"Everyone has lied to me, everyone has deceived me," Recently disclosed dox show Hitler mental deter - Polidicks

[QUOTE=BorisJ;38203536]Not England specifically: Britain. Marischal College in Aberdeen was his favourite building - that he would have liked as a second-home if he had won.[/QUOTE] [quote]There is an urban legend that Marischal College was Adolf Hitler's favourite building in the United Kingdom and that he would have liked to have used it as a residence if the outcome of the Second World War had been different.[8] This was a fabrication by students at the University of Aberdeen and the noted Aberdeen historian, David Webster.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]Except - you know - Britain and France stopped enforcing the treaty in the 1930's,[/quote] Uh- no they didn't. [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1004/Germany-finishes-paying-WWI-reparations-ending-century-of-guilt]The treaty's amended Great War reparations clause was still in effect up until two years ago in October 2010, when the Germans finished making their last payment of $94 million[/url]. The French and British allowed a few concessions to be made and ignored violations they considered to be unimportant (reoccupying the Rhineland, rebuilding the military, annexing territories with significant ethnic German populations, etc.), that's all well and true, but to claim that they just outright "stopped enforcing it in the 1930s" is still wrong. They used its creation of Poland clause as a justification for guaranteeing Poland's independence and eventually declaring war on Germany after it invaded Poland. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]the Treaty had been getting more lenient towards Germany in the 1920's as public opinion sympathised with how harsh it was. Germany's prime goal in the 1920's was to get the allies to change the treaty and they were doing a good job at it.[/quote] Only where war reparations were concerned, and that was because of all the economic turmoil Germany suffered in the 1920s. The German government had little to do with changing any of this however, as it was all determined by the Inter-Allied Reparations Commission (until they were disbanded in 1929). The Commission's original demand for Germany to pay 269 billion Goldmarks was seen throughout much of Europe and the United States by economists and politicians as being simply unfeasible, and it really was when you understand that there wasn't that much gold in all of Germany (hell, in all of [i]Europe[/i]) to produce and support such a massive amount of currency. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]The treaty was a propaganda tool for the right-wing from the moment it was signed but that is all it was.[/quote] Well, no, considering all the [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1221207&p=38205087&viewfull=1#post38205087]harsh restrictions and limitations it placed upon the German government and consequently the entire German people[/url], it was a lot more than just "a propaganda tool". [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]The reason for WW2 was Hitler's ambitions in the east.[/quote] Ambitions which stemmed in the first place from his desires to rebuild Germany in the aftermath of the Great War. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]And Hitler was only in that position because of the collapse of the Republic due to the Wall Street Crash in 1929 which had nothing to do with the Treaty of Versailles.[/quote] The collapse of the Weimar Republic's economy following Wall Street's Crash of 1929 actually had a lot to do with the Treaty of Versailles. The Inter-Allied Reparations Commission in 1924 was trying to find a solution to the treaty's reparation issues in response to Germany's hyperinflation crisis, so they called on Charles Dawes (an American who had been appointed to the Commission a year earlier) to find a solution. The committee he formed to resolve the matter took two diplomatic representatives from the nations of Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, and the United States (Dawes represented the United States alongside Owen Young). Long story short: the plan they came up with involved the United States providing large loans to Germany in order to stabilize their currency (which was by this time the Reichsmark) and also allowed both nations to make comprehensive investments in one another. Consequently, Germany became economically dependent upon the United States- so when Wall Street crashed and our economy tanked, it also took the German economy down with it. Owen Young proposed another reparations plan in 1929 that was adopted after the crash in 1930. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]The terms of the treaty themselves weren't even all that bad compared to what Germany was intending to do to Russia in Brest-Litovsk.[/quote] Because the Russians had acted as the aggressors towards them in the first place when the Great War began. They declared a state of general mobilization for their military on July 31, 1914, and Germany responded by sending them an ultimatum expiring at noon on August 1st demanding they scale back to a partial mobilization or else face war; they were afraid the Russians would attack both them and Austria-Hungary. The Russians made no attempts to respond and in fact continued to mobilize after the ultimatum had expired according to the Austro-Hungarians. By this time as well, the French were preparing to mobilize (at 3:40 pm). The Germans ordered a general mobilization at 5 pm and finally declared war on Russia at 7:10 pm. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]Germany was the defeated party, they were going to be punished.[/quote] Unfairly punished no less. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]And actually, they weren't punished greatly.[/quote] Yeah they were. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]Most of the territory they lost was because of self-determination for people's such as the Poles who wanted their own country.