What do you think of Hitler?

mikhail said:

Well i have actually read mein kampf my opinion on Hitler is he was a twisted little man.However he was a human being which is a lesson to all.Its not some sort of evil force its human beings that cause these disasters for the world.Even a tiny amount of power can go to some peoples head.

Click to expand...

Poor Hitler. he is just SO misunderstood :roll:.

/Gardenerimpersonation

None..

...

one must first come to terms with the severity of the quest.

All I have to say is, Mein Kampf was dreadfully boring. He should have had Leni Riefenstahl turn it into a movie.

Not really. I think it's more shocking that Apocalypse, a die-hard zionist, agrees with me.

Click to expand...

Actually no, I do not agree, I merely choose not to disagree.

I will point out however that your first statement in the referred post is pretty much history revisionism.
The rest of your statements I choose not to have opinions on.

Apocalypse said:

Actually no, I do not agree, I merely choose not to disagree.

I will point out however that your first statement in the referred post is pretty much history revisionism.
The rest of your statements I choose not to have opinions on.

Click to expand...

What's your position cant be bothered to read through thread? :mrgreen:

MetalGear said:

What's your position cant be bothered to read through thread? :mrgreen:

Click to expand...

I think that Hitler was one of the biggest villains in mankind's history, that his murders of millions of innocents and the wars that he has initiated were motivated by both hatred and ideology.

He believed that in order to unite his people under his leadership, he would have to create an enemy for the entire nation.
He has also believed that for his nation to achieve world dominance he would have to create allies, that would aid him in the conquering, and that he would later on betray as well.

To sum it up, Hitler was infested with evil intentions.

Okay, so you disagree with me...

Khayembii Communique said:

Okay, so you disagree with me...

Click to expand...

I too take the belief that it were the Nazi generals and high-ranking officers that are mainly responsible for the military achievements of Nazi Germany.

You cannot ask me however to ignore the fact that the state's policies of Nazi Germany were purely based on Hitler's ideology, as they were said and written by Hitler before he became the fuhrer of the state, in his book that he has written in prison and in his countless speeches before the elections and after it.

Coronado said:

All I have to say is, Mein Kampf was dreadfully boring. He should have had Leni Riefenstahl turn it into a movie.

Click to expand...

Yeah, it was a struggle for me to finish. Informative, but boring, read.

Apocalypse said:

You cannot ask me however to ignore the fact that the state's policies of Nazi Germany were purely based on Hitler's ideology, as they were said and written by Hitler before he became the fuhrer of the state, in his book that he has written in prison and in his countless speeches before the elections and after it.

Click to expand...

"Hitler's ideology"? Mussolini himself upon reading Mein Kampf called it "a boring tome that I have never been able to read" and remarked that Hitler's beliefs expressed in the book were "little more than commonplace clichés." (Wiki)

The ideas expressed in Mein Kampf were the ramblings of a bumbling nutjob; there was no "genius" or really any intellectualism that went into it. He took ideas that were already existent and wrote them down in a book.

So I guess I'm not sure where your belief that Hitler was some kind of genius fits in?

And what about my earlier statement do you disagree with?

Khayembii Communique said:

So I guess I'm not sure where your belief that Hitler was some kind of genius fits in?

Click to expand...

Probably in the part where he united a nation under fear, paranoia, and patriotism, had fantastic economic policies, built up the military more than any other European power in such a short period of time despite being battered in WW1, turned Germany from a pile of cement to a glowing nation of industrial progression and development under a decade and almost took all of Europe while incurring huge defeats to Soviet Russia and Federal America prior to the bad Nazi years of 44/45. Are you incapable of seeing that much? Surely one cannot help but admire such statesmanship? His racist ideology aside, Hitler's approach has been and will be a how-to handbook for every revolutionary now and in a 100 years from now.
Inevitably, what he did and how he did it will stand the test of time and will be admired by the future leaders of our children both good and bad.

You're not serious, are you?

Khayembii Communique said:

You're not serious, are you?

Click to expand...

You bet your arse.
Do you think just because he was a racist, elements of his leadership cannot be admired?
Hell, i admire Stalin, his industrial revolution of Russia and his kick ass against the Nazi empire. I also realize he was a communist bastard whack job with a moustache, but there is something good to be learnt from evil and something bad to be learnt from good.

