Hitler

[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.

.

[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.

[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...

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.

[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 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.

*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 film

A 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 Backroom

I fail to 'get' the 'point' here...

[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.

[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.