Hitler

[Veho Nex]

Adolf Hitler (right) was NOT evil. Heinrich Himmler (left) was the evil one.

The original plan by Adolf Hitler was call ' The Madagascar Plan'. It was originally a plan to deport all Jews.

"The Madagascar Plan was a suggested policy of the Nazi government to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar."

Heinrich Himmler, second in power, decided "Hey? Why not kill them instead?". The concentration camps and extermination camps were created Heinrich Himmler and run under his orders. Adolf Hitler never visited any of these camps, including Auschwitz. However, Heinrich Himmler often visited them. He even took his daughter on tour to see the dying Jews.

We know, both Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler were horrible men, but why is all the blame going to Adolf Hitler? Sure he allowed it... But it's one thing to see pictures, and hear about it. It's another thing to go there and see it for yourself.

Adolf Hitler was just a methamphetamine addict who sat back and allowed Heinrich Himmler to destroy the Jewish population.

I capitalized Heinrich Himmler.

"Extermination camps were two types of facilities that Nazi Germany built during World War II for the systematic killing of millions of people in what has become known as the Holocaust.[1] During World War II, under the orders of HEINRICH HIMMLER, extermination camps were built during a later phase of the program of annihilation."

"Like all German concentration camps, the Auschwitz camps were operated by HEINRICH HIMMLER's SS. The commandants of the camp were the SS-Obersturmbannführers Rudolf Höß (often anglicised to "Hoess") until the summer of 1943, and later Arthur Liebehenschel and Richard Baer."

"Einsatzgruppen (German for "task forces" or "intervention groups") were paramilitary groups formed by HEINRICH HIMMLER and operated by the SS before and during World War II. "



Just read this what do you guys think. Is this propaganda or a true story.

[Ramses II CP]

So what part of a plan to 'merely' deport people based on their ethnicity or religion isn't evil?

What part of 'merely' overseeing a genocidal extermination rather than actively planning it isn't evil?

If the problem is the term evil itself, then simply replace it with contemptibly wrong. Problem solved.

:egypt:

[Watchman]

Pff. Where do you think Himmler got his marching orders from ?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So what part of a plan to 'merely' deport people based on their ethnicity or religion isn't evil?

What part of 'merely' overseeing a genocidal extermination rather than actively planning it isn't evil?



Of course, keeping in mind the common definition of evil in this sense, yes, it was evil. However, the article doesn't deny that Hitler was evil, simply that Himmler should get the same amount or more of the bad rap that Hitler does.

[Ramses II CP]

Of course, keeping in mind the common definition of evil in this sense, yes, it was evil. However, the article doesn't deny that Hitler was evil, simply that Himmler should get the same amount or more of the bad rap that Hitler does.

...err, read that first line up there again. :inquisitive:

:egypt:

[Geoffrey S]

What do I think? Revisionist, offensive, and inaccurate tripe.

[CountArach]

What do I think? Revisionist, offensive, and inaccurate tripe.
Revisionism for the sake of Revisionism is not a good thing...

[Subedei]

Both were awefully dangerous freaks, not too much need for discussion about that......

The whole 3rd Reich was built on the leadership claim and orders of Adolf Hitler, b/c with every action/crime a Nazi commited he/she could blame the next higher hierarchical level...all the way up to A.H. They did not call him "Führer" for nothing, you know.

:2cents:

[Watchman]

Himmler was pretty much Adolf's right-hand man and general-purpose troubleshooter for a lot of stuff is all. He was way better at organising stuff than his boss and a fervent believer in the Nazi ideology, so...

Mind, Hitler wasn't always unconditionally thrilled by some of Himmler's odder ideas (say, the occultism), and is known to at least once have told Speer he wished the man wouldn't spend so much time digging holes to remind everyone the Germans had still been living in mud huts when the Greeks and Romans built metropoles...
Well, that was before the Ahnenerbe and the other kooks managed to sell him the crackpot German pinko-ultranationalist version of world history. Damn, but some of that stuff was surreal nonsense...


