Der Bromberger Blutsonntag

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 27 Jun 2002 07:38

-Double Post Deleted-

User avatar
Ostmark
Member
Posts: 47
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 15:37
Location: Waldviertel, Niederdonau

Post by Ostmark » 27 Jun 2002 10:41

Listen roberto, in the post i first posted you can seet that foreign obeservers, british and italian officers in 1921 are standing next to the corpses of murdered Germans.

I also brought facts about polish concentration camps and their opening dates, which im sure you will call normal prisions. Or maybe correction facilities?

What more do i actually need to show? Twist the figuers and numbers as much you want - but the fact remains, the polacks were killing innocent Germans way before the blutsonntag - And Germany answered with the only action any country would. To stop the attrocities, no matter cost. In this case an invasion.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: Tsk Tsk

Post by Roberto » 27 Jun 2002 11:38

Scott Smith wrote:I would say the aggession against the German minorities began in 1919 with Versailles, and by 1939 little provocation at all would be necessary to enrage Germany.


Any evidence that “aggression against the German minorities” was more than just a pretext for the “enraged” Führer’s aggression against Poland?

Scott Smith wrote:Military force was used to settle the Danzig issue which was a line drawn in the sand by the Western powers.


Why, was the annihilation of Poland only meant to “settle the Danzig issue”? Some overkill …:aliengray

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 27 Jun 2002 11:45

Ostmark wrote:Listen roberto,


Why, have you got something to say? :lol:

Ostmark wrote: in the post i first posted you can seet that foreign obeservers, british and italian officers in 1921 are standing next to the corpses of murdered Germans.


Why, did I question the authenticity of those photographs?

Ostmark wrote: I also brought facts about polish concentration camps and their opening dates, which im sure you will call normal prisions. Or maybe correction facilities?


Ostmark wrote:What more do i actually need to show?


How about a more than pretextual connection between pre-1939 Polish outrages on the one hand and Nazi aggression and mass murder on the other?

Ostmark wrote:Twist the figuers and numbers as much you want - but the fact remains, the polacks were killing innocent Germans way before the blutsonntag -


Why "polacks", my friend? How about "Poles"? How do you call the Nazi thugs who murdered hundreds of thousands of Polish civilians during the occupation?

Ostmark wrote:And Germany answered with the only action any country would. To stop the attrocities, no matter cost. In this case an invasion.


See, that's what you would like to believe. I, on the other hand, would like to see some evidence that this was a more than pretextual motive for the Nazi aggression and the atrocities that followed.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

The White Cliffs of Warsaw...

Post by Scott Smith » 28 Jun 2002 17:52

Karl wrote:
Atrocities and all the rest is window dressing.

Whoa. Hold me down Donna! You are actually admitting that Hitler's moves to the East a la Lebensraum (LMAO!!! :P ) was down and out simple aggression? That any atrocity stories used by the Reich were pretexts?

I must have misunderstood something... :lol:

Don't feel bad. I try to be a patient teacher. I just said it was to settle the Danzig corridor issue. It was also to satisfy the self-determination of Germans, minorities as a result of the Versailles border revisions. Furthermore, it was intended to dismantle a hostile State created at Versailles to act as a bulwark against Germany to effect the balance-of-power at German expense.

Pretty simple really.

But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face. And after the Russians wouldn't cooperate with the Allies, there was no way the Polish guarantee could be made good on.

Therefore, Hitler, misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche, thought that he could use force without them declaring war. Oops! :oops:

Alles Klär?
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: The White Cliffs of Warsaw...

Post by Roberto » 28 Jun 2002 18:46

Scott Smith wrote:
Karl wrote:
Atrocities and all the rest is window dressing.

Whoa. Hold me down Donna! You are actually admitting that Hitler's moves to the East a la Lebensraum (LMAO!!! :P ) was down and out simple aggression? That any atrocity stories used by the Reich were pretexts?

I must have misunderstood something... :lol:

Don't feel bad. I try to be a patient teacher. I just said it was to settle the Danzig corridor issue. It was also to satisfy the self-determination of Germans, minorities as a result of the Versailles border revisions. Furthermore, it was intended to dismantle a hostile State created at Versailles to act as a bulwark against Germany to effect the balance-of-power at German expense.

