Historian disputes Hitlers war record

Discussions on all aspects of the First World War not covered in the other sections. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#46

Post by Penn44 » 19 Oct 2010, 17:55

Remek Cahena III wrote:I get the impression that you think Weber, the author, called Hitler a "rear area pig", and this is the root of your antagonism to him. (Please correct me if I am mistaken)
I never said that. Are you attempting to use a strawman argument?

Again, re-read what I wrote.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

Ken S.
Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 14 Feb 2006, 10:30
Location: Kanada
Contact:

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#47

Post by Ken S. » 20 Oct 2010, 02:23

Much of the chapter in which Weber discusses the contrast between front-line soldiers and "rear area pigs" can be viewed on google books. Weber uses a general term to draw specific conclusions about attitudes toward Hitler during and after the war. None of the sources used show that Hitler was specifically disliked or referred to as a "rear area pig". Yet Weber states that he was "shunned" because he was a "rear area pig" and after the war was "cold-shouldered" for being a "rear area pig". He also suggests that Hitler received his Iron Cross 1st Class because he was a "rear area pig".
Remek Cahena III wrote:I get the impression that you think Weber, the author, called Hitler a "rear area pig", and this is the root of your antagonism to him. (Please correct me if I am mistaken).

In fact the term "rear area pig" is apparently a quote from Hitler's comrades, not Weber. The original German word was "Etappenschwein" and is in a glossary of German military terms and slang on the net, if you care to check. As pointed out by others above, its English equivalent is REMF.

Given that you value the opinions of those who have done military service above those who have not, perhaps the fact that Hitler was apparently described by fellow veterans as an "Etappenschwein" will give Weber's book more credibility in your eyes.


Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#48

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Oct 2010, 11:25

Penn-44 - I am finding it very difficult to find anything specific you object to (presumably because you haven't read the book), just a generalized "problem with Weber taking a condescending attitude towards Hitler’s service and making judgments of it when he has not served himself."

What, specifically, does Weber's "condescending attitude" consist of? The bare faced affrontery to comment on combat while perhaps not having served himself? As I said before, this would probably disqualify 99% of AHF members from contributing here. Furthermore, it would disqualify all of us from taking a position on anything we had not personally experienced. (There, for example, goes any principled objection any of us might care to take against the so-called Holocaust, because, by virtue of not having experienced a gas chamber, we are, according to you, unqualified to comment).

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#49

Post by Sid Guttridge » 20 Oct 2010, 11:40

Ken S - I get a different section of the book on Google Books ending on p.53, so I can't comment on what you write.

The extract I get ends with the following, "The men at regimental HQ were rapidly becoming an ersatz family for Private Hitler. He displayed steadfast and often courageous loyalty towards his superiors...." Weber then goes on to describe an incident where Hitler may have saved his C.O.'s life.

I have ordered the book as it seems an interesting WWI read even without the Hitler connection. At least one of us should read it, because to have a four-page thread containing dozens of un- or, at best, partially informed posts does AHF's credibility as a historical source no favours.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#50

Post by Penn44 » 20 Oct 2010, 18:06

Remek Cahena III wrote:Penn-44 - I am finding it very difficult to find anything specific you object to (presumably because you haven't read the book), just a generalized "problem with Weber taking a condescending attitude towards Hitler’s service and making judgments of it when he has not served himself."
Finally, the first rays of light begin to pierce the darkness that is Cahena’s head.
Remek Cahena III wrote:What, specifically, does Weber's "condescending attitude" consist of? The bare faced affrontery to comment on combat while perhaps not having served himself?
Yes, Weber’s effrontery to comment with a condescending tone.
Remek Cahena III wrote:As I said before, this would probably disqualify 99% of AHF members from contributing here.
Yes, they are disqualified to take a condescending tone regarding a man who by all appearances did his duty.
Remek Cahena III wrote:Furthermore, it would disqualify all of us from taking a position on anything we had not personally experienced. (There, for example, goes any principled objection any of us might care to take against the so-called Holocaust, because, by virtue of not having experienced a gas chamber, we are, according to you, unqualified to comment).
Hitler’s service in WWI and the Holocaust are two very different situations. Hitler was no “Rambo,” but he did his job as a soldier, and by all accounts did it well. Hitler never claimed any great heroics. The Holocaust was a criminal act, and a blind man can see that.