[/quote] Not true actually. Most of the territories they lost were taken from them by the Allies and given away without referendum. This was true of Posen (nearly 21,000 square miles of territory was given to Poland here; despite its 4.2 million+ population being predominantly German, they were not allowed to decide whether they stayed a part of Germany or became a part of Poland), Hultschin (small area; nevertheless given away along with its 49,000 inhabitants to Czechoslovakia), Memelland (placed under France's control, later allowed by the League of Nations to be annexed by Lithuania), Soldau in East Prussia, Ostkantone (given to Belgium), much of West Prussia (plus the areas of Marienwerder, Stuhm, Rosenberg, Marienburg, and Allenstein in East Prussia), plus Danzig with the Vistula River Delta, and finally the Alsace-Lorraine. In other cases, they just ignored the outcomes of referendums held. Eastern Upper Silesia voted 717,122 to 483,514 to stay a part of Germany but it was still given to Poland. The only territory they lost through a self-determination referendum was Northern Schleswig. And then there was of course the issue of having all their colonial possessions stripped away. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169](Which was a big deal in Wilsons 14-points so Germany shouldn't have been surprised)[/quote] Only true of the Alsace-Lorraine where France was concerned and "territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations" where Poland was concerned. Otherwise, he was for restoring things in Europe pretty much as they had previously been. Poland was also going to be guaranteed the freedom to access German territory as necessary so it could access the Baltic Sea. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]The cutting of the military was understandable due to how Germany had just spent the last 20 years sabre rattling in Europe[/quote] As had all other major European powers to advance their own personal interests. This was not at all uncommon during an age where imperialism and nationalism were very pronounced issues. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]and it's not like this put Germany in any danger, they were in no position for another war with their current military state so cutting it down helped them more than anything in allowing them to spend their budget somewhere else.[/quote] Cutting back on their military so drastically served to do nothing put tens of thousands of former soldiers out of work (raising unemployment consequently) and fueled radical paramilitary groups like the League of Frontline Soldiers, the Freikorps, the Iron Front, the Red Front Fighter's League, the Kampfbund... and of course the Sturmabteilung. Absolutely nothing good came of it. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]The reparations, while insanely high, were reduced in the 20's[/quote] True- from 269 billion Goldmarks to 226 billion Goldmarks, and finally to 132 billion Goldmarks. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]and most likely would have continued to be as relations normalized between the nations.[/quote] Maybe, maybe not. They weren't amended so much for improving relations between Germany and the Allied nations as they were because of economic problems facing Germany at various points in time. Examining the Lausanne Conference in 1932, for example, the only reason why it occurred and allowed Germany to escape making reparation payments was because Germany's unemployment rate was at 30% and it was literally impossible for them to make sustainable payments. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]The reparations never hurt Germany in any seeable way.[/quote] With all the above in mind, how do you continue to arrive at this conclusion exactly? [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]Hyperinflation in 1923 was due to Germany's idea that it didn't have to pay the French the reparations[/quote] Only where coal and steel reparations were concerned; they still payed monetarily for as long as they could. The passive resistance that was occurring in the Ruhr however was beginning to take a toll on Germany's economy and the government itself was not terribly happy about it. The Ruhrkampf was not solely or even significantly responsible for the country's hyperinflation troubles, however; it was a long time in coming. And the Treaty of Versailles had a lot to do with it. Because their war reparations had to be paid in Goldmarks (which were hard currency) on a schedule and not the depreciated Papiermark, the Germans bought foreign currency with their Papiermarks and paid reparations with what Goldmarks they had and what foreign currency they'd bought. If they needed to buy more foreign currency to make their payments, they printed more Papiermarks. It's not hard to see how this caused inflation to only swell to massive levels. There was nothing malicious or deceiving behind any of this; they were honestly trying to pay off their reparations and assumed this method would work based off conservative economic theories of the time. They were unfortunately wrong. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]and infact the Government had been following a policy of high inflation and borrowing since the start of the war[/quote] To fund the war effort. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]and they continued to do so after the peace settlement so they could make it look to the allies that they would not be able to pay the reparations while at the same time keep people in Germany think the economy was doing well.[/quote] From what research I've done on the matter, this claim doesn't seem to be much more than a revisionist outlook by a few British and French economists and politicians from the 1920s. [QUOTE=Thom12255;38205169]So what did the Treaty actually do to Germany that caused a World War?[/QUOTE] Should be obvious with all the above in mind to understand how it contributed to Hitler's entrance into politics and the ascension of the National Socialists as one of Germany's most popular political parties (and later, its only political party). [editline]31 October 2012[/editline] To those rating disagree, etc., this stuff isn't up for debate. You can jump on any history-oriented website, open any book, ask any reputable historian... it's all a matter of fact. To say that Versailles had no hand in causing World War II or even the rise of the Nazis in the first place is ridiculous; it's like claiming the Great War had no hand in forming the provisions of the treaty itself. Our national educational system is apparently in dire need of reform- since so many people evidently don't know this stuff.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Bznzx.jpg[/IMG] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image macro" - MaxOfS2D))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;38206050]Whilst I disagree with Nazism and Hitler's Regime, I think a fair, single-party dictatorship would probably be the best way to run the world these days. [/QUOTE] privyet, SCop tovarish!

