Re: Adolf Hitler

Capt'n Midnight

After the Treaty of Versailles, because Germany was allowed to remain a united country, Foch declared "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for twenty years". His words proved prophetic: the Second World War started twenty years and 65 days later.

househero

The Diabolical Monocle wrote: »

ehhhh yeah rehllay.

So history repeats itself and Merkel is raping the Greeks today, therefore WW2 was foreseeable in 1933.

do you think there was someone with a crystal ball back in the Vatican in '33 who just said 'ah we could stop the whole destruction of Europe thing but fck it'.


Surely you guys are hugely minted by now with your abilities to foresee minor things like the stockmarket let alone forthcoming political changes like the folks back in 33 could.

Bastard church ... didn't even tell us about Lehman brothers.

The French raped Germany financially after ww1 and they and the people around them knew it. Germany had no way of repaying the money owed, just like Greece now. War and revolution was inevitable. History books make out it was a big surprise.

Not sure why you are talking about the church? Do you expect them to save you from all evil

Manach

Looking dispasstionitly at the historical record, the Catholic Church has been on balance on of the positive forces in European history. When one looks at the history of the specific era: a good source being Michael Burleigh, shows the steadfast opposition both to Bismark's virulant nationalism or Hitler's nationalism/socialism and how the idealogical zealots gladly hopped on the anti-Catholic bandwagon, just as they do today.

househero

Eugene Norman wrote: »

If Catholicism were to lead to the Holocaust it would have done so in Catholic countries, particularly Catholic fascist States, or in the Middle Ages. Hitler was engaged in a race war, not a sectarian war, evidenced by the fact that they rounded up Jewish converts to Christianity in Germany and didn't round up converts to Judaism in some countries, where the converts were not original ashkenazi.

For instance in Crimea the religiously Jewish Crimean Karatites were exempt from persecution because they weren't considered racially Jewish.

Absolutely. It was the Jewish race. Not the Jewish religion Hitler despised.

househero

Manach wrote: »

Looking dispasstionitly at the historical record, the Catholic Church has been on balance on of the positive forces in European history. When one looks at the history of the specific era: a good source being Michael Burleigh, shows the steadfast opposition both to Bismark's virulant nationalism or Hitler's nationalism/socialism and how the idealogical zealots gladly hopped on the anti-Catholic bandwagon, just as they do today.

I would agree.

But

Would it be an impartial source of information? Its hard to ignore the power and reach of the pre 20th century church and printed media has for a very long time been the reserve of the wealthy and connected.

For the most part, they appear from the outside to be remarkably neutral in most conflicts. Even our own 'religious' war.

Wurzelbert

househero wrote: »

Absolutely. It was the Jewish race. Not the Jewish religion Hitler despised.

yes, and that’s where he was wrong as there is no jewish race…there was an ancient hebrew people and there may be a semitic race…never though a jewish race as such…

househero

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Are you trolling or just stupid. He borrowed money from countries he later invaded. Dishing out free cash and holidays for all is possible - you just need to fund it. Raping Europe will provide the finance.

Have you resorted to passive aggressive name calling because I have a different opinion to you that you can not tolerate.

Sounds like you have more in common with the Nazis than you would like to admit.


You seem mentally incapable of separating evil deeds with intelligence. Many sick serial murderers are highly intelligent, Mensa intellectuals waiting on death row.

I am not condoning what the Nazis did, or Hitlers personal views. But...

Hitler was a genius.

househero

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes, and that’s where he was wrong as there is no jewish race…there was an ancient hebrew people and there may be a semitic race…never though a jewish race as such…

Yes that has always confused me too. I know Jewish people believe god intended them to have their own land...

But other religions don't have a 'country' as such. I know countries have a religious majority, but that's just statistics rather than a divine right.

The whole race thing has thankfully been shown through genetics, to be far more complicated than if you have blond hair and blue eyes.

Wurzelbert

househero wrote: »

Yes that has always confused me too. I know Jewish people believe god intended them to have their own land...

But other religions don't have a 'country' as such. I know countries have a religious majority, but that's just statistics rather than a divine right.

