Jump to content
bangers

This guy is worth a watch

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Erwin said:

We have to remember that Hitler and the Nazis had significant support in the US and UK (or Great Britain as it was called when I grew up).

Or as I was heard to say once upon a while, "There's a little bit of Hitler in all of us." Which is not to say that it isn't a part that we would well be rid of.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, IanL said:

I get what you are saying but I think that it was a decision he was incapable of making. His extreme prejudice and arrogance that went along with his ideas of eugenics meant he was likely not able to see the world in the way he would have needed to.

Indeed.

My take on it is that, despite those aspects of his character, he had the ability to see things like that during his rise to power. My feeling is that it was his massive successes that put his hubris over the edge and blinded him to the opportunities that were necessary to mine for victory. Basically, like Napoleon and so many others in history, he fell prey to the classic hubris of success that brings down the great.

While the destruction caused by Hitler's immoral policy decisions make his fall a kind of poetic, divine justice, we would all do well to remember that all people and nations are capable of the same hubris. It seems to occur when the person/leader/nation takes it for granted that they are in the right, God is on their side, and they have some early spectacular success.

Seems like a pro tip is "Follow the 10, avoid the 7 and stay humble."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2018 at 4:32 AM, Macisle said:

Up to a point, maybe, but only up to a point. Sometimes, it really does boil down to the decision of one man.

But the results of the decisions of one powerful man still depend on everyone else.

It's like rock-paper-scissors. What's the difference between a winning move and a bad move? It's what the other guys does.

Then when we write history, we think the outcome was inevitable, but that's not apparent when we are in the midst of it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

...when we write history, we think the outcome was inevitable, but that's not apparent when we are in the midst of it.

Yes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎10‎.‎03‎.‎2018 at 11:19 AM, Bulletpoint said:

Interesting and controversial viewpoint. But Germany was different in 1930.

There are two ways to view Hitler:

Either he was some unique historic individual with almost supernatural powers of manipulation, sufficient to bend an entire peace-loving and highly cultured nation to his will and convert it into one of the most evil and barbaric regimes the world has ever seen...

Or

Hitler was just a consequence of the inherent anger of the German population after WW1. If it hadn't been him, it could have been someone else.

I think your argument is based mostly on the first interpretation. Hitler gained power, but was ultimately a bad match for the nation he took control over. I see things more in line with the second interpretation. German anger boiled over and took the form of Hitler.

They lost the war so bad that modern day Germans are very different - most I meet are very soft-spoken.

Well, I think Hitler came to power because the collapse of the Imperial regime, the draconian terms of the Versailles treaty and the ensuing depression after the roaring 20s created a cahotic political situation in Germany that allowed his extreme vision to chime with the dark side of the German people's fears, their need for order and economic hope and their feelings of humiliation around about 1930 to 1933. Someone else might have channeled all of this in a different way, but we can't deal in hypotheses. So, my view is that it was caused by the two scenarios merging and exploding violently because of the extremism of Hitler and the main leaders of his party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

But the results of the decisions of one powerful man still depend on everyone else.

It's like rock-paper-scissors. What's the difference between a winning move and a bad move? It's what the other guys does.

Then when we write history, we think the outcome was inevitable, but that's not apparent when we are in the midst of it.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, usgubgub said:

Well, I think Hitler came to power because the collapse of the Imperial regime, the draconian terms of the Versailles treaty and the ensuing depression after the roaring 20s created a cahotic political situation in Germany that allowed his extreme vision to chime with the dark side of the German people's fears, their need for order and economic hope and their feelings of humiliation around about 1930 to 1933. Someone else might have channeled all of this in a different way, but we can't deal in hypotheses. So, my view is that it was caused by the two scenarios merging and exploding violently because of the extremism of Hitler and the main leaders of his party.

Sure. Everything is interwoven, but then at points, punctuated and changed by the oversize impacts of specific decisions and personalities.

I think stuff like this is why WWII is so eternally fascinating. It is a giant ball of pretty much every aspect of the human experience and accompanying conundrums, thrown together on the most epic of scale, and with fancy gear and uniforms to boot.

Speaking of the impact of other people and events on the leader, according to Speer, in the years between coming to power and the beginning of the war, Hitler was very focused on creating a foundation for his successor. In Hitler's mind, that primarily meant massive architectural projects that would project power and thereby compensate for potential weaknesses in the future leader. I found that interesting because Hitler is always portrayed as if he thought he alone could be leader forever.

It makes me wonder what would have happened if external conditions had been such that Hitler had not started the war at all. In other words, what if the actions of others had convinced him that war was not an option, rather than convincing him that is was the only one.

Oh, and for anyone not aware of it, a book you might want to check out is Hitler in Hell, by the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. It is written as if Hitler is talking to the reader from his eternal sentence in Hell to tell his side of the story, with the added bonus of his being aware of what has happened in the world since his death. Van Creveld really captures Hitlers style as per MK, and in the early part of the book, I found myself actually feeling like I was reading something written by the same man.

I liked the first half better than the second, but it was still quite a good read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Macisle said:

.

