[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Staling's Organist,

I remember when you had interesting points to make instead of being just another nit-picking bore. I wrote something about Trajan as I remembered it, don't mind being corrected but, unless you're in the seventh grade, you don't do it that way. God, I am incredibly impressed with your profound insights.

The point I was trying to make is that Trajan was determined to have his war against Parthia even if he had to create the issue himself. As for there being no evidence that Hadrian poisoned him, that's tough, I've read it a few times and, as I don't possess Trajan's body I guess a forensic test is out of the question.

Anyway, you get a boring gold star.

Here's an account of Trajan's life. As I don't feel like writing a term paper here with every post I think yesterday's decision was the right one after all.

Trajan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Trajan

Emperor of the Roman Empire

Marble statue of Trajan at Colonia

Ulpia Traiana (modern Xanten).

Reign January 28, 98-

August 9, 117

Full name Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus

Born September 18, 53

Italica

Died August 9, 117

Selinus

Buried Rome (ashes in foot

of Trajan's Column, now lost.)

Predecessor Nerva

Successor Hadrian

Wife/wives Pompeia Plotina

Issue Hadrian (adoptive)

Dynasty Nervan-Antonine

Father Marcus Ulpius Traianus

Mother Marcia

Roman imperial dynasties

Nervo-Trajanic Dynasty Nerva

Children

Natural - (none)

Adoptive - Trajan

Trajan

Children

Natural - (none)

Adoptive - Hadrian

Hadrian

Children

Natural - (none)

Adoptive - Lucius Aelius

Adoptive - Antoninus Pius

This article is about the Roman Emperor. For other meanings of "Traian", see Traian (disambiguation).

Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, commonly called Trajan (September 18, 53–August 9, 117) was Roman Emperor in 98–117. He was the second of the Five Good Emperors of the Roman Empire. Under his rule, the Empire reached its greatest territorial extent.

Contents [hide]

1 Biography

1.1 Early life and rise to power

1.2 Dacian Wars

1.3 Expansion in the East

1.4 Period of peace

1.5 Maximum extent of the Empire

2 Trajan's legacy

3 See also

4 Notes

5 References and further reading

[edit] Biography

[edit] Early life and rise to power

Trajan was the son of Marcia and Marcus Ulpius Traianus, a prominent senator and general from the famous gens Ulpia. The family had settled in Hispania (the Iberian Peninsula, comprising modern Spain and Portugal), in the province of Hispania Baetica in what is now Andalusia (in modern Spain), a province that was thoroughly Romanized and called southern Hispania. Trajan himself was just one of many well-known Ulpii in a line that continued long after his own death. His elder sister was Ulpia Marciana and his niece was Salonina Matidia.

He was born on September 18, 53, in the city of Italica. As a young man, he rose through the ranks of the Roman army, serving in some of the most contentious parts of the Empire's frontier. In 76–77, Trajan's father was Governor of Syria (Legatus pro praetore Syriae), where Trajan himself remained as Tribunus legionis. Trajan was nominated as Consul and brought Apollodorus of Damascus with him to Rome around 91. Along the Rhine River, he took part in the Emperor Domitian's wars while under Domitian's successor, Nerva, who was unpopular with the army and needed to do something to gain their support. He accomplished this by naming Trajan as his adoptive son and successor in the summer of 97. According to the Augustan History, it was the future Emperor Hadrian who brought word to Trajan of his adoption.[1] When Nerva died on January 27, 98, the highly respected Trajan succeeded without incident.

As issued by the Roman Senate, to the "Optimus Princeps" Trajan.The new emperor was greeted by the people of Rome with great enthusiasm, which he justified by governing well and without the bloodiness that had marked Domitian's reign. He freed many people who had been unjustly imprisoned by Domitian and returned a great deal of private property that Domitian had confiscated; a process begun by Nerva before his death. His popularity was such that the Roman Senate eventually bestowed upon Trajan the honorific of optimus, meaning "the best".