Yes, as I said before, non-combatants are unqualified to speak on numerous matters because they lack the needed experience. Furthermore, they tend not to know when to shut up, and sit down. Verstehen Sie?

Cahena, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

Ken S.
Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 14 Feb 2006, 10:30
Location: Kanada
Contact:

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#51

Post by Ken S. » 20 Oct 2010, 22:27

It's already been pointed out that the discussion here is based on reviews of the book as well as what the author himself has claimed. The author supposedly showed up on another thread and tried to defend some of his more questionable assertions and theories, but apparently now doesn't want to discuss the issue with people that may in fact be more knowledgeable about the Imperial German Army than he himself is. Reviews are intended to give readers an opinion about the book and a better understanding of its content so that they themselves can determine whether or not they want to purchase the book. These reviews alone have raised questions about the author's theories and conclusions. Moreover, the preview on google books has allowed for any of us--regardless of what sections are viewable--to get a fairly good understanding of the arguments that Weber is presenting and to a certain extent what conclusions he's drawn from the "new" sources that he consulted. This has given me enough information to determine that purchasing this book is not a priority. Moreover, I believe that it was you who suggested that in order to be fully qualified to critique the book, one has to consult the archival material that Weber has drawn his information from. If that's the case, then clearly purchasing and reading this book is not truly the grounds for having an "informed opinion" on the subject anyway.

Remek Cahena III wrote:Ken S - I get a different section of the book on Google Books ending on p.53, so I can't comment on what you write.

The extract I get ends with the following, "The men at regimental HQ were rapidly becoming an ersatz family for Private Hitler. He displayed steadfast and often courageous loyalty towards his superiors...." Weber then goes on to describe an incident where Hitler may have saved his C.O.'s life.

I have ordered the book as it seems an interesting WWI read even without the Hitler connection. At least one of us should read it, because to have a four-page thread containing dozens of un- or, at best, partially informed posts does AHF's credibility as a historical source no favours.

User avatar
Peter H
Member
Posts: 28628
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 14:18
Location: Australia

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#52

Post by Peter H » 21 Oct 2010, 07:58

What forum or thread did Weber supposedly turn up on?

ChristopherPerrien
Member
Posts: 7051
Joined: 26 Dec 2002, 01:58
Location: Mississippi

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#53

Post by ChristopherPerrien » 21 Oct 2010, 10:16

Peter H wrote:What forum or thread did Weber supposedly turn up on?
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... 5&t=170318

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#54

Post by Sid Guttridge » 21 Oct 2010, 16:45

Ken S. - Yes, indeed, the Google books excerpts may well give one a steer on whether one wants to buy a book - but one's own motivations might not be those of others and they might also be completely irrelevant. Google Books excerpts might reasaonably influence what books one chooses to buy, but they don't put one in a position to comment on their contents with any authority.

And, yes, if one wants to offer an authoritative critique of a book, one should know its sources. This one cannot do without reading the book in the first place to establish what they are.

Neither your, nor Penn44's criticisms have any real weight because you simply haven't read the book. What they reveal is almost nothing about the work itself, but quite a lot about your personal prejudices, lack of curiosity and the low standard of evidence you are apparently prepared to accept before offering an opinion.

How can anyone who is not only not in full possession of the facts, but apparently has no intention of coming into possession of them, expect to be taken seriously on any subject?

The appropriate response when in ignorance is to read up and/or ask questions, not offer an under informed opinion of little value.

