10 Things You Don't Know About

[InsaneApache]

ffs

[Beskar]

He proposed to a Jewish girl too, and she turned him down.
Hitler's mother is also his Fathers' adopted-daughter.
Most of his customers and benefactors were also Jewish..

It is a sad twisted tale of an individual who by all accounts, was abnormal in his behaviour and personality, propelled forward through circumstance, cronynism, political ambition and some very talented minds (such as Goebbels).

[Brenus]

And he loved dogs too, and was a vegetarian... He probably drink milk when he was a baby. And...? What is the purpose of this? To show that monsters are at the start normal babies?

[Husar]

Since I watched this, I love Hitler more.

[HoreTore]

Read a biography or two.

Kids these days....

[Kadagar_AV]

Maybe 10 things YOU didn't know.

I could go on, but HoreTore already made my point.

[HopAlongBunny]

Truth is stranger than fiction; thanks for sharing that

[HoreTore]

Maybe 10 things YOU didn't know.

I could go on, but HoreTore already made my point.

I wished I hadn't though.

I was more crass in my response than I should've been, mainly because of my deep-rooted hate of history shows(except a few made by the BBC).

The things mentioned here are all things that is much better argued in a biography. Still, shows like these have a purpose: it's a low-level entry point for a given subject. Watching them might give you the inspiration to explore the subject deeper, and that can only be good. One must, however, remember that such shows will only give a surface look at things, and are prone to give you the wrong idea of the facts.

All that said, I also loathe biographies and rarely read any. Lenin and Stalin's biographies are exceptions, of course, and occupy the place of honour in the middle of my bookshelf. Aside from those two, I only read biographies as an entry to a subject. For example, when I wanted to know more about Burma, I started with Aung San Suu Kyi's biography. Biographies tend to represent one angle of history, so you can't rely on them to give you a good account.

[Shaka_Khan]

And he loved dogs too, and was a vegetarian... He probably drink milk when he was a baby. And...? What is the purpose of this? To show that monsters are at the start normal babies?

It's the opposite. It was to show how hard it is to expect who would become a monster. You didn't finish reading my message.

[Tuuvi]

What's so wrong with learning something from a t.v. show. It's not like everyone has time to sit there and read books on every single subject known to man.

[Husar]

Everything that wasn't the same way in my childhood is wrong just because the way I learned it is superior.

Another argument might be that TV shows nowadays have a tendency to put more effort into graphical effects than into proper research, although that is partially true for lots of journalism. A book written by a scientist is usually better researched, however with all the plagiarism and stuff we have going nowadays, one can never be sure.

I suggest if you want to know something, research it yourself, go to archives, libraries, interview people etc.
Or read Wikipedia.

[HoreTore]

Everything that wasn't the same way in my childhood is wrong just because the way I learned it is superior.

Another argument might be that TV shows nowadays have a tendency to put more effort into graphical effects than into proper research, although that is partially true for lots of journalism. A book written by a scientist is usually better researched, however with all the plagiarism and stuff we have going nowadays, one can never be sure.

I suggest if you want to know something, research it yourself, go to archives, libraries, interview people etc.
Or read Wikipedia.

Your middle paragraph would be (part of) my argument, and the reason I shun such shows. I'm always bored by "cliffhangers" and such dramatic effects.

A source is a source, and the important aspect is how you use it. Youmust be aware of your sources strengths and their weaknesses in order to make good use of them. That goes for every kind of source, from tv-shows to books. Wikipedia, for example, is an excellent source if you are aware of its weaknesses.

If you want to make an argument that a book is superior, I can direct you to some excellent books on the Holocaust by David Irving...

[Tuuvi]

Everything that wasn't the same way in my childhood is wrong just because the way I learned it is superior.

Another argument might be that TV shows nowadays have a tendency to put more effort into graphical effects than into proper research, although that is partially true for lots of journalism. A book written by a scientist is usually better researched, however with all the plagiarism and stuff we have going nowadays, one can never be sure.

I suggest if you want to know something, research it yourself, go to archives, libraries, interview people etc.
Or read Wikipedia.

I agree that books are superior to t.v. shows for learning new things, it was just bugging me that people derailed Shaka Khan's thread and were berating him just cause he hasn't read a biography on Hitler.

--------

It makes me sad when I learn these kinds of things about infamous people. I think everyone has the potential to be "good", and it's really unfortunate when people choose not to be.

[Ronin]

And he loved dogs too, and was a vegetarian... He probably drink milk when he was a baby. And...? What is the purpose of this? To show that monsters are at the start normal babies?

have you ever seen that video clip of him playing with his dog?
it is very clear from the dog's body posture that it's terrified of him.

[lars573]

I wouldn't read too much into that. Some dogs, particularly pure (in) bred ones, can get really weird when groups of strangers (like say a film crew) just show up.