Dio Cassius, sometimes known as Cassius Dio, reports that Trajan drank heavily and was a pederast. "I know, of course, that he was devoted to boys and to wine, but if he had ever committed or endured any base or wicked deed as the result of this, he would have incurred censure; as it was, however, he drank all the wine he wanted, yet remained sober, and in his relation with boys he harmed no one." (Dio Cassius, Epitome of Book LXVIII; 6.4) This sensibility was one that influenced even his governing, leading him to favour the king of Edessa out of appreciation for his handsome son: "On this occasion, however, Abgarus, induced partly by the persuasions of his son Arbandes, who was handsome and in the pride of youth and therefore in favour with Trajan, and partly by his fear of the latter's presence, he met him on the road, made his apologies and obtained pardon, for he had a powerful intercessor in the boy." (ibid. 21.2–3).

[edit] Dacian Wars

Main article: Dacian Wars

Trajan's Column.It was as a military commander that Trajan is best known to history. In 101, he launched a punitive expedition into the kingdom of Dacia, on the northern bank of the Danube River, defeating the Dacian army near Tapae. During the following winter Decebalus launched a counter-attack across the Danube further downstream, but this was repulsed. Trajan's army advanced further into Dacian territory and forced King Decebalus to submit to him a year later, after Trajan took the Dacian capital of Sarmizegethusa. Domitian had campaigned against Dacia from 85 to 89 without securing a decisive outcome, and Decebalus had brazenly flouted the terms of the peace which had been agreed on conclusion of this campaign.

Reconstruction (1977) of the Roman monument for the Victory at the Adamclisi, in present-day RomaniaTrajan now returned to Rome in triumph and was granted the title Dacicus Maximus. The victory was celebrated by the Tropaeum Traiani. Decebalus though, after being left to his own devices, in 105 undertook an invasion against Roman territory by attempting to stir up some of the tribes north of the river against her. Trajan took to the field again and after building with the design of Apollodorus of Damascus his massive bridge over the Danube, he conquered Dacia completely in 106. Sarmizegethusa was destroyed, Decebalus committed suicide, and his severed head was exhibited in Rome on the steps leading up to the Capitol. Trajan built a new city, "Colonia Ulpia Traiana Augusta Dacica Sarmizegethusa", on another site than the previous Dacian Capital, although bearing the same full name, Sarmizegethusa. He resettled Dacia with Romans and annexed it as a province of the Roman Empire. Trajan's Dacian campaigns benefited the Empire's finances through the acquisition of Dacia's gold mines. The victory is celebrated by Trajan's Column.

[edit] Expansion in the East

Coin showing the Forum of Trajan.At about the same time, one of Rome's client kings, the last king of Nabatea, Rabbel II Soter, died. This might have prompted Trajan's annexation of Nabatea, although the reasons for annexation are not known, nor is the exact manner of annexation. Some epigraphic evidence suggests a military operation, with forces from Syria and Egypt. What is clear, however, is that by 107, Roman legions were stationed in the area around Petra and Bostra, as is shown by a papyrus found in Egypt. The Empire gained what became the province of Arabia Petraea (modern southern Jordan and north west Saudi Arabia).

[edit] Period of peace

The next seven years, Trajan ruled as a civilian emperor, to the same acclaim as before. It was during this time that he corresponded with Pliny the Younger on the subject of how to deal with the Christians of Pontus, telling Pliny to leave them alone unless they were openly practicing the religion. He built several new buildings, monuments and roads in Italia and his native Hispania. His magnificent complex in Rome raised to commemorate his victories in Dacia (and largely financed from that campaign's loot)—consisting of a forum, Trajan's Column, and a shopping centre—still stands in Rome today. He was also a prolific builder of triumphal arches, many of which survive, and rebuilder of roads (Via Traiana and Via Traiana Nova).

One notable act of Trajan was the hosting of a three-month gladiatorial festival in the great Colosseum in Rome (the precise date of this festival is unknown). Combining chariot racing, beast fights and close-quarters gladiatorial bloodshed, this gory spectacle reputedly left 11,000 dead (mostly slaves and criminals, not to mention the thousands of ferocious beasts killed alongside them) and attracted a total of five million spectators over the course of the festival.