We are now on p.4 and STILL nobody has read the book.
Last edited by Remek Cahena III on 21 Oct 2010, 17:41, edited 1 time in total.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#55

Post by Sid Guttridge » 21 Oct 2010, 17:09

Penn-44 - So, do I take it that you have no objection to the factual contents of the book or its conclusions (in so far as someone who hasn't read the book can know them), just the tone you think it is written in?

Your proposition that unless one has experienced something one cannot write with any authority on it is ridiculous. On those grounds a quick glance at your previous posts would imply that either (1) you have lived an unusually long time in an amazing number of places and have a mind boggling range of experience or (2) you have, by your own standards, been completely unqualified to make most of them by virtue of not having experienced the events concerned. I know where my money is!

Now why not just read the book, and THEN comment. After all, it is YOU who is advocating that personal experience helps validate opinion. Or does this only apply to others?

Ken S.
Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 14 Feb 2006, 10:30
Location: Kanada
Contact:

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#56

Post by Ken S. » 21 Oct 2010, 17:51

Remek Cahena III wrote:Ken S. - Yes, indeed, the Google books excerpts may well give one a steer on whether one wants to buy a book - but one's own motivations might not be those of others and they might also be completely irrelevant. Google Books excerpts might reasaonably influence what books one chooses to buy, but they don't put one in a position to comment on their contents with any authority.
Where have I claimed that I'm critiquing the book "with any authority". I'm simply offering my opinions on a few specific aspects of the book, specific comments that the author himself has made.
Neither your, nor Penn44's criticisms have any real weight because you simply haven't read the book. What they reveal is almost nothing about the work itself, but quite a lot about your personal prejudices and the low standard of evidence you are apparently prepared to accept before offering an opinion.
Prejudices? Watch yourself their buddy. This has nothing to do with prejudices. I've commented on specific errors that he's made and how this calls into question the merit of his work and his motives for writing the book in the first place. Don't have to read the whole book to do that.

So what if you read the whole book? Will your "informed opinion" have "any authority" since you've never consulted (and never will) the documents that he's used to write this book. You probably don't even read or understand German.

If you'll recall you stated:
What you need to do is (1) read the book and (2) check out its claimed sources. Only then will you be qualified to offer any sort of critique of value.

Sid Guttridge
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#57

Post by Sid Guttridge » 22 Oct 2010, 15:36

Ken - Time to get down to business. I have the book. Let's see if your ".....opinions on a few specific aspects of the book" stand up to scrutiny.

Below is what you wrote:

Much of the chapter in which Weber discusses the contrast between front-line soldiers and "rear area pigs" can be viewed on google books. Weber uses a general term to draw specific conclusions about attitudes toward Hitler during and after the war. None of the sources used show that Hitler was specifically disliked or referred to as a "rear area pig". Yet Weber states that he was "shunned" because he was a "rear area pig" and after the war was "cold-shouldered" for being a "rear area pig". He also suggests that Hitler received his Iron Cross 1st Class because he was a "rear area pig".

The first point (and correct me if I am wrong - speed reading is not my speciality) is that nowhere in the chapter's text does Weber himself refer to Hitler as a "rear area pig".

In the text of the entire chapter you refer to, the term "Etappenschweine/Rear-Area-Pig" appears only once (again, please correct me if I'm wrong). Compare this with the FOUR times you use it in just the one paragraph above!

The term appears on p.105 in a quote from a supportive letter of 9 March 1932 to Hitler from Ferdinand Widman, who served with Hitler in regimental HQ (a fact that should satisfy Penn-44's requirements that being a veteran gives one unique credibility). (The original letter is in NARA T-581-1, if you want to check the full text).

Widman, commenting on the attitude of front line veterans generally, says "....all the soldiers in the trenches thought that those serving with regimental HQ were [already] rear area pigs [Etappenschweine]"....."It cannot be denied that life was indeed better at regimental headquarters than with a company."

Now, perhaps, you might understand my proposition that reading the whole text might give one's opinions more weight.

Ken S.
Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 14 Feb 2006, 10:30
Location: Kanada
Contact:

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#58

Post by Ken S. » 22 Oct 2010, 22:17

First of all, now that you have the book you may as well read it properly rather than "speed reading" it.

