I shouldn't have to, because it violates Art Rosenthal's dictum at the New York Times. Still, Hitler could have been prevented from taking power before he did, and that could have been accomplished by the German people. En masse, in groups, individually. History has seen many examples of situations where people did not submit to oppressors or oppression...the Montgomery Bus Boycott started with a single clerk refusing to move out of her seat. And nobody will ever forget that magnificent picture of the Chinese guy standing down a line of tanks....the ultimate statement of man vs. the state. Sorry, I reject T34's argument. It's just the same old conspiracy theory garbage. Maybe one person can't win all the time, or even most of the time. but one person can light the emotional, intellectual, and organizational fire needed to achieve progress...just like Hitler did, to our eternal pain.
I shouldn't have to, because it violates Art Rosenthal's dictum at the New York Times. Still, Hitler could have been prevented from taking power before he did, and that could have been accomplished by the German people. En masse, in groups, individually. History has seen many examples of situations where people did not submit to oppressors or oppression...the Montgomery Bus Boycott started with a single clerk refusing to move out of her seat. And nobody will ever forget that magnificent picture of the Chinese guy standing down a line of tanks....the ultimate statement of man vs. the state. Sorry, I reject T34's argument. It's just the same old conspiracy theory garbage. Maybe one person can't win all the time, or even most of the time. but one person can light the emotional, intellectual, and organizational fire needed to achieve progress...just like Hitler did, to our eternal pain. Kiwiwriter, do you think it was in respect of the German people down to one thing. That being basically that the country had lost a major conflict and felt bad done by in effect of reparations and loss of the Rhineland/Ruhr. Rampant inflation. It's been commented on before I know. The country wanted it's self respect back. Hitler was probably voicing what a lot of Germans at that time were thinking - minus the anti - Jewish idiology. He was the just the catalyst for the conflict to come and he knew it. Cometh the hour, cometh the man.
I think the word would be manipulative. This person (!), cleverly manipulated a populus. There is no recognition given as to this person as to the way he got the country to carry out his ideology. If the populous could have resisted - the argument could be, why didn't they? Hitler must have tapped into something in the German psyche. I think the answer would be complicated at best.
because it violates Art Rosenthal's dictum at the New York Times. Please, the New York Times as a valid news source, sounds like you went to the Mike Barnicle school for journalism. (For those of you overseas the New York Times is highly Left biased and has been caught making up stories...on a positive note their circulation has dropped tremendously.) Still, Hitler could have been prevented from taking power before he did, and that could have been accomplished by the German people. En masse, in groups, individually. Maybe your not the expert you claim to be. I seem to remember many communist fighting with the NSDAP in the streets during the struggle for power. The problem was that there wasn't a conservative nationalist group(Perhaps the Prussian Aristocracy or the military) to prevent the Nazis from taking power. The weak socialist Weimar government allowed Hitler to take power because it did not offer the German people any leadership out of economic despair. The Republic did not put down the Nazis or the communists successfully, they let Hitler out of jail when the had the bastard locked up. And nobody will ever forget that magnificent picture of the Chinese guy standing down a line of tanks....the ultimate statement of man vs. the state. Bad example because he's dead and China is vastly becoming the most powerful nation on earth under the same regime. Sorry, I reject T34's argument. It's just the same old conspiracy theory garbage. Maybe one person can't win all the time, or even most of the time. but one person can light the emotional, intellectual, and organizational fire needed to achieve progress If one person has alot of money and is charismatic, well spoken and attractive then they might gain some power. Emotional, intellectual and organizational fire might get you on the faculty in some college but won't run a government .