[edit] Maximum extent of the Empire

Roman Empire in 116, at its maximum extent.In 113, he embarked on his last campaign, provoked by Parthia's decision to put an unacceptable king on the throne of Armenia, a kingdom over which the two great empires had shared hegemony since the time of Nero some fifty years earlier. Trajan marched first on Armenia, deposed the king and annexed it to the Roman Empire. Then he turned south into Parthia itself, taking the cities of Babylon, Seleucia and finally the capital of Ctesiphon in 116. He continued southward to the Persian Gulf, whence he declared Mesopotamia a new province of the Empire and lamented that he was too old to follow in the steps of Alexander the Great.

But he did not stop there. Later in 116, he captured the great city of Susa. He deposed the Parthian king Osroes I and put his own puppet ruler Parthamaspates on the throne. Never again would the Roman Empire advance so far to the east.

Bust of Trajan (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna)It was at this point that the fortunes of war—and his own health—betrayed Trajan. The fortress city of Hatra, on the Tigris in his rear, continued to hold out against repeated Roman assaults. He was personally present at the siege and it is possible that he suffered a heat stroke while in the blazing heat. The Jews inside the Roman Empire rose up in rebellion once more, as did the people of Mesopotamia. Trajan was forced to withdraw his army in order to put down the revolts. Trajan saw it as simply a temporary setback, but he was destined never to command an army in the field again, turning his Eastern armies over to the high ranking legate and governor of Judaea, Brinius Carnix Maximus.

Late in 116, Trajan grew ill and set out to sail back to Italy. His health declined throughout the spring and summer of 117, and by the time he had reached Selinus in Cilicia which was afterwards called Trajanopolis, he suddenly died from edema on August 9. Some say that he had adopted Hadrian as his successor, but others that it was his wife Pompeia Plotina who hired someone to impersonate him after he had died. Hadrian, upon becoming ruler, returned Mesopotamia to Parthian rule. However, all the other territories conquered by Trajan were retained. Trajan's ashes were laid to rest underneath Trajan's column, the monument commemorating his success.

[edit] Trajan's legacy

Eugène Delacroix. The Justice of Trajan (fragment).For the remainder of the history of the Roman Empire and well into the era of the Byzantine Empire, every new emperor after Trajan was honoured by the Senate with the prayer felicior Augusto, melior Traiano, meaning "may he be luckier than Augustus and better than Trajan".

Unlike many lauded rulers in history, Trajan's reputation has survived undiminished for nearly nineteen centuries. The Christianization of Rome resulted in further embellishment of his legend: it was commonly said in medieval times that Pope Gregory I, through divine intercession, resurrected Trajan from the dead and baptized him into the Christian faith. An account of this features in the Golden Legend. Theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, discussed Trajan as an example of a virtuous pagan. In the Divine Comedy, Dante, following this legend, sees the spirit of Trajan in the Heaven of Jupiter with other historical and mythological persons noted for their justice. He also features in Piers Plowman. An episode, referred to as the justice of Trajan was reflected in several art works.

[chance of 1 in the million!]

Kuni, you'll need to catch Bill O'Reilly in the rebroadcast to find out.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

letifer,

Welcome aboard, hope you'll be putting up a lot more posts like that first one. :cool:

What really gets me is Serbia agreed to all those points and Austria declared war on them anyway!

-- It's like when Trajan demanded the Parthians return the old eagles they took from slaughtering the Crassus expedition 150 or so years earlier. No one knew where they were kept but, after a frantic search they recovered the things and brought them to Trajan who said something like, "Too late now," and invaded them anyway. :confused: He wound up winning the war, which surprised no one, conquering nearly all of the present day Middle East to Rome's borders and was promptly retired by some poison administered by his successor, Hadrian, who promptly pulled back to the original borders and even started building walls like the one in Scotland, presumably to keep Romans in more than to keep the barbarians out.

I don't think anything could have saved either the Austrian or Ottoman Empires, they were too far in decline even before the start of war. Two inept and repressive czars in a row probably guranteed that Russia would have had some sort of revolution before too much longer. All three were doomed by the war, of course. Probably Austria was clutching at straws, it was falling apart from within. Perhaps the idea was a quick glorious war, aside from regaining Serbia, might help keep the falling ediface propped up. I doubt it would have worked even if they'd managed to do so without involving Russia.

