blame hitler? [Archive]

Byzantine Prince

10-21-2005, 23:55

Indeed , but let us leave emotions out , so Hitlar was responsible for the death of only 42,854,957.25 people or 16.833 people , what's that make him ? A saint ? No emotions , just numbers .
Belive me , I have tried , for years , to understand the man , but what's the use ?
Btw , to answer VEA VICTUS's question , Hitler was not responsible for the death of (20 , 30 , 40 , 50 or 60) millions , it was he , his party , his army , a big part of his nation , and so many collaborators .
Correct. Hitler is in no way directly responsible for the war or those casualties. He wasn't even directly involved in the Holocaust(not even sure if he fully aproved of it). Let's not forget that this was a whole government that had members that were responsible for different things. Party line was not invented by Hitler, there were racist parties that wanted war before him in Germany, and there were Aryan superiority theories that were popular before hitler as well. Hitler was the leader not because he was the most extremist of all the potentials but because he had the most powerful persona and was impressive at speaches, both qualities are irrespective to any extremety in evil.

Kaiser of Arabia

10-22-2005, 00:57

I haven't seen the movie, but if the children being killed was in the Bunker at the very end, then they would be Goebbel's I believe.

As is almost always the case with your threads VV, this one is loaded with potential for a rather emotional discussion. Let's keep level heads about us folks. :yes:
It would have ben Goebbels, he had his family killed before having an SS Honor Guard execute him.

On topic, Hitler cannot be blamed. If you want to go to the root cause of the deaths, go back to Versailles. If England and France weren't so harsh and followed Wilson's plan, the 50 million plus dead.

Also, blaming military casualties on people is rediculious. In war's people died. No one would have died in the Self-Determination that Wilson preached (and used as an excuse to give Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia their own nations) applied to the Germans. Of course, the allies were the biggest hypocrites in history. And the people I blame for WWII and their deaths, and the holocost, are the following:

Georges Clemenceau
David Lloyd George
Vittorio Orlando
Woodrow Wilson

Adrian II

10-22-2005, 01:05

Correct. Hitler is in no way directly responsible for the war or those casualties. He wasn't even directly involved in the Holocaust(not even sure if he fully aproved of it).What is really addressed in this thread is the (rather) old but still vital structuralist-intentionalist dilemma.

The historiography of nazi Germany was initially dominated by intentionalists, i.e. those who held that Hitler and a few others fully planned and intended the programme they carried out between 1933 and 1945, including the decisions to wage war on various nations, to exterminate the Jews, etcetera. They assumed that Hitler c.s. had full control of political developments and that nazi Germany was a centralised, administratively efficient state that followed his will. I still remember German historian Golo Mann reiterate during a lecture at Leyden University in 1978 that 'Hitler, and Hitler alone, forced the German nation to indulge his delusions, submit to his political will and implement his programme'.

In the 1960's a new school of thought developed: the structuralists held that nazi Germany was a far less centralised, coherent and efficient state than had been assumed and that many policies, including the attempt to exterminate the Jews, were the result of bureaucratic processes, improvisation and an in-built radicalisation process within the nazi elite. In particular, they reconsidered Hitler's personal weight in the decision-making processes; they stressed the absence of planning for the Holocaust as well as for various wars and demonstrated that Hitler rarely initiated planning and often merely sanctioned the initiative of his subordinates. Holocaust historian Raul Hilberg was the first and for some time also the most prominent proponent of this view.

More recently Hitler-biographers Hans Mommsen and Ian Kershaw have attempted to transcend the dilemma.

I am afraid that the claim that 'Hitler is in no way directly responsible for the war' would be shrugged off by all three sides in the debate; of course he was, even though others shared in that responsibility.

Byzantine Prince

10-22-2005, 01:49

I still remember German historian Golo Mann reiterate during a lecture at Leyden University in 1978 that 'Hitler, and Hitler alone, forced the German nation to indulge his delusions, submit to his political will and implement his programme'.
I don't know what he means by delusions, the reason their plans failed was because of Hitler's bad management of the war. Also blaming this on Hitler simply because of his powerful will is ridiculous. It's ignoring all the historic build-up that caused the rise of fascism in Germany.

I am afraid that the claim that 'Hitler is in no way directly responsible for the war' would be shrugged off by all three sides in the debate; of course he was, even though others shared in that responsibility.
I disagree, and also I disregard all 3 sides since it seems from what you are saying, they are missing the bigger picture and choosing the lazy way. Yeah I got a bad mark on my test, it's Hitler's fault because if it wasn't for his will I wouldn't have been born and this horrible misfortune would not have hapened. ~:rolleyes:

God, it's common sense Adrian!

Adrian II

10-22-2005, 01:58

It's ignoring all the historic build-up that caused the rise of fascism in Germany.That struck me too, particularly since it was said by a Mann...
God, it's common sense Adrian!It may make sense to you, but it is certainly not common. As for calling the likes of Hilberg, Mommsen or Kershaw 'lazy' -- you wish! ~;)

caesar44

10-22-2005, 14:47

It would have ben Goebbels, he had his family killed before having an SS Honor Guard execute him.

On topic, Hitler cannot be blamed. If you want to go to the root cause of the deaths, go back to Versailles. If England and France weren't so harsh and followed Wilson's plan, the 50 million plus dead.

Also, blaming military casualties on people is rediculious. In war's people died. No one would have died in the Self-Determination that Wilson preached (and used as an excuse to give Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and Yugoslavia their own nations) applied to the Germans. Of course, the allies were the biggest hypocrites in history. And the people I blame for WWII and their deaths, and the holocost, are the following:

Georges Clemenceau
David Lloyd George
Vittorio Orlando
Woodrow Wilson

KoA ,
Are you saying that the 4 above put the Jews in the gas chambers ? I think you have just took the blame for the Holocaust from the Germans and their collaborators...
So the trials of 1945-46 were... what ?
Are you saying that just because the Germans felt humiliated in 1918 they killed innocent people 20 years later ? I am really can't understand the logic here . Clemenceau and George enforced harsh terms on the loosing side , the loosing side felt that he is the victim (???) , the victim (...) attacked the Poles and than killed 5,700,000 Jews and millions of others (civilians , not soldiers) , and the blame is on the 4 ? On Orlando ?
And to be more direct (if I may) - What are your views about Nazi Germany ?
Just trying to understand .

Geoffrey S

10-22-2005, 14:58

For the war itself the causes were numerous, of which some are understandable. But the wholesale slaughter an ethnic group is completely inexcusable under any circumstances.