Kiwiwriter, do you think it was in respect of the German people down to one thing. That being basically that the country had lost a major conflict and felt bad done by in effect of reparations and loss of the Rhineland/Ruhr. Rampant inflation. It's been commented on before I know. The country wanted it's self respect back. Hitler was probably voicing what a lot of Germans at that time were thinking - minus the anti - Jewish idiology. He was the just the catalyst for the conflict to come and he knew it. Cometh the hour, cometh the man. There were a lot of things that led to Hitler taking power. He certainly was the right man in the right place at the right time, but he also knew how to cynically manipulate people to propel himself to power to achieve his obsessions. It's a complicated story. Hitler has defied explanation by higher brains than myself, and that's 90 percent of the world's brains. (99.97 percent, according to my teachers) Don't forget the Great Depression in your list.
Hitler has defied explanation by higher brains than myself, and that's 90 percent of the world's brains. (99.97 percent, according to my teachers) Hey, at least you outclass 0.03% of the world. Something to be proud of surely? My teachers just commented I wasn't of this solar system. Have no idea what they meant. Okay, back to the serious discussion. Kitty
Please, the New York Times as a valid news source, sounds like you went to the Mike Barnicle school for journalism. (For those of you overseas the New York Times is highly Left biased and has been caught making up stories...on a positive note their circulation has dropped tremendously.) You're missing my point and bringing in modern irrelevancies...my point is that one should not have to "explain" something one said in the first place. It should be clear the first time. Clearly, I failed in the first place. The gratuitous attack on newspapers today is irrelevant and your snide quip about my journalism career will not be tolerated. Maybe your not the expert you claim to be. I seem to remember many communist fighting with the NSDAP in the streets during the struggle for power. The problem was that there wasn't a conservative nationalist group(Perhaps the Prussian Aristocracy or the military) to prevent the Nazis from taking power. The weak socialist Weimar government allowed Hitler to take power because it did not offer the German people any leadership out of economic despair. The Republic did not put down the Nazis or the communists successfully, they let Hitler out of jail when the had the bastard locked up. Just about everything that could go wrong did go wrong in Weimar Germany. The nation was born with a hole in its heart and head, because of that secret deal between Groener and Ebert in the early hours of November 9, 1918. It didn't get much better. Bad example because he's dead and China is vastly becoming the most powerful nation on earth under the same regime. Are you sure he's dead? Anyway, it's still a powerful image. If one person has alot of money and is charismatic, well spoken and attractive then they might gain some power. Emotional, intellectual and organizational fire might get you on the faculty in some college but won't run a government . Yes, but Hitler didn't really "run" the Nazi government. One of the most interesting things about Nazi Germany was how it badly it functioned. Hitler deliberately set vague policies and created overlapping areas of responsibility for the various ministries, so that his lieutenants would fight amongst themselves for power and importance. They were expected to "work toward the Fuhrer" instead of combining against him.
The gratuitous attack on newspapers today is irrelevant and your snide quip about my journalism career will not be tolerated. It was one newspaper, The New York Times, which is an invalid source for factual information and therefore relevant...So it shouldn't be quoted. The so called quip was in reference to you not checking the validity of said source, as Mike Barnicle has been disciplined for ie: poor journalism. I just thought you would be more aware. Criticism of your historical beliefs and modern political bias is acceptable as it is not a personal attack(I have never quite figured out how the Left always manages to accomplish the rewrite/ Orwellian newspeak of criticism) Yes, but Hitler didn't really "run" the Nazi government. One of the most interesting things about Nazi Germany was how it badly it functioned. Hitler deliberately set vague policies and created overlapping areas of responsibility for the various ministries, so that his lieutenants would fight amongst themselves for power and importance. They were expected to "work toward the Fuhrer" instead of combining against him. I wasn't refering to Hitler specifically in my statement: If one person has alot of money and is charismatic, well spoken and attractive then they might gain some power. Emotional, intellectual and organizational fire might get you on the faculty in some college but won't run a government . I will give Hitler credit for being a good public speaker but he wasn't a good leader besides his being obviously evil. I was refering to your statement in general about one person making a difference and the criticism of T34s comment, which although I may not agree with, has some merit. It's just the same old conspiracy theory garbage. Maybe one person can't win all the time, or even most of the time. but one person can light the emotional, intellectual, and organizational fire needed to achieve progress Hitler did keep those in power off balance by having them compete with each other which was not an efficient way to run a government and bad for Germany, but kept him in power...so I agree with that part of your statement. But one major issue you should consider was that the NSDAP leaders were without morality and very greedy, reference Infiltration by Speer. There was a great competition for armaments contracts between the German military industrialists and the new kids on the block the SS. The SS were not well educated on the finer points of military production. Specifically k98 production at Konzentrationslager Mauthausen and aircraft production at KZ Gusen. These operations were highly inefficient. You should be amused because that was a huge understatement. Speer was an excellent source because he lived it.