Pretty simple really.


A lot of nonsense, really. The Führer's own statements show that his goals went far beyond that. He wanted no less than to take the Polish nation apart in order to gain the first bit of the "living space" that, according to him, the German people needed and deserved more than any other.

[…]The German racial community comprised over 85 million people and, because of their number and the narrow limits of habitable space in Europe, constituted a tightly packed racial core such as was not to be met in any other country and such as implied the right to a greater living space than in the case of other peoples. If, territorially speaking, there existed no political result corresponding to this German racial core, that was a consequence of centuries of historical development, and in the continuance of these political conditions lay the greatest danger to the preservation of the German race at its present peak.

[…]

The boom in world economy caused by the economic effects of rearmament could never form the basis of a sound economy over a long period, and the latter was obstructed above all also by the economic disturbances resulting from Bolshevism. There was a pronounced military weakness in those states which depended for their existence on foreign trade. As our foreign trade was carried on over the sea routes dominated by Britain, it was more a question of security of transport than one of foreign exchange, which revealed, in time of war, the full weakness of our food situation. The only remedy, and one which might appear to us as visionary, lay in the acquisition of greater living space -a quest which has at all times been the origin of the formation of states and of the migration of peoples. That this quest met with no interest at Geneva or among the satiated nations was understandable. If, then, we accept the security of our food situation as the principal question, the space necessary to insure it can only be sought in Europe, not, as in the liberal-capitalist view, in the exploitation of colonies. It is not a matter of acquiring population but of gaining space for agricultural use. Moreover, areas producing raw materials can be more usefully sought in Europe in immediate proximity to the Reich, than overseas; the solution thus obtained must suffice for one or two generations.


From the translation of the so-called Hossbach memorandum, transcribed online under

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/d ... ssbach.htm

Emphases are mine.

That was in 1937. An this is what Adolf told his generals on 22 August 1939, a week before the outbreak of the war:

Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Ziel ist die Beseitigung der lebendigen Kräfte, nicht die Erreichung einer bestimmten Linie. Auch wenn im Westen Krieg ausbricht, bleibt Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Mit Rücksicht auf Jahreszeit schnelle Entscheidung.
Ich werde propagandistischen Anlass zur Auslösung des Krieges geben, gleichgültig, ob glaubhaft. Der Sieger wird später nicht danach gefragt, ob er die Wahrheit gesagt hat oder nicht. Bei Beginn und Führung des Krieges kommt es nicht auf das Recht an, sondern auf den Sieg.
Herz verschliessen gegen Mitleid. Brutales Vorgehen. 80 Millionen Menschen müssen ihr Recht bekommen. Ihre Existenz muss gesichert werden. Grösste Härte. Schnelligkeit der Entscheidung notwendig. Festen Glauben an den deutschen Soldaten. Krisen nur auf Versagen der Nerven der Führer zurückzuführen.
Erste Forderung: Vordringen bis zur Weichsel und bis zum Narew. Unsere technische Überlegenheit wird die Nerven der Polen zerbrechen. Jede sich neu bildende lebendige polnische Kraft ist sofort zu vernichten. Fortgesetzte Zermürbung. Neue deutsche Grenzführung nach gesunden Gesichtspunkten, evtl. Protektorat als Vorgelände. Militärische Operationen nehmen auf diese Überlegungen keine Rücksicht. Restlose Zertrümmerung Polens ist das militärische Ziel. Schnelligkeit ist die Hauptsache. Verfolgung bis zur völligen Vernichtung.
Überzeugung, dass die deutsche Wehrmacht den Anforderungen gewachsen ist. Auslösung wird nocht befohlen ...


Source of quote: Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns”: Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten there is yet another summary of Hitler's statements at the afternoon meeting on the Obersalzberg on 22.8.1939. The document referred to is Nuernberg Document 1014-PS, IMT, Volume XXVI.