Secondly, the chapter is now no longer available for preview (at least at the moment ?) so I have to go by snippets resulting from keyword searches in some cases.
Remek Cahena III wrote:The first point (and correct me if I am wrong - speed reading is not my speciality) is that nowhere in the chapter's text does Weber himself refer to Hitler as a "rear area pig".

In the text of the entire chapter you refer to, the term "Etappenschweine/Rear-Area-Pig" appears only once (again, please correct me if I'm wrong). Compare this with the FOUR times you use it in just the one paragraph above!
I use it four times because it appears at least that many times throughout the book:

p.261 "cold-shouldered Hitler the 'rear area pig'..."

p.281 "they all faced criticism that they had been 'rear area pigs'..."

p.345 "shunned by most of the front-line soldiers as a 'rear area pig'..."

p.347 "a 'rear area pig', shunned by the men of his regiment..."

Like I said, Weber uses the the fact that the term was generally applied to men in the rear areas as the basis for drawing specific conclusions about attitudes toward him during and after the war.
Now, perhaps, you might understand my proposition that reading the whole text might give one's opinions more weight.
No, you've just demonstrated how having the book doesn't necessarily make one's opinions any more "informed". You clearly didn't understand the part of my post that you were responding to, and as has been pointed out about you before, you're making straw man arguments.

User avatar
Penn44
Banned
Posts: 4214
Joined: 26 Jun 2003, 07:25
Location: US

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#59

Post by Penn44 » 24 Oct 2010, 07:19

Remek Cahena III wrote:Penn-44 - So, do I take it that you have no objection to the factual contents of the book or its conclusions (in so far as someone who hasn't read the book can know them), just the tone you think it is written in?
Are you still squawking? I previously provided a clear, unequivocal answer. Scroll up and read it.
Remek Cahena III wrote:Your proposition that unless one has experienced something one cannot write with any authority on it is ridiculous. On those grounds a quick glance at your previous posts would imply that either (1) you have lived an unusually long time in an amazing number of places and have a mind boggling range of experience or (2) you have, by your own standards, been completely unqualified to make most of them by virtue of not having experienced the events concerned. I know where my money is!
Number 1. I have lived a long time and I am widely traveled. There is very little I haven’t see nor done. I am God-like.
Remek Cahena III wrote:Now why not just read the book, and THEN comment. After all, it is YOU who is advocating that personal experience helps validate opinion. Or does this only apply to others?
Again, I previously provided a clear, unequivocal answer. Scroll up and read it.

Penn44

.
I once was told that I was vain, but I knew that vanity was a fault, so I gave it up because I have no faults.

Ken S.
Member
Posts: 1372
Joined: 14 Feb 2006, 10:30
Location: Kanada
Contact:

Re: Historian disputes Hitlers war record

#60

Post by Ken S. » 29 Oct 2010, 21:15

"a triumph of original research" ??

By Norman Stone

When Nazi Germany took over Austria in March 1938, there was an outburst of not just anti-Semitism but outright sadism against the Jews. They were, among much else, made to scrub the slogans of the previous regime off walls and pavements. Then the expropriations started. An elderly Jewish couple who lost their shop appealed to Hitler in Berlin. Did His Excellency the Chancellor, they wrote, perhaps remember that as a young painter before the war selling his paintings on the corner of the Siebensterngasse, he would when it rained drop in at a certain shop and be given a cup of tea? Could he now see his way to helping the people who had treated him with such kindness? Hitler marked that the letter should be ignored, and the old couple surely went to a death camp.

We owe our knowledge of this fact to a remarkable 1999 book: "Hitler's Vienna" by Brigitte Hamann. Her extensive research revealed that Hitler was not really an anti-Semite until after World War I. What had happened in those crucial wartime years is the question that Thomas Weber now answers in "Hitler's First War." Like Ms. Hamann, he has searched out original documents and found new material. Like her, he fundamentally alters our understanding of one of the most studied figures of the 20th century.

