Was Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring an Idiot?

[Scott Smith]

Blah, blah, blah. Remember the sequence, Reverend:

That despite all the gaschambers, mass graves, ovens, extermination camps and anti-partisan shooting sprees, despite the fact that a guy who considers them "good guys" use on them the insulting nickname Nazis, Hitler's men were still the good guys - or at least the "lesser evil" out of all possible alternatives.

As to Berg's having inappropriately called the fellows "Nazis", I suggest you have the Reverend give you his master's address so you may point out to Berg that the proper term is "National Socialists". You may also open a thread on the online Führerbunker to call attention to this touchy issue:

http://www.codoh.com/bbs/

The Nazis called themselves Nazis. I don't really see how it is derogatory.

Emphasis is mine.

Really? Let’s have a contemporary quote that goes like “wir Nazis …”

Whereupon the Reverend started shooting the bull.

Me furious, Reverend? The more furious you get because I won’t let you off the hook, the more I’m actually enjoying myself. And the burden of providing backup for a statement you made is clearly on you, however much you bitch around.

And your sequence demonstrates that YOU were the one shooting the off-topic SPAM and that I wasn't even the one that made the original claim.

I replied to OVIDIUS that I didn't see how the term "NAZIS" was necessarily derogatory or insulting to the Nazis. Whereupon copious-obscurant Roberto had to have a ridiculous citation that he admits he doesn't even care about and has since fallen on his ass and can't get up.

Tell me, Mr. Spamkönig, citations have been provided. If I now order the German copies of these books via ILL, what is in it for me? You are making a bloody ass of yourself--oh, there's that word again. See what you're making me do! Can't you be reasonable for once, for your own sake?
:roll:

[Roberto]

Can't you be reasonable for once, for your own sake?

That's what I'm asking you, pal.

The issue is quite simple:

- Smith stated that "the Nazis called himself Nazis";

- for which statement I asked him to provide backup in the form of a German-language quote from a high ranking Nazi official;

- which request he not only failed to comply with, but reacted to by throwing one silly insult after the other at me.

Very instructive, Reverend. Thanks for another accurate self-portrait.

[Scott Smith]

Can't you be reasonable for once, for your own sake?

That's what I'm asking you, pal.

The issue is quite simple:

- Smith stated that "the Nazis called himself Nazis";

- for which statement I asked him to provide backup in the form of a German-language quote from a high ranking Nazi official;

- which request he not only failed to comply with, but reacted to by throwing one silly insult after the other at me.

Very instructive, Reverend. Thanks for another accurate self-portrait.

And when I do that you will no-doubt want some other qualifier on an issue that you (and I) don't even care about. Very instructive, Spamkönig.

I ask again: what is in it for me if I comply with your latest less-than-reasonable demand?

And what makes you think that Goebbels would have allowed his copyrighted 1934 book to be incorrectly translated by Dr. Fiedler in 1935 if the word NAZI he considered derogatory, and which he only uses twice, with obvious affection, otherwise prefering to say "National Socialist(s)"?

You're just digging a pit for yourself, Roberto.


Goebbels, Joseph, 1897-1945. My Part in Germany's Fight, by Dr. Joseph Goebbels; translated by Dr. Kurt Fielder; with 8 illustrations. London, Hurst and Blackett, ltd. 1935 [1934].

Goebbels, Joseph, 1897-1945. Vom Kaiserhof zur Reichskanzlei; eine historische Darstellung in Tagebuchblättern (vom 1. Januar 1932 bis zum 1. Mai 1933) München, Zentralverlag der NSDAP, F. Eher Nachf., G.m.b.H., 1934.

[Roberto]

And when I do that you will no-doubt want some other qualifier on an issue that you (and I) don't even care about. Very instructive, Spamkönig.

Come on, Reverend, I promised I would settle for one German language quote. Just one from a Nazi bigshot where the National Socialists are referred to as "Nazis".

I ask again: what is in it for me if I comply with your latest less-than-reasonable demand?

Funny question. If I well remember, it was the Reverend who stated:

The Nazis called themselves Nazis. I don't really see how it is derogatory.

And what makes you think that Goebbels would have allowed his copyrighted 1934 book to be incorrectly translated by Dr. Fiedler in 1935 if the word NAZI he considered derogatory, and which he only uses twice, with obvious affection, otherwise prefering to say "National Socialist(s)"?

Depends on what influence Goebbels had on the wording of the translation. Was it checked and approved by him? Who was this Dr. Fiedler, by the way? A German emigrant?

You're just digging a pit for yourself, Roberto.

Stop howling, Reverend. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong. I just require you to demonstrate that you are right, which is what I would feel compelled to do if I had stated that "Nazis" was what the Nazis called themselves. Which means that if you don't want to dig yourself in deeper, you should stop shooting the bull, get a German language edition of Goebbels' quoted statements and transcribe those that you think prove your point. As easy as that.