It was one newspaper, The New York Times, which is an invalid source for factual information and therefore relevant...So it shouldn't be quoted. The so called quip was in reference to you not checking the validity of said source, as Mike Barnicle has been disciplined for ie: poor journalism. I just thought you would be more aware. Criticism of your historical beliefs and modern political bias is acceptable as it is not a personal attack(I have never quite figured out how the Left always manages to accomplish the rewrite/ Orwellian newspeak of criticism) The quote from Rosenthal did not come from The New York Times, it came from Rosenthal's obituary in a different newspaper. Nor is the comment being used as a statement about The New York Times and its reporting, good, bad, or indifferent. I merely used the point Rosenthal made to make me realize that one should not have to explain a point after it's made. If you weren't clear making it in the first place, then you've failed in the task. That's the point. What I wrote about had nothing to do with political beliefs or political bias. I was talking about something I should, in theory, know about, from 25 years of practicing it and gaining a Master's in the subject, writing. Obviously I have failed each and every time in trying to explain myself, so Rosenthal's dictum holds...it should be clear the first time. I wasn't refering to Hitler specifically in my statement: If one person has alot of money and is charismatic, well spoken and attractive then they might gain some power. Emotional, intellectual and organizational fire might get you on the faculty in some college but won't run a government . I will give Hitler credit for being a good public speaker but he wasn't a good leader besides his being obviously evil. I was refering to your statement in general about one person making a difference and the criticism of T34s comment, which although I may not agree with, has some merit. People can make differences in all kinds of ways. Just raising a kid changes the world. The job you do as a parent may decide if your progeny follows the path of Audie Murphy or Jeffrey Dahmer. Hitler did keep those in power off balance by having them compete with each other which was not an efficient way to run a government and bad for Germany, but kept him in power...so I agree with that part of your statement. But one major issue you should consider was that the NSDAP leaders were without morality and very greedy, reference Infiltration by Speer. There was a great competition for armaments contracts between the German military industrialists and the new kids on the block the SS. The SS were not well educated on the finer points of military production. Specifically k98 production at Konzentrationslager Mauthausen and aircraft production at KZ Gusen. These operations were highly inefficient. You should be amused because that was a huge understatement. Speer was an excellent source because he lived it. Yes, I'm very aware of how greed, incompetence, and kleptomania wrecked the German economy and war machine. the Germans produced fewer planes than the British in 1941, for example, and had most of their women who were employed working as domestic servants while British and American women were in the factories. This led to highly successful vehicles that could not be easily maintained. The Nazis had to produce guns and butter to keep their people supporting the war, and then had to bring in hordes of slave laborers, who had very little vested interest in Germany's victory, to produce the weapons. This resulted in slowdowns and sabotage, and poorly-made equipment. In addition, while slave laborers didn't have to be fed much, they had to be guarded heavily.