Kaiser Wilhelm II was a strange case. He loved strutting around in his uniforms, made his oldest son a field marshall (he seems to have been a pretty competant general at least) but once the war started the emperror promptly withdrew from the map rooms except to pose from time to time with his top commanders. In the end he wanted to accept the Anglo-French peace offering that would have recognized Germany's gains in eastern Europe and Russia but he backed down when Hindenburg and Ludendorff said they wanted to continue the war. At the start of the war he gave Austria a blank check, as you said, but he seemed somehow to be taken by surprise as the inevitable events unfolded.

-- The Nickie-Willie telegrams exchanged in the early summer of 1914 would be laughable if they didn't lead to such tragic events. Toward the end Nicholas said something like, "If only grandma-ma (Queen Victoria) were alive, she would not have allowed any of this."

I tend to agree with an earlier post, I think it was by Arado, that if the assassination of the archduke didn't start WWI something else would have. There were just too many unmanageable entanglements.

-- I think Italy was smart to stay out of the war, initially. But a year or so later they offered their services to the highest bidder, which turned out to be the French and British. When the war ended, though, they promptly forgot their promises and turned their backs on the Italians, Arabs and Russians even while forging that masterpiece of stupidity at Versailles.

[chance of 1 in the million!]

Thanks for telling us about it, Kuni. I've got those things on my If I'm ever back in the chips list. :cool:

Meanwhile, on the tube:

"You're saying that whole Victor and Kuniworth thing this morning was an honest mix-up."

"That's right Bill,"

"They were just in the same place at the same time using the internet."

"You got it, Bill, that's what happened."

"Okay, we'll take your word for it."

"Thanks Bill. If you're ever in Stockholm you're always welcome at the Kuniworth International Fan Club HQ, visit our museum and the Kuni Hall of Fame, do some shows from our lobby or something."

[Top WWII Movies]

Lars,

Exactly, you don't see anything the infantrymen can't see.

The view of the Salerno beach head is a hill with noise and smoke coming from the other side. The German tank and armored car can be heard coming down the road but you don't see them till the they come into view for the soldiers. Great tension when they finally reach the farmhouse and are about to attack.

To me the whole movie rings true and it doesn't clobber the viewer on the head while doing it.

[SC2 Forums are like the Old Days!]

Agreed. I didn't realize how much time had passed till I happened to glance at the bottom of one of my posts.

[chance of 1 in the million!]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

The prophecy is true. Vic IS Kuniworth.

:eek: I can't believe our very own Kuni would, uh, , hmmmm?

[chance of 1 in the million!]

I agree Victor and am glad you've posted this. Normally I'm logged in here, but now I'm planning to log out after this session.

-- There was something on TV the other night about security issues at Internet Cafes. Being already logged in at a website and able to post as someone else from one of those setups sounds like it's part of what they were talking about.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

I'd imagine He's as disgusted and confused by it as the rest of us.

-- The propaganda slogans for all countries on both sides in that war claimed God as supporting their cause.

[chance of 1 in the million!]

Hmmm -- that might explain some of my own less than rational posts. :eek:

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

We're in complete agreement, Brother Rambo. :cool:

-- Except for all those guys having died for nothing in WWI, but, as you said, there's no point raising the blood pressure over it almost 100 years later.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Hyazinth von Strachwitz,

Many thanks, very much appreciated. We're the same kind of forum member. :cool:

I wrote that post at 5:20 a.m. my time, just woke up and was obviously a little cranky.

What you're saying about political discussions is definitely true, they do seem to always lead to hot feelings getting nowhere, same as discussions on religion. Speaking of old sayings, there's another one about never talking about religion or politics.

In theory those things aren't supposed to be discussed in these threads but it's hard to determine where a discussion crosses the line. Can't really discuss WWII without getting into politics and, since the Hollocaust took place during the war, religion invariably enters in as well.