Meneldil

10-22-2005, 15:17

KoA ,
Are you saying that the 4 above put the Jews in the gas chambers ? I think you have just took the blame for the Holocaust from the Germans and their collaborators...
So the trials of 1945-46 were... what ?
Are you saying that just because the Germans felt humiliated in 1918 they killed innocent people 20 years later ? I am really can't understand the logic here . Clemenceau and George enforced harsh terms on the loosing side , the loosing side felt that he is the victim (???) , the victim (...) attacked the Poles and than killed 5,700,000 Jews and millions of others (civilians , not soldiers) , and the blame is on the 4 ? On Orlando ?
And to be more direct (if I may) - What are your views about Nazi Germany ?
Just trying to understand .

Well, you'd better not try to understand, since KoA's main aim is to blame french, socialists and leftists for the war, while claiming that Hitler was just a poor guy who for some weird reasons had to invade Europe and to extreminate slavs, jews and gipsies.

If I follow his path, I could just aswell find roots of WWII in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war, or, why not, while we're at it, in the breaching of the Frankish Empire in 843 ? ~:rolleyes:
The Versailles Treaty is always brought in the convo by Hitler apologists, while it was in fact never fully applied.

Also, blaming military casualties on people is rediculious. In war's people died.

Yeah, except that this was probably the first modern war in which civilians were considered as being a valid target. Who started that ? The Allies ? Clemenceau and Wilson during WWI ?
Furthermore, you don't have a problem with blaming Stalin for the casualties...

caesar44

10-22-2005, 15:34

[QUOTE=Meneldil]Well, you'd better not try to understand, since KoA's main aim is to blame french, socialists and leftists for the war, while claiming that Hitler was just a poor guy who for some weird reasons had to invade Europe and to extreminate slavs, jews and gipsies.

OK , got it .

Adrian II

10-22-2005, 16:01

Also, blaming military casualties on people is ridiculous. (..) And the people I blame for WWII and their deaths, and the holocaust, are the following (..)A minimum of consistency is advised if you want to participate in the debate.

The Stranger

10-22-2005, 16:06

can hitler be blamed for wwII's 50 million or so deaths?also how did he spend his last days?i just saw the movie Downfall,i liked it but im not sure if its correct,although it seems to be.if anyone else has seen the movie,where the kids killed goerring's?

You should also see Napola...the beginning of der untergang...its about hitlers childhood...frigging brilliant movie

Mouzafphaerre

10-22-2005, 19:37

A minimum of consistency is advised if you want to participate in the debate.
.
This is a remarkable day as AdrianII now has a face avatar. ~D

:bow:
.

Adrian II

10-22-2005, 19:51

.
This is a remarkable day as AdrianII now has a face avatar. ~D

:bow:
.Since the powers that be granted me the 'Historian' award, I thought I'd better put a brave avatar face on it, dear Brother Mouzafphaerre. And since the gentleman in the exploding hat was the first image that caught my fancy, there he is. I like to think he is the strong, chattering type...
~;)

Kagemusha

10-22-2005, 19:51

Lol! I always knew that Adrian II was old bearded Inquisitor!:bounce:

Adrian II

10-22-2005, 19:54

Lol! I always knew that Adrian II was old bearded Inquisitor!:bounce:Heat up the oil, Brothers; we have a heretic! http://matousmileys.free.fr/bienmal.gif

Kagemusha

10-22-2005, 19:58

Me heretic,this must be somekind of misunderstanding...:eeeek:

Adrian II

10-22-2005, 20:06

Me heretic,this must be somekind of misunderstanding...:eeeek:I felt obliged to answer you and Brother Mouzafphaerre politely, Kagemusha, but this is a thread about Hitler and I made a solemn promise not to spam in the Monastery.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/catho.gif

I know, I know...

The Stranger

10-22-2005, 20:36

Capo, youve beaten yourself...again :shakehands: :tomato:

Craterus

10-22-2005, 21:33

If you want to go to the root cause of the deaths, go back to Versailles. If England and France weren't so harsh and followed Wilson's plan, the 50 million plus dead.

And the people I blame for WWII and their deaths, and the holocost, are the following:

Georges Clemenceau
David Lloyd George
Vittorio Orlando
Woodrow Wilson

If you're gonna blame those guys, why not Von Schlieffen (amongst the other causes of WW1)? Why not Kaiser Wilhelm II? After all, he was the guy who wanted a large German empire. Surely a treaty to punish Germany would not have been needed had there been no war. WW2 was not solely caused because of the Treaty of Versailles.

The root cause can be taken as far back as the evolution of man, or creationist if you believe that. Without man, there wouldn't have been any WW2 deaths, right?

Geoffrey S

10-22-2005, 22:54

Since the powers that be granted me the 'Historian' award, I thought I'd better put a brave avatar face on it, dear Brother Mouzafphaerre.
It's almost like Face/Off...

Kaiser of Arabia

10-22-2005, 23:00

A minimum of consistency is advised if you want to participate in the debate.
I was referring to Civilian Casuatlies (that did number about 50 million, I beleive, maybe a little less).

Now, who I blame for WWI and who I blame for WWII are differant people. On WWI I blame:

Kaiser Wilhelm, Tsar Nicolai, and GAVRILO PRINCEP

EDIT: Hitler wouldn't have taken power if the French, Italians, and English weren't such idiots. Why wouldn't he have? He'd be in the army most likely, or he'd at least be able to get a job and live a normal life.

Hitler was responsible for his actions, but he wasn't responsible for being put in a position at which he could have done said actions. If the world had intervened when he demanded the Sudetenland, then they Holocost would have been avoided, correct? Of course I'm right.

Craterus

10-22-2005, 23:08

Kaiser of Arabia

10-22-2005, 23:14

WW1 was inevitable. Blaming Gavrilo Princip is foolish, in my opinion. The assasination of Franz Ferdinand at Sarjevo was the trigger that allowed the war to spark.

The Schlieffen Plan was pure genius, and definitely intended for use. The naval race and colonial rivalry between Britain and Germany made matters worse. The Triple Alliance and Triple Entente meant that everyone would be pulled in when a war did start.

The Sarajevo assasination was just the trigger, if that had failed or not happened at all, there would have just been another trigger.
If you want to go all the way back for WWI, let's blame Napoleon III (I beleive that was him) and Bismarck, mainly Napoleon III, though. He was an idiot, I beleive we all know that.

Of course, we can't argue that Gavrilo Princep was an evil anarchist antichrist who was the spark that ignited the gunpowder. It would't have happened to him if he didn't kill one of the best men Austria...and the world...had at the time.

Craterus

10-22-2005, 23:18

If you want to go all the way back for WWI, let's blame Napoleon III (I beleive that was him) and Bismarck, mainly Napoleon III, though. He was an idiot, I beleive we all know that.

