Has anyone else read Mein Kampf?

[kiki1982]

oo, splitting posts, that's where it gets serious .

It didn't work did it? And since Britain soldiered on anyway, if Hitler had killed or imprisoned all those troops he would have had a better chance bringing Britain to terms afterwards. And POWs mattered nothing to Hitler. Another sign of his military ineptitude was his insistence on keeping large numbers of troops busy watching over Jews while they were desperately needed on the fronts.

Do you actually read what you write? Firstly you say that POWs mattered little and then you say that he was stupid because he employed great amounts of troops guarding Jews. Not actually because they topped them up with other Jews (which were despised by their fellow inmates) and forced labour people (like that Demianyuk they recently convicted).
POWs cost a lot because they have to be properly maintained (Convention of Geneva - he did not always adhere to it, but POWs you don't want to mess with) and they are dangerous, certainly in vast numbers because they are soldiers. Soldiers who get bored is no good... They try to escape and mre important would maybe try to start a guerilla war... Hence they are more high maintenance than hungry Jews you want to murder anyway. So 100s of thousands of troops captured in Dunkirk you have to take with you every time you are retreating is not really a good idea. Killing them is not really an option, at least not where people could see it (in contrast to the Russians who killed the Polish army elite in an obsure wood somewhere and only admitted it after the war to Churchill).

That just makes me sick, to hear that coming from a German who is probably not Jewish. The final solution was not the result of a system, it was the direct result of the actions of a few men, largely those of Hitler and Himmler. If you had no Hitler or Himmler then other men may, MAY, have arisen to take their place and commit the same atrocities anyway, but those men would be just as evil and worthy of condemnation as Hitler and Himmler.

Excuse me? I would say that at least all the regulars on this forum know that I am BELGIAN that's why I mentioned it earlier. Ever heard of migration and prejudice? It seems that someone has anti-German ideas here.

You think such an inconceivable idea of killing peope in an industrial manner is the product of one mind? Let me tell you that they experimented first with shooting them, but that didn't work because soldiers became traumatised. Then they started experimenting with gas and finally landed with Zyklon B. Auschwitz was firstly a test site. Other experimental sites were Chelmno where they tried CO2 in trucks. Drivers came back traumatised beause of the screaming and were considered mad by other Germans. (true, same two women on the video)

In fact, the design for Auschwitz, from beds to barracks was the idea of another man who escaped (was it Hess or maybe another). An initial descign was commissioned and they decided to put their prisoners up in three-storey beds. Then someone else said, 'But why not 4 high, then the amount of barracks can be reduced and more can fit into one?' So it became four high.

The Endlösung was decided at a congress, not in one mind. The anti-semitic idea it sprang from had been far longer acceptable in Europe and in Germany more to the point here that it became what it became in Auschwitz and the rest (not to forget Sobibor, Dachau, etc.). It was a systematic acceptability of anti-semitism that made industrial killing of people because they were deemed 'Jews' or 'Jehova's witnesses' or 'Roma' (who were worse off than Jews even) just a matter of course.

If it had been the idea of one man only, he would not have got far. He would just have been a serial killer and that is all.

So you don't think Hitler was evil? Are you a Nazi sympathizer or just an old fashioned contrarian? You missed my hitchhiker metaphor I take it. He turned their economy around but also murdered in cold blood six million innocent people and lead his country to disastrous defeat. Was he evil you ask? What if a serial killer were a good employee and did volunteer service in his community in the time he's not cutting off people's heads. Is that man only part evil as well or can I be so bold as to proclaim him as a person - EVIL?

I am sorry? If I were to be really factual and cold I'd say something about te balance between all the people who were better off and those who were killed, but that would be inappropriate so I will take it back although I would stress the fact that the truth is grey.