As an aside, when the Nazis talked about "deportation" of the Untermenschen, nevermind now the vile Jews (whom they regarded pretty much as a sort of living plague), what they actually meant was along the lines of "corraling in a suitably unviable hellhole and letting the conditions and 'natural wastage' do the rest", hard forced labour with insufficient rations (as was done with Russian POWs for example), and suchlike. ...and, since ridding the world of the "Jewish contagion" was a sort of major thing in their crazy racial ideology, in the case this wasn't enough they were envisoning more proactive steps from the start.

[Geoffrey S]

Out of curiosity, where did you find the quoted text?

[TinCow]

If you don't mind mass deportation, suspension of civil and human rights, rigging of elections, confiscation of property, execution of protestors, state-sponsored terrorism, mandatory educational indoctrination of racism, and sterilization of the disabled, Hitler was a lovely fellow. Well, except for the whole war thing.

[DemonArchangel]

What Hitler had was a demonic charisma that made people love him. People hung onto every word that man said because let's face it, Hitler was a great speaker. Adolf Hitler was responsible for making monsters like Himmler believe the crap that came out of his mouth. Thus Hitler is to blame for all the bad things under his regime.

[Veho Nex]

Out of curiosity, where did you find the quoted text?


ehhh /b/?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

What Hitler had was a demonic charisma that made people love him. People hung onto every word that man said because let's face it, Hitler was a great speaker. Adolf Hitler was responsible for making monsters like Himmler believe the crap that came out of his mouth. Thus Hitler is to blame for all the bad things under his regime.

That's pretty much the only area I can respect Hitler for. He did terrible things, such as ravaging a continent, killing millions of people, you know the story. I never thought that anyone could be convinced by what he put out - I mean, there were a few decent ideas, but most of it was tripe. Then you watch one of his speeches - wow, he could talk.

EDIT: But on the same note, there are many politicians worth noting who are excellent speakers and don't have an agenda of deporting/exterminating the odd few million here or there.

[Veho Nex]

*cough* Clinton *cough*
"You wouldn't trust him with your daughters, why would you trust him with your guns." - Charlton Heston

[Geoffrey S]

ehhh /b/?
What's unclear about the question?

[Furious Mental]

Nazism, like fascism generally, was an amalgam of a lot of different streams of thought which went back to before WWI, but which the Nazis, and Hitler especially, amalgamated into one. One aspect (actually the most important one probably) of this was that history was a Darwinist struggle between nations, in which Germany was being undermined by interbreeding with Jews and of course by Bolshevism (which was seen as eminently Jewish).

One facet of this was that a nation had to continuously fight and grow and purify itself or it would become decadent and be destroyed. This gelled with a sort of cult of action which the Nazis picked up- thinking about things was futile, it was best to just do them, and since any sort of drop in pace meant weakness, do them faster and on an ever bigger scale.

Generally, the view of fascists was that universal morality (and hence any sort of innate right to life and liberty) was nonsense and that extraordinary persons (or rather, nations led by extraordinary persons) simply "make" morality by imposing their will on others.

When you consider these aspects of Nazi ideology together, I think it is pretty easy to see how the Holocaust came about- the quest for more territory and a purer race continuously accelerated to become grander and grander and more and more violent, totally unconstrained by normal human decency. My own view is that industrialised genocide was not merely an inherently possible consequence of Hitler's ideology but that it was the inevitable consequence, a conclusion which I would consider bolstered by the evidence that genocide started very early in the war, before it was promulgated as an official policy. Genocide was already a fact by the time the "Final Solution" was initiated, and given Hitler's dominance of the regime one can only conclude that he approved of it.

One can also look at the Italian Social Republic, in which the true Italian fascists, no longer having any reason to care about the views of conservative elites (who had just changed sides), concluded the war with an orgy of state terrorism, in essentially the same way as the few other genuinely fascist states in Europe and of course the various movements that joined the Nazis as SS auxiliaries.

