WAS HITLER A HYPOCRIT?

Any opinions ?

Questions like this seem to require explanation when they are asked. For example, "ideology" can in this case include a large number of principles, some of which it appears that Adolf sincerely believed, other of which were simply ways to manipulate the populace through sustain propaganda. If by "ideology" one means "Nazism" then one must at least list the major components (were there a consistent set of ten points from the 1930's to the end of the war?).

At the end of World War I, General Pershing thawt that it was a big mistake
to stop fighting before we took it to the Germans' doors in Berlin,
because, he opined, thay will think that thay were not defeated
on the battlefield, and we will just have to come back and do this all over again.

You have to consider the idea of calling the Japanese 'yellow aryans' to be a form of hypocrisy.

Hitler was basically disorganized. He had ten or twelve ways to win and only one or two ways to lose and he found one of the ways to lose. He did not need to invade Russia, it would have fallen apart in five years and he could have picked up the pieces. He DID need to fight a war against England, and he had no real plan to do so nor the proper kinds of equipment to do so.

I did not know he said that. I 've never seen any of them be yellow.
I 've heard that for a long time, but never seen it; not the Chinese, either.


True.


Y do u think so ?



He did not wanna fight the English, and Chamberlain was ecstatic about not fighting him.
He only had to leave Poland alone.





David

Had Pershing been allowed to pursue a splendid victory at the gates of Berlin, the cost of continuing the war would have devastated all the participants to an even far greater degree than it actually did. It would not have changed the terms of the peace treaty that so enraged Germany nor would it have made its fledgling democratic government strong enough to withstand the economic and political turmoil after the war. The "war guilt clause," crushing reparations that could never be repaid, and the dismantling of the German army would have still be demanded by the Allies.

No. The Emperors 's Army was in a state of ruin.
Further defense was hopeless and no longer feasible.
The German peace negotiator was ordered from home
to accept ANY terms and his orders were sent in the clear, not coded.

The Armistice gave rise to the problem that many Germans did NOT know
of the military collapse. Thay believed, in error, that their army was strong.
During the last few weeks of the war, Hitler was out of action,
in the hospital, having been blinded by a gas attack.
When he recovered and was released to behold the Armistice,
then, in common with many Germans, he wondered something
along the lines of: "what the hell happened?!"

As we all know, he rose to political power by alleging
that his brave and viable army was stabbed in the back,
politically, and he pointed at available scapegoats to take the blame.

If we had pressed the fight, accepting General Pershing 's wisdom,
then it woud have been clear to all Germans in the time of World War I
that thay had been fully militarily beaten, the same way that the Germans
in the time of World War II knew that thay had been beaten, fair n square, no treachery.

That woud have obviated the Second World War.
In turn, that woud have obviated the Third World War,
which made me very, very nervous for a long, long time until Christmas of 1991.





David

I usually don't respond to such threads anymore, but David, from what comic did you get your knowledge?

Best commentary I've seen on the wrap-up of WW-I was that of H.L. Mencken. Mencken noted that by the spring of 1917 WW-I was basically over, Germany having won it fair and square; only problem was that England owed the American banks too much money for us to afford for her to lose a war...

Of all the historical calamities one could prevent, WW-I is probably the top item on the list.

Not when Danzig was 98% German...

If he had left Poland alone, like he was supposed to,
then the English n French woud not have declared war against him,
and if he had not declared war against us, after Pearl Harbor, then he might have ended up alive.

(Does anyone end up alive [in human terms] ?)

Incidentally, when he shot himself, he apparently had very little time to live,
perishing from his syphilis infection, so I guess he 'd have ended up dead, even if he had defeated the commies.





David

It doesn't matter; he was a monster. He was responsible for the holocaust.

OK. Let 's take that vu of all history: "It doesn't matter". OK

Let 's call that the C.I. Philosophy of history.

OSD, In the scheme of life and Hitler, HYPOCRIT is not an important historical or analysis topic. He was a demented monster of the worst kind.

That is your philosophy of what is important.




That is off topic; the topic is hypocrisy,
not monstrosity.

If u wanna discuss THAT, then start your own thread on that topic.
This topic is for hypocrisy.

It's not "my" philosophy; it's only common sense.

If you wish to psychoanalyze Hitler, it should be about his total personality; not only whether he was a hypocrite.

Of course YOU are the arbiter
of what is "important" to anyone and to everyone,
and also of what "sense" is "common" to everyone, correct ??




If u wanna do it THAT way,
then start YOUR OWN thread and do it the way that u want.


How did YOU become the boss ?





David

I'm sorry to intrude, dave, but I just now saw this thread.

shouldn't it be hippocrit?

just trying to follow along in case the rebellion sweeps over Kansas at some point...