The whole race thing has thankfully been shown through genetics, to be far more complicated than if you have blond hair and blue eyes.

and the ashkenazi of today are a racial mix anyway, naturally so after centuries in germany and elsewhere in europe…though it seems easier to see the middle eastern origin of the jewish people in eastern european jews…less genetic exposure to others there through the ages, or so it would appear…

newmug

househero wrote: »

Yes that has always confused me too. I know Jewish people believe god intended them to have their own land...

But other religions don't have a 'country' as such. I know countries have a religious majority, but that's just statistics rather than a divine right.

The whole race thing has thankfully been shown through genetics, to be far more complicated than if you have blond hair and blue eyes.

The "Promised Land" is Heaven. Anybody who kills Palestinians based on the Promised Land logic will definitely NOT be getting to Heaven:mad:

I'll never forget a documentary I saw about a holocaust survivor who fled to South Africa - upon arrival, he was asked to fill in a form, among other things stating his race. SA was white-dominated at the time. He put down "Jewish". The official he was dealing with said "You're not Jewish, you're Caucasian of race, Polish of nationality, and follow the Jewish religion". It wasn't until that moment that the man saw the difference between all three, and realised just how absurd and nihilistic the whole thing was.

Hotblack Desiato

househero wrote: »

Have you resorted to passive aggressive name calling

Sounds like you have more in common with the Nazis

You seem mentally incapable

Hmmm....

Wurzelbert

househero wrote: »

Yes that has always confused me too. I know Jewish people believe god intended them to have their own land...

But other religions don't have a 'country' as such. I know countries have a religious majority, but that's just statistics rather than a divine right.

The whole race thing has thankfully been shown through genetics, to be far more complicated than if you have blond hair and blue eyes.

racially there is no difference between (the ancient) jews and all other semites…seems to be a pretty unique case where a people created its own religion and basically kept it to itself, even when dispersed among other peoples for many centuries…fascinating in a way…
it certainly would appear that ancient biblical tale of the jewish people having their own land has been the main driving force behind zionism and much of the **** that went down in the past 150 or so years…think theodor herzl, the balfour declaration and all, some of the main causes for all the trouble in the 20th century…

indioblack

househero wrote: »

Hahaha Hitler gave the German people food, shelter, fuel, clothes and respect when they were starving and broke after WW1 that is exactly why they gave their lives to fight for an evil dictator.

You can keep your British american failed war political slogans. Hitler gave the Germans the basics to survuve , not a kiss and a cuddle hahahagaga

For Hitler, it was about being German, even if you're Austrian, not accepting that the German army lost WW1, finding a bit of land to move into - Russia.
He made war on countries that had access to sufficient raw materials that would almost certainly guarantee the defeat of the Third Reich.
He waged war on two fronts, sent gigantic armies into Russia - and lost them.
And when the Russians advanced towards his bunker? He didn't care if the German nation was destroyed. Hitler decided that the German people did not deserve to survive - because they had lost the war that he had started.
He was an evil, charismatic opportunist - but no genius.

Wurzelbert

indioblack wrote: »

For Hitler, it was about being German, even if you're Austrian[...]

where exactly do you see the difference between german and austrian? do you know when and why austria became a separate state?

indioblack

Wurzelbert wrote: »

where exactly do you see the difference between german and austrian? do you know when and why austria became a separate state?

No, I don't.
It was a less than serious start to my post.

Arsemageddon

Wurzelbert wrote: »

where exactly do you see the difference between german and austrian? do you know when and why austria became a separate state?

Austrians have funny accents and nicer cake, that's about it really.

indioblack

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Austrians have funny accents and nicer cake, that's about it really.

I see. Never too old to learn!

Wurzelbert

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Austrians have funny accents and nicer cake, that's about it really.

nice coffee, too

Wurzelbert

indioblack wrote: »

No, I don't.
It was a less than serious start to my post.

that’s quite common nowadays…and jokes aside, i recommend reading up on the history of austria in the past 1000 or so years…helps understand the 20 century…

househero

indioblack wrote: »

He was an evil, charismatic opportunist - but no genius.