[Adrian II]

Jkarinen, I have dabbled in these sort of issues for many years. They are very complicated. I think the author you quote is an amateur, typically overstating some minor facts in order to make a sensationalist and invalid claim.

Instead of attempting some sort of conclusive rebuff, I trust that you can make up your own mind. Let me just point you to the Holocaust-debate that has been raging for decades between intentionalists (who state that Hitler and his cronies had genocidal intentions from the start and managed to impose them on German society) and functionalists (who state that nazi policy was the outcome of bureaucratic processes and pragmatic decisions throughout 1933-1945). The debate touches on Hitler's role and all other issues mentioned.

Clickety (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_versus_intentionalism)

[Fragony]

What do I think? Revisionist, offensive, and inaccurate tripe.

Not so much really, the madagascar thing is real at least.

edit, no not that one. Sebastian Haffner is somewhat of an authority forgot what book though.

[Geoffrey S]

Oh, I don't deny that the Madagascar plan was real at some point - although like other posters in this here topic, I doubt the humane motives somehow implied in the opening quote.

Anyway, my earlier post refers mainly to such comments as 'Adolf Hitler (right) was NOT evil. Heinrich Himmler (left) was the evil one'. Such comments get me riled up without fail, attempting to absolve Hitler of blame for whatever reason. That is why I'm interested in where Jkarinen found it, because a quick search in Google only supplied this topic.

[Fragony]

More responsible would be better, evil is so relative if you do bad things for what you believe to be the greater good it isn't really evil just twisted. But Himmler was the driving force behind the final solution.

[Furious Mental]

That assumes that Hitler conceived of "the greater good" in the same way as the rest of us, which, if I may be so presumptuous, would be the betterment of all mankind by an objective and universal standard. Hitler completely rejected such a concept- humanism and universal values were foreign to him. The only good that mattered was the good of his nation, and by definition this was also the detriment of other nations, because his view of history required his nation to expand continuously and engage in wars for their own sake in order to survive.

[Fragony]

Well he didn't believe in that he believed in the aryan race that was good for him. If I could ever qualify is really evil it would be King Leoplod II, he did it all for himselve. The greatest forgotten crime in history and one heck of a book;

http://www.amazon.com/King-Leopolds-Ghost-Heroism-Colonial/dp/0618001905

edit owwwwwwwww wrong link

[Adrian II]

Look brothers, are we going to take any crappy Web article seriously?

For example: the Madagascar plan was Himmler's idea, not Hitler's. Himmler presented it in May 1940 as an alternative, since the 'Bolshewist method of physical annihilation' was still deemed 'ungermanisch' (un-Germanic) in leading nazi circles. The decision to exterminate Jews was almost certainly taken in 1941, and it was almost certainly imposed by Hitler himself. In the Spring of 1941 Himmler told Htiler's personal physician Felix Kersten that the total innihilation of Jewry had been ordered by the leader: "Das ist der eindeutige Befehl des Führers.“

Need I go on?

https://img246.imageshack.us/img246/7228/guitarmanbi1.gif (https://imageshack.us)
Forget the Web,
It's full of crap.
Instead go look
For a decent book.
Right on..

Just click on the link I provided, turn to the authors mentioned and take it from there. :yes:

[Fragony]

The decision to exterminate Jews was almost certainly taken in 1941, and it was almost certainly imposed by Hitler himself. In the Spring of 1941 Himmler told Htiler's personal physician Felix Kersten that the total innihilation of Jewry had been ordered by the leader: "Das ist der eindeutige Befehl des Führers.“


Read this 3 times.

[Veho Nex]

You know what, screw the politics, All i care about is the battles, way mor interesting anyways

[Watchman]

Huh. Given that how they go, nevermind why they're fought in the first place, is usually largely politics...

