Humanizing Hitler: A movie

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Dadams1: Hitler was not evil, he was misguided. Evil does not exist. Good does not exist. I disagree with what Hitler did strongly, because it was cruel. But that does not make it evil, per se.

Not evil? Evil doesn't exist? Pssht, that is moral equivalism, which I do not subscribe to in the least. Hitler and many, many people were EVIL! They kill, murder, and rape. Calling them 'misguided' adds nothing but lack of comprehension as to their foul deeds. Hitler did try to take the Suez Canal and the Middle East. That was the purpose of the Afrika Korps. They failed, because the Brits, with our help, beat them. Hitler didn't even try to rescue the remnants, though he flew Rommel out. What Hitler failed to take into account was not the Russian winter or the 'stubbornness' of the Russian generals, was that his savage treatment of the Russian people roused them into frenzied resistance and astonishing feats like moving their factories deep into Russia where the Luftwaffe couldn't get to them. He also made the stupid blunder of declaring war on us after Pearl Harbor, freeing Roosevelt's hands to start open convoying and active U-boat hunting.

[Arledrian]

I'm with Dadams, I honestly don't think good or evil exists, either. We all do what we were meant to, what we feel is right. Obviously Hitler was screwed up mentally, but he wouldn't have done what he did without good reason in his own mind. This is why you won't hear me call Bin Laden an evil SOB. Hitler brought periods of prosperity to Germany, rallying the depressed people and bringing the massive inflation problem to an end. Something like this had to happen - Germany was spiralling downwards so fast it's not even cool - Hitler just forced the climax.

I'd like to watch the movie, sounds really interesting. [img]smile.gif[/img]

[johnny]

from Dadams1 Evil does not exist

About 6 million dead Jews would strongly disagree with you here.

[Dadams1]

Not evil? Evil doesn't exist? Pssht, that is moral equivalism, which I do not subscribe to in the least. Hitler and many, many people were EVIL! They kill, murder, and rape.

This is relative.

So, if killing is evil, why was it okay for us to kill them for their actions, but not okay for them to kill us for our actions? You basically just told me I was wrong because you believe I'm wrong. Good job.

Hitler did try to take the Suez Canal and the Middle East. That was the purpose of the Afrika Korps.

The purpose of the Afrika Corps was to hold a defensive line in northern Africa, according to Hitler. Rommel had his own ideas, since he wanted Egypt. But the Afrika Corps never had Saudi Arabia as a target.

was that his savage treatment of the Russian people roused them into frenzied resistance and astonishing feats like moving their factories deep into Russia where the Luftwaffe couldn't get to them.

Actually, Russian underground military resistance movements were what pissed him off, so he just went around destroying villages and killing people. There really wasn't much of a civilian resistance.

And Russia didn't move their factories... They were already out of the range of the Luftwaffe bombers at the start of Barbarossa.

He also made the stupid blunder of declaring war on us after Pearl Harbor, freeing Roosevelt's hands to start open convoying and active U-boat hunting.

Heh... First off, he had too, because Japan and Germany were allies. Secondly, Roosevelt's "U-boat hunting" is not a good example of a bad result of the decision. How about, "America got involved in the war and helped invade Normandy"? That might work better.

Thirdly, after Hitler declared war on us, that was when he started sending vast numbers of U-boats to sink our ships. And he succeeded; we sustained more losses than the Germans.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Dadams1: quote: Not evil? Evil doesn't exist? Pssht, that is moral equivalism, which I do not subscribe to in the least. Hitler and many, many people were EVIL! They kill, murder, and rape.

This is relative.

So, if killing is evil, why was it okay for us to kill them for their actions, but not okay for them to kill us for our actions? You basically just told me I was wrong because you believe I'm wrong. Good job.

Hitler did try to take the Suez Canal and the Middle East. That was the purpose of the Afrika Korps.

The purpose of the Afrika Corps was to hold a defensive line in northern Africa, according to Hitler. Rommel had his own ideas, since he wanted Egypt. But the Afrika Corps never had Saudi Arabia as a target.

was that his savage treatment of the Russian people roused them into frenzied resistance and astonishing feats like moving their factories deep into Russia where the Luftwaffe couldn't get to them.

Actually, Russian underground military resistance movements were what pissed him off, so he just went around destroying villages and killing people. There really wasn't much of a civilian resistance.

And Russia didn't move their factories... They were already out of the range of the Luftwaffe bombers at the start of Barbarossa.

He also made the stupid blunder of declaring war on us after Pearl Harbor, freeing Roosevelt's hands to start open convoying and active U-boat hunting.

