THE WORLD WAR TWO GROUP discussion

besides the whole Holocaust thing and the many war crimes that he was responsible for Hitler was a great motivator, had combat experience, and led one of the most powerful empires of the last century. Plus without him we probably wouldn't of even started this group.(Unless the Japanese started the war in which case we would still have this group. I just want to know what other people think besides the Holocaust

He didn't drink or smoke, while both Churchill and Rosevelt did. However, this doesn't mater because of all the horrors of his views of others. He led with fear and crushed all those who stood in his path... and then slaughter the civilians of the countries. Russia lost over 20 million civilians because of Hitler. For every good thing you can say about Hitler (there's not much) there is at least four or five bad things about him. Hitler was the worst leader of the century.

What are we supposed to say, he was kind to his dog, he was a vegetarian, he had good taste in music (Wagner)? No, he murdered 6 million innocent people and was responsible for the deaths of millions more both combatants and civilians who happened to get caught in the crossfire. He murdered his own niece for chrissake. He had no redeeming qualities. He was a worthless low life. It's just too damn bad Stauffenberg didn't kill him when he had the chance. It's unfortunate he wasn't killed in the Great War.
True, this forum would not exit if not for The Second World War but I'd gladly trade this forum for the lives of the 6 million killed in the camps and the soldiers & civilians of all countrries who lost their lives in those terrible years.

I just finished the Spanish Civil War. Franco kept Spain officially out of World War II and Hitler met with him once. Hitler later said he would rather have three teeth pulled than meet with Franco again.

Hugh Thomas

Hitler also killed his dog. Plus he let his own personel oppions get in the way of his military campains. The decision to take Stalingrad was based on the fact it had Stalin's name in it. He lost a whole army at Stalingrad. At that time that was almost 1% of Germany entire population.

Just in terms of starting wars many other European generals had done the same thing like Napoleon, Alexander the great, and Julius Ceasar. They all wanted power so they declared war to get that power without ever knowing the consequences untill the end.

The famous anatomical song about Hitler sung by the British may be apocryphal.

How can one possibly discuss Hitler "without the Holocaust"? Anti-semitism was at the very core of Nazi philosophy and was clearly a defining element in Hitler's world-view, his ambitions, his policies. Discussing Hitler while selectively ignoring such a core trait is meaningless.

I do wonder, however, about Hitler's psychiatric diagnosis (diagnoses? probably more than one). Without a doubt he was mentally ill. I have a suspicion he may have had bipolar disorder, but that's only speculation. Certainly Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had a number of habits and features in common- megalomania, paranoia, periods of despondency and inaction punctuated by frenetic or even outright manic activity. All three had nearly a complete nocturnal lifestyle toward the end of their careers. There are important differences though: Mao (who was almost certainly bipolar) was hypersexual, Hitler definitely not.

Has anyone read a credible analysis of Hitler's mental state?

I'm not defending Hitler but people like Osoma Bin Laden, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong II, and Saddom Hussien among many others have done just as worse things if not worse. Also Germany probably commited less War crimes than Japan.

None the less Hitler was not a good man that did cause the death of millions of people.

I'm not sure the point of this discussion because one cannot divide a man from his actions. Isn't character a sum of one's actions? But here are my random thoughts on the man anyway: Hitler was a egomanic and a loser whose insane ideas found a place among a devestated people looking for someone to lead them out economic devestation and rebuild their national pride. He tapped into something deeper and much darker than all Germany's outward culture and sophistication would imply possible and rendered everything down to race. Jews? The racial enemy that had to be destroyed befor the Aryan race could emerge triumphant. Slavs? Destroyed or enslaved. Other "Aryan" nations? Conquered and eventually made to see the light.

Surely people are more than their genetic make-up.

Not a very good military strategist else either or why would he have tried to invade the USSR? He didn't completely trust the experienced Wehrmacht, only his personal SS troops, loyal Nazis all. He wasn't good for much except for being unfortunately available in a certain time and place which gave him the opportunity to implement his demonic ideas to a mostly willing German people.

And, like much of the genocide happening today or in recent history, the Soviet slaughter of the Poles is rarely mentioned, probably because much of it was covered up and because the Allies had handed over that country to the Soviets after the war -- very embarrassing. I also think it's odd that 20th century genocide, apart from the German holocaust, is rarely mentioned.

And 12 million were killed in the Nazi camps: 6 million Jews, 6 million others.

The holocaust which is seldom (if ever) mentioned is the genocide inflicted on Native Americans by this country (USA) in the guise of Manifest Destiny. A blight on this great country.

I agree America did something just as bad with yhe Native Americans. A great book to read about it is Bury my heart at wounded Knee by Dee Brown.