I am not arguing with you...
If you concentrate on the end of the Reich, you can see fatal mistakes.

But if you understand that before he came to power, the German nation was literally starving, broke and unable to even provide themselves with the most basic needs of survival after WW1

You too would have to admit he was a genius. The German people became wealthy, well fed, money was no longer in hyperinflation, they built roofs over their heads. Amazing public buildings (not slave constructed) huge public projects.


If a broke starving nation became rich in 10 years... Let's take Haiti for example, say it got a new dictator, who fed, educated and gave his people jobs, wealth, pride and an established social system with well invested and highly regarded industries. From dirty foreign aid camps to mansions, housing for all... Having the resources and finance to invade and successfully taking over south america, before invading north america...

He would be regarded as a genius. As going from starving to successful is near impossible to achieve.

Wurzelbert

househero wrote: »

I am not arguing with you...
If you concentrate on the end of the Reich, you can see fatal mistakes.

But if you understand that before he came to power, the German nation was literally starving, broke and unable to even provide themselves with the most basic needs of survival after WW1

You too would have to admit he was a genius. The German people became wealthy, well fed, money was no longer in hyperinflation, they built roofs over their heads. Amazing public buildings (not slave constructed) huge public projects.

If a broke starving nation became rich in 10 years... Let's take Haiti for example, say it got a new dictator, who fed, educated and gave his people jobs, wealth, pride and an established social system with well invested and highly regarded industries. From dirty foreign aid camps to mansions, housing for all... Having the resources and finance to invade and successfully taking over south america, before invading north america...

He would be regarded as a genius. As going from starving to successful is near impossible to achieve.

yes, the whole hitler debate is generally far too focused on the war years and especially the 2nd half of the war when everything was falling apart…and far too much based on a western view of the world and europe, a view primarily shaped by allied war propaganda, the media and hollywood, and a common lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation and history…

riffmongous

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Austrians have funny accents and nicer cake, that's about it really.

The cake I'll agree with but you get similar accents in southern Bavaria..

Austria was just what was left of the german dominated area of the Austro-Hungarian empire minus the german parts of the Sudenten,South Tyrol and parts of Carinthia/Styria. Directly after the war there was popular demand for Austria to join Germany (one province wanted to join Switzerland) as such a small state did not seem viable, but this was forbidden by the Allies.

househero

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes, the whole hitler debate is generally far too focused on the war years and especially the 2nd half of the war when everything was falling apart…and far too much based on a western view of the world and europe, a view primarily shaped by allied war propaganda, the media and hollywood, and a common lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation and history…

I think that is the most scary aspect of the war. The reasons why, not just 'Hitler was evil' and the ignorent politics that are playing out now destabilising Greece, turkey, Ukraine, Syria, north Africa and the aggression of Russia, Palestine, Iraq

To be clear fo anybody reading my posts tgat may be upset by me claiming Hitler was a genius. I would like to make it painfully clear that I am in no way condoning what happened to people under the Nazis. Just that Hitler was no fool as maybe people like to think and his rise to legitimate power through a democratic vote and what he achieved economically and socially was nothing short of genius. What came after, was sick.

Wurzelbert

riffmongous wrote: »

[...]Austria was just what was left of the german dominated area of the Austro-Hungarian empire[...]

erm, there is a tad more to it...when and how do you think the austrian empire came into existance? and have you heard of rudolf of habsburg or duke leopold of austria? your post really just confirms what i wrote in post #172…

Santa Cruz

Wurzelbert wrote: »

yes, the whole hitler debate is generally far too focused on the war years and especially the 2nd half of the war when everything was falling apart…and far too much based on a western view of the world and europe, a view primarily shaped by allied war propaganda, the media and hollywood, and a common lack of knowledge and understanding of the situation and history…

Correct. There's too much concentration (no pun intended) on his mass murder policy and not enough on the improvements he brought to Germany's rail system

househero

Oh dear.

These things really are not funny.