However, I would not call a serial killer evil, no, because that is not the whole of him. It is maybe difficult to understand for you that nothing is white or black, but always different shades of grey. He expressed hatred for certain classes of people, and so did half the continent (forgot about Vichy did we, Hungary, Slovakia, the Netherlands [they're still ashamed about it], Franco, even in the UK although those got beaten up in the East End, in Belgium too though that never caught on, Austria which welcomed Germany with open arms, and I could still go on a while, Sweden if I am not mistaken). It was a fashionable thing. Whatever the sick system produced under his presiding is of little consequence; Had he been in the UK, he would have been beaten up, put in prison, Mein Kampf would never have been published and he would have died a nobody. But he was somewhere else...

You're right, it wasn't only a few people. It was 6 million, and then millions and millions more who perished in the wars he himself was instrumental if not directly responsible for bringing about.

I'll tell you what, do we have to consider Gavrillo Prinzip as an evil man because he shot the heir to the throne of Ausstro-Hungary so that the whole lot went bang and the world was at war before it could say 'go'? Surely he was an evil man, because he was responsible. No, my friend, he was someone with his own agenda who did not know the consequences of his deed.
I think you will find that most wars are devised by the military only. It is not because Hitler was the Chancelor and President all in one that he devised most wars. The Russians were as much to blame in this, in fact, because they agreed to divide Poland up, which started the whole thing off in the first place. That was not even a war, that was a show. Once the thing went bang the British realised there was no stopping him and so they went for it.

Carpet bombing and the Blitz Krieg you can't call his ideas only. They were military ideas (quite brilliant in their own way, admittedly). he was not intelligent enough to think that, he was only a corporal (a rank you reach by experience only), for God's sake, what did he know of warfare? His military bloody well did. (excluding Goering and that was Hitler's mistake)

[Darcy88]

oo, splitting posts, that's where it gets serious .



Do you actually read what you write? Firstly you say that POWs mattered little and then you say that he was stupid because he employed great amounts of troops guarding Jews. Not actually because they topped them up with other Jews (which were despised by their fellow inmates) and forced labour people (like that Demianyuk they recently convicted).
POWs cost a lot because they have to be properly maintained (Convention of Geneva - he did not always adhere to it, but POWs you don't want to mess with) and they are dangerous, certainly in vast numbers because they are soldiers. Soldiers who get bored is no good... They try to escape and mre important would maybe try to start a guerilla war... Hence they are more high maintenance than hungry Jews you want to murder anyway. So 100s of thousands of troops captured in Dunkirk you have to take with you every time you are retreating is not really a good idea. Killing them is not really an option, at least not where people could see it (in contrast to the Russians who killed the Polish army elite in an obsure wood somewhere and only admitted it after the war to Churchill).

Come on. The logistical headache caused by having to deal with hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war is nothing compared to the consequences of having to face them in the field of battle. Nothing. And we know Hitler didn't mind having any number of prisoners because he set up concentration camps like a mole making mole hills. Millions of non-combatants did he confine. The British troops would not have been that tremendous of an addition. And the positives of taking them out of action vastly outweigh the negatives of keeping them captive.

Excuse me? I would say that at least all the regulars on this forum know that I am BELGIAN that's why I mentioned it earlier. Ever heard of migration and prejudice? It seems that someone has anti-German ideas here.

I apologize. It says you are in Germany so I just wrongfully assumed you were from there. I'm not really anti-German. I'm half German myself. In the Euro 2012 thread I yesterday posted that I'm rooting for Germany. Sometimes I admit that I am wary of Germany. Maybe its irrational, especially considering that world war 1 was not solely her fault, but sometimes I feel a certain apprehension at their economic and industrial power.

You think such an inconceivable idea of killing peope in an industrial manner is the product of one mind? Let me tell you that they experimented first with shooting them, but that didn't work because soldiers became traumatised. Then they started experimenting with gas and finally landed with Zyklon B. Auschwitz was firstly a test site. Other experimental sites were Chelmno where they tried CO2 in trucks. Drivers came back traumatised beause of the screaming and were considered mad by other Germans. (true, same two women on the video)

In fact, the design for Auschwitz, from beds to barracks was the idea of another man who escaped (was it Hess or maybe another). An initial descign was commissioned and they decided to put their prisoners up in three-storey beds. Then someone else said, 'But why not 4 high, then the amount of barracks can be reduced and more can fit into one?' So it became four high.