Because they wanted "Total War" All over Europe they killed maimed and tortured. The were responsible for the death of at least 60 million. Thei behaviour in war, was in case anyone forgets... was barbaric in the extreme. Any one in any doubt? I can relate those crimes. But mainly because Goebbels called for "Total war" that meant no mercy for man woman or child. His call for Total war was acclaimed by the screams of encouragemnt by the German people. So they got "Total War" so stop moaning they got away comparitively free considering what the Germans did, Ask how does it compare with what the Criminal Division did to Warsaw. He that sows the wind reaps the whirlwind...Much of Germany was untouched..They are very lucky, they should have paid the full price. Sapper the" german people " do an did not exist as " the jewish " or the "british " do not exist. A folk is always a group of people bound together with cultural , historical relations but everyone in this community is a individual person with own believes etc... In in the hall where the total war was announced there were mostly fatcat nazis - something you should take into consideration. The whole german population NEVER wanted total war instead it was a fundamentalistic nazi class who did so . The bombing of a whole folk is wrong no matter how you put it. The mentality of todays world has changed - in the latest iraq war for example bombing like in the 2 WW is unthinkable - maybe you should change your thinking too, Sapper! -Tyrulf
You're entitled to feel bad for the residents of Dresden. Citizens are flung into wars at the behest of their leaders, often willy-nilly. But they are more responsible for letting Hitler come to power and wreck Germany and Europe. The Dresdeners paid the harsh price for failing to stand up to Hitler when it counted. And maybe there won't be any more wars in Europe. Its not as easy as you put it . You have to take every circumstance into consideration before you claim this. nobody could knew that hitler was a insane person , he even managed to make the british diplomats and politicians think of him being a peace keeper . during the war there were things like "sippenhaft " etc. which not only killed/send the one who resisted /opponed the regime but also his family into a concentration camp ! , furthermore there were the treaty of versailles with reparations up to the year 198+ and the invasion of the rhineland , and you may not forget thatthere were by the way many attempts to assassinate hitler. and there surely was resistance otherwise many of the concentration camps in wich also MANY GERMAN communists , social democrats and christians , intellectuals etc were killed would have not to be build. The KPD , communist party always got about 1/5 up to 1/4 of the total votes not to forget the many conservative and christian parties as the Zentrum ...Just to mention some points of hundreds. You dont seem to really know the situation within germany during the twenties and thirties/fourties ! I doubt that most persons of this forum would have resisted this regime if they had lived in this troubled times . - Tyrulf
T34. I understand your initial post. On the surface of it Dresden was a massacre perpetrated by the RAF. I thought that, until i looked a little closer. Dresden was a centre of manufacturing. Over a hundred factories all working towards the war effort, with everything from bomb timers to optical components. Thousands of troops were stationed there with their artillery waiting to move to the Eastern Front. I understand two major railways met here at massive marshalling yards, where more artillery was waiting to be moved (sounds like Crewe). The conditions were perfect for a bombing raid. And just because Dresden had not been hit before, who said it wouldn't be at some point? The city was a very viable military target and so it was bound to be bombed at some point. What real reason was there to destroy Coventry and York? They received 5-star ratings in a German guide book. That's why. So yes, the loss of beautiful buildinss and museums breaks my heart, it really does, but the destruction of the Nazi war machine does not. Dresden was going down at some point, it just happened to be the 'perfect' bomber raid. I hope this answers your question. Kitty dresden was never a great center of the nazis war machine. There might have been a war industry near dresen but surely not in the historical central parts or the areas where many people lived.A further tragedy was that many people who fled from the east were killed in this bombing and even many refugees from labour-camps and even concentrationcamps. furthermore the bombing took place at the extreme end of the war when the production of war goods came to an end . -Tyrulf
No T34, all it does is show how little understanding of war you have. When you are trying to put down a monster, then all means are used. If the whole of Germany had been laid waste it would still hardly equal what they did. Sapper so why don't you also lay the swiss , netherlands,elsaß,belgicum , luxembourg in waste =? they also speak german , have the same history , culture but never followed hitler ... -Tyrulf