Smiles35

riffmongous wrote: »

The cake I'll agree with but you get similar accents in southern Bavaria..

Austria was just what was left of the german dominated area of the Austro-Hungarian empire minus the german parts of the Sudenten,South Tyrol and parts of Carinthia/Styria. Directly after the war there was popular demand for Austria to join Germany (one province wanted to join Switzerland) as such a small state did not seem viable, but this was forbidden by the Allies.

Which allies stood against that? Cant just say the broken land was denined stabilly by ''everyone''.

riffmongous

Wurzelbert wrote: »

erm, there is a tad more to it...when and how do you think the austrian empire came into existance? and have you heard of rudolf of habsburg or duke leopold of austria? your post really just confirms what i wrote in post #172…

Your original post asked when when and why Austria became a separate state,that's your answer. Not about the history of Austria

Noblong wrote: »

Which allies stood against that? Cant just say the broken land was denined stabilly by ''everyone''.

Well the Treaty of Saint-Germain, signed by all the allies, and the new austrian government too of course, under duress. The treaty had the hypocrisy of having self determination for the different ethnicites in the A-H empire as one of it's core ideas, while awarding lands containing significant german majorities to the surrounding countries, South Tyrol was a big example of this. It's also of note that Hitler for all his talk of German unity was willing to have the Southern Tyrolians deported from Italy to Germany to appease Mussolini.

Otto Bauer 1918

Wir Deutschen können ruhig abwarten, wie die Nationen in voller Freiheit entscheiden! Denn wir werden nicht allein, nicht vereinsamt bleib, wenn die anderen Völker die Gemeinschaft mit uns nicht wollen; jenseits der Staatsgrenze wohnen sechzig Millionen Deutschen

shooterjay

Diego Simeone wrote: »

If the USSR was actually an ally, and that's a fairly ridiculous and hypothetical if, Germany would not have lost the war.

yes they would man, they would have turned on each other

Rabo Karabekian

househero wrote: »

I am not arguing with you...
If you concentrate on the end of the Reich, you can see fatal mistakes.

But if you understand that before he came to power, the German nation was literally starving, broke and unable to even provide themselves with the most basic needs of survival after WW1

You too would have to admit he was a genius. The German people became wealthy, well fed, money was no longer in hyperinflation, they built roofs over their heads. Amazing public buildings (not slave constructed) huge public projects.

I think Hitler's genius was on a more personal level: he was a charismatic leader that united a nation only (relatively) recently unified and the means by which he came to power (without having anything close to a majority nor the means by which to oversee a successful military coup) was extraordinary. The other points you mention (feeding a previously starving nation, stopping hyperinflation, public infrastructure projects) could only have succeeded in the long run by engaging in a war with Russia. It was essentially a false-economy created on the assumption of future gains that required him to defeat the Soviet Union in battle.

Wurzelbert

riffmongous wrote: »

Your original post asked when when and why Austria became a separate state,that's your answer. Not about the history of Austria
[...]

well, you are talking about the austrian republic of today…sort of like those who say germany only began in 1871 or even 1949…glossing over many centuries of german and european history…
austria really first became a state of its own in 1806 when the old german empire (the 1st reich) was finally dissolved by napoleon and the austrian empire was founded…after austria had been a natural and integral part of the german empire and nation for some 800 years…

riffmongous

Wurzelbert wrote: »

well, you are talking about the austrian republic of today…sort of like those who say germany only began in 1871 or even 1949…glossing over many centuries of german and european history…
austria really first became a state of its own in 1806 when the old german empire (the 1st reich) was finally dissolved by napoleon and the austrian empire was founded…after austria had been a natural and integral part of the german empire and nation for some 800 years…

But it was the republics that tried to be actually 'austrian', unsuccessfully with the 1st and finally now in the last few decades with the 2nd. The Austrian Empire was not so much a state of Austria as an empire ruled by germans from austria

Wurzelbert

riffmongous wrote: »

But it was the republics that tried to be actually 'austrian', unsuccessfully with the 1st and finally now in the last few decades with the 2nd. The Austrian Empire was not so much a state of Austria as an empire ruled by germans from austria

i see what you mean…what i meant is that it had been called austria since the 10th century or so and was part of the german heartland until 1806…and in a debate on hitler and the world wars that is an important piece of info as only then can one truly understand the whole austrian/german thing…

indioblack

househero wrote: »

I am not arguing with you...
If you concentrate on the end of the Reich, you can see fatal mistakes.