I think perhaps some of you are getting a bit carried away with your genocides. Comparing Castro and bin Laden to Hitler is ridiculous. Pol Pot, sure, I'll agree. Saddam Hussein, not quite. Claiming that any of them was worse just doesn't bear discussion. Who or what could possibly be worse?
It seems to me that even not all genocides are equal. The American genocide of Native Americans is not really comparable to the Holocaust. Native Americans were not systematically rounded up and shipped to factories where they were executed in mass numbers. The genocide of the Natives was a gradual process that happened over hundreds of years and mostly resulted from disease, (sometimes deliberate) starvation, loss of land, warfare, general mistreatment and (also deliberate) government neglect. I think it's more fair to compare it to the Turkish genocide of the Armenians than to the holocaust.
Examples of genocide comparable to the holocaust would (in my view) include the killing fields of Cambodia or the Rawandan genocide of the 1990's, because these episodes involve deliberate, organized, planned mass killings.
What happened to the North American natives over the last few hundred years is probably more typical of events that have played out countless times in humanity's savage past. One group has displaced another, taking over land and resources, leading to the eventual assimilation or extinction of the original people and their culture. Where today are the Sumerians, the Carthaginians, or the original inhabitants of the British Isles? Were they victims of genocide? In some cases, certainly yes. Are those events comparable to the holocaust, when a deliberate attempt was made to murder every single member of an entire race? Decide for yourself.

Regarding Native Americans, I'm not comparing it. I'm just stating it happened and for the most part has been swept under the rug.I was just making a general statement regarding genocide over the course of history.
And you are correct, trying to compare Hitler to any other homicidal maniac learder is ludicrous. As you've stated Pol Pot may come the closest. But Hitler personifies evil. Castro? I don't think so.

Donster wrote: "I think perhaps some of you are getting a bit carried away with your genocides. Comparing Castro and bin Laden to Hitler is ridiculous. Pol Pot, sure, I'll agree. Saddam Hussein, not quite. Claimin..."

Good distinctions -- well put!

Please don't forget dear old Uncle Joe. He might just have made it to number one, ahead of Adolf: I quote from Wikipedia:-

"Historians working after the Soviet Union's dissolution have estimated victim totals ranging from approximately 4 million to nearly 10 million, not including those who died in famines.[90:] Russian writer Vadim Erlikman, for example, makes the following estimates: executions, 1.5 million; gulags, 5 million; deportations, 1.7 million out of 7.5 million deported; and POWs and German civilians, 1 million – a total of about 9 million victims of repression"

What makes Hitler stand out is the time frame and the methodical way he carried out the Genocide, this combined with the World stage it was carried out on.

I just finished reading Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer. Like most of the other Nuremburg defendants, he claims not to know what was going on the entire time. It seems impossible to believe that no one knew anything about the gas chambers, starvation and the like. I can't believe that Hitler ran the whole show.

Dero wrote: "I just finished reading Inside the Third Reich by Albert Speer. Like most of the other Nuremburg defendants, he claims not to know what was going on the entire time. It seems impossible to believe..."

Of course Speer knew. He certainly knew in general and in detail what sort of regime he served, even if he did not know all the specifics of what agencies other than his own were doing. The evil nature of Nazism was plain from the beginning for anyone who cared to look or think, and Speer was an intelligent man. He worked hand in glove with the labor administration under Fritz Sauckel, which scoured Europe for slaves to work in Speer's factories. I am sure that he knew much else besides; even the death camps produced stuff for the German war economy, and Speer was the top man in that economy.

Hitler definitely ran things; he always had the last, decisive word. But he was extremely popular with the German people and the German army, and he had many thousands of willing helpers. Many of them were entirely aware of the evil nature of what they and others were doing, and they did not care. Hitler could hardly have done the terrible damage he did if that had not been so.

Hitler was evil incarnate. There is absolutly nothing to speak of about him in terms of redeeming features. while i am slow to place a figure on the total deaths immediately attributrable to him and his gang of criminals, we can at least say a minimum of 6 million Jews were slaughtered. that's 6 million lives wiped out with all the potential that humanity could have achieved. Lest anybody be in any doubt about what this man was responsible for, i would encourage people to read a fantastic but harrowing book by Vasily Grossman "Life and Fate" While it is a novel, it is based on historical reality. For example a big portion of the book is set in a German prison camp where we read and literally follow characters on their way to the gas chamber and where we can also literally watch Nazi officers make a toast inside a new gas chamber for its opening. I defy anybody not to be particularly moved when you get to the part of the book about the Doctor, Sofya Osipovna Levinton and the little boy David she grows to love and adopt as we follow them to their deaths. This is what Hitler and his gang of criminals represented. Let us never forget that. The victims of Hitler and the nazis are not and should not be mere statistics, they were real flesh and blood human beings murdered for the advancement of a rotten political ideal.

