• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did We Misunderstand Hitler?

...But it is still fact that Serbians caused WWI, not Germans. That is the point here.

The Serbs committed a trivial act. The Germans turned it into a war-starter. Without the Germans the assassination starts nothing.
 
The Serbs committed a trivial act. The Germans turned it into a war-starter. Without the Germans the assassination starts nothing.

Because Franz Ferdinand's assassination is trivial...

:lamo
 
Russia was the instigator, diving into Serbia when the Austria-Hungarians retaliated there after the assassination of the Archduke. The Germans were allied with them, and decided to invade Louxemburg and Belgium, which resulted in war with France. The Brits, an Empire in their own right at the time, decided to declare war on Germany.

Once Germany looked East, the Russians ended up getting their asses beat, and then had a revolution. The Germans had the upper hand in the West after that, at least until the US got involved. By then, however, they had revolution problems of their own, which is why they retreated and sued for peace.

In the entire course of the war the Russians never set foot in Serbia. The German war plan always called for a first strike in the West, the Schlieffen plan, an overwhelming right hook through Belgium and around Paris. The French counted on their Russian allies to attack Germany and, it was hoped, draw off German strength from their expected western offensive. Great Britain was tied to France and Russia by treaty.
 
Ahem. Germany had been unified since 1871. Great Britain joined because of alliance obligation in the face of German aggression.

The French fought more than one war trying to stop that. The British jumped in because they were scared ****less that the Germans might actually be their equal on the battlefield and pre-emptively jumped in.
 
Hitler was a genocidal lunatic who is as close to evil as we may ever see. He was also, quite possibly, the most brilliant propagandist and motivator the world has ever seen... and his timing was impeccable. If he had only used his power for good instead of evil.

In today's world, he's be some really famous motivational speaker making millions selling his book on TV.

I would say Stalin and Pol Pot and a slew of Africans are/were worse than Hitler when it comes to evil.
 
The French fought more than one war trying to stop that. The British jumped in because they were scared ****less that the Germans might actually be their equal on the battlefield and pre-emptively jumped in.

There is no truth to any of that. Between 1815 and 1914 France and Germany fought exactly once, in 1871. The Brits fought in 1914 because they were obligated by treaty to support France. They already knew the German army was superior.
 
There is no truth to any of that. Between 1815 and 1914 France and Germany fought exactly once, in 1871. The Brits fought in 1914 because they were obligated by treaty to support France. They already knew the German army was superior.

As I recall the Brits only jumped in when the Germans crossed into Belgium. Had they stayed out or the French launched their own attack into Belgium(not beyond the realm of possibility) they may well have stayed neutral
 
As I recall the Brits only jumped in when the Germans crossed into Belgium. Had they stayed out or the French launched their own attack into Belgium(not beyond the realm of possibility) they may well have stayed neutral

Germany declared war on France 3 August. Britain declared war on Germany 4 August.
 

[h=3]Entente Cordiale: why Britain went to war in 1914[/h]www.1914-1918.net/entente.htm


... the Foreign Office regarding Britain's treaty obligations to Belgium in the event of a ... 10 years on: France and Britain celebrate the years of the Entente, in the ... give any definite answer in a hurry but I think you should be preparing one. .... the outbreak of the First World War, which ended the controversy for the time being.
 
The Serbs committed a trivial act. The Germans turned it into a war-starter. Without the Germans the assassination starts nothing.

Maybe, maybe not. We can ever know for sure as we do not know if Austria-Hungary would have seen Russia as a real threat or not. It was not just the assassination, it was a culmination of bad decisions that started with the assassination that lead to the war. Though if Austria-Hungary went to war without the aid of Germany it would have fallen swiftly under the heel of Russia and Serbia due to incompetent leadership as the first year of the war demonstrated.
 
Learn, then post.

Actually, he's right. The assassination of Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand by a Serbian was the trigger point of WWI. Germany's invasion of Belgium and Luxembourg...and then France, happened after that.
 
1. Hitler's desensitization to human suffering and his cheapening of human life may been the result of the three years he spent running between the trenches of WW1, where he served as a sort of messenger service. FYI: He received the Iron Cross for his efforts.

Who gives a damn what gave his inner child an owey? To hell with the bastard.

2. His hate of Jews could have been a result of propaganda he himself was fed early on in life, especially as to why Germany lost WW1.

Again, who gives a damn what caused the nasty little SOB to hate Jews? Most murderers have cooked up some reason to hate their victims.

4. Germany did get a raw deal after WW1, and the allies definitely exploited the little country in a very inhumane fashion. At the very least, he had a right to hate France, US and England.

I don't care two hoots in hell who the Germans hated, or why. If you choose to make a fight, you have no call to pout after the other guy has beaten the living daylights out of you. They called the tune, and they paid the piper.