[Adrian II]

You know what, screw the politics, All i care about is the battles, way mor interesting anyways:shame:

[Geoffrey S]

You know what, screw the politics, All i care about is the battles, way mor interesting anyways
:help: :wall:

[Husar]

Poltics r 4 the edumacated and teh inlectuuls (spiling?), ppl hu reed buks and so on. :viking:

But serially, politics can be pretty boring and sometimes I just want to make them illegal. In the good old times at least the normal soldiers might get a chance to smack the politicians on the battlefield for their political failures. ~D

[Geoffrey S]

It's just that, while battles are interesting, I find it far more fascinating why thousands of men would gather in one place in what is essentially ritualized killing. By just looking at the battles, you only get a tiny slice of what a time period has to offer.

[Adrian II]

It's just that, while battles are interesting, I find it far more fascinating why thousands of men would gather in one place in what is essentially ritualized killing.I would go even further. How can you understand history's decisive battles, from Gaugamela through Stalingrad, without insight into the nature of the opposing rulers, their nations, societies, religions or ideologies, etcetera.
Without knowledge of Ancient Greece and Persia you will never understand how the Phalanx came into being or why Alexander, leading a trusted cavalry unit of free Macedonians, achieved a tactical break-through against an army of slaves led by generals who were wary and demoralised because the Persian augurs had warned of bad omens in the days before battle.
As to Stalingrad, I recall a nice anecdote about Sartre's visit to the Soviet Union in 1954. Whilst being given the grand tour of Stalingrad rubble he was repeatedly overheard muttering to himself 'incredible, incredible'. Finally the tour guide turned to him and said: 'It's incredible how much the Germans destroyed, isn't it?' 'No, no!' Sartre retorted: 'It's incredible the Germans got this far!' And it is. If you want to understand why, you will have to study the politics behind that war as well.

Otherwise you might as well read a Smurf comic to deepen your understanding.

[Mouzafphaerre]

.

Otherwise you might as well read a Smurf comic to deepen your understanding.
:2thumbsup:
.

[Geoffrey S]

I would go even further. How can you understand history's decisive battles, from Gaugamela through Stalingrad, without insight into the nature of the opposing rulers, their nations, societies, religions or ideologies, etcetera.
Arguably, that's why the History Channel is often actually anything but.

[Adrian II]

Arguably, that's why the History Channel is often actually anything but.To each his own.
https://img256.imageshack.us/img256/1230/smurf2mn1.gif (https://imageshack.us)

[Watchman]

I have been left with a rather strong impression the History Channel is virtually a four-letter word among people who've done their proverbial homework... :shifty:
Without knowledge of Ancient Greece and Persia you will never understand how the Phalanx came into being or why Alexander, leading a trusted cavalry unit of free Macedonians, achieved a tactical break-through against an army of slaves led by generals who were wary and demoralised because the Persian augurs had warned of bad omens in the days before battle.Not to go too much off topic, but... you're being sarcastic, I hope ?

[Adrian II]

Not to go too much off topic, but... you're being sarcastic, I hope ?I am fully serious, brother Watchman. This is not the Backroom. Anyway, I don't feel like discussing anything having to do with Alexander for at least a year, thank you. :bow:

[Veho Nex]

It's just that, while battles are interesting, I find it far more fascinating why thousands of men would gather in one place in what is essentially ritualized killing. By just looking at the battles, you only get a tiny slice of what a time period has to offer.

I know... I also know to much about the battles already. What I truly want to know is how one man can convince an entire nation to follow him even unto death is beyond me. But also how can one man tell his men that if they retreat he will mow them down(insert Stalin).

[KarlXII]

Just read this what do you guys think. Is this propaganda or a true story.


Adolf Hitler (right) was NOT evil. Heinrich Himmler (left) was the evil one.


Himmler evil? Couldn't be!

The original plan by Adolf Hitler was call ' The Madagascar Plan'. It was originally a plan to deport all Jews.

"The Madagascar Plan was a suggested policy of the Nazi government to forcibly relocate the Jewish population of Europe to the island of Madagascar."

I see now, genocide is wrong, but deporting a large amount of an ethnicity to a tiny African island is ok.