The Endlösung was decided at a congress, not in one mind. The anti-semitic idea it sprang from had been far longer acceptable in Europe and in Germany more to the point here that it became what it became in Auschwitz and the rest (not to forget Sobibor, Dachau, etc.). It was a systematic acceptability of anti-semitism that made industrial killing of people because they were deemed 'Jews' or 'Jehova's witnesses' or 'Roma' (who were worse off than Jews even) just a matter of course.

If it had been the idea of one man only, he would not have got far. He would just have been a serial killer and that is all.

So the sentences handed out at Nuremburg were unjust then? Whatever you believe the fact remains that the Nazi regime, the men in charge, Hitler and Himmler and the rest, were directly responsible for the holocaust. There is no way around the veracity of this charge. The plan originated at the top. We are not talking about anti-semitic German soldiers committing scattered war crimes on an individual or small-group level. We are talking about the Chancellor and his inner-circle orchestrating a vast and complex process of racial extermination. Seriously. Open your eyes to this.

I am sorry? If I were to be really factual and cold I'd say something about te balance between all the people who were better off and those who were killed, but that would be inappropriate so I will take it back although I would stress the fact that the truth is grey.

However, I would not call a serial killer evil, no, because that is not the whole of him. It is maybe difficult to understand for you that nothing is white or black, but always different shades of grey. He expressed hatred for certain classes of people, and so did half the continent (forgot about Vichy did we, Hungary, Slovakia, the Netherlands [they're still ashamed about it], Franco, even in the UK although those got beaten up in the East End, in Belgium too though that never caught on, Austria which welcomed Germany with open arms, and I could still go on a while, Sweden if I am not mistaken). It was a fashionable thing. Whatever the sick system produced under his presiding is of little consequence; Had he been in the UK, he would have been beaten up, put in prison, Mein Kampf would never have been published and he would have died a nobody. But he was somewhere else...

A man orders the deaths of six million people after subverting freedom and democracy and plunging civilization into bloody chaos, that man is evil. There is such a thing as evil. Whatever the causes, the results were clear.

I think you will find that most wars are devised by the military only. It is not because Hitler was the Chancelor and President all in one that he devised most wars. The Russians were as much to blame in this, in fact, because they agreed to divide Poland up, which started the whole thing off in the first place. That was not even a war, that was a show. Once the thing went bang the British realised there was no stopping him and so they went for it.

The German high military command thought Hitler was insane for ordering the invasion of France. Hitler bears much responsibility for world war 2.

[JuniperWoolf]

I would say that most Germans at the time did not consider life too bad, and as Emil Miller says, the vast majority was probably better off, certainly through the scheme Kraft durch Freude. Does that make Hitler evil then? The killing people side of him is definitely, but making life better for most Germans is not, or is that also evil nowadays?

...By killing and stealing. If a thief kills one family to feed his own, does that make him admirable?

[KCurtis]

...By killing and stealing. If a thief kills one family to feed his own, does that make him admirable?

Excellent point. I hope everyone knows the answer to that one. Yes, Hitler was evil-it does not matter if he did anything good for the German people. Not one bit.

[Darcy88]

Excellent point. I hope everyone knows the answer to that one. Yes, Hitler was evil-it does not matter if he did anything good for the German people. Not one bit.

He enslaved the German people by cancelling elections and eliminating civil liberties and turning Germany into a police state. He sent them off to die in unnecessary wars. If good was done then at what cost? Liberty is worth much if not everything.