Its not as easy as you put it . You have to take every circumstance into consideration before you claim this. nobody could knew that hitler was a insane person , he even managed to make the british diplomats and politicians think of him being a peace keeper . during the war there were things like "sippenhaft " etc. which not only killed/send the one who resisted /opponed the regime but also his family into a concentration camp ! , furthermore there were the treaty of versailles with reparations up to the year 198+ and the invasion of the rhineland , and you may not forget thatthere were by the way many attempts to assassinate hitler. and there surely was resistance otherwise many of the concentration camps in wich also MANY GERMAN communists , social democrats and christians , intellectuals etc were killed would have not to be build. The KPD , communist party always got about 1/5 up to 1/4 of the total votes not to forget the many conservative and christian parties as the Zentrum ...Just to mention some points of hundreds. You dont seem to really know the situation within germany during the twenties and thirties/fourties ! I doubt that most persons of this forum would have resisted this regime if they had lived in this troubled times . - Tyrulf No, it was not easy, and I would heartily agree that once Hitler came to power and imposed his police state, resistance to his regime was dangerous and in some cases foolhardy. Attempts were made, and the Attentat on July 20 came close. Before Hitler came to power, Germany's leadership, both political and non-political had opportunities to prevent his rise. An example would be HiItler's trial in Munich for the Putsch. No question Adolf committed treason in launching a coup. but his judges bent over backwards to accommodate him, and his punishment -- such as it was -- was mild in the extreme. Treason should be made odious. I don't think I could have done much to resist Hitler, either. Being Jewish, I wouldn't have had much opportunity. I'd probably be among the first ones dead, by virtue of my civil service and journalistic work.
dresden was never a great center of the nazis war machine. There might have been a war industry near dresen but surely not in the historical central parts or the areas where many people lived.A further tragedy was that many people who fled from the east were killed in this bombing and even many refugees from labour-camps and even concentrationcamps. furthermore the bombing took place at the extreme end of the war when the production of war goods came to an end . -Tyrulf I can only go by what i have read, and some of that is by a historian who accessed the German records after the Cold War. Over a hundred factories were centred in Dresden, some outside, but most throughout the city, with many of them being small operations within the historical areas. Be they making optical equipment, but mostly the radio and timer devices. The deaths of so many was a tragedy in the extreme. Even now, after reading all of the reasons it was a target, i do not agree with the deliberate creation of a firestorm. But that was not the decision of the bomber crews, they merely drop the load they were given. As to the raid coming at the extreme end of the war, yes it did. But look at it from our vantage point. Europe had been at war for nearly 6 years. it was ravaged and on it's knees. The only way to relieve that pressure was to totally destroy the Nazi war machine, and that meant destroying everything with which it could rearm itself. V rockets were still falling sporadically, and Dresden helped make some of the parts I believe, I could be wrong on this. Take out the factories and the lines of supply, and you take out the machine. So if you were in the Allies position would you bomb a viable target or would you leave it alone because it wasn't as big an industrial area as say the Ruhr Valley?
We never started the war....Heben Sie das Schwert auf, sterben Sie dann damit The Germans screamed for Total war, then complained when they got it. Coventry was devastated years before retribution arrived on Dresdens doorstep. If you cannot stand the heat ? "Stay out the kitchen" At that time all Germans were our enemies. Sad but if you invade others Countries, and someone clobbers you, have little to complain about. Whar I find sickening! is that anyone has the gall to complain about being bombed after what the German nation did, How many dead? 60 million. In my opinion, as one that took part in the struggle to lift the evil of the Nazi yoke from Europe. In the end, the Germans got off relatively lightly, when you consider the torture, the concentration camps, the murder of my mates they captured in Normandy. (12thSS) The countless crimes, The slaughter....Stop complaining, and thank your lucky start you still have a Country. For if the same destruction the Germans created across the world, was replicated in the Fatherland, there would be nothing left. Sapper
Totally agree with sapper. The War for sapper wasn't like it was for us, reading about it, watching it on TV. He was in it and disabled by it. He's earned the right to air those views. I'm currently reading "Assault Division", every page has me thinking of him. His Division, his story.
If I recall Owen the author was a RA man. Great book recently re-printed. MIne is the original issue Sapper