Probably in the part where he united a nation under fear, paranoia, and patriotism,

Click to expand...

It is inevitable that when there is a political void (and there was a huge one from the failure of the Socialists/Communists and their betrayal of the German workers) there will be someone to come in and fill it. That is what happened with the Nazi's.

had fantastic economic policies, built up the military more than any other European power in such a short period of time despite being battered in WW1

Click to expand...

Again, Hitler was not the architect of such a massive plan. Moreover, they had huge infusions of foreign capital so it wasn't surprising in the least that they were able to rebuild.

and almost took all of Europe while incurring huge defeats to Soviet Russia and Federal America prior to the bad Nazi years of 44/45.

Click to expand...

Again, Hitler had little or nothing to do with most of this.

Hell, i admire Stalin, his industrial revolution of Russia

Click to expand...

Again, it wasn't "his". Yes, Stalin was much more involved in all aspects of Soviet policy, to the point where other world leaders were astounded at the knowledge that he commanded of various military tactics, weaponry, etc... for example, but he is not the creator of every single policy during the years that he was in office. That is giving him way too much credit and, as I said earlier, letting way too many people off the hook.

Khayembii Communique said:

It is inevitable that when there is a political void (and there was a huge one from the failure of the Socialists/Communists and their betrayal of the German workers) there will be someone to come in and fill it. That is what happened with the Nazi's.

Click to expand...

Yes and somebody needed to capitalize on that and Hitler did it best. Thats why he won the election. Thats why he was the cleverest out of all the competing parties.

Again, Hitler was not the architect of such a massive plan. Moreover, they had huge infusions of foreign capital so it wasn't surprising in the least that they were able to rebuild.



Again, Hitler had little or nothing to do with most of this.

Click to expand...

Nobody is of the impression that Hitler is responsible for everything that happened. He created a dictatorship that had posts which controlled individual things, so the military feats and victories are not that of Hitlers alone, but his military commanders, and for economics, his financial advisors. There is no dispute, however, that he was the mastermind behind all of this, he was the force that pushed things through, he was the reason the German people bought everything he could throw at them because he was clever enough to have created a cult of personality for himself that would serve him to the end.
Try doing something terribly evil and getting the people to love you for doing it.
Just for a second, grasp that level of deception and public manipulation. That is pure genius.

Again, it wasn't "his". Yes, Stalin was much more involved in all aspects of Soviet policy, to the point where other world leaders were astounded at the knowledge that he commanded of various military tactics, weaponry, etc... for example, but he is not the creator of every single policy during the years that he was in office. That is giving him way too much credit and, as I said earlier, letting way too many people off the hook.

Click to expand...

Considering such things where achieved under Hitlers or Stalins reign, people tend to give credit to the leader of these regimes, even though he isnt the only one admired for his statesmanship (where it is due). Nobody can deny Joseph Goebbels was a fantastic propaganda machine.
Its not a realistic prospect to break it all down and give you the names of every individual politician responsible or whatever. I dont even know why you bothering making this argument. In the end there is the realization that none of this would have been possible without such leaders, they brought it together, they capitalized and did something at the time and changed the course of many people. That is why they deserve the credits, ultimately it is of there doing when it falls down to it.

I'm shocked that there are people who can empatize with Hitler.

Nobody here is emphasizing with him.

kaya said:

Considering such things where achieved under Hitlers or Stalins reign, people tend to give credit to the leader of these regimes, even though he isnt the only one admired for his statesmanship (where it is due). Nobody can deny Joseph Goebbels was a fantastic propaganda machine.
Its not a realistic prospect to break it all down and give you the names of every individual politician responsible or whatever. I dont even know why you bothering making this argument.

Click to expand...

The argument I am making (sorry if it was unclear) is not simply that one must name the names of every single individual involved, but rather that underlying all of the decisions of the Soviet bureaucracy (as an example) and even of Stalin himself there are very powerful social forces at work which are the cause of these actions. Stalin was part of a massive state bureaucracy whose relation to the rest of the Soviet people and those various classes/strata which they comprised was constantly shifting, and even within the bureaucracy itself there were conflicting interests and constant shifts in internal relations.

