Back to Henry Ford. U should know that once a time Henry Ford supported Nazi party with funds thru some woman of higher class (forget her name) that was close to fuhrer and made a trip to America to talk with industrialists there - they were familiar to her (this was happened after Hitler freed from jail and his party was almost down). PS: this I've read in book "Sex in Third Reich"
Debra's comment was interesting.... Hitler's health began to fail, a process that was slow. Napolean suffered from the same slow and gradual decline in his health and constitution...remember, victory used to excite Adolf Hitler so much that he would be unable to sleep for days on end...defeat left him in exactly the opposite mood, and sent him into a defeat spiral that only a victory or two could have pulled him out of. And Doctor Morrell, his personal physician, perscribing a drug-store of pills, most of them manufactured in his own factories..some contained heavy poisons (Strychnine for one.) He gradually became more and more of a 'basket case' with the pressure rising from defeat after defeat...The problem in my view, was that these defeats had come right on the heels of significant victories...Manstein did not call his memoirs "Lost Victories" for nothing. He knew that given different circumstances, there was every chance of turning these victories into something lasting......The Army Generals all seem to take the credit for the victories and blame Adolf for all the defeats. Thats why memoirs from German generals are not very reliable...they are selfserving, and distort the picture..whatever the truth was, these proffessionals were determined to absolve themselves of responsiblitity for defeats, and glad to be called 'brilliant' when the victory was to be had. It strikes me as a very selfish thing for them to do as a group...Revenge for failing to find someone with the intestinal fortitude to just walk up to Hitler with a loaded revolver and pull the trigger with the barrel in his face.....most of these officers still had their side arms at Fuhere conferences....only removed from them AFTER the July 20 bomb plot.....Stauffenburg is often portrayed as a hero..but I think he counted his chickens before hatching. He should have stuck around and sacrificied himself ( as he had told people so often that he would)...It was irresponsible of him to claim he had a telephone call to make to Berlin, and depart...IF he had done what he originally said he was going to do...("Sacrifice my life if neccessary..."), then the operation would have been a 'shoe-in"... The failure of Stuffenburg to live up to his own promises DOOMED MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE in the last months of the war.... The failure of the German General Staff to take back control of Germany and end the war was CRIMINAL...they had control of many more divisions than the SS, and could have declared 'martial law' and deposed Hitler in a coup....the later they left it, the more difficult it would become, until the failure of the July 20 plot made that scenario IMPOSSIBLE.... German Generals were happy for the war to continue, as long as they were on the winning side.... When things started to go bad, they not only blamed 'Das Bohemian Gefreite", they also failed to act when they really should have, then left it too late for failure have a positive effect....Imagine what the German people would have thought of a similar plot in 1939.......but with such a smooth victory in Poland, they didn't want to do anything......self serving liars.
Just going back and reading through the posts.....I would like to point out, right off the bat, that Alois and Clara (Adolf's mother and father) were NOT called SHICKLEGRUBER....Alois had legally changed his name and Adolf was born under this name.......To call him a Shicklegruber is just incorrect.... In the 19th century, it is said that Beethove dedicated his ninth symphony to Napolean Bonaparte....After Napolean's invasion of the State of Prussia and other German kingdoms, Beethoven felt that a tyrant was no good man to be dedicating his symphony to....The prevailing opinion of Napolean was something very close to the anti-christ, and he was the subject of a world wide campaign to discredit him not oly as a leader, but as a human being as well. There are now more than 500,000 books in the library of Congress alone dealing with Bonaparte.....attitudes have mellowed considerably, once all the principle participants, and indeed anybody from that era was long dead...... The reputation of Adolf HITLER will probably not recover from the anti-semitism he was known to possess as part of his character.....that will never change, it is too well documented.... But things that will change include our assumption that he was mentally unstable right from the beginning of his career...this is a big lie.... We know now that the cocktail of drugs administered to him probably combined with mental strain on a grand scale to render an intuitive politician completely useless......Once Adol's military began to not deliver, the Fuhrers health suffered accordingly..... His sexual tastes were VERY normal.... He was not a womanizer, although plenty have tried to paint the picture..... He was not a stupid man, either, and there was nothing initially wrong with his memory.... Once all the wartime propaganda has finally disappeared, we may even get a true picture of Adolf as something far more surprising than we first imagined.... The problem is that so amny veterans are still alive that won't hear of it...no matter what the evidence, or who writes it.... I hope that in my lifetime, this situation for the study of the greatest conflict ever will not be 'skewed' so much....let us not believe his generals, self serving individuals who were BRIBED by the party with millions of marks....this goes a long way to explaining why they kept their oath to Hitler, and broke their other earlier oaths to the State and The Republic.... On of the things that a lot of historical laymen do not understand is that an historian must be DETACHED....he must not look at that which he is studying in an emotional light, because this colors his basic assumptions about what was right and wrong, and therefore, how the situation he is describing came about.... I know it's difficult to 'detach" from a subject matter that is distasteful to any thinking person, but it has to be done.... Otherwise, we get the same wartime propaganda going round and round for evermore.... The information to put together an accurate biography of Adolf Hitler is now available far more than it ever has been. What we need is somebody willing to detach themselves emotionally from it all, and simply sift the facts and tell it like it was, without trying to "get into Hitler's mind"..... I'm not sure that this will be possible with many veterans still touchy about this, and quite frankly it dissappoints me that they feel they need to fight WWII in the book as well as on the Field...When this all changes, we may even get an accurate picture of Germany, 1918-1945 for the very first time.... TRUTH WILL OUT...and it has to be an UNEMOTIVE TRUTH..like it or not, that is what good history DEMANDS.