But if you understand that before he came to power, the German nation was literally starving, broke and unable to even provide themselves with the most basic needs of survival after WW1

You too would have to admit he was a genius. The German people became wealthy, well fed, money was no longer in hyperinflation, they built roofs over their heads. Amazing public buildings (not slave constructed) huge public projects.


If a broke starving nation became rich in 10 years... Let's take Haiti for example, say it got a new dictator, who fed, educated and gave his people jobs, wealth, pride and an established social system with well invested and highly regarded industries. From dirty foreign aid camps to mansions, housing for all... Having the resources and finance to invade and successfully taking over south america, before invading north america...

He would be regarded as a genius. As going from starving to successful is near impossible to achieve.

I see the point you're making. Think of Hitler and you think first of only on thing - the war.
I wouldn't claim to know a lot about his career prior to WW2 - or the history of Austria, either!
I see him as an angry ex-soldier, trying to find a place in the world that reflected his ideas and himself. He was an opportunist - I'd say more style than substance.
You may have seen a TV program a couple of years ago where they attempted to reconstruct Hitler speaking in normal conversation. Most of the newsreel footage has him shouting.
Read the subtitles during these speeches and they don't seem complicated - it was probably more to do with rousing people - energising their emotions.
He made himself a figurehead for the nation, a focus for how German people felt about their past, present and future.
He was able to motivate a large part of the German people - and he could channel all that energy and ability as Chancellor.
If this is along the lines of your claim for him to be regarded as a genius, I'd cautiously agree.

Wurzelbert

indioblack wrote: »

[...]
You may have seen a TV program a couple of years ago where they attempted to reconstruct Hitler speaking in normal conversation. Most of the newsreel footage has him shouting.
Read the subtitles during these speeches and they don't seem complicated [...]

there is footage of hitler talking normally, like that famous finnish tape, and even in his speeches he didn’t normally scream all the time…like this one from 3.30…and of course we need to remember that these were different times, and styles were quite different from today…also his writing style in mein kampf is not unusual for the time, just heavier and more long-winded than we are used to nowadays…after all, his was a time when people still could write and understand long and complex sentences…of course being able to read and understand german is really a prerequisite for understanding hitler, especially things like style and nuances…if you do, check it out, there’s a lot more even on youtube…and while you are there, i also recommend goering’s interrogation…a fascinating time capsule like…

newmug

A lot of the harshness of how Hilters speeches sounded was just down to the German pronunciation and accent. Like in this video.

https://www.facebook.com/uluslararasi.iliskiler.makaleler/videos/10151631370959232/?pnref=story

Wurzelbert

newmug wrote: »

A lot of the harshness of how Hilters speeches sounded was just down to the German pronunciation and accent. Like in this video.

https://www.facebook.com/uluslararasi.iliskiler.makaleler/videos/10151631370959232/?pnref=story

hahaha, yeah…and that german guy there screams and sort of over-pronounces every word instead of just saying it like the others…

Hotblack Desiato

househero wrote: »

But if you understand that before he came to power, the German nation was literally starving, broke and unable to even provide themselves with the most basic needs of survival after WW1

yes, 15 years before he came to power, Germany was in recession but not starving or broke when the Nazis came to power.

You too would have to admit he was a genius. The German people became wealthy, well fed, money was no longer in hyperinflation, they built roofs over their heads. Amazing public buildings (not slave constructed) huge public projects.

Hyperinflation ended in 1924, nine years before he came to power.
The rest was done with borrowed money.