When one simply talks about Stalin they are leaving out the rest of the story entirely (except for me, as when I say "Stalin" I am presuming all of this, FYI); in order to understand how Stalin came into power and what the decisions of the politburo were at the time one must also understand all the circumstances surrounding these actions, the balance of forces at the time, and their relations.

The degeneration of the Bolshevik party and the USSR were due to a whole variety of extremely complex issues that is essentially impossible to pin down to "Stalin did/said/decreed xyz".

The same goes with Hitler and every other dictator.

In the end there is the realization that none of this would have been possible without such leaders, they brought it together, they capitalized and did something at the time and changed the course of many people. That is why they deserve the credits, ultimately it is of there doing when it falls down to it.

Click to expand...

To say that none of it would have been possible without these specific individuals is just as empty a statement as saying its opposite. This is going into the territory of alternative history, which is in my opinion an ultimately pointless road to travel.

A more important question to ask is how did these leaders come into power? What were the forces and the sequence of events that led to their rise?

The bureaucratization of the USSR was certainly well under way with or without Stalin as an individual, so why was he the one that ultimately ended up on top? I think Trotsky said it best:

The entire effort of Stalin, with whom at that time Zinoviev and Kamenev were working hand in hand, was thenceforth directed to freeing the party machine from the control of the rank-and-file members of the party. In this struggle for “stability” of the Central Committee, Stalin proved the most consistent and reliable among his colleagues. He had no need to tear himself away from international problems; he had never been concerned with them. The petty bourgeois outlook of the new ruling stratum was his own outlook. He profoundly believed that the task of creating socialism was national and administrative in its nature. He looked upon the Communist International as a necessary evil would should be used so far as possible for the purposes of foreign policy. His own party kept a value in his eyes merely as a submissive support for the machine.

Trotsky, Leon
The Revolution Betrayed

Click to expand...

The same holds true with Germany. With the pitiful failure of the communists the balance of forces shifted sharply to the right, which is what allowed the Nazi's to gain the upper hand.

I'm not trying to say, however, that these individuals had absolutely no role in their personal lives; they were freely thinking human beings and were able to choose and act as they so decided. However, it is the combination of their actions/ideologies and the material circumstances of the time that got them to where they were able to get to. As an extreme example, I think we can both agree that a Hitler would not be able to get into power in the US in the next week or so, no matter how great of a propagandist he is.

kaya'08 said:

Nobody here is emphasizing with him.

Click to expand...

keep bluffing Liebchen, we are not ready to invade Essex yet

Khayembii Communique said:

"Hitler's ideology"? Mussolini himself upon reading Mein Kampf called it "a boring tome that I have never been able to read" and remarked that Hitler's beliefs expressed in the book were "little more than commonplace clichés." (Wiki)

The ideas expressed in Mein Kampf were the ramblings of a bumbling nutjob; there was no "genius" or really any intellectualism that went into it. He took ideas that were already existent and wrote them down in a book.

So I guess I'm not sure where your belief that Hitler was some kind of genius fits in?

And what about my earlier statement do you disagree with?

Click to expand...

You have completely misunderstood, I was referring to the statement that the Nazis were not motivated by Hitler's ideology.

However, the nutjob and madman bullcrap that was written in the book Mein Kampf is the same nutjob and madman actions that the Nazis have taken in their policies.
For example, the persecution of Jews.

He was a bad man.

Khayembii Communique said:

The argument I am making (sorry if it was unclear) is not simply that one must name the names of every single individual involved, but rather that underlying all of the decisions of the Soviet bureaucracy (as an example) and even of Stalin himself there are very powerful social forces at work which are the cause of these actions. Stalin was part of a massive state bureaucracy whose relation to the rest of the Soviet people and those various classes/strata which they comprised was constantly shifting, and even within the bureaucracy itself there were conflicting interests and constant shifts in internal relations.

Click to expand...

Its simply my position that Stalin and Hitler where cunning statesmen and that cannot be neglected. Im not too informed about communism other than the fact i know it doesnt work mrgreen

I wish this had been a public poll so I would know who to avoid. Thus far there are 11 posters who think he was a great guy!! Unbelievable.

kaya'08 said:

Its simply my position that Stalin and Hitler where cunning statesmen and that cannot be neglected. Im not too informed about communism other than the fact i know it doesnt work mrgreen

Click to expand...

It doesn't look like capitalism works anymore, either.