Hitler wasn't so much a motivator as a mesmerizer. Nazism was more a cult than a political movement, and Hitler was its Rev. Jim Jones with the same results Jones had at Jonestown.

I just finished . While not a great book it does give some insight into his mind in his last couple of weeks and his motivation for the war in general.

I sometimes wonder if Hitler and Nazism's most enduring legacy is our constant fascination with it. Hitler's time in power was around a dozen years, but here we are sixty eight years later endlessly discussing him. I would bet there as many books about Hitler and Germany's war than all the other theatres and countries combined. It would stroke his ego to no end to know that he is still such a prominent figure in world history.

Thanks for posting the details on the Inside Hitler's Bunker John, much appreciated and your surely right about the endless fascination for Hitler and the Third Reich - I suppose such a catastrophic event in history will keep people writing and reading for years to come, trying to make sense of it all.

John wrote: "I just finished . While not a great book it does give some insight into his mind in his last couple of weeks and his motiva..."

John yours is a very interesting observation and one that crossed my mind when reading this last year:
by Toby Thacker

This discussion facinates me. I am working on a new book from my more than 60 interviews with people who knew, worked with, and in some cases, were friends with Hitler. FYI Hitler was hans Baur's best man at his wedding, and they were close. Most of the questions will be answered when the book comes out. If you read my other WW II books, the persons interviewed also give their perspectives on him. He also suffered from Parkinsons disease, had a methampetamine habit, was an insomniac, and some of the stories I culled from those who knew him are both comical and shocking.

Thanks Colin, will look forward to this - keep the group posted. May be worth mentioning on the group's author thread too.

Thanks Gevee. Working now on Aces Speak volume 2 now, then Hitler's Inner Circle. The next book comes out May 1, Four War Boer, so gearing up for another book signing tour. May do another History Channel/Military Channel show also.

Thanks Colin - maybe Rick can arrange a author/reader Q&A for Hitler's Inner Circle when out. I think many of us would appreciate that and find the session of interest.

Sounds interesting, two of my guys who met Hitler (pilots) are still alive also.

Colin wrote: "This discussion facinates me. I am working on a new book from my more than 60 interviews with people who knew, worked with, and in some cases, were friends with Hitler. FYI Hitler was hans Baur's b..."

From what you say and what I have read of other of Hitler's top men they were not exactly examples of blond Aryan Supermen!

John:

True, such was part of the great hypocrisy,

Colin

Colin wrote: "Sounds interesting, two of my guys who met Hitler (pilots) are still alive also."

You are lucky to find some of these vets still alive. Up until a few years ago I played tennis with two WW2 vets. The German fellow was in the navy stationed in Norway. He said all the girls were pretty but had no teeth. A result of poor diet I believe. So the German's complained and the Red Cross sent a ship up and fitted all the girls with dentures. The English fellow flew Spitfires but was too young for the Battle of Britain. He just quit playing tennis last year a age 92.

That is interesting, thanks.

What an interesting story John! Thanks for sharing. Wow, still playing tennis at 92!

Finally got a copy of now I have to work up to reading it.

When I interviewed Pieter Krueler (see outr next book out in May, "Four War Boer", he was running 2-4 miles three times a week on the back, aged 99.

Just started reading byLaurence Rees

Keep us posted on that book Michael, I've got a copy I need to read as well.

Interested in your thoughts Michael. I do like Laurence Rees' books and documentaries.

Will do Laurence Rees is my favourite WWII author

is all finished and I have to say Laurence Rees has hit the mark again. He delivers a fascinating book taking a look at how Hitler managed to gain the devotion of millions.

One for the TBR then!

Yep, better go dig out my copy somewhere.

Hi everybody. Hitler is certainly a widely discussed item. Some professional psychometrics have been applied and studied if you want to look them up. Mainly, he and his mother were close and his father was distant and very stern. If he wasn't anti-semitic before, he certainly came out strong in his period in Vienna.
He was angry at not being admitted to the university art program. He blamed everything on the Jews.
He was a corporal in WWI and showed courage as the company runner, but his knowledge of military operations was not excellent.
He gained power and influence in special circumstances.
Germany experienced much worse conditions after WWI than our Great Depression and the people were afraid.
Taking advantage of the upheaval, communist partisans were stirring up trouble. Businesses, especially banks, saw the Nazi anti-communist stance as a buffer. His private army of brown-shirts fought the communists in the streets to the point of worrying the small army.
With some backing from banks, Hitler made a deal with the army to get rid of his storm-troopers and made promises to rebuild the Army which had been limited by the Armistice ending WWI. He lied and manipulated his way into influencial position and key leaders were old and or dying. As soon as he got power he required the military to swear allegiance to him, personally. Here is the US the oath pledges to uphold the Constitution. He knew that France did not want to stand up to him and thought of England as a potential ally. He was surprised and disappointed that it did not turn out that way. As an example of some validity to his thinking, DeGaulle said when he pulled France out of NATO that the traditional enemy of France was not Germany but England. Such ingratitude in light of 1870, 1914 and 1940. Because he outmaneuvered his political rivals at home as well as internationally, he achieved some brilliant successes that made most German citizens believe they had a great leader. Chamberlain's cowardly foolishness did not help. His popularity continued even when things began to fall apart, a trap for the Army who was afraid to openly oppose him. An excellent account of this is "The German Army 1933-1945"
There were a handful of German Generals who had the moral courage to disagree with Hitler in their area of expertise, most of whom were fired ("retired for health reasons") but a couple were brought back to duty.
He kept power divided between his subordinates which secured his position but caused functional problems. He was responsible for many deaths. I personally think Stalin was even worse.