[stlukesguild]

No it is not a no-brainer. It seems a no-brainer, but it is not. If you, as the enemy do not really want to be the enemy, but you are pushed into that camp then killing off your advesary's troops is the last thing you have to do if you want a genuine peace treaty. If you adhere to the thesis that Hitler did not want to fight Britain, but Britain came to the rescue of Belgium as a guarantor for their neutrality, then Germany was pushed in the opposite camp from Britain. I suppose, if you do adhere to that thesis, that Hitler was planning the same as with Stalin: divide the continent amongst them (as Germany and Russia did with Poland). He violated that afterwards of course, and thus he would probably have done with Britain too, but do you think killing them all off in Dunkirk would have moved the British to a treaty? I tell you, the proud people from across the Channel would not have done so. Far from. They would not have succumbed to the Nazis if they were on their knees.

Interesting theory... but not backed up by history. There have been several theories as to the cause of delay in taking the British army prisoner at Dunkirk. One theory, strongly supported, was that Göering was anxious for the Lüftwaffe to have a share in the glory of the defeat as it had been the Panzer armor divisions that had rolled through Holland, Belgium, and were now on the way to victory over the French and British. Unfortunately the Lüftwaffe was delayed, and the effect of their bombs and bullets on the sandy beaches were not as effective as hoped.

As Wikipedia states, "In one of the most widely-debated decisions of the war, the Germans halted their advance on Dunkirk. Contrary to popular belief, what became known as "the Halt Order" did not originate with Adolf Hitler." One possible reason given was that the Germans wished to consolidate their forces facing the combined French and British forces in preparation for for a southward advance against the remaining French forces. Another possibility was that there were intentions of discussing a "conditional surrender".

He (Hitler) was trying to appease his enemy (if enemies they were from his point of view), not kill him off.

There is no historical proof of such an idea. Again, the most plausible notion is that the Germans wanted to consolidate their forces focused upon stopping a flight of the French to the south. The French, and not the British, were the far more important target in Hitler's mind as a result of their humiliation and continued pillage of Germany after WWI. The French, at the time, also had the world's largest standing army, not the British.

Beside of which, if he did not kill them off he was saddled with 100s of thousands of POWs. How was that going to benefit him?

That's simply naive. Even as it was, the Germans took some 40,000 British prisoners. Every prisoner in one less soldier in the enemy's ranks.

If there was any tactical blunder it must have been the British who did not consider the idea of having to retreat and getting stuck at the Channel. They would better have stayed on their island and fought the Germans that way. Instead of running off to the continent pretty much unprepared, certainly not for a retreat.

The tactical error was upon both the British and the French high-command who assumed that the war would be something of a repeat of WWI... a long, drawn-out battle in the trenches. The French, in preparation had built the Maginot Line. The German generals, however, took an unexpected tactic: the Blitzkrieg... a rapid armor advance with the aid of air support and disruption of communication lines and escape routes that skirted the French Maginot line by going through Belgium and Holland. Probably not even the German commanders thought that the tactic would prove as effective as it was, nor that the French and British opposition would crumble as rapidly as they did. The vastly inferior Polish forces had held out longer in the face of the combined invasion of the Germans and Russians.

What if Hitler had killed them all off?

Had the Germans taken the English armies at Dunkirk they still faced the reality of crossing the English Channel in the face of the greatest naval force in the world.

I tell you when Germany made a tactical blunder: the Battle of Britain. That was a tactical blunder. They vastly underestimated the power of Britain in the air and although Germany's planes were technologically better, they were so damn slow in building them that the British had soon the upper hand.

Not exactly. The Battle of Britain as mounted by the German generals was part of the best route toward dealing with England. Rather than mounting an invasion that they were unprepared for, they intended to pound Britain into starvation. They daily hit the British factories, ports, and airstrips with bombers while the German bomber escort fighters sought to divert the British fighters. The British fought admirably, in spite of inferior equipment for the simple reason that they were fighting in defense of their home. The British also had the advantage of radar that gave them advance warning of when and where German attacks were taking place.