My translation:

The annihilation of Poland is the priority. The goal is the removal of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line. Even if war should break out in the West, the annihilation of Poland remains the priority. Considering the time of the year, a quick decision is required.
I shall provide for a propagandistic reason to unleash the war, regardless of whether it is credible or not. The victor is not asked at a later stage whether he told the truth or not. In beginning and conducting a war, what matters is not right but victory.
Close heart to pity. Brutal proceeding. 80 million people must get their right. Their existence must be assured. Greatest harshness. Quick decision is necessary. Firm faith in the German soldier. Crises must only be attributed to commanders having lost their nerves.
First requirement: Advance to the Vistula and the Narev. Our technical superiority will break the nerves of the Poles. Every new Polish force forming must be immediately annihilated. Continuous attrition. New German frontier according to healthy criteria, eventually a protectorate as a buffer area. Military operations must not take these thoughts into consideration. The utter shattering of Poland is the military goal. Pursuit until complete annihilation.
Conviction that the German Wehrmacht is up to the task. Unleashing will yet be ordered ...


Scott Smith wrote:But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face.


What war is the Reverend talking about? Hitler's attack on Poland, or the Sitzkrieg in the West that followed the timid declaration of war by Britain and France?

Scott Smith wrote:Therefore, Hitler, misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche, thought that he could use force without them declaring war.


Yeah, he messed up - though less because of "misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche" (of which Smith is a classic example, by the way) than due to his erroneous assessment of the resolve of Britain and France to stand by their commitment towards Poland. He didn't realize that they had no choice other than to declare war, because no one would have taken them serious any longer if they had not.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: The White Cliffs of Warsaw...

Post by Scott Smith » 28 Jun 2002 19:47

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Pretty simple really.

A lot of nonsense, really. The Führer's own statements show that his goals went far beyond that. He wanted no less than to take the Polish nation apart in order to gain the first bit of the "living space" that, according to him, the German people needed and deserved more than any other.

Ah, the Führer's voice, filtered by the croaks of his critics... :mrgreen:

Yes, all States have as their priorities the annihilation of their mortal enemies and the securing of their sustenance. If not then they wouldn't be sovereign States but dependencies.

That was in 1937. An this is what Adolf told his generals on 22 August 1939, a week before the outbreak of the war:

A standard peptalk. I wonder if Admiral Canaris relates that they are going to grease the treads of their tanks with the guts of the Krauts (er, I mean the Pollacks)? 8O And *what about* those Armenians?

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face.

What war is the Reverend talking about? Hitler's attack on Poland, or the Sitzkrieg in the West that followed the timid declaration of war by Britain and France?

The Polish border dispute that led to world war, of course.

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Therefore, Hitler, misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche, thought that he could use force without them declaring war.

Yeah, he messed up - though less because of "misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche" (of which Smith is a classic example, by the way) than due to his erroneous assessment of the resolve of Britain and France to stand by their commitment towards Poland. He didn't realize that they had no choice other than to declare war, because no one would have taken them serious any longer if they had not.

And nobody should have taken their claptrap seriously anyway because without Soviet help they could NOT guarantee Poland's borders. :monkee:

Yes, I'm an Anglo-Saxon and I'm quite familiar with the cant of our plutocracy and honored institutions. But personally, I'm just a shoe-shine boy. It is hard to shine shoes hypocritically.
:wink:

schroedinger
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 17 May 2002 18:32
Location: Germany

Re: The White Cliffs of Warsaw...

Post by schroedinger » 28 Jun 2002 20:07

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face.

What war is the Reverend talking about? Hitler's attack on Poland, or the Sitzkrieg in the West that followed the timid declaration of war by Britain and France?

The Polish border dispute that led to world war, of course.


It was no "border dispute". One week before the assault on Poland Ribbentrop and Molotov signed a pact with its secret addition dividing Poland between them. See:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html
Last edited by schroedinger on 28 Jun 2002 20:27, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: The White Cliffs of Warsaw...

Post by Roberto » 28 Jun 2002 20:21

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Pretty simple really.

A lot of nonsense, really. The Führer's own statements show that his goals went far beyond that. He wanted no less than to take the Polish nation apart in order to gain the first bit of the "living space" that, according to him, the German people needed and deserved more than any other.