Oh yes, how interesting that both Hitler and Stalin were in prison. If only they had been kept there.

What a very strange, strange thread.

I'd certainly like to hear what books you all draw upon for your opinions. A lot of people know 'the basics' about Hitler; but is this enough to help further our understanding of such a person? Knowing-the-bare-facts for a topic like this, often throws the discussion askew. Obviously he was deplorable, obviously he was reprehensible. How many more ways are there in which to state this? A conversation has to be more than just teeth-gnashing and hair-rending.

So, how many have read anything in-depth? What were some of the titles? I'm not claiming I have; but at least I can confidently refer to William Safire for my comments (if I make any). I read that juggernaut all the way through. Safire certainly shows that you can discuss this leader apart from the Holocaust.

First: Hitler didn't just rabidly go around killing someone or something (niece, dog, goldfish, potted palms) every waking moment. Incidents of direct violence took place with long intervals between. He wasn't rabid or foaming at the mouth hour after hour, he wasn't a Sweeeney Todd running amok with a bloody razor. He could be provoked into rages, yes-- but day-to-day was cold, calculating, and deliberate about all he embarked on.

What I'd like to hear are more odd, obscure factoids about the guy which help show what kind of human being he was. What books did he read? What allergies did he have? We know he was a vegetarian for example. We know he hated mystery stories. We know he dabbled with the supernatural and with philosophy; with Wagner.

We know that one of the formative experiences of his youth was his obsessive passion for his cousin. She turned him down and it changed his character forever. Prior to this event he was a painter and wrote sensitive, lovestruck poetry.

We know that in his early transitional period from Austria to Germany, he broke with his family; repudiated all ties with them. (There was one who was spared; I forget who). He tried to efface any trace of his Austrian heritage and basically re-make himself into the intensely Germanic Hitler figure of his own invention.

He was slightly built, a 'shrimp' by today's standards; yet when he mounted a podium and began to scream his views he had the power to mesmerize an audience. In private (such as when he conferred with other leaders or political opponents) he had an unerring ability to 'size up' and 'take-the-measure' of anyone with whom he had to deal. He had intuition; and he had luck.

So for me it's not enough to simply say that "he even killed his beloved dog, Prince! He 'just wasn't human'." What about his marriage? What about his health issues? He was all too human, if you ask me.

In representing him only as a 'monster' or a 'fiend' you are really dodging that he was actually just another human being. How did he come to commit his evil acts? Yes, that's the question, but face the fact that he started off the same way we all start. Work it out from there, that's the challenge.

p.s. I agree with Howard; Stalin was worse; and the same thing applies. Ever seen a picture of young Stalin? The face of an angel

Details? George Will (I think) wrote a column years ago titled "Hitler's inkwell." Someone gave Hitler a gift of a very ornate, "Baroque" inkwell and he just loved it. The author described how such affinities tied into certain indicators of mental "illnesses." Personally, as a veteran, debates about his military decisions are more interesting and turn on historic data. But that usually turns into a lot of "what-ifs," and dealing with so many folks with little or no knowledge of warfare gets tedious, not to mention those just spewing emotions.

Gee whiz guys, if you want to learn about what ordinary people can do in specific circumstances read about the Stanford experiment and others like it. When people believe they are doing what is expected, that their peers approve and that they are not going to be held accountable, many of us will do some terrible things.
Hitler wasn't particularly spectacular but he wasn't very ordinary either. He was in special circumstances and was willing to manipulate them.

At the height of the age of radio, Hitler was a powerful orator. When I was at Ft Bliss in the 70's, I learned the German Rocketenshule de Luftwaffe trained its anti-aircraft missle crews there because to launch missiles in Germany during the cold war, even for practice, was not a good idea. At night I could often hear recordings of Hitler's speeches being played in the apartment next door. It gave me the creeps but just hearing them got my blood up, and I don't speak German.