Of course, we can't argue that Gavrilo Princep was an evil anarchist antichrist who was the spark that ignited the gunpowder. It would't have happened to him if he didn't kill one of the best men Austria...and the world...had at the time.

I agree with you there. If the first 6 hadn't have been too scared to throw their bombs, fire their guns, or at least manage to hit the target, we'd have another name to blame.
If we were to go with your original statement of blaming Gavrilo Princip, I think it'd be more appropriate to blame the Black Hand Gang and those that funded them (a German politician, I believe).

Tribesman

10-22-2005, 23:26

If the world had intervened when he demanded the Sudetenland, then they Holocost would have been avoided, correct? Of course I'm right.

Nope , it may have altered the scale and the timeline , but only an intervention to overthrow the biological racism that the Nazi Party and others espoused would have been enough to stop it .

Craterus

10-22-2005, 23:33

Hitler brewed up the racism against the Jews in the years leading up to the war. The "brain-washed" people would have expected some action, as they had been "trained" to hate the Jews. The holocaust would have happened, had they let him have the Sudetenland or not. Hitler began to kill more and more Jews as the war got worse for the Germans. If the Brits, French etc. hadn't followed their policy of appeasement and started a war immediately, Hitler may have started killing Jews anyway.

Kagemusha

10-22-2005, 23:39

Okay my dear Inquisitor.~;) My five cents on Hitler.
Mediocre artist who was mentally unbalanced, human who lived in denial his entire life. He created in his imagination an way to accuse other people for his own failures.In his case jews and other minorities.
On the other hand,magnificent speaker who had almost demonic grasp on his audience.If Hitler would have loved acting like art,people of 20th century could have may even have been spared from another World wide catastrophy.As an organisator Hitler was very talented,he had ability to find right people in right jobs.
As an military commander,in my opinion he was pathetic.The Prussian military system which was forged over centuries.Was the most efficient military system of its time.He had exellent commanders both in Strategig and tactical levels.As long as he left the command of Operations to his Commanders,Germany saw no defeat But after autumn 1941 when he took direct command of German Military Operations,Germany didnt saw anything else but defeat.
At the end of the war Hitler was already a complete lunatic,which was samekind of lunacy that we see in his earlier deniel of things.He gave commands to army groups that didnt exist anymore.
As for personal side of Hitler,he was control freek.His relationship to his neace and Eva Brown shows it clearly.His personal self esteem was so low that he tryed to separate people in the little lifes where Hitler himself was the only actual person.
And for his role on Holocaust.Anyone who tryes to say that Hitler was just the part of the people who constructed this industry to mass murder people are liers.He was the father of the Holocaust.He really thought that there was only one race worth living Aryans,which is sad and funny at the same time becouse Aryans were an people that long time a go invaded India.And their only remaining relatives are the gupsys.

Craterus

10-22-2005, 23:51

The fact that he himself was not a typical Aryan (blond hair, blue eyes, tall) is the strangest part about it. And it seemed that no-one noticed..

Hitler didn't get into the university of Vienna as an art student, because he was told he wasn't good enough. His interviewer was Jewish. Perhaps a reason for his hatred, but I believe he targetted the Jews, gays and disabled because he knew the Germans wanted someone to blame. The Jews held good jobs (university professors etc.) whilst the "real" Germans were living in poverty during the Depression.

This started the hate against the Jews, and with the help of Hitler Youth and the other organisations, he managed to convince an entire nation.

Tribesman

10-23-2005, 00:07

The fact that he himself was not a typical Aryan (blond hair, blue eyes, tall) is the strangest part about it. And it seemed that no-one noticed..

Surely Himmler is a better example of the fine Aryan master race~D ~D ~D

Hitler didn't get into the university of Vienna as an art student, because he was told he wasn't good enough.
Well mainly because he couldn't draw people or animals good enough , so that ruled out the Fine arts , and his lack of education ruled out architectural art .
This started the hate against the Jews
His hatred predated that by several years .

Craterus

10-23-2005, 00:10

His hatred predated that by several years .

I didn't say his didn't. I was talking about most of the German nation.

GoreBag

10-23-2005, 00:13

The fact that he himself was not a typical Aryan (blond hair, blue eyes, tall) is the strangest part about it. And it seemed that no-one noticed..

Wowww...woooooowww. No Germans (by ethnicity, of course) are Aryans.

I always wondered about that, and came to the conclusion that either 1) A breeding program would have been started in order to breed all the non-blondes out over a period of time or 2) He'd use his dominant genes to make it very easy for his progeny to take over affairs of government, like primogeniture, once the breeding program from #1 was implemented.

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 01:01

His personal self esteem was so low that he tryed to separate people in the little lifes where Hitler himself was the only actual person.Very perceptive of you, my esteemed heretic. ~;)

Tomorrow is Sunday, I will take out my 'Hitler books' and related stuff and see how far your notion applies to most of Hitler's known friendships and political partnerships, particularly his close friend Goebbels. Interesting point, thank you.
:bow:

There are many theories about the true nature or causes of Hitler's antisemitism. One theory has it that his legal father Alois was not his natural father and that Adolf was in reality the bastard of a Jewish notable who had employed Hitler's mother as a housekeeper for some time. No written sources were ever provided and most Hitler-biographers mention that the theory is based on hearsay. In his later years Hitler was the object of countless derogatory rumours in the inner nazi circle and this may have been one of those.

I am not sure that he was truly and deeply convinced that Jews were the enemy. As a counterpoint to what you wrote about Hitler being the 'father of the Holocaust' I would mention Ian Kershaw's two-volume biography Hubris (1998) and Nemesis (2000). Based on Joseph Goebbels' complete diary as well as other newly available sources (some of which had been locked away for decades in the former Soviet Union) he comes to the conclusion that Hitler actually had to be urged by his more fanatic subordinates into instituting the yellow star, the mass deportations and Heydrich's extermination policy. Goebbels played a main part in those episodes.

I wonder if you have read the essay The Meaning of Hitler (1979) by Sebastian Haffner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Haffner), a pseudonym for Raimund Pretzel. It you have not, I am sure it will be very much to your liking. It is about 150 pages without footnotes, and a great read for anyone interested in the detailed analysis of precisely those issues that you addressed above. The booklet treats seven aspects of Hitler and his regime in seven concise chapters in a very detached style entitled Life, Achievements, Successes, Misconceptions, Mistakes, Crimes, and Betrayal. Bloody perfect, if you ask me.