Personally I think it's okay to discuss anything but, as we've both seen, it becomes frustrating when posts go around in circles rather than making progress.

Thanks again. From now on I'll wait till after breakfast before I start posting.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Originally posted by Rannug:

"-- Certainly not having troops in French territory, in both wars I believe it was France which first declared war on Germany. In WWI the sequence was something like --

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia DOW Austria

Germany DOW Russia

France DOW Germany"

This is not what happend......

Correct version without details..

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia mobilizes

Germany DOW Russia

Germany DOW France(since they are allies with Russia)

Germany DOW Belgium

UK DOW Germany

The technicality of which country DOW'd on which date is, in this case, irrelevant because the treaties dictated that everything had to move in a single direction. Once Austria was at war with Serbia Germany and Russia had to be at war with each other and France had to be at war with Germany.

The only option was that could have been avoided was invading Belgium. Germany didn't have to do that but presumably the fear was if they didn't France had the option of doing so in order to get to Germany.

It would have been much better for Germany to not invade Belgium and to not pull Britain into the war.

Even the Kaiser understood that when everything was being set into motion and he actually suggested to von Moltke that it would be better to not violate Belgium's neutrality and to concentrate on Russia first. The prospect of readjusting all the general staff's mobilization plans and reversing the plan seems to have led to a mental collapse on Moltke's part and the subsequent lack of top leadership is one of the reasons things subsequently went wrong in the field; von Moltke resorted to command by proxie, in the end the decision outside Paris was made by a staff officer major acting with Moltke's authority; he made an on the spot decision to not flank Paris but to march on it instead from the northwest. More than a little bit ludicrous.

jon_j_rambo

@Ragnuts --- Absolutely correct About time some recognized the truth. Everybody else, put down your Bunta buttons & take a history class.

Dude gets shot.

Austria DOW Serbia

Buntas go nuts

Thank you, Brother Rambo, but I said all of that fifteen posts ago. We were trying to set the details straight. Now I remember why I stopped posting here and will probably go back to lurking.

Come to think of it that's the right decision. There's too much arguing for the sake of arguing, which consumes a lot of time and doesn't get anywhere.

See you all later.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

All true, and a very interesting situation on many levels. What's always amazed me is how close Germany's plan came to succeeding. Then again, the two Russian armies making the attack on East Prussia almost went out of their way to be destroyed.

Most historians I've read feel the German thrust into France failed in part because the German troops were almost exhausted as they near Paris, which seems reasonble to me. And also that the 1st and 2nd Armies shortened their route, instead of swinging wide to the west and sout to cut the French Railroads they cut directly for Paris and were knocked off balance when counterattacked on their right flank, sending them reeling to cover their own lines and ending the offensive, which also seems reasonable to me.

But generally speaking I don't think the plan was sound at all unless, as you said, Russia took an extremely long time for initial mobilization, which it didn't.

-- True about 19th Century European powers often being permitted to march through neutral nations. But I think Germany should have adapted to the changing times and at least had a plan of action lined up in case Belgian refused the request -- I mean, a plan that didn't involve invading them!

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Brother Rambo,

I love your take on things. Most of the time I can't agree with any of it, but I love the ideas you bring up.

Germany's sins in WWI?

-- Certainly not having troops in French territory, in both wars I believe it was France which first declared war on Germany. In WWI the sequence was something like --

Austria DOW Serbia

Russia DOW Austria

Germany DOW Russia

France DOW Germany

Germany makes the perfectly reasonable request that Belgium allow it to march a million or so troops through their country (past their forts at Liege and Namur) to invade France and those nasty little Belgians refuse so the Kaiser does it anyway on the assumption that they missed something in the translation and those little Belgian beasts start shooting at the German troops sent to protect them, forcing the Kaiser to declare war on Belgium.

UK (honoring an old treaty guaranteeing Belgian independence) DOW Germany

Germany's sin wasn't in putting troops in France, it was in putting troops in Belgium. And I think it was an idiotic mistake as well. They could have defended the Rhine and left the Belgians to defend the rest of their border from the French with Britain not in the war and, guess what? No blockade!!! Meanwhile they could have combined with Austria to defeat Russia at their leisure. But the younger von Moltka was sticking slavisly to the old Schleiffen Plan, which really ought to have been scrapped a decade earlier.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

...