The tactical error came when Hitler rescinded Directive no. 17:

Hitler's No. 17 Directive, issued 1 August 1940 on the conduct of war against England specifically prohibited Luftwaffe from conducting terror raids on its own initiative, and reserved the right of ordering terror attacks as means of reprisal for the Führer himself:

The war against England is to be restricted to destructive attacks against industry and air force targets which have weak defensive forces... The most thorough study of the target concerned, that is vital points of the target, is a pre-requisite for success. It is also stressed that every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary loss of life amongst the civilian population.

The Luftwaffe offensive against Britain had included numerous raids on major ports since August, but Hitler had issued a directive London was not to be bombed save on his sole instruction. However, on the afternoon of 15 August, Hauptmann Walter Rubensdörffer leading Erprobungsgruppe 210 mistakenly bombed the Croydon airfield on the outskirts of London instead of the intended target, RAF Kenley; this was followed on the night of 23/24 August by the accidental bombing of Harrow.

Churchill responded with an August 25 raid upon Berlin intended to show the German population that contrary to boasts of Hermann Göering, that the British could strike at the heart of the German capitol. 81 bombers of Bombers Command were sent to raid (ostensibly) industrial and commercial targets in Berlin yet a great many bombs fell across the city, causing some casualties amongst the civilian population as well as damage to residential areas. In retaliation Hitler withdrew his directive, and orders were given to target London with terror bombing daily. This bombing resulted in a strengthening of the resolve of the British populace and gave the British factories and airstrips time time to rebuild.

The reality is that the tactic of daily bombing of the British industrial and military sites and especially the sea ports, combined with the continual destruction of ships headed to England by the German submarine forces had been highly effective, and had they continued on this route, the British almost certainly would have been forced into coming to terms with the Germans.

But the Third Reich is not only the Endlösung! That is only a short episode in the whole period. And that Endlösung did not even come from Hitler alone, but from the system. You think he thought it all up himself?

Now I will say that I am not one who buys into the notion that Hitler was stupid or ignorant. Nor will I deny that his rein had a positive impact upon the lives of some individuals. The same can be said of Mao or Stalin or Pol Pot. However, as an American of German heritage I have no qualms whatsoever about calling Hitler "evil". He has the blood on his hands of not only millions of Jews... but also millions of Germans, Poles, Russians, etc... Where Hitler goes beyond a dictator such as Napoleon is in his genocide of millions of innocent citizens that he considered "inferior": the mentally retarded, homosexuals, the elderly, the physically handicapped, the Jews, Poles, Russians, Slavs... etc... This genocide... the systematic and mechanized execution of countless innocent human beings in concentration camps, mass graves, and slave labor camps goes far beyond the deaths caused as a result of warfare... and eventually these continued efforts to rapidly execute as many Jews as possible during the waning days of the war took precedent even over supplying the German military with needed equipment.

Ironically, where many Russians initially looked upon the invading German forces as saving them from the horrors imposed by Stalin, the treatment of the Russians by the invading Germans resulted in their increased resolve to stand together against the invaders.

[stlukesguild]

However, I would not call a serial killer evil, no, because that is not the whole of him. It is maybe difficult to understand for you that nothing is white or black, but always different shades of grey.

That's just politically correct nonsense. A concentration camp commander can line up thousands of women and children and order that they be gunned down in cold blood... but he is not evil because he's nice to his dog and takes his mistress out to a fine meal afterwards?

[Darcy88]

Probably not even the German commanders thought that the tactic would prove as effective as it was, nor that the French and British opposition would crumble as rapidly as they did. The vastly inferior Polish forces had held out longer in the face of the combined invasion of the Germans and Russians.

Apparently the German generals thought Hitler had gone mad when they were ordered to invade France. So unnerved were they that they planned to march on Berlin and depose the fuhrer, only they were unable to secure the participation of a certain man occupying a strategically vital military post and so had to call it off. This could be a load of bologna, since I did read it in a book of interviews of German generals, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were accurate.