Honestly, Hitler wasn't that bad of a guy.

[QUOTE=Plateau;38212924]Honestly, Hitler wasn't that bad of a guy.[/QUOTE] poe's law strikes

[QUOTE=LiquidNazgul;38212068]...And? Are you implying that makes Britain and France the aggressors?[/QUOTE] It would have been just a simple war over taking back their territory, Britain and France can technically be seen as them. They declared war and mobilized, while hitler only wanted to take back the polish territories that were wrongfully stricken from Germany. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] Seriously though. When it's German territory for over 500 years, you can't just exclaim it as Polish, and not consider the huge population of Germans there.

[QUOTE=Justin Case;38210187]Hitlers artwork was pretty sub-par.[/QUOTE] He was good with architecture and landscapes but he could not do people worth anything. His paintings lacked expression and were nothing more than something a 2nd year art student could spit out of a case study. He would have done good in the romanticism era, but only then.

[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;38210902]Franco still supported the Axis and threw troops towards the Axis's war effort, not to mention how his own fascist regime was grown out of a civil war.[/QUOTE] actually franco didn't give much of a shit about hitler's ideas. he had to play things very carefully because he had just finished winning the civil war and didn't want to get drawn into another war. he used hitler's air force to stamp out resistance in the north, but when they talked about spain potentially joining the axis he deliberately asked for an alliance treaty ludicrously lopsided in favor of spain, purely to piss off hitler enough that he'd back down. franco was a machiavelli, not a satan.