And speaking of Nazi regalia and nights out on the town....WHAT ABOUT Bonny Prince HARRY....! What about him? He dressed up to go to a fancy dress party? Haven't people been dressing up in outrageous and shocking characters for parties as long as I can remember and before that too. Why should his status as a prince make him all that different..... seeing that his family stem from the 'House of Hannover' anyway. Is there quite as much outrage about all the re-enactment groups meeting at weekends, running around the countryside with replica weapons and vehicles? It does seem that more than a representative percentage of these prefer to dress up as SS rather than the Wehrmacht. So re-enactment without the accuracy? Then there's all the many comedians who have chosen to dress up as german soldiers, SS or Hitler in order to get a laugh? Freddy Star used to goose step up and down the stage in a parody of a Hitler costume to laughter rather than outrage..... even live in front of the Queen. So why should it be different for Harry?
..... Von Stauffenburg is often portrayed as a hero..but I think he counted his chickens before hatching. He should have stuck around and sacrificied himself ( as he had told people so often that he would)...It was irresponsible of him to claim he had a telephone call to make to Berlin, and depart...IF he had done what he originally said he was going to do...("Sacrifice my life if neccessary..."), then the operation would have been a 'shoe-in"... The failure of Stuffenburg to live up to his own promises DOOMED MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE in the last months of the war.... The failure of the German General Staff to take back control of Germany and end the war was CRIMINAL...they had control of many more divisions than the SS, and could have declared 'martial law' and deposed Hitler in a coup....the later they left it, the more difficult it would become, until the failure of the July 20 plot made that scenario IMPOSSIBLE.... German Generals were happy for the war to continue, as long as they were on the winning side.... When things started to go bad, they not only blamed 'Das Bohemian Gefreite", they also failed to act when they really should have, then left it too late for failure have a positive effect....Imagine what the German people would have thought of a similar plot in 1939.......but with such a smooth victory in Poland, they didn't want to do anything......self serving liars. You have mentioned before that history should be looked at in a 'detached' manner. So why don't you do the same? You say that Von Stauffenburg should have sacrificed himself. Did he not pay for his actions with his life? There were many attempts on Hitler's life, all of them reacted to with brutality by all of Hitler's supporters, not just by Hitler himself. The assassination of Hitler would only have been one step in bringing about the changes required and Von Stauffenburg knew that he would have to be there as a figurehead to effect a military coup, rather than just have one of the Nazi elite replace Hitler. And they were arguably as bad, if not worse. It does sound to me as if your words are the empty words of someone who has never had to really risk his life for anything. Von Stauffenburg did on many occasions and lost it after this one. That deserves respect, even if you do not wish to use the tag 'Hero'. You also have a lot to say about the Generals. And I have to say that you once again should give them a little more respect. Military Leadership is not as simple as some think. The German Generals of the period were very good, some of them being classed as brilliant. On the most part they conducted the war with skill and on many occasions with honour. You point out that they claimed their victories as their own but blamed their losses on Hitler. Later in the war, resources were getting scarce and Hitler had a major part in allocating those resources, choosing what he thought to be the priorities, often against the advice of his generals. Good plans made by individual generals and their staff were either rejected, amended beyond recognition or forced through without the proper support on what seemed a whim and depending on Hitler's mood. Now let me ask you, if you had a plan and it was changed or un-resourced, and it consequentiality failed, after the war when writing your memoirs, would you blame your plan? Or the person who changed it or failed to allocate you sufficient troops, ammunition, rations, vehicles or fuel? Is it not strange, that in the part of the war where the Generals were left to fight the war their own way, they were more often than not victorious, and when they were constrained by Hitler's meddling they had defeat after defeat? As a military man I know where I would draw my conclusions, and calling the generals "Self serving liars" does actually show how much you know about Military Leadership. As for the German people? After being down-trodden after the First War, De-Militarization, Super inflation and loss of large parts of their land, they were ripe to grasp at any chance of hope or show of strength. That is how Hitler managed to seize power. They supported his moves to re-claim lost territories and when the world did nothing where happy to support it. Remember, what we know now was not what the people were told at the time. When things are going well you believe what you are told. By the time things started to go badly, it was too late. It is naive to blame the German people for seeking to improve what had been dealt them years before. :mellow:
Your comments are valid from start to finish......Thankyou for your reply.... The beef I have with Staufeffenburg is not his failure, but his lack of conviction to get the job done.....Like it or not.....And there were plenty of people that could have acted as a figurehead.... The facts remains that these generals waited fgar too long, until their situation was obviously irreversable in the military sence....plenty of ordinary Germans had already made supreme sacrifices, but what Stauffenburg did was to promise one thing (completion of the operation at his own expence if neccessary)....planners of this coup counted on the fact that Klaus would take care of everything in that department....and he did not.... He simply walked out, leaving the assassination half done... By the way, there are lots of historians that have had no military experiance....not for want of trying....If I lived in the United States, I maight have some service time under my belt...but, the Australian Army wasn't at war when I was a kid, and they did not want opinionated people ....I attempted to join two branches of the service, and was told both times, that while my intellect was not at fault, they were not prepared to put up with my loose tongued ways.... So, I gave up the only plan I had to become part of the military establishment when I left school...for this, I apologise to NOBODY...not my fault.... History will always be easier for people to write than it was for the actual participants...no argument there...but saying you are going to do something, and then at the last moment, doing something different (after all the planning for the operation had been based around that assumption) was negligence, and it should be treated as such.... Sometimes, people look back at the past with rose tinted glasses, and German Generals, whose record I admire, cannot point to their failure with any pride...the extensive bribes offered to them by Nazi party slush funds was the 'real' coin of their loyalty....when it was obvious that the regime was going to fall, then these people suddenly found the intestinal fortitude to put into action something that could have been aKlaus von Stuffenburg with a pistol.....IF he was so intent on scrificing his life "if neccessary", then why was it not so? Questions like this must be asked...and just how was I being EMOTIVE by stating that their failure doomed many people that their positive actions earlier in the war may well have saved?...No explaination for this from them...they knew darned well that we would argue over their motivations for evermore....and NOBODY MENTIONED THE BRIBERY...aND FURTHERMMORE, THEY CARRY ON ABOUT THEIR OATH TO hITLER, BUT THEY HAD MADEW ABN OATH TO THE weimsar republic OF germany MUCH EARLIER... if AN oath was so sacred, WHY BREAK THE FIRST ONE? aLL THESE QUESTIONS ARE AS YET UNANSWERED...THE BOOK ON wwii WILL BE OPEN FOR SOME TIME..... By the way, David Chandler has never seen a uniform in his life, but his work on Napolean is acknowledged aS THE CUTTING EDGE OF STUDIES OF THE MOST WRITTEN ABOUT FIGURE IN HISTORY WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF CHRIST HIMSELF.... Explain that one.......
Now hang on....Prince Arry was going to a 'bad taste' fancy dress-do.......he wasnt lampooning Nazis...he was using them to denote bad taste......I wasn't denigrating this, just pointing it out.... ummm, is not the present family in control of the Royal House STUARTS....that means they are SCOTTISH.....they often wear KILTS to emphasize this fact....I cannot remeber who the last Hannoverian King was, but the House of Hannover Ceased to exist in English politics at somestage with the accession of the STUARTS.... Blame my lack of knowledge of Royal history.... One more thing....As an Englishman by birth ( i have a EURO passport), I am PROUD of my soverign, proud to be a member of the old Empire, and I have a love for matters English that knows no bounds.... I have always thought that the model we have in Australia for government (Constitutional Monarchy, devolving into a quasi-republic), I have always felt that this model of government was the best.....IF our people here are ever STUPIC enough to have a Civil war of some kind, our military has allegiance not only to the state but to Her Majesty , Queen Elizabeth II....this is something that is good....and Im a monarchist for this reason....