Scott Smith wrote:Ah, the Führer's voice, filtered by the croaks of his critics...


Just how "critical" of your beloved Führer were the authors of the quoted memorandums, Reverend? And what speaks against the accuracy of their records, corroborated as they are by the events that followed?

Scott Smith wrote:Yes, all States have as their priorities the annihilation of their mortal enemies and the securing of their sustenance.


A hollow, meaningless platitude. What states exactly have undertaken "the securing of their sustenance" by doing to other
states what Adolf did to Poland?

Scott Smith wrote:If not then they wouldn't be sovereign States but dependencies.


Smith's warlord mentality is duly taken note of.

Roberto wrote:That was in 1937. An this is what Adolf told his generals on 22 August 1939, a week before the outbreak of the war:


Scott Smith wrote:A standard peptalk.


Yeah, sure.

[...]The annihilation of Poland is the priority.... The goal is the removal of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line.... Close heart to pity. Brutal proceeding. Greatest harshness.[...]


Some pep talk that was. Again trying to tell people what to read, Reverend?

Scott Smith wrote:I wonder if Admiral Canaris relates that they are going to grease the treads of their tanks with the guts of the Krauts (er, I mean the Pollacks)? 8O And *what about* those Armenians?


Smith's silly attempts at "comic relief" are not exactly comical, but they sure provide insight into his twisted little mind.

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face.

What war is the Reverend talking about? Hitler's attack on Poland, or the Sitzkrieg in the West that followed the timid declaration of war by Britain and France?


Scott Smith wrote:The Polish border dispute that led to world war, of course.


[...]The annihilation of Poland is the priority.... The goal is the removal of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line.... Close heart to pity. Brutal proceeding. Greatest harshness.[...]


Some "border dispute" that was.

Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:Therefore, Hitler, misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche, thought that he could use force without them declaring war.

Yeah, he messed up - though less because of "misreading the pious and hypocritical nature of the classic Anglo-Saxon psyche" (of which Smith is a classic example, by the way) than due to his erroneous assessment of the resolve of Britain and France to stand by their commitment towards Poland. He didn't realize that they had no choice other than to declare war, because no one would have taken them serious any longer if they had not.


Scott Smith wrote:And nobody should have taken their claptrap seriously anyway because without Soviet help they could NOT guarantee Poland's borders.


Exactly, Reverend. The declaration of war that you make such a fuss about was just "claptrap". Thanks a lot.

Scott Smith wrote:Yes, I'm an Anglo-Saxon and I'm quite familiar with the cant of our plutocracy and honored institutions. But personally, I'm just a shoe-shine boy. It is hard to shine shoes hypocritically.


Sure. The hypocrisy is kept for the "I'm just a skeptic" - serenades on this forum. :aliengray

User avatar
Birgitte Heuschkel
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 18 Mar 2002 08:07
Location: Fredericia, Denmark

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 29 Jun 2002 06:56

Sort of semi-off topic, perhaps, and then again, maybe not: What is the proper (politically correct and whatnot) term for a Polish resident? I called someone a Polack and he got mad. Then I called him a Pole and the guy next to him got mad. Now I'm inclined to wonder whether 'descendant of the Continental Celtic tribes' will save my tail.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: The White Cliffs of Warsaw...

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jun 2002 10:52

schroedinger wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:But mostly it could have been settled without war. The Allied guarantee virtually made war inevitable because it meant that the Allies could not back down without losing face.

What war is the Reverend talking about? Hitler's attack on Poland, or the Sitzkrieg in the West that followed the timid declaration of war by Britain and France?

The Polish border dispute that led to world war, of course.

It was no "border dispute". One week before the assault on Poland Ribbentrop and Molotov signed a pact with its secret addition dividing Poland between them. See:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1939pact.html

Of course, Mr. Physicist. The border dispute goes back to 1919 and became acute once the Allies, rather reactively, guaranteed Polish borders in March, 1939--thus forcing the Danzig problem to be settled by military force. The question was how to do it without involving the Russians in the Allied counterpoise. That solution was solved with Ribbentrop-Molotov by demarcating Soviet/German spheres of interest in Eastern Europe. Stalin got most of the old Russian empire back. Thus, Germany would be allowed to use military force against Poland and the Soviets would be allowed to claim half the territory.