[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Uh- no they didn't. [url=http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2010/1004/Germany-finishes-paying-WWI-reparations-ending-century-of-guilt]The treaty's amended Great War reparations clause was still in effect up until two years ago in October 2010, when the Germans finished making their last payment of $94 million[/url]. The French and British allowed a few concessions to be made and ignored violations they considered to be unimportant (reoccupying the Rhineland, rebuilding the military, annexing territories with significant ethnic German populations, etc.), that's all well and true, but to claim that they just outright "stopped enforcing it in the 1930s" is still wrong. They used its creation of Poland clause as a justification for guaranteeing Poland's independence and eventually declaring war on Germany after it invaded Poland.[/quote] But the Germans stopped paying the reparations in 1933 and the Allies did nothing about it. I wouldn't call re-militarising the Rhineland 'a small concession' on France's behalf. You say that they didn't stop enforcing the treaty even though you point out that they clearly did. In the case of Poland - [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance[/url] We did it not because of Versailles but because we had had enough of Hitler betraying us. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Well, no, considering all the [url=http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1221207&p=38205087&viewfull=1#post38205087]harsh restrictions and limitations it placed upon the German government and consequently the entire German people[/url], it was a lot more than just "a propaganda tool". [/quote] You are going to have to tell me what it limitations it put on the political system of Germany as you're link didn't tell me nor do I know of any such limits imposed by the treaty. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Ambitions which stemmed in the first place from his desires to rebuild Germany in the aftermath of the Great War.[/quote] Rebuild what? The allies never attacked German soil to destroy anything that needed to be rebuilt. The economy? The German economy under Hitler was 'magic' that wasn't going to last if he was peaceful. His ambitions came from the fact that he was a racist piece of shit and wanted to commit genocide in the cast so he could plant German colonies there instead. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]The collapse of the Weimar Republic's economy following Wall Street's Crash of 1929 actually had a lot to do with the Treaty of Versailles. The Inter-Allied Reparations Commission in 1924 was trying to find a solution to the treaty's reparation issues in response to Germany's hyperinflation crisis, so they called on Charles Dawes (an American who had been appointed to the Commission a year earlier) to find a solution. The committee he formed to resolve the matter took two diplomatic representatives from the nations of Britain, France, Belgium, Italy, and the United States (Dawes represented the United States alongside Owen Young). Long story short: the plan they came up with involved the United States providing large loans to Germany in order to stabilize their currency (which was by this time the Reichsmark) and also allowed both nations to make comprehensive investments in one another. Consequently, Germany became economically dependent upon the United States- so when Wall Street crashed and our economy tanked, it also took the German economy down with it.[/quote] So you are saying the German deficit was caused solely by the Treaty of Versailles and if it had not existed then Germany's economy would not have tanked during the Depression which was the direct cause for the Nazi's surge in popularity. However, the Nazi's only gained power due to the government's own ineptness and structure, it could have been stopped if it had been setup differently in 1919. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Because the Russians had acted as the aggressors towards them in the first place when the Great War began. They declared a state of general mobilization for their military on July 31, 1914, and Germany responded by sending them an ultimatum expiring at noon on August 1st demanding they scale back to a partial mobilization or else face war; they were afraid the Russians would attack both them and Austria-Hungary. The Russians made no attempts to respond and in fact continued to mobilize after the ultimatum had expired according to the Austro-Hungarians. By this time as well, the French were preparing to mobilize (at 3:40 pm). The Germans ordered a general mobilization at 5 pm and finally declared war on Russia at 7:10 pm.[/quote] WW1 started as a cluster-fuck, everyone was at fault. The peace terms imposed on the Russians were beyond harsh. I don't see where you are going with this. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Unfairly punished no less.[/quote] Not unfairly, they caused huge damage to France and the coffers of Britain disappeared fighting the war. They needed to repay what they had done. The treaty could have been gentler yes but the French were not going to let that happen and infact believed that the final treaty was not harsh enough on Germany and spent the next few years trying to amend it to be. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Yeah they were.[/quote] The reparations were extreme but everything else did not affect Germany in any significant way. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Not true actually. Most of the territories they lost were taken from them by the Allies and given away without referendum. This was true of Posen (nearly 21,000 square miles of territory was given to Poland here; despite its 4.2 million+ population being predominantly German, they were not allowed to decide whether they stayed a part of Germany or became a part of Poland), Hultschin (small area; nevertheless given away along with its 49,000 inhabitants to Czechoslovakia), Memelland (placed under France's control, later allowed by the League of Nations to be annexed by Lithuania), Soldau in East Prussia, Ostkantone (given to Belgium), much of West Prussia (plus the areas of Marienwerder, Stuhm, Rosenberg, Marienburg, and Allenstein in East Prussia), plus Danzig with the Vistula River Delta, and finally the Alsace-Lorraine. In other cases, they just ignored the outcomes of referendums held. Eastern Upper Silesia voted 717,122 to 483,514 to stay a part of Germany but it was still given to Poland. The only territory they lost through a self-determination referendum was Northern Schleswig. And then there was of course the issue of having all their colonial possessions stripped away.