@Sir Jersey --- Yeah, you get some great first hand conversations living on the East Coast. The West is full of decendants from the Gold Rush, Trappers, Furers, and Outlaws...mixed in with Bill Gate's software industry. Not alot of Kosher. Sounds like you've been talking to some real clowns, that don't even understand their own alledged book

Clowns!! :mad:

I think they've got a different view of it, they know it all right, just don't believe it should be taken literally, or was even intended to be taken that way. Anyway, that rabbi I mentioned is someone I knew back in the 70s. He was already an old man at the time and led an interesting life.

I've only been to the West Coast on a few very short trips, mainly when I was in the Air Force almost forty years ago so my memories of the places I saw are probably totally different from what they're like today. I liked everything I saw, but unfortunately didn't see enough of anything to really feel satisfied.

The East Coast does seem to still serve as a melting pot, or at least a place where a lot of people from other countries come to live for a while before returning to their own countries, along the way leaving a bit of their customs and view of things behind. NYC was much more European when I was a kid; a lot of Europeans were moving there all through the fifties.

I lived in a lot of Jewish neighborhoods growing up and later, when I played a lot of chess, many of the people I met were Jewish and a lot of them also German or Russian. A wide spectrum of personalities and outlooks and ways of seeing things. I don't regret having known any of them.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Brother X-,

-- Ah, you have a good sense of how confusing German names are for most Americans.

von Shirach I knew a little bit about because the last few years I've been working on a series of novels that has Hitler Youth characters, also members of The German American Bund, which was very popular here in New Jersey and also in New York. von Shirach was either born in the United States or spent his childhood here, not sure which. The head of the American Bund, Fitz Kuhn, was born in Germany and won an iron cross in WWI, just like Hitler but I think Kuhn was an officer. I believe he became a U. S. citizen though after the war he was deported to Germany.

Out here I drove to some towns where the Bund was strong during the Depression and tried to find information on it but either nobody knew anything or they didn't want to discuss it. The local libraries in those towns didn't have anything on it either, so I'm going to have use a lot of guesswork. No doubt if the book ever gets published those same people will come out of the cracks to tell everyone on earth that I had all my facts wrong.

Thanks for all those links. I've added them my research folders. These things always have useful information. Will definitely use these people as characters, they're all very interesting. :cool:

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Brother Rambo,

Appreciated. I'm always amazed at how many faith related issues we agree on. Also, took your advice and added a bit to the thread's title.

Xwormwood,

Thanks for that link, and thanks for clarifying who the lady was, it would have driven me up a wall trying to remember the name!

If von Shirach is the person I'm thinking of -- Hitler's finance minister -- then he's one of the few officials of the Nazi regime I don't regard as a sociopath. I read somewhere that he'd meet in Switzerland each morning with with an American, British and Japanese representative and they'd settle on that day's gold value. Forgot where I read it, not sure if it's accurate or not but I can definitely believe it.

Blashy,

I considered myself to be hard on the bible and organized religion, but you're even worse!

A long time ago a rabbi I used to play chess with told me most of the Old Testament is now considered to have been gross exaggeration intended to scare off potential invaders of the Holy Land. I laughed and he said, " Honestly, do you think a bunch of nice Jewish boys went around killing every man, woman, child, pet, livestock whenever they took over a bunch of clay huts -- the pets and livestock especially. No, it was just our way of saying 'Don't mess with us, you'll be sorry, keep away!'" -- I've always thought that made a lot more sense than the biblical tales of mass slaughter committed by the Israelites at God's command.

Not long ago I heard a Hebrew scholar say something almost identical in a documentary; either he knew the same guy I knew and is repeating what he heard, or that's a pretty well accepted theory.

I don't believe any scripture, or any history book for that matter, should ever be taken literally.

Ottosmops

@Rambo,

Did you ever consider that Patton = Jesus?

It makes sense, poor Georgie died for our sins!