[Scott Smith]

And when I do that you will no-doubt want some other qualifier on an issue that you (and I) don't even care about. Very instructive, Spamkönig.

Come on, Reverend, I promised I would settle for one German language quote. Just one from a Nazi bigshot where the National Socialists are referred to as "Nazis".

Define "settle." You settle and then what? I have to go on a wild-goose chase for nothing over something that neither of us even cares about.

I ask again: what is in it for me if I comply with your latest less-than-reasonable demand?

Funny question. If I well remember, it was the Reverend who stated:

The Nazis called themselves Nazis. I don't really see how it is derogatory.

And I hoped for an answer for this view. It was provided by Herr Spearhead. My comment was humbly directed in response to Ovidius and not you, and my opinion was never a dogmatic categorical assertion in any case. You merely took issue and started making demands.

And what makes you think that Goebbels would have allowed his copyrighted 1934 book to be incorrectly translated by Dr. Fiedler in 1935 if the word NAZI he considered derogatory, and which he only uses twice, with obvious affection, otherwise prefering to say "National Socialist(s)"?

Depends on what influence Goebbels had on the wording of the translation. Was it checked and approved by him? Who was this Dr. Fiedler, by the way? A German emigrant?

I don't know for sure but I think Fiedler worked for Goebbels. The book was published by the same outfit that published Mein Kampf in English, immediately after Goebbels published his book and under full copyright. With Goebbels having a very hands-on view of all matters of propaganda, especially his own books, I would think that he very-much approved it first.

You're just digging a pit for yourself, Roberto.

Stop howling, Reverend. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong. I just require you to demonstrate that you are right, which is what I would feel compelled to do if I had stated that "Nazis" was what the Nazis called themselves. Which means that if you don't want to dig yourself in deeper, you should stop shooting the bull, get a German language edition of Goebbels' quoted statements and transcribe those that you think prove your point. As easy as that.

No, of course I am not necessarily wrong. If the situation was reversed you would plop down something from a Holo-site and all considerations of accuracy or bias would be expected to disappear. And the more important the idea the more Spam would be provided to buoy it.

I have already more than made my point!

If you want me to do your homework in the slim hopes that another ace will not be found in my hand you are wasting my time and will have to make it worth my while.

What I require from you is a commitment to better forum behavior in the future. Think about it! Yes, it requires a little humble-pie. You will have to admit that you can be wrong once in a while and strive to respect other posters who you might not agree with. You will have to show a little more reason and less prejudice.

That is what it will take to get me to fill out the ILL form and show you that last ACE.

Best Regards,
Scott

What is that hand?

[Roberto]

Roberto wrote:
Quote:
And when I do that you will no-doubt want some other qualifier on an issue that you (and I) don't even care about. Very instructive, Spamkönig.

Come on, Reverend, I promised I would settle for one German language quote. Just one from a Nazi bigshot where the National Socialists are referred to as "Nazis".

Define "settle." You settle and then what? I have to go on a wild-goose chase for nothing over something that neither of us even cares about.

The poor Reverend seems to be somewhat paranoid about me. “Settle” means that as soon as I have seen a German-language quote from a high-ranking Nazi official wherein the term “Nazi” or “Nazis” is used in such a way as to indicate that the Nazis called themselves “Nazis” and/or didn’t object to being so called, I’ll be satisfied and leave him alone.

Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
I ask again: what is in it for me if I comply with your latest less-than-reasonable demand?

Funny question. If I well remember, it was the Reverend who stated:

Scott wrote:
The Nazis called themselves Nazis. I don't really see how it is derogatory.

And I hoped for an answer for this view.

If so, you should have expressed that more clearly.

It was provided by Herr Spearhead. My comment was humbly directed in response to Ovidius and not you, and my opinion was never a dogmatic categorical assertion in any case.

If so, the humble intention failed to show. See above.

You merely took issue and started making demands.

Exactly. I took the freedom of testing if Smith was able to back up a statement of his upon request.

Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
And what makes you think that Goebbels would have allowed his copyrighted 1934 book to be incorrectly translated by Dr. Fiedler in 1935 if the word NAZI he considered derogatory, and which he only uses twice, with obvious affection, otherwise prefering to say "National Socialist(s)"?

Depends on what influence Goebbels had on the wording of the translation. Was it checked and approved by him? Who was this Dr. Fiedler, by the way? A German emigrant?

I don't know for sure but I think Fiedler worked for Goebbels. The book was published by the same outfit that published Mein Kampf in English, immediately after Goebbels published his book and under full copyright. With Goebbels having a very hands-on view of all matters of propaganda, especially his own books, I would think that he very-much approved it first.