Viennese author Karl Kraus opened his 300-page anti-nazi polemic Third Walpurgisnight (1933) with the line that he had nothing to say about Hitler ('Mir fällt zu Hitler nichts ein'). That is typical for all that has been said and written about the man for almost a century: all the criticism of the man, his policies, his speeches and writing somehow does not revolve around a real person, a flesh and blood individual that we can even remotely identify with. If anything, he is not above or beyond analysis, but beneath it. Once again I believe Haffner said it best when he wrote in the booklet that Hitler is best understood not as a politician or statesman but as essentially a criminal, a pure 'mass murderer' who made it to center stage in world affairs. I am not a mass murderer. I do not understand Adolf Hitler and I probably never will.

Kagemusha

10-23-2005, 02:18

Thank You bearded inquisitor for the material i will look at those when i have time for the Shogun Mod.:bow:

Kaiser of Arabia

10-23-2005, 03:54

I agree with you there. If the first 6 hadn't have been too scared to throw their bombs, fire their guns, or at least manage to hit the target, we'd have another name to blame.
If we were to go with your original statement of blaming Gavrilo Princip, I think it'd be more appropriate to blame the Black Hand Gang and those that funded them (a German politician, I believe).
Didn't Serbia help them too?

I find the assassination funny, let me put it how my history teacher put it.

Ok, Franz Ferdinand goes to Serejevo, right? So, there is this Serbian nationalist group called the Black hand. They want to kill him. So first, they try to shoot him. They miss and get arrested. Now, they decide to throw bombs, now, they decide to throw them from both sides of the car. The bombs go over the car and you have 4 fried assassins. Now, they're at their last throws, so they give this 19 year old collage kid an adress and a six shooter. Now, he's walking around town WITH A GUN OUT asking where the adress was. No one knew where it was, well, it turned out to be town hall, they could have said Town hall but they give him the adress. So, he just happens to be there when Franz passes. Bam. Dead Austrian Heir

A brief summary.

Tribesman

10-23-2005, 10:40

A brief summary.

You have got to be kidding Capo .
If not then ask your education authority to check Mr Millers achedemic qualifications .~D ~D ~D

caesar44

10-23-2005, 12:44

[QUOTE=kagemusha]
On the other hand,magnificent speaker who had almost demonic grasp on his audience.

I wonder , do you think that this Schikelbruger (Hitler) could have succeed if he had an American audience , or an English , or a French ? Imho , the German people (let say , a big part of it) in the 30' was the best audience that Hitler could have . On second though , how it came to be that (maybe) the most advanced society at the time received in such enthusiasm this Mambo Jumbo about the Aryan race , Superhumans , subhumans etc' ?

Tribesman

10-23-2005, 13:13

On second though , how it came to be that (maybe) the most advanced society at the time received in such enthusiasm this Mambo Jumbo about the Aryan race , Superhumans , subhumans etc' ?

Because people are basically stupid , if someone offers a simple answer then they grasp it .
In this case everything was the fault of the Jews , in other cases everything is the fault of the Blacks , Asians , Europeans , Americans , Israelis , Christians , Muslims , Intellectuals , Communists , Capitalists , Royalty , Liberals .....
It doesn't matter if any of of it is true , people are stupid and want an easy answer , if that answer can make them feel better about themselves and somehow superior then they will swallow it even easier .
Humans eh ? stuff 'em ~;)

Fragony

10-23-2005, 13:22

Any of you know Sebastian Haffner? He has written a good book about this(don't know of an english translation, google says Idunno), he likes to approach the shoah and WW2 as two seperate events that happened within the same period, and I tend to agree. WW2 was really part deux of the first, and cannot be totally blamed on Hitler, but Hitler is of course responsible for the Shoah.

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 13:51

Because people are basically stupid, if someone offers a simple answer then they grasp it.'t Is a tad more complicated.

Hitler never convinced more than one third of the electorate to vote for him. He probably managed to 'convert' more of them (including part of the former Communist electorate) after 1933 because he delivered on the economic front: six million jobs, moderate wealth for every German family and the promise of a Volkswagen around the corner. And this after years of crisis during which many people worried of they could afford to buy bread the next day.

Many were indifferent to his war cries and did not believe it would come to that, nor to the wholesale deportation and mass murder of Jews. When push came to shove in 1938 and onward, ordinary Germans did not have a say in the matter anyway.

The atmosphere in those days was surreal, not only in Berlin, London, Warsaw, Paris and other capitals, but also in the German streets. On the day war with Poland broke out, young Heinrich Böll went to the swimming pool, lay in the sun and smoked as if this were just another day. When he came home, his mother sat at the kitchen table with as ashen face. His conscription letter had arrived. They knew it would, yet they had never believed it would. The officially sanctioned parades, mass meetings and staged 'hurrays' could not conceal that the German public was much more reluctant about going to war than in August of 1914.
(..) people are stupid and want an easy answer, if that answer can make them feel better about themselves and somehow superior then they will swallow it even easier.Böll, for one, was far from stupid. Take it from there and you will gradually discover that there is much more to this dramatic historical episode than just 'people being stupid'.

@Fragony. That would be Defying Hitler: A Memoir. Haffner also once said that all Germany's ills in the modern age were the consequence of its position and size: 'Too small for a tablecloth, too big for a napkin.' Great man. He died listening to Bach, go figure.

Fragony

10-23-2005, 13:59

@Fragony. That would be Defying Hitler: A Memoir. Haffner also once said that all Germany's ills in the modern age were the consequence of its position and size: 'Too small for a tablecloth, too big for a napkin.' Great man. He died listening to Bach, go figure.

That would be from 'from Bischmark to Hitler', and of course the faction info from medieval: total war ~;). Great book, seems like WW1 was inevitable as well.

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 13:59

On second though , how it came to be that (maybe) the most advanced society at the time received in such enthusiasm this Mambo Jumbo about the Aryan race , Superhumans , subhumans etc' ?It did not, that is the whole point. Most people were indifferent to most of those notions, provided that Hitler delivered, particularly in the economy. Which he did between 1933 and 1939. Because of this prevalent indifference on the part of the public, greater minds had to be very courageous to stand up to Hitler and run the risk of being deported and never seen again. Many emigrated, either abroad or in the mind.

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 14:07

That would be from 'from Bischmark to Hitler', and of course the faction info from medieval: total war ~;). Great book, seems like WW1 was inevitable as well.I never read that. Not surprisingly, he took up that same notion in his memoirs though. In those, he wrote that for many boys of his generation 'the war never stopped between 1914 and 1945'.

caesar44

10-23-2005, 14:22

[QUOTE=Tribesman]
people are basically stupid

You can say that again...~;) hey , but that includes us...

caesar44

10-23-2005, 14:30

It did not, that is the whole point. Most people were indifferent to most of those notions, provided that Hitler delivered, particularly in the economy. Which he did between 1933 and 1939. Because of this prevalent indifference on the part of the public, greater minds had to be very courageous to stand up to Hitler and run the risk of being deported and never seen again. Many emigrated, either abroad or in the mind.