[/quote] Poland demanded the Posen become party of the Republic and the allies, eager to help them out, let it. Not saying that it was right. Come on? Eastern Silesia? There was an uprising there during the vote and the region was spilt up on the borders that the uprising caused, it wasn't a simple case of the allies ignoring the vote. The Germans retained places such as Western Silesia, Allenstein, Marienwerder and southern Schleswig, so the allies seem to have followed through on the plebiscite's. Danzig became a free-city for the reason of giving Poland access to the city, which you know, don't know why you brought it up and on the case of Alsace-Lorriane I say the same, it was French land and the Germans knew absolut that they were going to lose it. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Only true of the Alsace-Lorraine where France was concerned and "territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations" where Poland was concerned. Otherwise, he was for restoring things in Europe pretty much as they had previously been. Poland was also going to be guaranteed the freedom to access German territory as necessary so it could access the Baltic Sea.[/quote] That's what happened though? The territories Germany lost to the other powers were small and the larger territories were given to the peoples of that region by self-determination for the most part. The issue of Poland reaching the sea came out as a compromise by making Danzig a free-city entirely. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]As had all other major European powers to advance their own personal interests. This was not at all uncommon during an age where imperialism and nationalism were very pronounced issues.[/quote] Germany had started to build a navy with the intention to challenge the British long before the war. It's true that everyone in Europe was causing the lead up to the war and the end result was bad on all sides. However, Germany lost, they had to face the consequences in an age of 'nationalism and imperialism'. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Cutting back on their military so drastically served to do nothing put tens of thousands of former soldiers out of work (raising unemployment consequently) and fueled radical paramilitary groups like the League of Frontline Soldiers, the Freikorps, the Iron Front, the Red Front Fighter's League, the Kampfbund... and of course the Sturmabteilung. Absolutely nothing good came of it.[/quote] You think Germany would have kept it's army just sitting around for the 20's with no wars to fight, you were going to have huge army unemployment after the war regardless and with the state of the German economy, they wouldn't have been able to keep a large army regardless. Though this whole idea of reducing Germany's military came from French demands that Germany never again posed a threat to them. So it was rather short-sighted on their part. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]With all the above in mind, how do you continue to arrive at this conclusion exactly?[/quote] As the reparations, while they didn't help the economy, where only part of a larger problem with it. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Only where coal and steel reparations were concerned; they still payed monetarily for as long as they could. The passive resistance that was occurring in the Ruhr however was beginning to take a toll on Germany's economy and the government itself was not terribly happy about it. [B]The Ruhrkampf was not solely or even significantly responsible for the country's hyperinflation troubles[/B], however; it was a long time in coming. And the Treaty of Versailles had a lot to do with it. Because their war reparations had to be paid in Goldmarks (which were hard currency) on a schedule and not the depreciated Papiermark, the Germans bought foreign currency with their Papiermarks and paid reparations with what Goldmarks they had and what foreign currency they'd bought. If they needed to buy more foreign currency to make their payments, they printed more Papiermarks. It's not hard to see how this caused inflation to only swell to massive levels. There was nothing malicious or deceiving behind any of this; they were honestly trying to pay off their reparations and assumed this method would work based off conservative economic theories of the time. They were unfortunately wrong.[/quote] Yes it was... I know the inflation was happening in Germany already before it but the Hyper-inflation only occurred because of the passive resistance in the Ruhr. It's the whole reason it happened. As soon as passive resistance was called off by Stressemen and the currency changed the economy recovered. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]To fund the war effort.[/quote] That's what I said. [QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;38212525]Should be obvious with all the above in mind to understand how it contributed to Hitler's entrance into politics and the ascension of the National Socialists as one of Germany's most popular political parties (and later, its only political party).[/QUOTE] You seem to be forgetting the whole point of this debate. Was the Treaty of Versailles directly responsible for Hitler's rise to power? No it wasn't. While the treaty did nothing to help Germany, it's greatest damage was caused on to the minds of the German people in that they associated the new fragile Republic with cowardice and betrayal due to the 'Stab in the back' myth. If Versailles was such a huge issue in the fall of Democracy how come the Republic survived intact for 10 years following the treaty being signed? The treaty was used by Hitler as something to discredit the Republic. However, people only fell into this when times were bad such as during the depression. It goes to show then that it was economic hardship external to the treaty that caused the fall of Weimar and not the treaty itself. Germany would have hit the depression hard regardless of reparations, the world had changed after the war, everyone was doing badly. You can't say that the Nazi's became the sole political party of Germany because of the Treaty of Versailles, there were many factors to it which were not related at all to the treaty such as the flawed constitution system and the divide among the left-wing parties. The right was still outnumbered by the left in 1933, most people did not support Hitler. [editline]28th October 2012[/editline] Please don't make another huge post quoting everything I say, I won't respond as I don't come to facepunch to work.