Heh... First off, he had too, because Japan and Germany were allies. Secondly, Roosevelt's "U-boat hunting" is not a good example of a bad result of the decision. How about, "America got involved in the war and helped invade Normandy"? That might work better.

Thirdly, after Hitler declared war on us, that was when he started sending vast numbers of U-boats to sink our ships. And he succeeded; we sustained more losses than the Germans. [/QUOTE]I do not know where you get your informantion. There are so amny errors here that I hardly know where to begin. Yeah, the U-Boats of Paukenschrift had a few successes in the Carribean but that was because the escorts and planes were drawn back to cover the vital New York and Halfax-based convoys, and they failed abysmally to interrupt that pipeline. Over 95% of all merchants on those routes arrived safe, see Clay Blair's massive, two-volume Hitler's U-Boat War. Doenitz wanted to fight a tonnage war, where as he should have sent his U-Boats against those vital convoys. The losses in the Carribean and along the East Coast hurt, sure, but were nowhere near fatal. When we started convoying and using aircraft in the Caribbean, the U-Boats had a less 'Happy Time.' The factories that were moved were well within Wehrmacht, let alone Luftwafe range, see Richard J. Overy's Why the Allies Won. The 'civilian resistance' that counted was in those factories.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Dadams1: Invading Russia was not his mistake; underestimating the Russian winter and the stubbornness of the Russian generals were.*SNIP*

I wholeheartedly hope you are confused. Because you have just exemplified just how bad of a tactician he was.

*UNSNIP* Hitler himself was a genius in the way he used the Blitzkreig to take most of Western Europe, and the Allied success at Normandy was the fault of generals, not Der Fuhrer himself.

Really, just how many Blitzkreigs did he lead? 0, Zero, Null, Naughta, Nein! It was his Generals. And thank goodness there was success at Normandy.

Instead of driving into Russia, Hitler should have driven into the Middle East, or Saudi Arabia. The treaty with Russia would have lasted, and by strengthening the Italian and Nazi troops already in northern Africa and by using a two-pronged attack to drive into the Saudi country, he could have obtained endless amounts of oil to fuel his war machine, and easily crushed the British, then dealt with the Russians.

Again you have proven his inability to be a tactician, for this surely would have been the tactical outcome.

Originally posted by Dadams1: Hitler was not evil, he was misguided. Evil does not exist. Good does not exist. I disagree with what Hitler did strongly, because it was cruel. But that does not make it evil, per se.

The acts he had conducted, the atrocities he had commited, all speak and reek of evil.

Originally posted by Dadams1: Hitler was also a brilliant leader, very charismatic and inspiring, and exactly what the German people were looking for at the time; he gave them temporary stability, and they loved him. He must be respected, if only for this.

[The Hierophant]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: from Dadams1 Evil does not exist

About 6 million dead Jews would strongly disagree with you here. [/QUOTE]so?

[Dadams1]

The factories that were moved were well within Wehrmacht, let alone Luftwafe range, see Richard J. Overy's Why the Allies Won. The 'civilian resistance' that counted was in those factories.

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/a...apr/ratley.htm

[Dadams1]

The acts he had conducted, the atrocities he had commited, all speak and reek of evil.

That's not an argument that counters my point...

Really, just how many Blitzkreigs did he lead? 0, Zero, Null, Naughta, Nein! It was his Generals. And thank goodness there was success at Normandy.

Again you have proven his inability to be a tactician, for this surely would have been the tactical outcome.

You say, however, that his generals were the actual leaders. Thus, I may have contradicted myself, but so have you.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by The Hierophant: quote: Originally posted by johnny: quote: from Dadams1 Evil does not exist

About 6 million dead Jews would strongly disagree with you here. [/QUOTE]so? [/QUOTE]Leave it to hierophant [img]graemlins/troutslap.gif[/img] to add nothing but [img]graemlins/spam3.gif[/img]


Dadams1, Your last splice is a bit off. I do believe you said.

Originally posted by Dadams1: Instead of driving into Russia, Hitler should have driven into the Middle East, or Saudi Arabia. The treaty with Russia would have lasted, and by strengthening the Italian and Nazi troops already in northern Africa and by using a two-pronged attack to drive into the Saudi country, he could have obtained endless amounts of oil to fuel his war machine, and easily crushed the British, then dealt with the Russians.

My reply was.

Again you have proven his inability to be a tactician, for this surely would have been the tactical outcome.

If he in fact WOULD have been a good tactician he WOULD have done this, and the tactical outcome 'thankfully' can only be envisioned on the game "Axis and Allies"