44% in the last elections and rising ! + 12% for the other ultra right parties . Do you think that such an ideas could have took a hold in the Western societies of the 30' ?

Edit : Yes , you are saying that the Germans did not vote for Hitler because of his Mambo Jumbo but because of his economical program . Correct ? If so , Tribesman is right , they did not know anything about his militarism , imperialism , racism , hatred etc' ? I say , give them the credit , they knew exactly what Hitler stands for .
(Please ignore my English) .

The Stranger

10-23-2005, 14:44

i can understand why england and france didnt want war...it was soo short after their terrible expierience in 1914-18. would like to redo it sure their people wouldnt.

Geoffrey S

10-23-2005, 14:46

Tribesman

10-23-2005, 15:48

Thing is, the Nazi party was delivering on its promises of a stronger German economy.
Geoffrey : But that delivery was a very short term "fix" that would lead to an even bigger problem in the medium term .
This tendency is most certainly not limited to Germany in the '30s.
I listed a dozen other examples earlier , some still ongoing today . But as in each case the targeted problem isn't really the real problem then the short term "fix" just doesn't work , though it can produce a few "nice" headlines and figures.

Take it from there and you will gradually discover that there is much more to this dramatic historical episode than just 'people being stupid'.

Adrian: I know , but it is the best quick explanation .
Most studies on this episode run to several hundred pages , often several volumes of several hundred pages all cross referenced to other works of several hundred pages .
A more thorough explanation would cover not only the decades of the NSDAP
or dear old Adolfs lifetime but stretch over centuries , if not millenia .

you are saying that the Germans did not vote for Hitler because of his Mambo Jumbo but because of his economical program .
Ceasar :But the economical program was inexorably linked to the racist program , everything from finance to education , health , agriculture and......
BTW44% in the last elections and rising ! where did you get that figure ?
You can say that again... hey , but that includes us...
Well we are only human after all .

The Stranger

10-23-2005, 16:05

[QUOTE=Tribesman]
people are basically stupid

thats not true, people on their own are inteligent but the mass is stupid

Arcanum

10-23-2005, 16:15

You should also see Napola...the beginning of der untergang...its about hitlers childhood...frigging brilliant movie

It's not about Hitler's childhood, it's about the Hitler Youths and the "Nationalpolitische Lager". What the nazis proclaimed the coming elite and it's not the beginning of "Der Untergang", "Napola" is independant made from "Der Untergang".

The Stranger

10-23-2005, 16:27

hmmm, then it isnt napola...thought it was...srry mixed up titles

Kralizec

10-23-2005, 16:48

You can draw a line between Hitler's promises of a better economy and the war. Once in power he pumped millions into the arms industry and raised a larger army then was allowed under the Versailles treaty. Since you can't hold up the facade of a working economy by building up forces indefinitely (there's a point where your warehouses are full of ammunition and tanks are simply parked and gathering dust, and people will start wondering what the justification for all that is), he had to go to war. That simple. If WWII hadn't happened at all and Germany remained peaceful, its economy would have collapsed like a cardhouse.
You could say it's somewhat similar to the decline of the Soviet Union, wich started to weaken under the pressure of keeping up with America in the arms race, while the people saw little improvement in wealth over all these years and began questioning the system.

WW2 was really part deux of the first, and cannot be totally blamed on Hitler, but Hitler is of course responsible for the Shoah.

Good words, I agree totally.

Kralizec

10-23-2005, 16:58

On WWI I blame: .... GAVRILO PRINCEP

A Serbian student caused 15 million deaths by killing a foreign overlord? That's viewing things in black and white plus being ignorant difference between the two.

If I would have to point out a single, major cause for WW1, it would be the trend of making alliances and support pacts. In this time many people had begun to believe that by using treaties and international politics war could be banished and their country secured. Add to that all the trouble that had been going on in the Balkans and you have a recipe for disaster. Individual people are merely catalysts.

Geoffrey S

10-23-2005, 17:20

Geoffrey : But that delivery was a very short term "fix" that would lead to an even bigger problem in the medium term .
Hasn't stopped many nations since from focusing more on the short term than on the medium to long term, since short term fixes often seem more appealing when opposed to long term sacrifices; this is most obvious in the growing deficits of various countries nowadays.

Craterus

10-23-2005, 17:43

Thing is, the Nazi party was delivering on its promises of a stronger German economy. People are all too often to overlook the bad sides of a political party if that party increases the personal standard of living. This tendency is most certainly not limited to Germany in the '30s.

Bingo! Hitler had an answer to most people's problems. Economically, or to get rid of Communism etc. and many overlooked his other policies concerning Jews.

Although, some did agree with the racial policies and some just wanted someone to blame for their problems.

Gregoshi

10-23-2005, 18:21

I don't agree with some of the premises put forth that earlier events (WW1, etc) made Hitler's rise inevitable. They certainly increased the chances of an unfavourable government seizing power, but Hitler wasn't the only possible result. Hitler was the wrong man at the right time. Compare Hitler turning Germany around with Franklin Roosevelt pulling the US out of the Great Depression. I'll grant you that the situation in Germany was much worse than it ever was in the US, but the problems were similar. And each chose a different means to tackle their problems. What if there was a Roosevelt-like politician in Germany in the 20's?

Meneldil

10-23-2005, 18:42

[B]
I wonder , do you think that this Schikelbruger (Hitler) could have succeed if he had an American audience , or an English , or a French ? Imho , the German people (let say , a big part of it) in the 30' was the best audience that Hitler could have . On second though , how it came to be that (maybe) the most advanced society at the time received in such enthusiasm this Mambo Jumbo about the Aryan race , Superhumans , subhumans etc' ?

He sure would have seized power in France, or in the US, or in any western country.
In France, both extreme right and extreme left represented a large part of the voters (if not the major part). The 6th of february 1934, 'riots' organised by the extreme right led to a major political crisis (people thought there would be another Revolution).
If I'm not fooling myself, extreme right groups were also quite influencial too in the US, right after the Crisis (the KKK, the Aryan Alliance, etc. Funnilly, I just read a novel on that topic - K, by Daniel Easterman).