Your replysa to this thread have been just marvellous.....even though i did not start this one, i thank you all for taking your time to visit this one and post here....it prooves one thing, if nothing else, that the Book on WWII is still WIDE OPEN! Thankyou all so much for your reasoned and excellent replys....It is informed debate such as this that I have the most respect for....right or wrong, we thrash out the issues and teach eachother in a manner that is very MODERN....
ummm, is not the present family in control of the Royal House STUARTS....that means they are SCOTTISH.....they often wear KILTS to emphasize this fact....I cannot remeber who the last Hannoverian King was, but the House of Hannover Ceased to exist in English politics at somestage with the accession of the STUARTS.... Blame my lack of knowledge of Royal history.... ....and Im a monarchist for this reason.... For your information the end of the Stuart line was with the death of Queen Anne and changed to the House of Hannover in the Early 1700s. That remained the Royal surname until the marriage of Queen Victoria of Prince Albert who was a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. This was not really a change of family, only surname and the name of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha was held by the present Royal family until 1917, when they changed it's official name for fairly obvious reasons, by a proclamation of King George V to the present name Windsor. So the present House of Windsor is directly descended from the House of Hannover and should be named Saxe-Coburg-Gotha. I would have thought someone who calls himself a 'Monarchist' especially one who proclaims an interest in history would know more about the system they believe in.
Queen Victoria started the custom of pretending there was a Scottish connection to keep the natives happy and loyal. It worked for more than 100 years so it wasn't a bad strategy. It looks to be falling apart now though. England is ready for Scottish independence and as far as I'm concerned if they want a monarchy then they're welcome to Kaiser Bill's relations.
getting back on topic... Howl Hitler: German who taught dog to give Nazi salute with its paw is jailed | the Daily Mail
getting back on topic... Howl Hitler: German who taught dog to give Nazi salute with its paw is jailed | the Daily Mail That's ON topic?
My lack of knowledge of the House of Stuart is not something I am proud of, but at least I DO acknowledge it...more than some would....I will tell you if I'm not sure, leaving myself wide open as usual....in your haste to condemn my thoughts, have a look at my OFFICIAL REPLY......that should just about close the book on the critics.....
Howl Hitler: German who taught dog to give Nazi salute with its paw is jailed overall - a funny story... if only the authorities weren't so stupid in their attitude towards this guy.
You know, people like that Dog owner only make Neo-Nazis look all the more ridiculous......The Gay community have also contributed to this end, making SS caps and suspenders an extemely 'butch' part of their getup......I think if we marginalize people like this dog owner, he becomes a harmless fool, rather than someone whose political ideas are to be taken seriously.......
The word obsession obviously implies unhealthiness so by definition it is unhealthy. That said I don't think an interest in World War II is unhealthy. There are so many interesting people and events then, and many things that were quite praiseworthy. Besides something like it will happen again sooner or latter and if we keep the memory we might not botch it up as bad. As T. E. Lawrence said, we have ten-thousand years of experience at fighting and if we must fight, we have no excuse for not fighting well. Furthermore, war is a discipline of knowledge, and knowledge is good in itself and so is taking pleasure in it. As for taking an interest in Hitler, that is less healthy. We have to remember, I suppose simply because we need to be reminded at times how bad people can be. And of course some have relations who were his victims. But contemplating evil to much is not really healthy. Besides it would please Herr Schneckelgruber more then a little, which might be a good reason to think about him less.
The funny thing is, I am not all that interested in Hitler. He always seemed more like a street thug and doesn't seem to have much charisma in the way that Caesar or Ghenghis Khan had. Mengele now, is the sort of fellow that makes your skin crawl. He is one of the few people that I really want to go to hell. By contrast, Eichmann is so, to use an old word, banal, that I don't want him to go to hell-exactly. I don't want any thing of him. I just want the old monster to go away and deprive you of the burden of thinking about him. However Hitler, I always found a remarkably uninteresting person. And perhaps that is best. He wanted power over peoples' minds as well as their bodies and it is as well not to give him that power.
Right dodgey looking lot here, eh? Think Hitler loks constipated. Maybe he dropped the soap in Prison. Early life to his assumption of power on 30 January 1933: Hitler after his release from the Landsberg prison in the summer of 1924. Rudolph Hess, his companion in prison, is the second figure on the right. Ooooh look Emil Maurice, Hitlers chauffeur has a little mandolin/bazouki style thingy and he looks like he's tuning up. Wonder what he's gonna play, Right lads on the count of 3!
maybe his anti-semitism was caused due to : I read that the doctor who combated the sickness/cancer or whatever of his mom which died when he was a youth or his officer in ww1 did not let him reach an higher rank because of "führungsuntauglichkeit" they both were jews Yes I have also read that, and as you might know Hitler was a painter in his early years. He even applied for the Painting school in Wien, but the headmaster of the school turned him down and said that he wasn't qualified enough to attend the school. Hitler got furious because he loved to paint. And very much indeed that headmaster was jewish. Whether this anything to do with his acts later in his career, I don't know. Anyway thought I would share this information with you guys. Thanks, Michael