Another interesting thing I read in that book was that during the so called "phony" 8 month phase of the war, after the invasion of Poland but prior to the invasion of France and the low countries, that the Germans were outnumbered by the allies in troop and tank divisions two to one along the German border. The generals said they couldn't believe that the allies were not invading and that if they had they would have had a pretty easy path straight to Berlin.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

However, I would not call a serial killer evil, no, because that is not the whole of him. It is maybe difficult to understand for you that nothing is white or black, but always different shades of grey.

That's just politically correct nonsense. A concentration camp commander can line up thousands of women and children and order that they be gunned down in cold blood... but he is not evil because he's nice to his dog and takes his mistress out to a fine meal afterwards?

Things may always be in shades of gray, but then one must concede there are darker shades and lighter shades. Anyone who think Hitler isn't at the darkest end of the spectrum is simply deluded. He was evil. Serial killers are evil. Hell, people who torture animals are evil. I don't see what's wrong with thinking that. It seems perfectly reasonable.

[Darcy88]

Things may always be in shades of gray, but then one must concede there are darker shades and lighter shades. Anyone who think Hitler isn't at the darkest end of the spectrum is simply deluded. He was evil. Serial killers are evil. Hell, people who torture animals are evil. I don't see what's wrong with thinking that. It seems perfectly reasonable.

The other poster is arguing not only that everything is not black and white and there is in fact grey, they are arguing that there is no black and white, there is only grey.

[Mr.lucifer]

Evil people are usually more complex than comic villains, but they are still evil. The only way a serial killer can be considered evil is only they were very insane. Then thee would be more like dogs with rabies.

[cafolini]

The German people knew very well where Hitler and Co. were leading them and most were Nazi's voluntarily long before they were formally organized. Hitler was merely the political author of the insanity the people wanted to hear. If there is any doubt about the responsibility of the people of insane Weimar, you may try to imagine doing the same thing with the people of the United States of America. You wouldn't last a week. Don't play with it. Don't gamble with it. This is indeed the land of the free and the home of the brave, and that is cast in bronce (so to speak), coming from the fathers of America and what has always been demonstrated as our flag was still there and will remain there. Case closed.

America will never fight against free speech and ignorance. It is obvious that inside the United States we have lots of people that can't read it properly with historical information and sense. There occurs no consequent fear in that regard. All consequent fears in America and what we will protect it from with our lives, if necessary, come from the insanity of crazy cultures that could attack anytime. We will keep improving military technology and training to deal with it. And no military will ever rule the civilian authorities in America. It's in the open. Free speech? Yes. Disinformation about what can happen from the momentary and crazy arguments from people who are getting a generous chance to see who we are? Never. Don't gamble on it. Not a chance is feasible.
"I'll not take any option away from the table."
"Those who see the waning of American influence, don't know what they are talking about." Obama, during the latest State of the Union speech.
Make no mistake: "justice will be done."

I'm not certain if cafolini actually believes the nonsense he spouts... or if it is actually intended as satire. Either way it makes for some comic reading.

As much as you know about many subjects, your coments about this particular one are far more comical than the totality of what I wrote in Linet.
So long as you think of my stuff as belief or disbelief, you will no get a chance to grasp it. You do not understand how the United States of America functions.

[cafolini]

Here is an image of a pro-Nazi rally in Madison Square Garden in 1939.

The fact that in America we can allow this and not worry much about it is pricisely the greatness of America. We don't mind their expression. They have, must, and will always submit to freedom after all.

[Darcy88]

The fact that in America we can allow this and not worry much about it is pricisely the greatness of America. We don't mind their expression. They have, must, and will always submit to freedom after all.

.....

Never mind. Too political.

[KCurtis]

He enslaved the German people by cancelling elections and eliminating civil liberties and turning Germany into a police state. He sent them off to die in unnecessary wars. If good was done then at what cost? Liberty is worth much if not everything.

Agreed