-- I agree with much of what you're saying about self-fulfilling prophesies. The whole Palestine/Israel situation goes back to the late 19th century and Desraeli, Britain makes a Promised Land Committment (which they intended to be the Sudan), it falls through and, during WWI, while promising the moon to the Arabs fighting the Ottomans, they also promise Palestine, which wasn't even theirs, to the Zionists, who began migrating there in the 1920s and by the 1920s there was open fighting between Palestinians, late arriving Jews and British troops.

Behind it all there was a lot of backstabbing by the Brits and French in the region (Syria, Iraq and causing the Turkish/Greek War of the early 1920s).

Why would God do things that way? I've known a lot of Jewish friends who say he doesn't and setting up Israel the way it was done, was a horrible idea. I have to agree.

[ July 18, 2007, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Iron Ranger,

I think that was footage of Hitler in Finland with Mannerheim, not sure if it was 1942 or 43, the meeting where the two of them were secretly taped by a Finnish radio technician. Hitler as seen through footage and still photos from the early 1930s thru the end of the war gradually turns into a physical wreck, slowly losing physical abilities and becoming stooped like an old man even though he was only in his early 50s.

Of course it's normal for people in high stress situations to age quickly, it happened to Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson and FDR while in office, but in Hitler's case, as well as FDR's, the deterioration was accellerated due to illness. Hitler made things worse with his quack doctor Morell making him a drug addict.

-- There are a couple of good documentaries on this. One was shown here on The Discovery Health Channel about Hitler's medical condition in general, and the other was shown on the History Channel, called, High Hitler, about his so called treatments as administered by Morell.

Stalin's Organist,

I've always found that confusing too, especially in that the Catholic Church, and presumably all or most Protestants, use the Old Testament as part of their scripture. Also, the premise that Jesus was himself a Jew, so how can it make sense to accept Jesus as the son of God, along with ancient Hebrew prophets like Moses, while condemning all the other Jews who have ever lived? Very senseless reasoning.

I suspect the roots of this go back not to the Crucifiction but to Medieval Italian popes plundering Jewish merchants and giving every advantage to Christians loyal to the Papacy.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Actually, the Jews had a hard time long before the crucifiction of Jesus.

There was something earlier today about how the medeival Catholic Church modelled it's imagery of Satan after Jewish features, or at least the stereotypes. At one point it listed both the Torah and Koran as blasphemus books. Protestants usually say they have nothing to do with the Catholic Church, which I find ridiculous as it's their root religion, but in any case I think a lot of the same prejudices were carried along.

Henry Ford was completely open about being an anti-Semite and even made it policy in his companies to not hire Jews. Hitler sent feelers out to him but Ford wasn't a Nazi.

-- As for Hitler and insanity, a lot of insame men emerged from WWI. As he rose to power Hitler drew those closest to him that shared his own twisted outlook, no great trick to that. There were also fascists in UK, France, and of course Italy and Spain.

The key to all of this is determining when Hitler ceased being rational enough to effectively rule his country and turned into a decidedly irrational person and leader. My feeling is he began losing control shortly before the Munich Conference and was definitely insane by 1941. I'm not saying this because that's when he began making mistakes, he made plenty of mistakes before that and didn't start paying for them till the first Russian winter. I'm saying 1941 because from then on he becomes more meglomaniacal and constantly more self-destructive. Also, as his fortunes spiralled downward he sets his sights on exterminating the Jews and other groups he personally hated. The Hollocaust didn't become official Nazi policy till early 1942, at the Wansee Conference.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Thanks Arado, I'm going to check it out.

By trying to understand people who did, or do, hideous things, even those like Hitler, Stalin and others who have the blood of millions on their hands, I don't think we're so much justifying their acts as saying they're people who were twisted by the events in their lives into becoming either sociopathic or psycopaths. I'm not a psychologist, but it seems to me that if a person is beyond controling their worst impulses then it's hard to condemn them. The only worthwhile thing is to study how people like that end up controling countries.

From what I can see they work their way in through people who believe they can use them, keep them under control, and it ends up that they can't be controled.

Sadaam Hussein had a similar rise to power, the sort of person who plays the role of servant till it's time to take control from the master.

