Was he insane or just plain evil. “Hitler’s paranoid delusions, could be viewed as a symptom of mental disorder, but most of the personality functioned more than adequately, Hitler, knew what he was doing and chose to do it with pride and enthusiasm”. It cannot be denied he saw himself as some sort of a Messiah and when the war gradually showed signs of turning against him in 1943, his appearances became less and less, as the shame of defeat was too much to bear for him. In the interests of the German people, it would have been better to surrender, but he would give nothing to the allies, even if it meant destroying Deutschland, irrespective of the suffering and starvation the German people would have to endure in this downward spiral of defeat. The CIA now have the ability to psychoanalyse every world leader, this could also have its drawbacks as well as its advantages. Events may have been different if this was available in Hitler’s regime.
You have literally no idea what you are talking about.
Hitler sent multiple peace treaties to Britain which were rejected outright. He graciously accepted Chamberlain when he visited him and can be seen hosting British royalty. He also made a pact with Stalin hoping to diminish the possibility of war on multiple fronts but was forced to pre-emptively break the peace with the Soviet Union when he received credible intelligence proving that Stalin planned to invade Europe and institute Bolshevism in all of its vulgar butchery across the continent. It is not absurd to suggest that but for Hitler, Russian communism would have devoured a Europe beleaguered by Warfare. As far as not caring about the interests of the German people, Hitler achieved an unprecedented turnaround in German unemployment and enacted policies which raised the German people from an undignified state of starvation, hyperinflation and oppression to being the most productive state in Europe.
War is big business and history is written by the winners. The fact that Hitler is trotted out as a bogeyman who united Germany but was somehow totally insane when Stalin, Lenin and Mao were responsible for greater numbers of deaths and atrocities is proof that mainstream history is not yet willing to look upon the realities of WWII in an objective manner.
The House of Windsor is the royal house of the United Kingdom and the other Commonwealth realms. It was founded by King George V by royal proclamation on 17 July 1917, when he changed the name of the British Royal Family from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (a branch of the House of Wettin) to the English Windsor, due to the anti-German sentiment in the British Empire during World War I. In October 1937, the Duke and Duchess visited Germany, against the advice of the British government, and met Adolf Hitler at his Obersalzberg retreat. Wikipedia.
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World, by Pat Buchanan, published in May 2008, is I think what you are basing your argument on.
British journalist Christopher Hitchens in a review in Newsweek claimed the author Buchanan ignores just how aggressive Imperial Germany was, with the Kaiser Wilhelm II openly encouraging Muslims to wage jihad against the Western colonial powers (during WWI), conducting genocide in German South West Africa, and supporting the Young Turk government during the Armenian Genocide.[81] Hitchens argued that given the way Imperial Germany was dominated by a “militaristic ruling caste” of officers and Junkers who recklessly sought conflict at every chance, it was simply nonsense for Buchanan to write off pre-1914 Germany being “encircled” by enemies on all sides.
So? Are you positing some sort of conspiracy theory here or what?
Then you are wrong.
Again, so? Germany was good at war. By 1916 the Germans had basically defeated Britain and deals were made with bankers to keep the British war effort alive. These deals affect us even today, see the Balfour Declaration. That does not diminish Hitler’s efforts to avoid an all out war. Nor does it take away from his first hand experience of Communistic subversion derailing the German war effort following the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. All this thread does is expose your chosen biases. Why not make one about Lenin/Trotsky, Stalin, Mao with the same implications? And given the philosophical nature of the forum, why not begin by exploring what ‘evil’ even is in your mind?
Hitler didn’t start the war. The Nazi party elected him to run it, the second go around. And he came very close to winning it. But since he didn’t and was silenced, no one will ever know what the outcome would have been if he had won it. The liars won that war. So today, regardless of that encounter, it is very clear that you live in the land of lies, not merely about history, but about present and future.