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 18:52

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 18:59

I don't agree with some of the premises put forth that earlier events (WW1, etc) made Hitler's rise inevitable.Oh good. I was just about to blame Horatio Nelson for making it impossible for Napoleon to conquer Britain and thus allow him to turn all his energy to subduing Prussia, which would have prevented the war of 1870 which would have prevented 'Verdun' and thus preempted Hitler's rise to power in 1933.
~;)

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 19:11

Once in power he pumped millions into the arms industry and raised a larger army then was allowed under the Versailles treaty.He didn't. This is one of the myths spread by Hitler's opponents on the left. This myth is also addressed in Haffner's booklet I mentioned. Admittedly, a well-known nazi slogan was 'Kanonen statt Butter!' ('Guns, not butter!'), but in practice it worked the other way round. Hitler initially invested more in civilian industry than in the arms industry. He did produce butter instead of guns. Ironically (in view of what Gregoshi wrote) his favourite economic wizard Hjalmar Schacht applied many Keynesian precepts in the same way Roosevelt did in the United States. Only later could nazi Germany afford to 'militarise' its economy. It did so in close cooperation with the Soviet Union, as has been highlighted in another Haffner book by the way: Der Teufelspakt: Die deutsch-russischen Beziehungen vom Ersten zum Zweiten Weltkrieg (1989). I don't know whether it has been translated.

Tribesman

10-23-2005, 19:22

[/B]thats not true, people on their own are inteligent but the mass is stupid
That proves my point precicely , how can people react differently as a mass if they are not stupid individually ? the stupid mass is collective individual stupidity .
Hasn't stopped many nations since from focusing more on the short term than on the medium to long term,
yep , stupid creatures , they don't seem to learn from their mistakes .
Humans eh ?

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 20:08

Most studies on this episode run to several hundred pages, often several volumes of several hundred pages all cross referenced to other works of several hundred pages.The authoritative works often count over a thousand pages (and Byzantine Prince would call the authors lazy...). I find additional reading of interbellum and post-war novelists indispensable (as well as aesthetically gratifying): Döblin, Fallada, Feuchtwanger, Kisch, Mann, Tucholsky. They 'tell' you things you really want to know, if only, sometimes, by omission.

The issue with Hitler and other historical figures and episodes is that they can not be explained, only described and analysed more or less accurately. Is it really possible to 'explain' a murder three blocks from where you live? If so, then multiply by millions, set back the clock and replace 'blocks' by 'nations'. See you in the next millennium.
~;)

Kaiser of Arabia

10-23-2005, 20:20

A brief summary.

You have got to be kidding Capo .
If not then ask your education authority to check Mr Millers achedemic qualifications .~D ~D ~D
I think he was trying to be funny ~D
And I forget the exact order of things. Alls I remember is that there were gunmen, bombs bouncing off of cars, wounded civilians, and an idiot walking around with a gun out asking where the Archduke was.

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 20:29

Alls I remember is that there were gunmen, bombs bouncing off of cars, wounded civilians, and an idiot walking around with a gun out asking where the Archduke was.In other words: history in the making. Oh the stories! You gotta love history. :book:

caesar44

10-23-2005, 21:00

[QUOTE=Tribesman]

[B] you are saying that the Germans did not vote for Hitler because of his Mambo Jumbo but because of his economical program .
Ceasar :But the economical program was inexorably linked to the racist program , everything from finance to education , health , agriculture and......
BTW

Yes , that is exactly what I meant .

[B]44% in the last elections and rising !
where did you get that figure ?

Tribesman , I referred to the last election before WWII .

REICHSTAG ELECTION OF 5 MARCH 1933
====================================================================
Enrolled voters: 44,685,764
Votes cast: 39,655,029 (88.7)
Invalid votes: 311,698 (00.8)
Valid votes: 39,343,331 (99.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Party Votes % Seats
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Bayrische Volkspartei 1,073,552 02.7 19
DVP-CZVD-DBP-DHP 978,102 02.5 8
Deutsche Zentrumspartei 4,424,905 11.2 73
Kampffront Schwarz-Weiss-Rot 3,136,760 08.0 52
Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands 4,848,058 12.3 81
Landbund 83,839 00.2 1
Nationalsozialisten (NSDAP) 17,277,180 43.9 288Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands 7,516,243 19.1 125
Others 4,692 00.0 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 39,343,331 647

You can see , 56% for the ultra right parties !

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 21:21

REICHSTAG ELECTION OF 5 MARCH 1933That was after the January 1933 Hitler-'coup'. The last valid election had been in November 1932 (http://www.gonschior.de/weimar/Deutschland/RT7.html)when the nazi's got 33 percent of the vote. This was lower than previously and the nazis may have been past their electoral peak since the German economy was picking up. One week before the March 1933 election the Reichstag building burned down. A state of emergency was declared, the Communist and Socialist leaders were arrested, their party organisations outlawed and forbidden to continue campaigning, SA brown shirts roamed the streets and 'convinced' many people to vote for Hitler. Nonetheless he did not get his 50%. It is remarkable that 12 million voted for the outlawed parties anyway.

caesar44

10-23-2005, 22:16

Nonetheless he did not get his 50%. It is remarkable that 12 million voted for the outlawed parties anyway.

"he did not get his 50%" - that's make my argument a valid one , it shows that the elections were elections . Plus , you are saying it also - "It is remarkable that 12 million voted for the outlawed parties anyway" , you see ?

Now , at the 11/1932 elections , the ultra right parties got 49.1 % , so we are arguing here about 6 % - pointless . Hitler came to power by the German people , that is the point , he did not took the power as a representative of some kind of junta . I am sure that we are looking at it the same way . And the conclusion is that the responsibility for the victims of WWII is on a big part of the German nation 33-45 .

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 22:31

"he did not get his 50%" - that's make my argument a valid one , it shows that the elections were elections.I just showed you that they were not. Parties outlawed, voters intimidated. The fact that hard-core left voters were determined to make themselves heard does not alter the fact that these elections were heavily manipulated. As I said before, there are indications that the nazis were already past their electoral peak in November of 1932. The burning of the Reichstag was a Godsend for Mr Hitler.

Geoffrey S

10-23-2005, 22:34

Sorry, but isn't this exactly what I wrote in post #49, only much more elaborately?
Could be, I was merely stating my view on caesar44's post two posts before mine. Could it be possible that two Dutch are in agreement? ~:eek:

Adrian II

10-23-2005, 22:37

Could be, I was merely stating my view on caesar44's post two posts before mine. Could it be possible that two Dutch are in agreement? ~:eek:You and I could start a political party or a Church, then split into three different currents. Only in The Netherlands...
~D

caesar44

10-23-2005, 22:53

[QUOTE=AdrianII]Parties outlawed

No . just after the 1933 elections .
Yes , they were manipulated , but I don't see your point .