-- In addition to syphallus Hitler had a number of other medical problems, along with really bad teeth that were mainly pulled out by the thirties and he was in constant pain. And then there was the quack Doctor Morell with his daily witch's brew of assorted narcotics and outright garbage. From about 1938 onwards Hitler received ever increasing dosages of Morell's secret remedies and, not surprisingly, became less rational all the time.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Arado,

Hitler was probably unbalanced as a child, he was very affected by the death of his brother.

Later he was pushed further by the death of his mother under an agonizing treatment that he insisted upon. It was performed by a Vienese Jewish doctor who survived WWII and the Holocaust. He said a half century afterwards that Hitler was a very polite young man. That he'd advised against the radical treatment and Hitler said he wanted it becuase he felt it was his mother's only hope. Afterwards the doctor said he was sorry she suffered so badly. Hitler thanked him and said it wasn't his fault she'd suffered, but his own for insisting on the treatment. Many have later speculated that he later mulled this over and the fact his mother's doctor was Jewish became the key factor in his hatred for the Jews. But the doctor said he had no sense of anti-Semitism in him.

Finally, four years in the trenches and being gassed may well have driven him over the edge. The odds of surviving almost the entire war at the front were extremely small. I remember reading that Hitler's regiment had to be put together again at least twice because it was so badly depleted, but Hitler survived all the way through.

Never heard Mein Kampf, translated as My Camping Trip before, but it has a humorous irony to it. -- what gets me about it being such an awful book is it was a group effort; I guess it could be said that nobody could write something so terrible alone.

Even members of the Nazi Party used to joke about how they'd buy the two volumes (the way it was printed in Germany during the 1930s) and put it in open view so anyone who entered the house could see it on display, but they always said that they couldn't manage to read it.

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

What does any of that have to do with what we were talking about?

Absolutely nothing.

The only reason the SS was mentioned is because Hitler surrounded himself with a very large SS security force. Officers attending the staff meetings had to drive several miles through checkpoints before reaching the bunker and were disarmed along the way. There was no opportunity to go anywhere near Hitler with a weapon so there was no opportunity at all to kill him. After Stauffenberg blew the only chance it wasn't even possible to carry a satchel unless that too had been opened and checked.

As far as the generals turning on him when the war went wrong, no, it was much more complicated than that and, in large part, not even the same generals -- Hitler sacked and even killed a bunch of them, which you never mention.

The rest is nonsense. Of course Germany wasn't right to invade anyone, who the hell said they were?

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

A few documentaries over the years, such as Hitler: Seduction of a People, have shown that the overwhelming percentage of the Germany people thought Hitler was a great leader right up till the invasion of the USSR.

Many Germans, even a few who near to his inner circle, said things to each other like, "If only the Fuhrer knew about the mistreatment of the Jews!" Just as, in Russia, most people were sure that Stalin didn't realize all the abuses being committed by the NKVD.

There's at least one instance of ordinary people trying to tell Hitler about the crimes being committed in the German state. A woman, one of Eva Braun's friends, telling Hitler about things she'd seen in Holland. Hitler said nothing to her, but she was afterwards barred from seeing him.

Prior to WWII a few of the generals agreed to join in ousting Hitler if things fell through with the Rhineland occupation, but France didn't budge and afterwards his position was secure.

Anyway, I agree with Stalin's Organist about the army not having a reason to want him removed till after the 1942-43 catastrophies. And even then the few high ranking generals who did know about the July 44 plot, with the exception of Beck, were very quiet about it and didn't openly go along with the conspiracy.

[ July 17, 2007, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Why The Germans Lose At War (Book) + JJR @Armageddon & JJ Goes, Returns, and Leaves.]

Hitler and Stalin were always surrounded by guards, a lot of them, even when they travelled. Also, at staff conferences the generals were disarmed before being brought into the room.

On the attempts to kill Hitler, it came to light in the decades after WWII that Reinhard Heydrich staged at least one, and possibly several of them so he could claim to have foiled an assassination attempt. In doing that Hitler became even more trusting of the SS while becoming less trusting of everyone else.