He was the major driving force behind the Nazi party. Things didn’t happen unless he wanted it or at least agreed to it. He wanted to create a German empire and intended to expand to the East and enslave the Slavs. You don’t have to take anyone’s word for it… he wrote it in Mein Kampf.
He was merely a corporal in WW1. The Nazi party didn’t even know he existed. He got arrested and wrote Mien Kampf sighting the Jews as news manipulators turning nations against nations (which frankly, they documented themselves). And as far as I can tell, he only wrote the first half of the two part Mien Kampf. The second half is a scam.
Hitler said, I learnt much from the order of the Jesuits… Until now there has never been anything more grandiose on earth than the heirarchical system of the Catholic Church. I transferred much of this organisation into my own party.
From Secret History of the Jesuits, Edmond Paris 1975
It was a Jesuit priest, Father Staempfle, not Hitler, who wrote Mein Kampf.
Behind the Dictators, Leo H Lehman
Fascism is the regime that corresponds most closely to the concepts of the Church of Rome.
Stated in the 1930s from the Roman Catholic publication Civilta Cattolica
Well, I won’t get into the “who dunit” bit, but the second part is written exactly like a TV “reality” show, wherein the guy whispers highly confidential and embarrassing things into the girl’s ear … with a TV camera merely 2 feet away recording the whisper for the world to see and hear. And of course, the dimwitted American audience takes it seriously.
And every effort to dominate the world has to be a socialist scheme. They can’t figure out any other way to do it. Even the Communists are actually just socialists with a little less capitalism involved. The sad fact is that no socialist scheme can ever dominate the world for very long. Life simply won’t permit it. So of course, they try to minimize Life to be only that of the socialist beast. But frankly, Life won’t tolerate that for long either.
There is two ways to look at this. That he was a brilliant mind, there is no doubt. That he became ‘insane’ on account of the huge differrance between his potential abilities, and his pre-political actuality, is another. He certainly had manageable paranoia, as did Stalin, as did Mao, where the prescribed differance in the existential sense , of having no forbearance, on consequential developments to come. Whether these would have occured or not absent Hitler, is the big question. The point that Nazi ism preceeded him would tend to confirm the view, that the differance as a philosophical movement would have caused anyone taking up the reign of leadership to become paranoid, since the concept was not yet an available reductive possibility.
However, there is the other possibility, that without such a man, Naziism may not have attained the powerful position within the broader political category of social democracy. It takes an acute centrist, to bring focus upon the discrepancies , and this general lack of social awareness among the German post WW1 population as a whole, correlated neatly with Hitler’s acute imbalance between his potential and actual self.
That said, a man like that is very rare, in-deed, to have been able to overcome the extreme over-ideational self image through projecting the Differance through the innate symbols via his own lack of realizing how they could connect to the general scheme.
Most men would collapse at this stage with early signs of dementia, and it is not entirely without irony, that Nietzche’s collapse was one of post realization. There is the connection, and i think that connection ‘proves’ the symbol’s ability to transcend.
That transcendence in its self is not inherently self evaluate-ing but exists as potential power, with a concurrent ‘blind’ and directionally unfocused will, proves, to my mind at any rate, the great ability of Nietzsche, to channel power into very loosely defined, and arbitrarily focused will.
Hitler, likewise, became aware of this hidden power and his skill of oratory served to mask his unresolved connection and the legitimate use of it through the will. Had he not been able to pull it off, with what appears to be skillful theatrics, his schism , may have defeated him , as well.
The artistic effort was a very deeply channelled effort to begin with, and that failing, an overt extemporaneous method was a sine qua non to his very sanity.
The removal of Hitler would not have killed Nazism as ideology, but it would have in effect have decapitated the regime. His elevation to that of a demi god could perhaps be explained that he and his idealogy had exactly met the needs and longings of the German people, who identified the voice of Hitler to be the voice of Germany. On one occasion he delcared that "the war is conducted by me and on another that “I was the supreme court of the German people”.
It could simply be explained that he was in the right place, at exactly the right time, to allow other’s fantasical hopes to be invested in him…and they were.