If so, it should not be too difficult to confirm these quite reasonable suppositions by looking at the original German-language text of the quoted passages.

Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:
You're just digging a pit for yourself, Roberto.

Stop howling, Reverend. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong. I just require you to demonstrate that you are right, which is what I would feel compelled to do if I had stated that "Nazis" was what the Nazis called themselves. Which means that if you don't want to dig yourself in deeper, you should stop shooting the bull, get a German language edition of Goebbels' quoted statements and transcribe those that you think prove your point. As easy as that.

No, of course I am not necessarily wrong. If the situation was reversed you would plop down something from a Holo-site and all considerations of accuracy or bias would be expected to disappear. And the more important the idea the more Spam would be provided to buoy it.

Wrong, Reverend, as you well know. I would provide backup from sources on or off the web the reliability of which the Reverend can’t say much against, and he would react by feebly howling about “spam” the way he usually does.

I have already more than made my point!

I suggest you open a poll and ask the audience. As far as I’m concerned, you’ll have made your point when you show me the original German wording of the quoted passages, assuming that it coincides with the English translation in what concerns the term in question.

If you want me to do your homework in the slim hopes that another ace will not be found in my hand you are wasting my time and will have to make it worth my while.

Cut out the crap, buddy. Providing backup for a statement of yours is your homework.

What I require from you is a commitment to better forum behavior in the future. Think about it! Yes, it requires a little humble-pie. You will have to admit that you can be wrong once in a while and strive to respect other posters who you might not agree with. You will have to show a little more reason and less prejudice.

Better don’t throw stones, Reverend. I may not be the only one who has realized by now that you’re sitting in a glass house.

That is what it will take to get me to fill out the ILL form and show you that last ACE.

A rather lame way of covering up the fact that you have nothing more to show. If you had, what better than showing it and getting nasty me off your back on this issue?

[Scott Smith]

Roberto,

You are not displaying the proper respectful (if not penitent) attitude. Therefore do not speak to me. You are unworthy of my time.


If anyone else wants to see the German language citation in question, please ask me and I'll request it via ILL. It might take several weeks.

[Roberto]

Roberto,

You are not displaying the proper respectful (if not penitent) attitude. Therefore do not speak to me. You are unworthy of my time.

Translation: "I won't seek out what would prove my point because you're such a bad, bad fellow and haven't been nice to me".

Doesn't make much sense, does it?

In fact it's one of the silliest statements I have ever read from the Reverend, and that is saying something.

[marc cerqueda]

I am of the opinion that it was goering that single handedly casued the ultimate doom of the third riech. His lnack for blunders was totalsy amazing. His first major blunder occured, during the most critical moment of the war-Dunkirk. With the British and Franch forces trapped, the wermacht could have easily massacred, a now deplted, and helpless foe. However, this was not to be. Goering pleaded with Hitler to allow his luftwaffe to have the honor in delivering the death blow to the combined forces of the french and Brits. Hitler gave in to his request, mainly due to the fact, that this would mean that there would be minimal german casulaties, in destroying the enemy, if teh attack is done from the air. the luftwaffe, then proceeded to bombard the brits, this as we all know proved to be disatrous for the Gerrmans, as the bombers employed were the stuka dive bombers, whcih had very little effect angains mass foramtion of hundreds of thousands of men. carpet bombing would have been the much more suitable tactic, using the JU heavy bombers. The end result was that 300,000 allied soldiers managed to escape, and hitelr lost his chance to defeat britain and france in one swoop. Goerings next blunder came during th e battle of britain, where in he diverted the attacks from the airfields, where they were having great succsess, to the cities. This meant that he allowed the spitfires to get airborne, and destroy the luftwaffes inferior planes. If e had only understood that the bombing of the airfields were causing great loses to the british planes, and continued, he would have totaly anhialated the RAF, and could have rules the skies over England unopposed. Instead his creul heart and mind led him to destroy the cities and terrorize the civilian population. He then blundered at Stalingrad, where once again Hitler listened to him(God knows why at this point, he had failed him twice already). Goering insisted the his luftwaffe could keep the Army of General Paulus(whcih was cut of)supplied. He said by employing airdrops we could supply with food, and ammo, and other supplies. This proved to be impossible. Hitler should have sent an army in to relieve General PAulus, or order him to break out, he did niether becuase of Goering intervention. By the time that Hitler realized that the luftwaffes airdrops were not working it was to late. Paulus was order to fight to the last man. This cost the germans the war. It seemed that when it came to other Generals Hitler was not very forgiving towards their mistakes. But he had a soft spot for Goering, and always forgave him, and was very quick to give him opportuniites. I think this soft spot stems way back to the days of the beer hall putsch in 1923, where Goering literarly took the bullet for Hilter. Lastly as head of the luftwaffe, it would have been Goerings prime reposibility to protect Germany from allied bombing. He did such a hourendous job at this, that if there were never a Normandy invasion, GErmany still would have surrendured eventualy, was they were pounded and blasted into complete and utter destruction. In short, yes he was an idiot.

