• 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?

My reading indicates that the Kaiser believed he could blow through France in a month and then focus on the Russians, much like Hitler did in WW2. He miscalculated...as did Hitler. lol

No they felt they HAD to blow through France in a month, they didnt want to. Failing to do so they knew they had little chance in a two front war.
Hence the ultimatum (the reason usually cited that Germany started the war) for Russia stop mobilizing. Mobilization was essentially a declaration of war.
If Germany was so gung-ho on war they wouldnt have cared if France and Russia mobilized as would have done so themselves way before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization
 
No they felt they HAD to blow through France in a month, they didnt want to. Failing to do so they knew they had little chance in a two front war.
Hence the ultimatum (the reason usually cited that Germany started the war) for Russia stop mobilizing. Mobilization was essentially a declaration of war.
If Germany was so gung-ho on war they wouldnt have cared if France and Russia mobilized as would have done so themselves way before.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobilization

I agree that Germany was not the initial aggressor. But, they also did nothing to try to convince the Austro-Hungarians to lay off the war drums. IMO, they (the Kaiser and his generals) liked the idea of taking France.
 
I don't see anything that changes what Hitler was. Ruthless and an enemy to humanity.
I generally don't participate in victimizing villainy.
Just as I don't care what made him what he was (except maybe as a cautionary tale to not repeat that recipe) I don't care what makes a child molester what they are (see previous caveat). You put down things that are a danger and you move on.

There are lessons to be learned, information to be gathered. Some of it, like you said, can be used to avoid a repeat. Some of it is just good information to have. I, for one, do not believe people are just born evil.
 
There are lessons to be learned, information to be gathered. Some of it, like you said, can be used to avoid a repeat. Some of it is just good information to have. I, for one, do not believe people are just born evil.

Yes and no. I don't think Hitler was "born evil" but I do think there are people with imbalances in their biology that, over time, reach a point of evil insanity.
Whether a person is born evil or not is moot as far as solving the problem or not. The logical thing to do is to remove the evil, regardless of its cause.
Then, like with Hitler, you can study it is you think it will actually do some good. Pure fascination for him though? No thanks.
 
I agree that Germany was not the initial aggressor. But, they also did nothing to try to convince the Austro-Hungarians to lay off the war drums. IMO, they (the Kaiser and his generals) liked the idea of taking France.

I agree they were gung-ho for Austria to punish Serbia at first but once they realized it was leading to a general war they did try and put a brake on things. Unlike France who was egging things on because they wanted a general war to regain Alsace and Lorraine. Russia was just incompetant and Austria was too focused on Serbia to pay any attention to what else was going on.
 
We disagree.

Yup, but that's OK.
Unlike what happens on some other threads, seems everyone has been able to avoid the insults and stick to actual debate.
 
Yes and no. I don't think Hitler was "born evil" but I do think there are people with imbalances in their biology that, over time, reach a point of evil insanity.
Whether a person is born evil or not is moot as far as solving the problem or not. The logical thing to do is to remove the evil, regardless of its cause.
Then, like with Hitler, you can study it is you think it will actually do some good. Pure fascination for him though? No thanks.

Hitler is a reflection of the time and place. Europe, including Russia, had a severe distaste for Jews. Germany, however, seemed to offer them refuge from the late 1800's up until the coming of the Reich. In fact, if memory serves, I read that Germany allowed them full voting rights and, as a result, they had great influence. This plays right into the "Blame the Jews for losing WW1" meme that circulated around the time Hitler gained popularity.

So, for those who care about these things, it's much less a fascination with Hitler than it is an interest in the zeitgeist of Europe during that era.
 
Back
Top Bottom