Heinrich Himmler, second in power, decided "Hey? Why not kill them instead?".

Himmler was always a simple man.

The concentration camps and extermination camps were created Heinrich Himmler and run under his orders.

But approved by none other than the Fuhrer himself.

Adolf Hitler never visited any of these camps, including Auschwitz.

You think he would personally visit these disease ridden camps?

However, Heinrich Himmler often visited them. He even took his daughter on tour to see the dying Jews.

Himmler was a sick :daisy: this proves nothing other than what I just said.

We know, both Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Hitler were horrible men, but why is all the blame going to Adolf Hitler?

Could it be he approved, supported, and vocally voiced his approval, these policies?

Sure he allowed it... But it's one thing to see pictures, and hear about it. It's another thing to go there and see it for yourself.

I'm sorry, what? This honestly makes no sense. Someone help me here?

Adolf Hitler was just a methamphetamine addict who sat back and allowed Heinrich Himmler to destroy the Jewish population.

He also approved of Himmlers plan, and sat back intentionally.


I need a drink.

[Watchman]

I am fully serious, brother Watchman. This is not the Backroom. Anyway, I don't feel like discussing anything having to do with Alexander for at least a year, thank you. :bow:*sigh*
...300 and other paragons of Classicist triumphalism are sort of a really bad source to base your understanding of the Acheamenid military on you know ?


Anyway, back to topic, let us not forget either that the Nazi ideology contained a big (un)healthy dose of some pretty extreme racial-hygienic ideas from the start. Do recall - the first organised mass murders they did were of handicapped and mentally disturbed "Aryans" in hospitals and asylums... Heck, there was actually this one former Communist who ended up joining the SS just to find out if the rumours of a relative of his having died that way were true. (He eventually ended up visiting one of the death camps as a technical consultant on desinfecting clothing... developed a drinking habit and began spilling the beans on what he'd seen to random foreign tourists after that.)

And Hitler had been into some pretty rabid anti-Semitism for a long time already...

[Adrian II]

*sigh*
...300 and other paragons of Classicist triumphalism are sort of a really bad source to base your understanding of the Acheamenid military on you know ?

1. "300" is not about Alexander
2. we have had multiple threads on "300" wherein I thrashed that film
3. this is the Monastery, not the Backroom

[Veho Nex]

4. jkarinen's asking for information on hitlers political beliefs.
5. this thread shouldn't mention anything having to do with pre 1918AD
6. Wasn't hitler a recruiter during ww1?

[Watchman]

Infantry Corporal IIRC. Got his dose of some nasty war gas down in the trenches, even, and narrowly missed getting shot too.


1. "300" is not about Alexander
2. we have had multiple threads on "300" wherein I thrashed that filmA valid point. But how come you're in all seriousness making statements about the Achaemenid military system that might as well have originated from it, then ?
3. this is the Monastery, not the BackroomI fail to 'get' the 'point' here...
https://img169.imageshack.us/img169/1877/dutycallsvm7.th.png (https://img169.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dutycallsvm7.png)

[Geoffrey S]

4. jkarinen's asking for information on hitlers political beliefs.
5. this thread shouldn't mention anything having to do with pre 1918AD
6. Wasn't hitler a recruiter during ww1?
Ah, you're still around in this topic. Still interested in where you found the opening quote; I'm afraid '/b/' means nothing to me.

Edit1: And don't points 5 and 6 contradict each other?

Edit2: oh, lazy me. I see it probably refers to that shining gem of the internet, 4chan. Well.

[Adrian II]

I fail to 'get' the 'point' here...The point is that sarcasm (i.e. bitter, caustic comment) has no place in the Monastery.

Helpful or critical prose is the rule. If I feel that I have to be emphatic, I say it in a song (#24) or something, but I do not ridicule my opponent. Unlike the Backroom this is a public part of the forums. People come here to get answers and to post or discuss interesting historiographical tidbits, not to get slapped upside the head and be treated like an idiot.

