• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hitler was shrewd, not so hypnotic, new German biography says

I think it does not sound interesting and would only appear such to a certain crowd.
 
JC Callender said:
The article says that Hitler wasn't really anti-semitic at first, more of a political opportunist. How does that lead to the Holocaust?
Click to expand...
My theory isn't fully formed, but I think it's possible that it was more a work of his underlings than himself. Trying to curry favor with him, etc. Though I don't think he was necessarily displeased with it, either.
 
radcen said:
My theory isn't fully formed, but I think it's possible that it was more a work of his underlings than himself. Trying to curry favor with him, etc. Though I don't think he was necessarily displeased with it, either.
Click to expand...

Maybe. Maybe he whipped up all of this excitement and didn't have the courage to try to stop it.
 
JC Callender said:
Maybe. Maybe he whipped up all of this excitement and didn't have the courage to try to stop it.
Click to expand...
It is difficult to judge the book without first reading it but from the blurb, Peter Longerich seems to be saying that Hitler had no particular political ideology as a young man in Vienna and it was only after the Great War that he became influenced by the seminal Nazi Party which was antisemitic and that he took on this antisemitism opportunistically to promote his position of leadership in the party. Antisemitism was not confined to Nazis or Germany at that time. If Peter Longerich is saying that Hitler was not really antisemitic but only pretended to be so, then I believe this cannot be supported by the evidence of his speeches and the policies pursued by his government after he became Chancellor, culminating in the Final Solution. Also, the review claims that Dr Joseph Goebbels' diaries were used to show that Hitler was not much of an orator and did not mesmerize his audiences but that this was a myth fabricated by the Propaganda Ministry. As we can see for ourselves from archival footage, even non-German speakers can plainly see Hitler was a gifted public speaker and the crowds were most enthusiastic listening to him. In fact, Goebbels wrote in one of his diaries that he was skeptical about the ability of Hitler to be a leader at first and it was not until he heard him address a crowd that he changed his mind and became his most loyal devotee. The book will sell well because it has the name Hitler on the cover with his photo. This, in itself, tends to prove the author is wrong. Hitler remains a fascinating person 70 years after his death.
 
Heinrich said:
It is difficult to judge the book without first reading it but from the blurb, Peter Longerich seems to be saying that Hitler had no particular political ideology as a young man in Vienna and it was only after the Great War that he became influenced by the seminal Nazi Party which was antisemitic and that he took on this antisemitism opportunistically to promote his position of leadership in the party. Antisemitism was not confined to Nazis or Germany at that time. If Peter Longerich is saying that Hitler was not really antisemitic but only pretended to be so, then I believe this cannot be supported by the evidence of his speeches and the policies pursued by his government after he became Chancellor, culminating in the Final Solution. Also, the review claims that Dr Joseph Goebbels' diaries were used to show that Hitler was not much of an orator and did not mesmerize his audiences but that this was a myth fabricated by the Propaganda Ministry. As we can see for ourselves from archival footage, even non-German speakers can plainly see Hitler was a gifted public speaker and the crowds were most enthusiastic listening to him. In fact, Goebbels wrote in one of his diaries that he was skeptical about the ability of Hitler to be a leader at first and it was not until he heard him address a crowd that he changed his mind and became his most loyal devotee. The book will sell well because it has the name Hitler on the cover with his photo. This, in itself, tends to prove the author is wrong. Hitler remains a fascinating person 70 years after his death.
Click to expand...

You can always read Adolf's book yourself to find out first hand. It's a primary source, not secondary.
 
radcen said:
My theory isn't fully formed, but I think it's possible that it was more a work of his underlings than himself. Trying to curry favor with him, etc. Though I don't think he was necessarily displeased with it, either.
Click to expand...

He attracted a cult following early on, at the prison in Munich, with those who helped him write his book.

Ergo he MUST have been electrifying. And that is consistent with what those have said whom I have spoken with who heard and saw him first hand.
 
radcen said:
I think this sounds interesting.
Click to expand...

Any historical book is a compilation of primary sources.

The better the primary sources, the better the book.

In Adolf's case, there is a book he himself wrote which you would need to read first, in order to understand him personally. And this is a primary source.
 
The two great villains of WW2 were Adolf and Tojo.

I wish there was more written about Tojo.

I have read tons about Adolf and feel like I understand his life fairly well.

But I know little or nothing about Tojo and what prompted him to take over his Emperor's government and plunge his nation into war.
 
Riveroaks said:
You should try reading it before you pronounce a false conclusion like that.
Click to expand...
Naughty. Naughty. I waded through it years ago. It was a penance.
You seem to have German friends; ask them if it makes any sense.
"Try reading it" indeed. The operative word is "try".
 
Heinrich said:
Naughty. Naughty. I waded through it years ago. It was a penance.
You seem to have German friends; ask them if it makes any sense.
"Try reading it" indeed. The operative word is "try".
Click to expand...

Adolf repeats himself a lot and rants a lot.

Just cross reference all the repeats and then you can read them one after another.

It is fairly clear that up to and during WW1 Adolf knew few Jews. He had one Jewish buddy during WW1 whom he was know to play grab ass with.

While he was in Vienna is when he developed his distaste for Jews. He writes about that in his book.

He also noticed Jewish favoritism towards the end of WW1 akin to what blacks noticed about whites during Viet Nam.

To understand Adolf's anti-Semitism you cannot get out of reading his book, carefully, and cross referencing it.

If you cannot do that then you are no historian nor historical critic.
 
radcen said:
I think this sounds interesting.
Click to expand...

He wrote a whole book to explain how he was shrewd and not hypnotic?

Of course he was shrewd . . . I thought that was the whole impetus behind Hitler being - well - Hitler. A shrewd, cunning bastard that manipulated people into getting what he wanted.

Am I just not getting how 'a lot of people' see Hitler or something? How many paper airplanes are flying over my head right now?
 
radcen said:
My theory isn't fully formed, but I think it's possible that it was more a work of his underlings than himself. Trying to curry favor with him, etc. Though I don't think he was necessarily displeased with it, either.
Click to expand...

That is my impression also. That his underlings were intent on pleasing him and largely left to their own devices. Why the Jews? Because they owned everything, including the political machine. So in this sense Hitler becomes an opportunist. Is that a correct interpretation? I can't say with certainty.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
Adolf repeats himself a lot and rants a lot.

Just cross reference all the repeats and then you can read them one after another.

It is fairly clear that up to and during WW1 Adolf knew few Jews. He had one Jewish buddy during WW1 whom he was know to play grab ass with.

While he was in Vienna is when he developed his distaste for Jews. He writes about that in his book.

He also noticed Jewish favoritism towards the end of WW1 akin to what blacks noticed about whites during Viet Nam.

To understand Adolf's anti-Semitism you cannot get out of reading his book, carefully, and cross referencing it.

If you cannot do that then you are no historian nor historical critic.
Click to expand...
Mein Kampf is a turgid mishmash of half-baked nonsense. He has all the hallmarks of an uneducated, undisciplined, ignorant mind. This is in spite of help from Rudolf Hess, who himself had a screw loose.

Your comment about a Jewish buddy does not warrant a response. As to him knowing few Jews before the Great War, one important one was his mother's physician, Dr Eduard Bloch who gave her the best medical attention available at a reduced fee because of her circumstances as she was dying of cancer in Linz. In gratitude, Hitler gave Bloch special protection after the Anschluss. During the Great War, Hitler was recommended for the Iron Cross First Class by his superior officer, Leutnant Hugo Gutmann, a Jew.

I never claimed to be a historian but I taught history for years in junior and senior high schools and I know how to read a book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom