined? And also, my textbook states that 7 million German soldiers died during the war. So many differne sources blur the real facts of life and history.

Thats what i heard on the History chanel also.

And i heard 27 mililion russians.

4 things contributed to Germany loosing the war;

1) Having Italy as an ally. Without Italy the Germans would never have opened another front in Africa when they could put a strangle hold on the Med. from bases in France (west and south). They lost desperatly needed battle hardened troops in Africa.

Actually, the biggest problem with being allied with Italy was the invasion of Greece. The Greeks kicked the crap out of the Italians, despite being outnumbered. This forced Hitler to bail out the Italians by diverting forces that were supposed to be used to invade Russia.

This delayed the invasion of Russia, although exactly how long it was delayed I don't recall (several months at the least).

If the Axis didn't have a proper foothold in Africa, then it could have been used as a base from which to launch an assault against Europe, which eventually happened anyways.

2) Hilter ordering the Luftwaffe to start concentrating on cities instead of continuing the utter destruction of the British Air Force that was loosing more planes and pilots than they could replace at that time. This enabled them to rebuild and be too much of a threat to an invasion.

Can't argue with that one...utterly stupid.

Letting Britain stay unconquered allowed the Allies a "foward base" from which to commence the strategic elimination of German industrial assets, the principle reason for German defeat.

Had I been Hitler, I would have invaded Iceland sometime during the Battle of Britain. From there, I could theoretically have moved to take Ireland. That would have been an effective way to cut off England and establish domniance of the North Atlantic at the same time.

3) Opening a second front with Russia too soon, though it is estimated that Russia would have invaded within the year 2 at most! This was further agrivated by Russia's scortched earth policy and yet another invader not being prepared for the HARSH Russian winter, read as Napolean!

While I agree that Germany should not have opened a second front before defeating Britain, the scorched earth policy could have been easily avoided.

The majority of Ukrainians, Belarusians, Lithuanians etc...HATED Soviet rule, and initially welcomed the Germans as liberators. It was only AFTER they realized that German notions of racial superiority meant that they were to be treated as inferior peoples did they rally to the Soviet cause and initiated a scorched earth policy.

It obviously did not take these peoples long to come to that realization.

Had Germany not been so high on racial superiority, they would have had uninterrupted supply lines, and a large pool of people willing to fight for them against the Soviet regime.

4) Hitler taking direct control of the armed forces and making it too difficult for his generals to get the units to where they were needed when they were needed...

No argument there.

My own opinion is that Germanys greatest mistake was allying with Japan. Granted that Germany actually declared war on the US, but the US would have had little reason to interfere directly in Europe had Germany and Japan not been allies. This would mean that the US would be involved in a seperate war with Japan, leaving Germany free from interference from across the Atlantic.

Britain could not hope to invade Europe on it's own. This would have allowed Germany to focus exclusively on Russia.

The outcome of which, of course, is still a matter of much debate. :)

Thats what i heard on the History chanel also.

And i heard 27 mililion russians.

Probably not quite that high.

A lot were civilian casualties, though.