[Veho Nex]

Ah, you're still around in this topic. Still interested in where you found the opening quote; I'm afraid '/b/' means nothing to me.

Edit1: And don't points 5 and 6 contradict each other?

Edit2: oh, lazy me. I see it probably refers to that shining gem of the internet, 4chan. Well.


Nope not from 4chan at all, but I heard a rumor way back when, so far back that it's like a whisper in the back of my head. That nearing the end of WW1 hitler had used his Eloquence in speaking to become a recruiter for germany.

and I guess they do contradict each other. Most of my WW2 knowledge comes from reading about the famous commanders and never about the politics.

[master of the puppets]

HAPPY BIRTHDAY HITLER, W00T yeah woot genocide... woo, wars woo... woo

...too soon?

[Veho Nex]

SMOKE IT UP!!

[Prince Cobra]

Well, I avoid using the words "evil" when talking about history. People have thier vices and virtues. Hitler was not definately the stupid fanatic he was claimed to be ( the fact he managed to neutralise the USSR by diplomacy and played with all the European politicians is a good proof). But to call him an innocent man is too much. This sounds like that story about Stalin's victims " That can not be Stalin, he will avenge us," this was what their last words were. I am sure Hitler was aware of that genocide and of course he had ordered it. About the Madaskar: afaik, it is true. At first he had no intention to destroy the Jews and the other "Untermensch" - he wanted to put them far away. But during the war this was impossible. And he made another plan. :skull:

[BetterDeadThanRed]

To be honest, if it wasn't for the stain of racial annihilation, Hitler wouldn't be any different than Napoleon or Caesar or other conquerors before him. I am not justifying his actions, nor the actions of other historic conquerors with questionable tactics, it just seems to me that he may have gone down in history as being considered unfairly worse than men before him. This to many is a hard pill to swallow as we have all grown up thinking he is the most evil man the world has ever known, while Himmler is treated by the general population with a puzzled "who's that?" Perhaps with time, the hatred and fear will begin to die down and he will join the ranks of other failed conquerors in the history books.

He indeed was a great man, not in the sense of goodness but in his legacy of Earth shattering influence.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

To be honest, if it wasn't for the stain of racial annihilation, Hitler wouldn't be any different than Napoleon or Caesar or other conquerors before him. I am not justifying his actions, nor the actions of other historic conquerors with questionable tactics, it just seems to me that he may have gone down in history as being considered unfairly worse than men before him. This to many is a hard pill to swallow as we have all grown up thinking he is the most evil man the world has ever known, while Himmler is treated by the general population with a puzzled "who's that?" Perhaps with time, the hatred and fear will begin to die down and he will join the ranks of other failed conquerors in the history books.

He indeed was a great man, not in the sense of goodness but in his legacy of Earth shattering influence.

The "aside from the racial annihilation" part is a pretty big thing to put aside, however. Perhaps in a half century he may be remembered as a Ghenghis Khan, but since he was a rather inept strategist most of the time, I doubt it.

[BetterDeadThanRed]

The "aside from the racial annihilation" part is a pretty big thing to put aside, however. Perhaps in a half century he may be remembered as a Ghenghis Khan, but since he was a rather inept strategist most of the time, I doubt it.
That's a fair assumption. I was looking at it from the perspective of the racial annihilation being the fault of Himmler and his subordinates, not Hitler directly, but I do see your point.

As far as a strategist goes, he did make some significant blunders, but his main strength lay in his ability to manipulate the public and the diplomatic scene.

I suppose Genghis Kahn might be a better parallel than Napoleon.

[The Wizard]

What's in the OP is a troll from an infamous troll den somewhere on the Interbutts.

As for why it's wrong, that's already been showcased aplenty in here. Just that you guys have fed the troll (whether that was Jkarinen wittingly or not) with quite a lot.

[TosaInu]

Sorry, I just see words and can't focus to think about it: this topics seems something that needs closure now.

Feel free to throw a tomato and open it.