Myths about Hitler

Posting this from my blog
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"The Origins of the Second World War" (1961) by A.J.P. Taylor, presents some important beliefs that historians, politicians, mass-media and ordinary people held then and might still hold now about Hitler, his desires and his doings, that are proven to be false.

1.The most popular false belief is that Hitler was solely responsible for the war. And that he wanted a Great War for its own sake, conquering the whole world, becoming something greater than Alexander or Napoleon, and to make Germany the superpower of the world. But most importantly he wanted a war because he wished for the destruction of society and people. He was a bloodthirsty maniac, like Attila. Another version of this popular legend is that he had a big plan to create a huge colonial empire for Germany in Eastern Europe by defeating Soviet Russia. But this is false because if that would of been his objective, he would of had no reason to go to war with the Western Powers.

2.The Austria crisis is also attributed to Hitler. When in fact it was launched by Schuschnigg, the Austrian chancellor at that time.

3.The dismembering of Czechoslovakia, again, not leaded by Hitler but by the British government.

4.The Reichstag Fire. A very noticeable episode in Hitler's rise to power. The false legend says Hitler and the Nazis wanted an excuse to introduce the Exceptional Laws of political dictatorship and so they set fire to the Reichstag to provide an excuse. It was actually a young dutch man, van der Lubbe, who set the fire, all alone. Hitler and the Nazis were actually surprized by this fire and they actually believed that the Communists set the fire, and so by introducing the Enabling Act, they were able to ban the Communists.

5.Hitler aimed at war at all costs. Another important myth which has been proven false. He did not aim at war but expected it to happen. So he prepared for war, just like Britain, France and any other government. He tried to avoid war whenever possible, especially with Britain, which he actually wanted to ally with. Preparing for war is what the defense ministries and armies do, it's not the same as wanting to go to war.

The worse myth about Hitler was that he was mad.
An entire nation duped by a crazy person.

Yes, the germans also love to believe that because it would somehow make them appear as 'victims' who were manipulated, when in fact they approved of Hitler and supported Germany's actions.

I agree with points (4) and (5), but find the first three problematic.

Take what you write in (5): "He did not aim at war but expected it to happen."

The answer to why Hitler expected war contradicts what you write in (1), i.e. that Hitler didn't have a plan for expansion into Eastern Europe.

As early as 1926, in Mein Kampf (chapter 14, "Germany's Policy in Eastern Europe"), Hitler talked about the problem of Lebensraum, i.e. population vs. land capacity (for raw materials, agriculture, etc.). Hitler developed quite a few lines of reasoning around this Lebensraum problem, so we can be quite certain that he was serious about it.

That was the basis for his desired alliance with Britain: She would keep her Empire while Germany expanded into the East.

Yes he did talk about it, he did want a colonial empire in the east, but, he didnt have a PLAN for it, so dont make a confusion here between his desire and him having a PLAN. Rather, he went with the flow so to speak. Just like his power surge, he lacked any cohesive plan to take power but he desired to do so.

I agree with that. There was no necessary 'Stufenplan'.

But I still have problems with AJP Taylor's interpretations. He tries to soften Hitler too much.

War was an integral part of Hitler's weltanschauung; and I think Hitler took a more active role in many of these events than Taylor gives him credit for.

Maybe I will look at the book for specific problems.

Myth about Hitler: that he is worth talkijg about.

He's worth talking about as a specific historical figure who had a major impact on world events; and as an example of how, in general, "mass society" can contort historical narratives.

That's at least two reasons.

As much as any other historical figure, but no more.

Less...he's evil.

Maybe phoneutria can start a new thread on some other equally-interesting historical figure.

Perchance a topic on King Tutsowamba and the Great Banana War.

I'm sure it would be as fascinating a topic as Hitler or Stalin or any other mere man of history.

We must be fair...because nature is all about fair play...so let us balance our interest and try to find some African with just as much appeal.

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Maybe phoneutria can start a new thread on some other equally-interesting historical figure.

Perchance a topic on King Tutsowamba and the Great Banana War.

This made me lulz.

Satyr wrote:

Less...he's evil.

His fault was to fail.

No...he was not trite and ambiguous enough.
He was too chatty.
He did not simply feel his conquest into existence.

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Maybe phoneutria can start a new thread on some other equally-interesting historical figure.

Perchance a topic on King Tutsowamba and the Great Banana War.

I'm sure it would be as fascinating a topic as Hitler or Stalin or any other mere man of history.

Ah, I have been there kid. So many excellent thread efforts wasted because everybody would rather be sucking hitler's dick instead...

I just don't get the disproportional obsession with this one particular mediocre commander. He didn't even win.

There's nothing to get.
Joos run the media.
Hitler is a useful tool
No one hasn't heard about the holocaust or been bombarded with 1940s propaganda in school, at work, on the bus, and at home on the History Channel.
Let's not forget the story is fascinating and the imagery irresistible.
It's a modern day book of the Bible.

phoneutria wrote:

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Maybe phoneutria can start a new thread on some other equally-interesting historical figure.

Perchance a topic on King Tutsowamba and the Great Banana War.

I'm sure it would be as fascinating a topic as Hitler or Stalin or any other mere man of history.

Ah, I have been there kid. So many excellent thread efforts wasted because everybody would rather be sucking hitler's dick instead...

I just don't get the disproportional obsession with this one particular mediocre commander. He didn't even win.

So jaded, my princess.

Whose dick would you rather be sucking?

An African King's...no a retards who you just fell in love with....just because.
No, let us speak of more important things, like how love will save the world.

I think it's time you put that strawman in a place that will make you tingle, love.

Ah, the old standby: the straw...man.
It usually comes before the "projecting" and the "ad hom" shit...but waaaay before the "troll" accusation.

You are so unique.

phoneutria wrote:

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

Maybe phoneutria can start a new thread on some other equally-interesting historical figure.

Perchance a topic on King Tutsowamba and the Great Banana War.

I'm sure it would be as fascinating a topic as Hitler or Stalin or any other mere man of history.

Ah, I have been there kid. So many excellent thread efforts wasted because everybody would rather be sucking hitler's dick instead...

I just don't get the disproportional obsession with this one particular mediocre commander. He didn't even win.

Been where exactly, you old cunt?

As Poison IV said, there's nothing really to "get".. except perhaps your resentment.

Whose dick would you rather be sucking?

Hitler was da bomb...and I'm not saying this because of his historical significance and how we was the last ditch effort to curb the tide of modernity, but only because I'm an insecure sad man, who wants to be controversial to seem interesting and who deflates his sense of impotence with fantasies of violence and grand conquests.

*cough*Some day I will take over the world, though.

Advocatus Diaboli wrote:

*cough*Some day I will take over the world, though.

Will you...'cause I've been planning it for years.

I can't get wit da ladies so I need somewhere to vent all my sexual frustrations.

Satyr wrote:

Ah, the old standby: the straw...man.
It usually comes before the "projecting" and the "ad hom" shit...but waaaay before the "troll" accusation.

You are so unique.

You have been talking about love and ponies all day, and I have been ignoring it because it's so ridiculous.
You put it in your head thatthis is what I think, and you determine yourself to bring it down.
What can I do but watch your effort and shrug?.
Do you expect me to come in defense of what YOU think I believe?

That's a job for devil's advocates. I'm just the companion.

And there it is!!!

The bountiful benefits of innuendo and feminine word-play.
Infinite deniabilty the desire to only have an effect...to be noticed, to be seen.

thanks for ruining my thread phoneutria

Shhhhh, she's the Queen.

You talk of it as if it was a new sweater.
Who gives a shit, Make a new one.

Yes...your highness.