5. The part of Poland he attacked had always been a part of Germany. It was land stolen by France, England and the US which was then given to Poland.

Baloney. Nations do not "steal" territory. They usually--as in this case--acquire it as a result of winning a war.
 
Well, we are all products of our environment. I think it is worthwhile examining the factors that made Hitler who he is. I highly doubt he was just born evil.

Which is very interesting to find ways to avoid such people developing and gaining power in future. But it is no excuse for his ultimate behavior.
 
Who gives a damn what gave his inner child an owey? To hell with the bastard.



Again, who gives a damn what caused the nasty little SOB to hate Jews? Most murderers have cooked up some reason to hate their victims.



I don't care two hoots in hell who the Germans hated, or why. If you choose to make a fight, you have no call to pout after the other guy has beaten the living daylights out of you. They called the tune, and they paid the piper.



Baloney. Nations do not "steal" territory. They usually--as in this case--acquire it as a result of winning a war.

Sure. I don't disagree with your arguments. But, it never hurts to find out what makes these whack jobs tick.
 
Which is very interesting to find ways to avoid such people developing and gaining power in future. But it is no excuse for his ultimate behavior.

Of course there is no excuse, but does it not make sense to find out where the bad behavior originated? I, for one, do not believe bad people are just evil and then walk away saying, "Well, that's that."
 
Of course there is no excuse, but does it not make sense to find out where the bad behavior originated? I, for one, do not believe bad people are just evil and then walk away saying, "Well, that's that."

As I said. It is interesting to me to understand, so that we can prevent future evil doing.
 
Hitler was evil. And the Germans deserved everything they got after WWII for fanatically following him to the very end.

Anyway..

11- Hitler's father beat him, a couple of times he almost beat him to death.

All 11 points aside we need to also remember that at 1st Hitler mostly used the Jews as scapegoats. Countries, even today, love to pick out a minority and blame all of the country's woes and problems on that minority. Keeps the people in line, it strokes their nationalism and patriotism. He blamed the Jews for the bad economy, starting WWI, the Germans losing WWI, Versailles, trying for world domination, etc. He used the German people hatred of the Jews as his path to power.

Once he got that power he continued to use them as scapegoats, then when he didn't need them anymore his, and Germany's hatred turned to killing them.

So his biggest reason for what happened to the Jews in Germany, and Europe may have been political. Doesn't excuse anything he did, actually if what he did was because of mostly politics IMO that makes him an even worse human being, if that is possible.
 
As I said. It is interesting to me to understand, so that we can prevent future evil doing.

Or falling in to the same trap. Hate sells. That is something we can clearly see with the Hitler phenomena.
 
Yes. An attempt to revise Fischer. I'm not persuaded.

Fischer does not write as a victor. He is a German writing about Germany.

I'm not limiting it to Fischer
Furthermore he does not represent German historians on the matter. Not even the average of them.

He was, when he wrote in the 1960s, pretty much isolated in his views. That, on its own, cannot serve to discredit his findings, yet it allows for scepticism.

Just as Clark's entries on the issue do not constitute just an attempt at revising, he raises pertinent points on the popular version of events and he was and is by far not the first one.

Where one, as a reader, decides to stick to one version on account of holding the historian in question to be the one-all-to-end-all (and subsequently the words to be gospel for ever more), one does not study history any more.
 
In the entire course of the war the Russians never set foot in Serbia. The German war plan always called for a first strike in the West, the Schlieffen plan, an overwhelming right hook through Belgium and around Paris. The French counted on their Russian allies to attack Germany and, it was hoped, draw off German strength from their expected western offensive. Great Britain was tied to France and Russia by treaty.

:roll:

On 29 July, Russia, in support of its Serb protégé, unilaterally declared – outside of the conciliation procedure provided by the Franco-Russian military agreements – partial mobilization against Austria-Hungary. German Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was then allowed until the 31st for an appropriate response. On the 30th, Russia ordered general mobilization against Germany. In response, the following day, Germany declared a "state of danger of war." This also led to the general mobilization in Austria-Hungary on 4 August. Kaiser Wilhelm II asked his cousin, Tsar Nicolas II, to suspend the Russian general mobilization. When he refused, Germany issued an ultimatum demanding the arrest of its mobilization and commitment not to support Serbia. Another was sent to France, asking her not to support Russia if it were to come to the defence of Serbia. On 1 August, after the Russian response, Germany mobilized and declared war on Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Escalation_of_violence_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina
 
Or falling in to the same trap. Hate sells. That is something we can clearly see with the Hitler phenomena.

And it is recurrent in Europe and Russia at this time and in a milder form in the United States.
 
Back
Top Bottom