[QUOTE=YourFriendJoe;38201497]Don't think I'm racist or anything after this comment but It's really sad because if you forget the whole "holocaust" thing Hitler was just like any other person. And he was a damn good artist too. If only the academy had accepted him, none of World War II probably would have happened.[/QUOTE] He was a shit artist, but a decent architect. He wasn't accepted into art school because they reccomended him for architecture instead. I'm aware it's sarcasm.

All this talk about how Hitler came to power also fails to mention all of the political elements in Germany at the time. Hindenburg being completely ineffectual as President, the various politicians that lobbied to him to appoint Hitler Chancellor as they thought it would play into their advantage and the like. Or the lingering tensions between France and Germany dating back to the Franco-Prussian War that led France to seek heavy consequences against Germany at the Paris Peace Conference in an attempt to prevent Germany from ever being a major threat to France again.

[QUOTE=FrankOfArabia;38202167]So he was a cowardly, somewhat mental, twisted, insecure, illogical idiot with a penchant for speaking but not so much strategy. That honestly speaks wonders. Hitler was just an idiot.[/QUOTE] I thought Hitler was brave, he got an Iron Cross in WW1 didnt he?

[QUOTE=Matriax;38201624]I thought it was general knowledge that he went a bit nuts toward the end.[/QUOTE] I thought he was more than a bit nuts since about the time he became Chancellor.

[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;38213973]I thought Hitler was brave, he got an Iron Cross in WW1 didnt he?[/QUOTE] yep. He was a fucking Trench Messenger. He delivered shit between trenches and ran inbetween the deadliest fucking zones.

[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;38213973]I thought Hitler was brave, he got an Iron Cross in WW1 didnt he?[/QUOTE] He got both the first class and second class iron cross.

Hitler was a badaass guy who ran into a shit situation. He loved his country and took over a politcal party fighting for what he believed was right. Whether he was or not, and whether he was lied to or mainpulated by his underlings is arguable- but like Mao, it is apparent he wasn't told the whole truth when it came to his policies. So therefore, whilst the terrocities he orchestrated were terrible, they weren't all his doing. There were a whole lot of other factors influencing him and his decisions, and I have chosen to adopt the argument that he is as much a puppet of his cabinent ministers and whoever they answer to as our modern politicians are. [editline]28th October 2012[/editline] not that im tipsy or anything

The SS basically did whatever they felt like and he couldn't really do anything since they had so much power.

Wasn't it Himmler who orchestrated the final solution?

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38214207]Wasn't it Himmler who orchestrated the final solution?[/QUOTE] Yep. And Himmler was often publicly humiliated by Hitler for being such a nut.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;38214186]I have chosen to adopt the argument that he is as much a puppet of his cabinent ministers and whoever they answer to as our modern politicians are.[/QUOTE] his cabinet ministers shat their pants every time they talked to hitler so nice historical revisionism there

Alright, guys, its one thing to demonize hitler, but it sure as hell is another when you go and try to humanize a man who led a campaign to take over a good portion of the world and successfully have 6 million jews and gypsies imprisoned, forced to build equipment for their oppressors, and than executed like cattle. I mean, fuckin really? "Oh hitler~kuun, youre so human and relateable because you had a mental breakdown after essentially losing the second world war you fueled. This makes your crimes against humanity seem more understandable". Jesus christ, facepunch, what are you doing?

[QUOTE=bob4life;38214768]Alright, guys, its one thing to demonize hitler, but it sure as hell is another when you go and try to humanize a man who led a campaign to take over a good portion of the world and successfully have 6 million jews and gypsies imprisoned, forced to build equipment for their oppressors, and than executed like cattle. I mean, fuckin really? "Oh hitler~kuun, youre so human and relateable because you had a mental breakdown after essentially losing the second world war you fueled. This makes your crimes against humanity seem more understandable". Jesus christ, facepunch, what are you doing?[/QUOTE] I don't think it was ever claimed that this made his crimes less bad, just that it's sad seeing mental deterioration on someone like this.

[QUOTE=bob4life;38214768]Alright, guys, its one thing to demonize hitler, but it sure as hell is another when you go and try to humanize a man who led a campaign to take over a good portion of the world and successfully have 6 million jews and gypsies imprisoned, forced to build equipment for their oppressors, and than executed like cattle. I mean, fuckin really? "Oh hitler~kuun, youre so human and relateable because you had a mental breakdown after essentially losing the second world war you fueled. This makes your crimes against humanity seem more understandable". Jesus christ, facepunch, what are you doing?[/QUOTE] We're humanizing him because he was human, not some machine. He was an awful detestable human being of course who probably deserved his fate. Even if he did deserve it, it doesn't make it any less sad of a thought that a human being lost his mind completely and faded into madness.