Adrian II

10-24-2005, 01:20

Yes, they were manipulated, but I don't see your point .The point is that the Communists were immediately forced to go 'underground' after the Reichstag fire because their leaders and activists were persecuted. They were blamed for the fire by the Hitler government. Its propaganda machine frightened the population with the prospect of an imminent Communist uprising and it made Hitler look like the only real bulwark against it. The Social Democrats could no longer campaign either, their party publications were confiscated and their public manifestations forbidden. Hence these elections were not free, fair or representative. They were, in one word, null.

EDIT
I have reread the whole thread, including your contributions, and frankly I fail to see what your point is. You claim that those 44% of the electorate who voted for the NSDAP in March 1933 knew exactly what Hitler was all about.

I believe that many historians have rightly stated that even Adolf Hitler did not know what Hitler was all about in March of 1933, and in many other instances as well. Ian Kershaw for instance makes a very convincing case that Goebbels had to make a real effort to convince Hitler to adopt some of the more gruesome anti-Jewish measures.

caesar44

10-24-2005, 19:01

The point is that the Communists were immediately forced to go 'underground' after the Reichstag fire because their leaders and activists were persecuted. They were blamed for the fire by the Hitler government. Its propaganda machine frightened the population with the prospect of an imminent Communist uprising and it made Hitler look like the only real bulwark against it. The Social Democrats could no longer campaign either, their party publications were confiscated and their public manifestations forbidden. Hence these elections were not free, fair or representative. They were, in one word, null.

EDIT
I have reread the whole thread, including your contributions, and frankly I fail to see what your point is. You claim that those 44% of the electorate who voted for the NSDAP in March 1933 knew exactly what Hitler was all about.

I believe that many historians have rightly stated that even Adolf Hitler did not know what Hitler was all about in March of 1933, and in many other instances as well. Ian Kershaw for instance makes a very convincing case that Goebbels had to make a real effort to convince Hitler to adopt some of the more gruesome anti-Jewish measures.

"...and frankly I fail to see what your point is ."

Post no. 6 - "Hitler was not responsible for the death of (20 , 30 , 40 , 50 or 60) millions , it was he , his party , his army , a big part of his nation , and so many collaborators ."
Post no. 46 - "Imho , the German people (let say , a big part of it) in the 30' was the best audience that Hitler could have ."
Post no. 54 - "Yes , you (AdrianII)are saying that the Germans did not vote for Hitler because of his Mambo Jumbo but because of his economical program . Correct ? If so , Tribesman is right , they did not know anything about his militarism , imperialism , racism , hatred etc' ? I say , give them the credit , they knew exactly what Hitler stands for ."
Post no. 74 - (quoting tribesman) "Ceasar :But the economical program was inexorably linked to the racist program , everything from finance to education , health , agriculture and......
(me) "Yes , that is exactly what I meant ."
Post no. 76 - "Hitler came to power by the German people , that is the point , he did not took the power as a representative of some kind of junta . I am sure that we(me and you AdrianII) are looking at it the same way . And the conclusion is that the responsibility for the victims of WWII is on a big part of the German nation 33-45 ."

I can't make my self more clear than that .
Now I admit , I was wrong by saying that we are in agreement on the subject , you , apparently , clear the German nation from its responsibility of rising Hitler to power by saying that they did not know what he was , that they voted for him just because he promised them jobs and cars . More than that , you are saying that the 56% in 3/1933 were a lie (although I have showed that they achieved 49% in 11/1932) .
My point is very clear - Hitler was a man of the people and the German aristocracy , and my (and many others) conclusion is - the German nation was responsible for the crimes and the victims of WWII .

Adrian II

10-24-2005, 19:44

you, apparently, clear the German nation from its responsibility (..)Aha, so that is what is bugging you. Well, no, I merely claim that many Germans who voted for him in 1932 and 1933 probably did not know that Hitler was serious about some of his wildest claims with regard to war, Jews or Lebensraum.

As I said before, if Hitler himself was apparently unsure about his true aims, how could those voters have been aware of them? You seem to be stuck in an extreme intentionalist view, i.e that Hitler and all his followers knew from the start everything that transpired between 1933 and 1945.

I also wrote that he 'converted' many more during the later 1930's because of his economic achievements. This does not absolve anyone from particular responsibilities. On the other hand, the 1932 or 1933 election results do not justify your claim that the whole German nation was responsible for Hitler's crimes and victims. It is much more complicated than that.

caesar44

10-24-2005, 20:38

Aha, so that is what is bugging you. Well, no, I merely claim that many Germans who voted for him in 1932 and 1933 probably did not know that Hitler was serious about some of his wildest claims with regard to war, Jews or Lebensraum.

As I said before, if Hitler himself was apparently unsure about his true aims, how could those voters have been aware of them? You seem to be stuck in an extreme intentionalist view, i.e that Hitler and all his followers knew from the start everything that transpired between 1933 and 1945.

I also wrote that he 'converted' many more during the later 1930's because of his economic achievements. This does not absolve anyone from particular responsibilities. On the other hand, the 1932 or 1933 election results do not justify your claim that the whole German nation was responsible for Hitler's crimes and victims. It is much more complicated than that.

AdrianII , "Aha, so that is what is bugging you." Do you really think so ? To make myself clear - You can think enything about the subject , I am not your "big brother" , ha ?

Btw , as you know , in july 18 1925 , Hitler published his "Mein Kampf" which contained :
Here I inteded to write a long artical about the book , actualy about the Nazi program to eliminate the Jews and other minorities , to create a Lebensraum , to crash the Treaty of Versailles etc' , but , what is the use , just read what the man said just 8 years before 1933 -
"At the beginning of the [First World] War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas... ...then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain." (Volume II, Chapter 15 : The Right to Self-Defence)
"These tactics are based on an accurate estimation of human frailties and must lead to success, with almost mathematical certainty, unless the other side also learns how to fight poison gas with poison gas. The weaker natures must be told that here it is a case of to be or not to be." (Volume I, Chapter 2 : Years of Study and Suffering in Vienna)

Well , I belive The German historian Andreas Hillgruber when he labelled the plans contained in Mein Kampf as Hitler's Stufenplan (Stage-by-stage plan). But no , the Germans waited for the cars...

"Well, no, I merely claim that..." Me too , just merely claim...
You know the facts , I know the facts , we don't share the same conclusions , period . let us move on .

Adrian II

10-24-2005, 21:55

(..) read what the man said just 8 years before 1933 -"At the beginning of the [First World] War, or even during the War, if twelve or fifteen thousand of these Jews who were corrupting the nation had been forced to submit to poison-gas... ...then the millions of sacrifices made at the front would not have been in vain."Caesar44, you are out of luck. I happen to have read the whole damn book in the original language.