If a broke starving nation became rich in 10 years...

ten years after the Nazis took power, Germany's cities and infrastructure were being gradually destroyed by Allied bombing, the Luftwaffe was losing control of its own airspace, the U-boat war was being lost and three quarters of U-boat crewmen would not survive the war, men and machinery were being destroyed at an unsustainable rate on the eastern front, hundreds of thousands killed or captured at Stalingrad alone, the German Army had been thrown out of North Africa with 150,000 killed/PoW, the invasion of Sicily was imminent.

Some genius. You're arguining from a false premise maintaining that Germany was as weak in 1933 as it had been, starving blockaded and defeated, in November 1918.

househero

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

yes, 15 years before he came to power, Germany was in recession but not starving or broke when the Nazis came to power.




Hyperinflation ended in 1924, nine years before he came to power.
The rest was done with borrowed money.




ten years after the Nazis took power, Germany's cities and infrastructure were being gradually destroyed by Allied bombing, the Luftwaffe was losing control of its own airspace, the U-boat war was being lost and three quarters of U-boat crewmen would not survive the war, men and machinery were being destroyed at an unsustainable rate on the eastern front, hundreds of thousands killed or captured at Stalingrad alone, the German Army had been thrown out of North Africa with 150,000 killed/PoW, the invasion of Sicily was imminent.

Some genius. You're arguining from a false premise maintaining that Germany was as weak in 1933 as it had been, starving blockaded and defeated, in November 1918.

Before Hitlers party took power, Germany was starving, broke and its pride crushed.

Hyperinflation stopped. But the DM didn't return to anywhere near normal levels of foreign trade

30% of families had no means of income. At all.

Germany was financed throughout the war by western bank... Including ones with strong Jewish ties. It was seen as capable at repaying its debts.


You are focussing on the war. The history of which was written by the ally's. Germany was defeated, but the run up to Hitlers undoing was absolutely not the work of an idiot. If you visit Germany today, you see buildings as grand as cities like Paris or Rome.


I still maintain Hitler was equal part genius as arse 0.

Unemployment was nearly at 0%. Wages increased 11% during the Nazis reign AND Germany got the reputation that it STILL lives off today of being serious, efficient and no nonsense. It's present day manufacturing base is reliant on the bs tard of Hitlers ruthlessness.

It took three continents to defeat 1 nation.

Europe, Russia and North America Vs Germany! And it nearly didn't happen.

SaveOurLyric

Rabo Karabekian wrote: »

I think Hitler's genius was on a more personal level: he was a charismatic leader that united a nation only (relatively) recently unified and the means by which he came to power (without having anything close to a majority nor the means by which to oversee a successful military coup) was extraordinary. The other points you mention (feeding a previously starving nation, stopping hyperinflation, public infrastructure projects) could only have succeeded in the long run by engaging in a war with Russia. It was essentially a false-economy created on the assumption of future gains that required him to defeat the Soviet Union in battle.

You must also consider the admirable character aspects of Hitler the man. He was selfless in his dedication to the improvement of the lives of others. Where he saw wrong, he tried to right it, without concern for his own enrichment or personal ambition. Yes, he played on his charisma and iconic leader of Germany, but it was for the furtherance of the greater cause. He was a true man of action. That for which we cry out in out politicians today. There was no emperor or Napoleon wanna-be aristocrat in him or self glorification to feed his own vanity. Rather, he gave his all for his people. Quite a man.

Wurzelbert

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You must also consider the admirable character aspects of Hitler the man. He was selfless in his dedication to the improvement of the lives of others. Where he saw wrong, he tried to right it, without concern for his own enrichment or personal ambition. Yes, he played on his charisma and iconic leader of Germany, but it was for the furtherance of the greater cause. He was a true man of action. That for which we cry out in out politicians today. There was no emperor or Napoleon wanna-be aristocrat in him or self glorification to feed his own vanity. Rather, he gave his all for his people. Quite a man.

that an attempt at asrcasm?

Fratton Fred

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You must also consider the admirable character aspects of Hitler the man. He was selfless in his dedication to the improvement of the lives of others. Where he saw wrong, he tried to right it, without concern for his own enrichment or personal ambition. Yes, he played on his charisma and iconic leader of Germany, but it was for the furtherance of the greater cause. He was a true man of action. That for which we cry out in out politicians today. There was no emperor or Napoleon wanna-be aristocrat in him or self glorification to feed his own vanity. Rather, he gave his all for his people. Quite a man.