Hitler wrote about his war experiences in "Mein Kampf" (1925), and biographers have generally relied on his account. He put himself across as a soldier-hero: a "runner" carrying messages back and forth through machine-gun fire and artillery, twice decorated with the Iron Cross for bravery, wounded and then, toward the end of the war, blinded by poison gas. He learned of the end of the war at a military hospital in Pasewalk, not far from Berlin, and he wept.

In Hitler's version, the weeping soon turned vindictive against the soft-brained academics, Jews and members of the left who, he alleged, had caused Germany to lose the war. Remaining in the army, he was sent to Bavaria to fight against left-wing revolutionaries. (And yet Mr. Weber has discovered that, briefly at the turn of 1918-19, and unmentioned in "Mein Kampf," Hitler wore a red brassard and supported the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic.) Demobilized, he became an informer for the army's propaganda unit— though whether he volunteered or was coerced because of his short-lived involvement with the Bavarian Soviet Republic, Mr. Weber admits we cannot know—and was sent to monitor a meeting of the obscure German Workers' Party, soon to be re-named National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler was deeply impressed by the party's hypernationalism and anti-Semitism and joined within a week of attending his first meeting. He also found that he was a tremendously effective public speaker. The speeches do not translate: What sounds superb in one language can sound plain comic in another. But desperate Germans were soon paying to hear Hitler speak, and, as the party's chief source of revenue, he took over the leadership.

How did the young Hitler—diffident, gauche, without solid political convictions—turn into the fascist demagogue of 1922? There is no simple answer to this question, but "Hitler's First War" debunks some of the standard responses. Biographers have long assumed that the war marked a turning point: the comradeship of the trenches, the common soldier's hatred of the profiteers in the rear and the sense of betrayal with the peace made in 1918. Yet there was the nagging question of why the brave, decorated soldier of "Mein Kampf" was not promoted. Hitler served more or less for the whole of the war and never rose above the rank of corporal, which, given that he undoubtedly had leadership qualities, comes as a considerable surprise.

With some luck and a lot of diligence, Mr. Weber has discovered the missing documents of Hitler's war service, and it is fair to say that very little of Hitler's own account survives the discovery. There were indeed two Iron Crosses, but his regimental runner's job was not necessarily dangerous, and he lived in relative comfort at the regimental headquarters away from the front lines. Ordinary soldiers referred to such men as Etappenschweine ("rear pigs") —all armies have such a word: "cushy number" and "base wallah" are British examples. Officers had to dish out a quota of medals, and if you did not offend them they would just put your name on the list. Hitler was not, it appears, particularly courageous. He was just there. And, as it happens, a Jewish superior officer, Hugo Gutmann, recommended Hitler for his first Iron Cross. He was not thanked for this act in later life—though his fate, emigration to the United States, was greatly preferable to that of the old couple in Vienna.

There also wasn't much comradeship. When Hitler broke surface in politics, he asked his old comrades in the regiment for support and discovered that on the whole they had not liked him one bit. Men who had fought at the front in World War I were, moreover, not at all keen on staging a second war, and extraordinarily few of Hitler's old comrades went along with Nazism. Most supported the Weimar Republic. Mr. Weber's research shows that it's not really possible to connect the brutalization of men in the trenches to the birth of National Socialism.

It is very much to Mr. Weber's credit that he has managed to dig out the details, and we can place his book together with Ms. Hamann's as a triumph of original research in a very stony field. The conclusion that might be drawn is that Hitler was far more of the opportunist than is generally supposed. He made things up as he went along, including his own past. If we still haven't answered the question of what turned Hitler into an anti-Semitic idealogue, at least attention has been shifted to the Bavarian years of 1919-22. Ms. Hamann and Mr. Weber point the way forward for the next scholar's diligent researches.
—Mr. Stone is a professor of modern history at Bilkent University in
Ankara, Turkey.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 75058.html

Post Reply

Return to “First World War”