With the Soviet Union out of the picture the Poles should have started backpedalling furiously because only supplication to the Führer on those border issues could save them now. Hitler's demands were still reasonable. Instead, they were puffed by their English friends. Albion was still a world-power but less and less so on the continent.

It isn't all that hard to understand.
:)

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Err, err, Herr Commisar

Post by Karl » 29 Jun 2002 11:43

That's what Hitler wanted us to believe I suppose. Next you'll say he moved further East because Russia was about to attack. :P

But really, territories are lost and won through war, borders have changed constantly through the ages and they will continue to change in the future. Germany lost WW1 and Hitler was still crying over Danzig?...our Realpolitik'cion? :roll:

I don't think so, but that is just my opinion.

But tell me, what is it about Hitler that makes you admire him so and strive to make him appear in the best (im)possible light?

He was a warmonger you know.

Not too difficult to understand...I would imagine :wink:

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: Err, err, Herr Commisar

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jun 2002 12:35

Karl wrote:That's what Hitler wanted us to believe I suppose. Next you'll say he moved further East because Russia was about to attack. :P

No, and I have made my views abundandtly clear on Barbarossa in the past. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate my position?

But really, territories are lost and won through war, borders have changed constantly through the ages and they will continue to change in the future. Germany lost WW1 and Hitler was still crying over Danzig?...our Realpolitik'cion? :roll:

Hitler was still crying over it because he wanted to restore Germany's superpower status and the Danzigers were German. If it had been Americans we would not have been so restrained.

But tell me, what is it about Hitler that makes you admire him so and strive to make him appear in the best (im)possible light?

I have just as often been critical of him too! However, I don't view him as Evil, or as a "cardboard cutout of Evil," as I say, which is a typical view and supported by a mountain of propagandists.

He was a warmonger you know.

And Lucifer was the Devil. Big deal. If Hitler was a warmonger then so were Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

The greatest danger for the theosophist is that the people might not hate and fear the Devil because they don't believe in him any longer. This view holds that good superstitions are Good. I do not. History is not theology. And nobody owns it--not Hitler and not his critics.
:)

Karl
Member
Posts: 2729
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 02:55
Location: S. E. Asia

Post by Karl » 30 Jun 2002 03:52

No, and I have made my views abundandtly clear on Barbarossa in the past. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate my position?


I wouldn't dare!

Saying that Hitler was doing it for a greater Germany is fair enough...but these Danzig/Polish border/corridor squabbles was, to paraphrase yourself, window dressing, wouldn't you say? I mean what if Poland had contended to his demands? Would Hitler have stopped there? Do you really believe that?

Hitler was still crying over it because he wanted to restore Germany's superpower status


Yes.

and the Danzigers were German.


Pretext. He didn't care about Germans. I only thank you from my heart that you did not mention that God-awful diatribe: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!

I have just as often been critical of him too! However, I don't view him as Evil, or as a "cardboard cutout of Evil," as I say, which is a typical view and supported by a mountain of propagandists.


Yes. Evil is a very relative term, isn't it? My thoughts at this stage wander towards the shame of the camps and Einsatzgruppen...deportations of civilians...etc...not to mention this very topic of Poland, the attempted destruction of their culture and nation. And the hypocrisy of Stalin being welcomed into the Allied camp when he was very much a part of 39.

Yes! War is hell and chock full of contradictions and sure makes strange bedfellows!

...sooo, why didn't he stop at the Anschluß?

Also,

Ein Volk? Why would he need Mussolini if it were not to make war? He cared more for power and obscure territory then Germans.

The greatest danger for the theosophist is that the people might not hate and fear the Devil because they don't believe in him any longer. This view holds that good superstitions are Good. I do not. History is not theology. And nobody owns it--not Hitler and not his critics.


That Hitler was subhuman, uncivilized, and that he ultimately proved he was the peasant that he was born, is not a superstition. It is quite plain to me.

:?

