blame hitler?

[VAE VICTUS]

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?

[Red Harvest]

can hitler be blamed for wwII's 50 million or so deaths?

Not really, he was the primary, but there were other major characters that had a major hand in it as the aggressors. You can't blame Hitler for the actions of wartime Japan. Stalin killed many millions on this own (and of his own) during the same time frame. Don't confuse me as an apologist for Hitler though.

[Gregoshi]

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.

[Sjakihata]

Of course Hitler can't be blamed. Afterall, the allies could've just surrendered to der dritten reich and no casualties would have occured.

btw, is Downfall = Der Untergang?

Im going to see it today, just borrowed it

[Kraxis]

That's it...

It is quite accurate, or as accurate as we can determine it to be. The basis for the movie was the diary and interviews of the secretary (the girl that gets hired in 42), and her statements fit very well with what Speer and other had to say about the situation.

I have nothing to add about Hitler's fault as Red has said it. It would be like Bomber Harris was at fault for the Americans firebombing Tokyo and other big cities. The principle was the same but it wasn't Harris that did it.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Gregoshi]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.

Indeed .

this one is loaded with potential for a rather emotional discussion.

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 .

[PanzerJaeger]

Der Untergang is the best bunker movie Ive seen by far. The events are as accurate as can be determined from the information about that time - besides a few minor side stories & dramatization that come with every movie.

[Kraxis]

Der Untergang is the best bunker movie Ive seen by far. The events are as accurate as can be determined from the information about that time - besides a few minor side stories & dramatization that come with every movie.

Indeed... The story about the boy is simply great. A success HJ that is in the lineup for Hitler's last appearance (you know the one where he gives a boy a friendly little slap on the cheek) to the eventual demise of his beliefs. It was so damn fitting.

[Mikeus Caesar]

With relation to the film Downfall, i do believe that is the most accurate story we'll ever get, as i think it's from one of Hitler's personal assistants, someone with a name like Heinz, something like that, who was there right up till Hitler went off and shot himself.

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[Adrian II]

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]

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.

God, it's common sense Adrian!

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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.

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

[caesar44]

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]

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]

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 ?
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]

[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]

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.

[Mouzafphaerre]

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.


.

[Adrian II]

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


.

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]

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

[Kaiser of Arabia]

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]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[Craterus]

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?

[The Stranger]

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

[Arcanum]

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]

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

[Kralizec]

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.

[Adrian II]

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.