In that passage Hitler was writing about the Social Democratic leadership, the 'Marxist leaders' mentioned in the previous sentence. He meant to say that if only 'these Jews' (who in his view led the nation to disaster and defeat in 1918) had shared the fate of the ordinary German worker in the trenches, they would not have been able to perform their betrayal behind the lines (the infamous 'Dolchstoss legend'). The passage does not call for the gassing of Jews, let alone of all the Jews.

Such issues have been addressed extentively in Hitler-scholarship, particularly in Werner Maser's commented version of the book titled Hitler's Mein Kampf.

The earliest recorded word of Hitler with regard to the 'Jewish question' was in a letter which he wrote when a corporal and Vertrauensmann in the German Army in 1919. In it, he wrote that there was an essential difference between 'sentimental antisemitism' and 'rational antisemitism'. The first was content to merely attack individual Jews in pogroms. The latter (his preferred version) would see to the removal ('Entfernung') of all Jews from society. Not destruction, removal.

The remarkable fact about Mein Kampf is that it lays out a lot of plans that later materialised (totalitarian rule, foreign conquest, etcetera) but not the mass murder of the Jews. That whole issue is conspicuously absent from the book. And the fact of the matter is that Mein Kampf was not taken very seriously by anyone at the time.

Of course you may refer to Hillgruber, who was an extreme intentionalist writing before the fall of the Berlin Wall, but if you want to paint a credible picture you will have to address more recent findings such as those brought up by Kershaw, as I mentioned, in particular the fact that Hitler himself had to be convinced of instituting various 'Stufen' of the Holocaust. Even at the start of the war, the nazi leadership harboured plans for a forced emigration of all Jews from German and occupied territory, for a mass 'sale'' of Jews to foreign countries, or for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Poland or Madagascar.

Haffner maintains that the decision to destroy Jewry was a consequence of the lost battles in Russia, which made Hitler realise that he would lose the war. The murder of the Jews, on the other hand, was at least something he could accomplish... It became a substitute victory for Hitler, as it were, which seems to be in line with what most biographers state about his character. I suppose we will never really know what went on inside his head.

Kralizec

10-25-2005, 00:08

He didn't. This is one of the myths spread by Hitler's opponents on the left. This myth is also addressed in Haffner's booklet I mentioned. Admittedly, a well-known nazi slogan was 'Kanonen statt Butter!' ('Guns, not butter!'), but in practice it worked the other way round. Hitler initially invested more in civilian industry than in the arms industry. He did produce butter instead of guns. Ironically (in view of what Gregoshi wrote) his favourite economic wizard Hjalmar Schacht applied many Keynesian precepts in the same way Roosevelt did in the United States. Only later could nazi Germany afford to 'militarise' its economy. It did so in close cooperation with the Soviet Union, as has been highlighted in another Haffner book by the way: Der Teufelspakt: Die deutsch-russischen Beziehungen vom Ersten zum Zweiten Weltkrieg (1989). I don't know whether it has been translated.

Thank you for correcting me, I didn't know that. I might pick up some of the literature you mentioned when I'm less busy with my current activities:bow:

Haffner maintains that the decision to destroy Jewry was a consequence of the lost battles in Russia, which made Hitler realise that he would lose the war. The murder of the Jews, on the other hand, was at least something he could accomplish... It became a substitute victory for Hitler, as it were, which seems to be in line with what most biographers state about his character. I suppose we will never really know what went on inside his head.

But...didn't the meeting in Wannsee where the nazis decided to systematicly eradicate the jewish population occur somewhere in 1942 and thus before the tide had turned against the Germans?

Adrian II

10-25-2005, 09:49

But...didn't the meeting in Wannsee where the nazis decided to systematicly eradicate the jewish population occur somewhere in 1942 and thus before the tide had turned against the Germans?Opinions differ. There are facts, and then there are interpretations.

Facts
The Wannsee Conference took place in January of 1942. It was a gathering of representatives of fifteen institutions within the nazi hierarchy presided by Reinhard Heydrich, head of the Reichssicherheitsdienst ('Imperial Security Service'). It was the first occasion when the nazi leadership made a concrete plan to eradicate all Jews. There had been no such plans before. The minutes of this (secret) meeting (http://www.dhm.de/lemo/html/dokumente/wannseekonferenz/index.html)were discovered by the American prosecution in the Neuremberg trial in March 1947, when they secured a file of the former German Foreign Ministry entitled Geheime Reichssache ('secret Imperial matter'). The minutes speak of a plan to 'evacuate' the Jews. No mention is made of extermination, yet the minutiae of the plan are obviously geared to that purpose. This form of bureaucratic hypocrisy was hardly unique in the history of nazi decision-making.
Interpretations
Historians disagree about the timing of, as well as the reasons for the 'decision' to start the extermination of the Jews. The two are internonnected.
Christopher Browning (Fateful Months, 1985) believes that Hitler personally decided on the extermination at the height of his offensive in Russia, in July 1941, in a fit of extreme elation.
Philippe Burrin (Hitler and the Jews, 1994) thinks he took the decision in August of 1941, when the Russian tide had turned and Hitler was outraged at the thought that his Russian offensive would stall.
Structuralists such as Raoul Hilberg (The Destruction of the European Jews, 1985) emphasize the gradual and improvised nature of the decision-making process, in which Hitler nearly always approved the 'moderate' options presented by his underlings and discarded the more radical ones. As a consequence, the 'decision' to start extermination was spread out over the year 1942; the extermination camps were gradually opened and the mass deportation of jews was gradually intensified as the Russian campaign turned sour. Finally, after Stalingrad and Kursk, the extermination of the Jews was declared a matter of the greatest urgency, almost as important as the Reich's military defense.
My interpretation
Ask yourself: Why was Wannsee a 'secret' meeting? Why were nearly all the policies with regard to a 'final solution' of the 'Jewish question' kept secret from the very start almost to the very end of the Reich? The main reason seems to be that the nazi leadership doubted that Germany had the 'stomach' to carry it out.
During the first year of the Russian campaign, the German Einsatzgruppen that killed Jews and political opponents behind the frontlines in the East were gradually given more violent instructions as a test, in order to see if they would comply, if the ordinary German army would tolerate their activity, and if there would be enough 'volunteers' to staff the Einsatzgruppen. Only gradually, in the course of 1941-42, did the leadership become confident that they could pull off a policy of a Judenfrei ('Jew-free') Poland and Russia. And only after that did they feel confident that an overall extermination of Jews was politically feasible. The actual implementation of the policy (as opposed to the paper decision reached in Wannsee) did indeed coincide with the onset of military disaster for the Germans in the East. Based on what I know of Hitler's gangster mentality, my 'guestimate' would be that Haffner is right and that the extermination of the Jews was Hitler's Ersatzsieg ('substitute victory') for a military war that was in fact already lost in 1943.