Apart from struggling to see the wrong in murdering millions of innocent people that is.

smurgen

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

You must also consider the admirable character aspects of Hitler the man. He was selfless in his dedication to the improvement of the lives of others. Where he saw wrong, he tried to right it, without concern for his own enrichment or personal ambition. Yes, he played on his charisma and iconic leader of Germany, but it was for the furtherance of the greater cause. He was a true man of action. That for which we cry out in out politicians today. There was no emperor or Napoleon wanna-be aristocrat in him or self glorification to feed his own vanity. Rather, he gave his all for his people. Quite a man.

Admirable my hole.persecuted and starved and murdered Jewish, gay people and various other minority groups.he was a rotten psychopath just like countless other lunatic leaders before him and after him.

Dyr

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Apart from struggling to see the wrong in murdering millions of innocent people that is.

In fairness, if you're going to have a pop at public figures for mass murder we'd be here all day.

looksee

Has it ever been explained how he managed to promote the idea of the master race, the tall, blue eyed, blond ideal without anyone noticing he was weedy, dark-haired and rather unprepossessing himself?

Wurzelbert

looksee wrote: »

Has it ever been explained how he managed to promote the idea of the master race, the tall, blue eyed, blond ideal without anyone noticing he was weedy, dark-haired and rather unprepossessing himself?

have you read his books?

sorry, stupid question, you very obviously have not…hitler was fully aware that the german people had been racially dilluted over time and was and is basically a celtic/germanic/roman/other mix, especially in the south of germany…somehow based on the idea of a past arian race ages ago…he saw the whole “arian” race thing as something to strive for, something that maybe could be achieved (again) over many generations with a lot of racial purity effort and all…the whole “but he had dark hair” argument is but pathetic nonense by the uninformed, best just forget about it…

looksee

Wurzelbert wrote: »

have you read his books?

sorry, stupid question, you very obviously have not…hitler was fully aware that the german people had been racially dilluted over time and was and is basically a celtic/germanic/roman/other mix, especially in the south of germany…somehow based on the idea of a past arian race ages ago…he saw the whole “arian” race thing as something to strive for, something that maybe could be achieved (again) over many generations with a lot of racial purity effort and all…the whole “but he had dark hair” argument is but pathetic nonense by the uninformed, best just forget about it…

Oh, hit a sore spot by the look of it! No I have not read his books, and the 'whole “but he had dark hair” argument' is not supposed to be profound, it is just a casual (though genuinely interested) question. I did not ask the question in a serious history thread; yes I would expect to ask from a reasonably informed standpoint in that case. I asked it in an enviroment where the uninformed might expect to get some sort of a reply; which you have - kind of - given me, if in a very defensive way. Which probably says more than your answer :P

Wurzelbert

looksee wrote: »

Oh, hit a sore spot by the look of it! No I have not read his books, and the 'whole “but he had dark hair” argument' is not supposed to be profound, it is just a casual (though genuinely interested) question. I did not ask the question in a serious history thread; yes I would expect to ask from a reasonably informed standpoint in that case. I asked it in an enviroment where the uninformed might expect to get some sort of a reply; which you have - kind of - given me, if in a very defensive way. Which probably says more than your answer :P

sorry, i see my post may have come across a tad rude; that wasn’t my intention...though i do recommend reading the books...interesting stuff and helps one understand it all better...there is a massive knowledge gap regarding hitler, german history and germany in general in today's world...

silverfeather

Wurzelbert wrote: »

sorry, i see my post may have come across a tad rude; that wasn’t my intention...though i do recommend reading the books...interesting stuff and helps one understand it all better...there is a massive knowledge gap regarding hitler, german history and germany in general in today's world...

The nazi party was secretive. It was a police state everything was secret even back then. So it's hard to piece together now. And people don't want to be forthcoming if they were involved.

diddley