Oh, and for anyone not aware of it, a book you might want to check out is Hitler in Hell, by the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld. It is written as if Hitler is talking to the reader from his eternal sentence in Hell to tell his side of the story, with the added bonus of his being aware of what has happened in the world since his death. Van Creveld really captures Hitlers style as per MK, and in the early part of the book, I found myself actually feeling like I was reading something written by the same man.

I liked the first half better than the second, but it was still quite a good read.

Netflix has a movie in the similar vein, called Look Who's Back. Through a weird time warp/blast of smoke? the real Hitler returns to modern society and makes an attempt to reclaim his former life. The movie seems like a comedy up until the last 15-20 minutes when WHAM, reality hits. It really got me thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

Netflix has a movie in the similar vein, called Look Who's Back. Through a weird time warp/blast of smoke? the real Hitler returns to modern society and makes an attempt to reclaim his former life. The movie seems like a comedy up until the last 15-20 minutes when WHAM, reality hits. It really got me thinking.

Oh yeah, I saw a clip of that on YT when it was new, but never saw the actual film. -Will have to check it out if I get the chance (don't have NF).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

Netflix has a movie in the similar vein, called Look Who's Back. Through a weird time warp/blast of smoke? the real Hitler returns to modern society and makes an attempt to reclaim his former life. The movie seems like a comedy up until the last 15-20 minutes when WHAM, reality hits. It really got me thinking.

There's a book, too. Er ist wieder da.  It's pretty good.  I haven't seen the movie yet.  Definitely thought provoking.  There was also a movie on that experiment in California called Die Welle that looks at how the political cliques can catch on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

Netflix has a movie in the similar vein, called Look Who's Back

Saw this and it is very funny with serious undertones.  Recommended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Macisle said:

Speaking of the impact of other people and events on the leader, according to Speer, in the years between coming to power and the beginning of the war, Hitler was very focused on creating a foundation for his successor. In Hitler's mind, that primarily meant massive architectural projects that would project power and thereby compensate for potential weaknesses in the future leader. I found that interesting because Hitler is always portrayed as if he thought he alone could be leader forever.

Well, he realised that he was going to die one day. Even the Pharaos knew that; though they were supposedly "gods", they still had the pyramids built as their tombs. Hitler thought he was building the foundations for a 1000-year Third Reich. His wars were to create space for that empire. But:

8 hours ago, Macisle said:

It makes me wonder what would have happened if external conditions had been such that Hitler had not started the war at all. In other words, what if the actions of others had convinced him that war was not an option, rather than convincing him that is was the only one.

I think there are basically two kinds of dictators. There are those who are content to rule their little kingdom, and then there are those who want to make their kingdom bigger.

Hitler was in the second category, and not just by chance or external factors. I think it was a fundamental part of his personality that the whole purpose of seizing power was not to live a life of luxury but to realise his mad political ideas.

If he had been content with ruling Germany (and expelling the Jews instead of murdering them), there's no reason why he couldn't have kept his Nazi charade going for the rest of his life.

Just as the Kim Jong dynasty of North Korea. Nobody cares how cruel such dictators are to their own people, how many huge military marches they do, whatever kind of propaganda bull**** they spew - as long as they keep it within their own borders it's very unlikely to trigger war with other nations. Especially if they are useful pawns of a superpower.

Hitler could have done the same thing, but then he wouldn't have been Hitler.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Well, he realised that he was going to die one day. Even the Pharaos knew that; though they were supposedly "gods", they still had the pyramids built as their tombs. Hitler thought he was building the foundations for a 1000-year Third Reich. His wars were to create space for that empire. But:

I think there are basically two kinds of dictators. There are those who are content to rule their little kingdom, and then there are those who want to make their kingdom bigger.

Hitler was in the second category, and not just by chance or external factors. I think it was a fundamental part of his personality that the whole purpose of seizing power was not to live a life of luxury but to realise his mad political ideas.

If he had been content with ruling Germany (and expelling the Jews instead of murdering them), there's no reason why he couldn't have kept his Nazi charade going for the rest of his life.

Just as the Kim Jong dynasty of North Korea. Nobody cares how cruel such dictators are to their own people, how many huge military marches they do, whatever kind of propaganda bull**** they spew - as long as they keep it within their own borders it's very unlikely to trigger war with other nations. Especially if they are useful pawns of a superpower.

Hitler could have done the same thing, but then he wouldn't have been Hitler.

True.

It's certainly a fascinating subject, but I'll leave off on this topic now, so as not to get into problematic areas or derail the thread.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

It makes me wonder what would have happened if external conditions had been such that Hitler had not started the war at all. In other words, what if the actions of others had convinced him that war was not an option, rather than convincing him that is was the only one.