[Marcus]

Welcome to the forum.

/Marcus

[Scott Smith]

Thanks for getting us back on track Mr. marc cerqueda. The topic was Hermann Göring.

Could you outline briefly the source of your views on H.G.? Where did you get your information in a nutshell?

Thanks,
Scott

[Ovidius]

With the British and Franch forces trapped, the wermacht could have easily massacred, a now deplted, and helpless foe. However, this was not to be. Goering pleaded with Hitler to allow his luftwaffe to have the honor in delivering the death blow to the combined forces of the french and Brits. Hitler gave in to his request, mainly due to the fact, that this would mean that there would be minimal german casulaties, in destroying the enemy, if teh attack is done from the air. the luftwaffe, then proceeded to bombard the brits, this as we all know proved to be disatrous for the Gerrmans, as the bombers employed were the stuka dive bombers, whcih had very little effect angains mass foramtion of hundreds of thousands of men.

Actaully the reality was a bit different, as we know. Hitler's decision to let out the ground troops had to do with the terrain conditions etc and not to his trust in Goering(who deserved no trust after all).

carpet bombing would have been the much more suitable tactic, using the JU heavy bombers.

It still wasn't going to stop the evacuation.

Goerings next blunder came during th e battle of britain, where in he diverted the attacks from the airfields, where they were having great succsess, to the cities. This meant that he allowed the spitfires to get airborne, and destroy the luftwaffes inferior planes. If e had only understood that the bombing of the airfields were causing great loses to the british planes, and continued, he would have totaly anhialated the RAF, and could have rules the skies over England unopposed. Instead his creul heart and mind led him to destroy the cities and terrorize the civilian population.

1. The Luftwaffe fighters and bombers were far superior to the British planes of similar category;

2. The problem with the bombings on cities was not diverting resources from the battle against the RAF(which had been anyway outnumbered), but the fact that it made the Brits to rally around their leaders, and mainly around King George VI, who had been a highly unpopular figure up to his refusal to leave London in 1940;

He then blundered at Stalingrad, where once again Hitler listened to him(God knows why at this point, he had failed him twice already). Goering insisted the his luftwaffe could keep the Army of General Paulus(whcih was cut of)supplied. He said by employing airdrops we could supply with food, and ammo, and other supplies.

It would have been a chance of success, if Goering did not order in 1939-1940 the dismantling of the only aircraft in Europe able to raise 100 tonnes each.

This proved to be impossible.

Obviously.

Hitler should have sent an army in to relieve General PAulus, or order him to break out, he did niether becuase of Goering intervention. By the time that Hitler realized that the luftwaffes airdrops were not working it was to late. Paulus was order to fight to the last man. This cost the germans the war.

1. Paulus could not break out with his army without a great deal of supplies;

2. Hitler ordered the encircled army to fight to the last man because by simply staying there and dying one by one like flies, the German soldiers held trapped around Stalingrad seven Soviet armies, allowing the troops from other sectors of the front to be redeployed for a future offensive planned for the summer of 1943. They died to help their comrades(and not, as certain members around would think, because Hitler had a personal quarrel with Stalin )

I think this soft spot stems way back to the days of the beer hall putsch in 1923, where Goering literarly took the bullet for Hilter.

The funniest thing is where did he took the bullet.

In short, yes he was an idiot.

According to our friend Scott Smith, he was more like a future constitutional Führer.

~Regards,

Ovidius

[Scott Smith]

In short, yes he was an idiot.

According to our friend Scott Smith, he was more like a future constitutional Führer.

The only one that makes a better scapegoat than Hitler is Göring.

[marc cerqueda]

Thanks for getting us back on track Mr. marc cerqueda. The topic was Hermann Göring.

Could you outline briefly the source of your views on H.G.? Where did you get your information in a nutshell?

Thanks,
Scott

Hi Scott,

Well very briefly the source of my views on H.G. are various history books that ive read throughout the years.

thanks,

marc

[Scott Smith]

Thanks for getting us back on track Mr. marc cerqueda. The topic was Hermann Göring.

Could you outline briefly the source of your views on H.G.? Where did you get your information in a nutshell?

Thanks,
Scott

Hi Scott,

Well very briefly the source of my views on H.G. are various history books that ive read throughout the years.

thanks,

marc

I know, I've probably read some of them too, but I was hoping that you could remember some so that we could discuss them. But that's okay.


Best Regards,
Scott