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Playing Cowboys and Indians...

Post by Scott Smith » 01 Jul 2002 08:59

Karl wrote:
No, and I have made my views abundandtly clear on Barbarossa in the past. Are you deliberately trying to obfuscate my position?

I wouldn't dare!
:P

Saying that Hitler was doing it for a greater Germany is fair enough...but these Danzig/Polish border/corridor squabbles was, to paraphrase yourself, window dressing, wouldn't you say?

If Danzigers had been Texans the Polish "Mexicans" would be history. Remember the Alamo!
:wink:

I mean what if Poland had contended to his demands? Would Hitler have stopped there? Do you really believe that?

The appeasement story is a faulty paradigm. I have outlined what conditions were required to completely dismantle Versailles, i.e., the Allied containment machinery. The source of Hitler's legitimacy was that he was the only one in the Weimar era who wouldn't-have/couldn't-have settled for less than that, and he expected that at some point this would mean war--with the coalition of superpowers nervously and timidly trying to keep Germany neutered. Admittedly, Hitler took a lot of chances. Bismarck might have been able to accomplish in decades what Hitler almost achieved in a dozen years. The operative word is ALMOST. History doesn't like losers.

Karl wrote:
Scott wrote:and the Danzigers were German.

Pretext. He didn't care about Germans. I only thank you from my heart that you did not mention that God-awful diatribe: Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer!

The Führer probably wouldn't have cared for the plastic-spoonfed Germans of today. But that slogan, more than any other, encapsulates Hitler. He was no less nationalistic than Bismarck--but much more modern in outlook.

Image

Karl wrote:
Scott wrote:I have just as often been critical of him too! However, I don't view him as Evil, or as a "cardboard cutout of Evil," as I say, which is a typical view and supported by a mountain of propagandists.

Yes. Evil is a very relative term, isn't it? My thoughts at this stage wander towards the shame of the camps and Einsatzgruppen...deportations of civilians...etc...not to mention this very topic of Poland, the attempted destruction of their culture and nation. And the hypocrisy of Stalin being welcomed into the Allied camp when he was very much a part of 39.

Well, I can tell you that I don't lose much sleep over the carpet-bombing of Cambodia or any other example from American history. Or course, we Americans have not been defeated or reeducated. Yet. :mrgreen:

Yes! War is hell and chock full of contradictions and sure makes strange bedfellows!

It is naïve to think that diplomacy cannot be made with people like Stalin or Mao, or some new-age "Hitler." What is even more absurd is that Hitler carries some metaphysical quanta that makes him beyond Evil. The Allies didn't understand Hitler because they were blinded by their own moral cant and therefore called it appeasement to deal with him.

Image

...sooo, why didn't he stop at the Anschluß?

See above.

Ein Volk? Why would he need Mussolini if it were not to make war? He cared more for power and obscure territory then Germans.

In unity there is strength, the most important thing about fascism to understand. All States seek friends and partners and the have-not nations, whatever their faults and ideologies, had little but each other after the Versailles smorgasbord. Besides, power is necessary for safety and health. It is true of nations and people. Ask a homeless person if he feels empowered. A sovereign of nature--not quite.

After 1871, like it or not, Germany was a world power. That fact cannot be escaped, even for those who would prefer Lederhosed Germans guzzling Bier and producing chocolates and cuckoo clocks with British or American machinery.

Image

Karl wrote:
Scott wrote:The greatest danger for the theosophist is that the people might not hate and fear the Devil because they don't believe in him any longer. This view holds that good superstitions are Good. I do not. History is not theology. And nobody owns it--not Hitler and not his critics.

That Hitler was subhuman, uncivilized, and that he ultimately proved he was the peasant that he was born, is not a superstition. It is quite plain to me.

Well, Karl, "Peasant stock" has a way of revitalizing decadent aristocratic and bourgeois institutions. Look at the dynamo that is America. The frontier myth is very much our history. But we all suffer from our superstitions. How could a mere peasant "corrupt" a great people?

Maybe Hitler thought Germans were greater than they really are. Or, maybe, just maybe, those pesky Germans are not so bad after all.
:wink:

Image

Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”