My understanding (from the little about economics I learned) was that Germany could not afford its own economic expansion during the 30's without acquiring new resources and territory.  ie: Germany was on the way to bankrupting itself with Hitler's grandiose infrastructure plans.  It needed conquest to bring in more "stuff" just like the British Empire (and the empires before it) needed "stuff" from all over the world to become and remain "Great". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yesterday, I stumbled upon an impressive series of books dedicated to Operation Barbarossa. Here the author takes one of TiK's videos. Pretty impressive stuff if you ask me:

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/an-essay-on-why-i-believe-a-tik-u-tube-presentation-is-incorrect-in-regards-to-losses-and-strengths-on-the-east-front/

http://www.operationbarbarossa.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Essay-alt-view-TIK-presentation.pdf

 

Pretty good summary of TIK:

"Overall, the video made some good points. However, on its own it definitely gives the average person (who may have a cursory, or no significant, knowledge of the War on the Eastern Front) the completely wrong impression".
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2018 at 8:31 PM, Warts 'n' all said:

Shouldn't that read "Certain members of the Royal Family, and some aristocrats". And remember, I'm speaking as someone with previous when it comes to killing royals.

This tired fantasy truly is getting old; I'm glad you nipped it in the bud. We're hardly in a position as Canadians and Brits to wag the finger; our societies had (and still do, as one can gather from a particularly recent meltdown in another part of this forum) people who are all to willing to get behind ugly causes, including Nazism. Condemning an entire country off a handful of loonies would be silly and alarming; so why a family?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Ivanov said:

 

Pretty good summary of TIK:

"Overall, the video made some good points. However, on its own it definitely gives the average person (who may have a cursory, or no significant, knowledge of the War on the Eastern Front) the completely wrong impression".
 

Also, this:

"The last section, and perhaps the most interesting, is why the presenter shows a complete lack of understanding of what it actually means to be outnumbered (by even 2 to 1) in a modern war and where both sides have very similar levels of technology"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He made some interesting points with regards to Germany's need for oil, and their continuing reliance on horse-transport. Although that wasn't anything new to those of us who have seen footage, or photos, of dead horses blown to bits/shot to pieces by the allies. It was when he uttered the words "stab in the back", that I hit the "Off" button.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

While I do not completely agree with the guy, but he does bring up some good points. Was oil what broke the Tiger's back? I doubt it. However, it did force the Germans to spend time and resources experimenting with alternative fuels, such as wood gas. This produced some funky modifications we probably won't see in CM:

250-gas-powered-halftrack.jpg

panzer-1-gas.jpg

Back on topic. Why did the Germans lose the war? Potentially infinite reasons. However, I think many people overlook the diplomatic work of the Allies. The Germans had dubious alliances with Japan and Italy that only got them into their wars. They tried to not share technology with their eastern European allies and generally had limited support. Yet, the Allies managed to bring men from Brazil to India, train, equip them and put them on the front line. They had, also, great success dissuading  Spain from getting involved and persuading the Italian King to put Mussolini behind bars.

While the German hegemony spanned from the Atlantic to Moscow, from the Arctic to Africa -- they could only rely on themselves. They either could not, or did not want to, raise many troops form their vast occupied territories both in the West and East. For some reason, they had issues coordinating with the Romanians, Italians and Vichy France and generally relegated all foreign forces to rear-echelon work. As soon push came to shove, their allies turned on them. I do not think it is necessary to mention the debacles that were Yugoslavia and Belarus.

Why were the Germans not popular on the world stage? Was it too much of the stick, and too little of the carrot? Was it the lend-lease food and Hollywood? That's a discussion for a different thread.

 

 

Edited by DerKommissar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 3/15/2018 at 4:59 PM, DerKommissar said:

While I do not completely agree with the guy, but he does bring up some good points. Was oil what broke the Tiger's back? I doubt it. However, it did force the Germans to spend time and resources experimenting with alternative fuels, such as wood gas. This produced some funky modifications we probably won't see in CM:

250-gas-powered-halftrack.jpg

panzer-1-gas.jpg

Back on topic. Why did the Germans lose the war? Potentially infinite reasons. However, I think many people overlook the diplomatic work of the Allies. The Germans had dubious alliances with Japan and Italy that only got them into their wars. They tried to not share technology with their eastern European allies and generally had limited support. Yet, the Allies managed to bring men from Brazil to India, train, equip them and put them on the front line. They had, also, great success dissuading  Spain from getting involved and persuading the Italian King to put Mussolini behind bars.

While the German hegemony spanned from the Atlantic to Moscow, from the Arctic to Africa -- they could only rely on themselves. They either could not, or did not want to, raise many troops form their vast occupied territories both in the West and East. For some reason, they had issues coordinating with the Romanians, Italians and Vichy France and generally relegated all foreign forces to rear-echelon work. As soon push came to shove, their allies turned on them. I do not think it is necessary to mention the debacles that were Yugoslavia and Belarus.

Why were the Germans not popular on the world stage? Was it too much of the stick, and too little of the carrot? Was it the lend-lease food and Hollywood? That's a discussion for a different thread.

 

 

Interresting wood gas didn't know about this !!! ???

Edited by 3j2m7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 3j2m7 said:

Interresting wood gas didn't know about this !!! ???

In occupied Holland wood gas cars were 'normal' as oil was rationed / not available. Another reinforcement of TIKS point ;-)

@Ivanov, thanks for the links. Good to know we're not the alone finding problem in TIKs reasoning :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×