[QUOTE=Nikota;38214196]The SS basically did whatever they felt like and he couldn't really do anything since they had so much power.[/QUOTE] Where did you get this from? Himmler was loyal to Hitler, pretty much until the end. As much as I have studied WW2 I have [B]never[/B] heard anything to suggest the SS was anything but in complete submission to Hitler. [editline]27th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Nikota;38214232]Yep. And Himmler was often publicly humiliated by Hitler for being such a nut.[/QUOTE] When?

[QUOTE=YourFriendJoe;38201497]Don't think I'm racist or anything after this comment but It's really sad because if you forget the whole "holocaust" thing Hitler was just like any other person. And he was a damn good artist too. If only the academy had accepted him, none of World War II probably would have happened.[/QUOTE] He was actually a very mediocre artist, his perspective when drawing was really bad.

[QUOTE=Ruski v2.0;38214186]Hitler was a badaass guy who ran into a shit situation. He loved his country and took over a politcal party fighting for what he believed was right. Whether he was or not, and whether he was lied to or mainpulated by his underlings is arguable- but like Mao, it is apparent he wasn't told the whole truth when it came to his policies. So therefore, whilst the terrocities he orchestrated were terrible, they weren't all his doing. There were a whole lot of other factors influencing him and his decisions, and I have chosen to adopt the argument that he is as much a puppet of his cabinent ministers and whoever they answer to as our modern politicians are. [/QUOTE] Its fucking insane to suggest that Hitler didn't know full well what was going on.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;38216135]Its fucking insane to suggest that Hitler didn't know full well what was going on.[/QUOTE] He was aware of what was going on but the Nazis were clever with their documents/reports. They knew they couldn't hide something like the holocaust up properly so went out of their way to make sure there wasn't much official documentation on the subject or any specific language was used (killing, extermination etc). I don't think any documents exist that link Hitler to being involved with the holocaust though.

[QUOTE=Winters;38215760]We're humanizing him because he was human, not some machine. He was an awful detestable human being of course who probably deserved his fate. Even if he did deserve it, it doesn't make it any less sad of a thought that a human being lost his mind completely and faded into madness.[/QUOTE] This may sound crazy, but i dont really feel bad about feeling zero sympathy for someone like a facist psycho who, through he and his accomplices, put millions of human beings through physical and psychological trauma far, far worse than he or any of you could ever FATHOM being put through. You guys always have some kind of hard-on for white knight'ing complete fuckin psychopaths, serial killers, or anyone who has done something wrong and has a tiny hint of being psychological inbalanced. Its sick and disgusting Shower me with dumbs, it doesnt matter. I know damn well that what in saying has truth in it. Mental breakdowns, i sympathise with completely. Its never good to see a man break down. But chya know what? I find it a tad bit difficult to shower a man with sympathy when the man breaking down is the posterboy for mass genocide and whos conquest and downfall lead to germany's division and loss of respect for years to come. Fucking selective morality to the max.

[QUOTE=bob4life;38217102]This may sound crazy, but i dont really feel bad about feeling zero sympathy for someone like a facist psycho who, through he and his accomplices, put millions of human beings through physical and psychological trauma far, far worse than he or any of you could ever FATHOM being put through. You guys always have some kind of hard-on for white knight'ing complete fuckin psychopaths, serial killers, or anyone who has done something wrong and has a tiny hint of being psychological inbalanced. Its sick and disgusting Shower me with dumbs, it doesnt matter. I know damn well that what in saying has truth in it. Mental breakdowns, i sympathise with completely. Its never good to see a man break down. But chya know what? I find it a tad bit difficult to shower a man with sympathy when the man breaking down is the posterboy for mass genocide and whos conquest and downfall lead to germany's division and loss of respect for years to come. Fucking selective morality to the max.[/QUOTE] I'm not harping on you for your opinion dude, I don't think you sound crazy at all. It's just sort of offensive when you assume that I'm saying this shit because I'm trying to defend him or white knight for the guy. A life is a life to me plain and simple. I don't think Hitler was good person, I think Adolf Hitler was probably one of the worst men to ever have lived. And frankly he deserved to have a horrible mental breakdown. Still sad to watch/ read about/ hear about at least to me it is. I DON'T BLAME ANYONE FOR FEELING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR HITLER. Frankly I don't know why I do, it's simply the way I am.