Adolf Hitlers father changed his last name, what was it before Hitler?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Actually he have written the bible concerning the subject Adolf Hitler, and yes he moved away from the easy solutions and have written a book that explaines Hitler on a much deeper level than any other and have gotten very good reviews from "competing" authors/historians for his work.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
I disagree and have read much of Kershaws work but feel you are misinterpreting him, while he is an appreciated authority on the subject he did not write the bible so to speak. I found that Kershaw moved away from the easy solutions to the difficult questions that were suggested by other historians and that you refer to.
Totally agree on this.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Hitlers genius was realized in the form of his Charisma. People famously left his rallies feeling that Hitler knew what was in their hearts. The Nazi party were elected on a completely unprecedented scale. The Nazis were the 1st people to take advantage of door to door campaigning, they offered to collect people from their home or place of work and drive them to the poling station before returning them (and no they didnt beat them up if they refused). The nazis were the first party to campaign from the air both by dropping huge numbers of leaflets and by flying in low over rallies to make an impressive 1st impression. Many of the techniques the Nazis pioneered are now standard practice in government elections.
After Hitler ran for President and lost the NSDAP lost millions of votes, the economic depression was loosing its grip on Germany ... the exact seats in parliament they lost I don't have here right now but it was a major setback infront of his appointment as chancellor shortly after that actually came as a small surprice on Hitler ... Von Papen and Hindenburg wanted Hitler as vice chancellor but Hitler said no, Chancellor Schleicher wanted to desolve parliament and postpone the election for 60 days and if Hindenburg had done just that NSDAPs continuous loss of support at that time would prolly have changed history ... however Hindenburg said no and the rest is history ...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Von Papen and Hindenburg did not have a choice on whether to allow Hitler to become Chancellor, it was inevitable purely due to the support the NSDAP had. They were not losing votes by the millions, all parties were losing votes as the turn outs became lower and lower as Papen and Hindenburg desperately struggled to form a credible government that did not include the NSDAP.
It was a gamble from Hitler and he won.
Never argued against that ... but "you make your own luck" is with certain modifications, much of Hitler luck just fell in his lap ... he was unbelievable fortunate that so many opurtunities "just" came along ...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Luck had little to do with it. Hitler positioned the NSDAP to take advantage of anything that came his way, as the saying goes "you make your own luck" and this is an area he excelled in.
But we don't single out the final solution alone as a point of how organized the Nazis was, one must take the entire system under scrutiny and in that sense they governed through chaos, no explicit guidelines from the top down, Hitler and his crew loosely spoke what they wanted and it was basically up to the rest to try and interpret that into action ... that's the simplyfied answer, a more indept one would take a very long time ...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Your final assessment of the Nazis as being capable only of Chaos falls far from the mark I am afraid. Once established the Nazi systems closest power structure is one of a feudal system with Barons vying for the Fuhrers influence. As gruesome as it was the final solution was highly organized. Infact it is mostly the cold hearted efficiency that people find so abhorrent.
Never argued against that ...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Hitlers biggest mistake was thinking he was a military genius. He wasnt. At all. No power has successfully invaded Russia or America yet Hitler declared war on both..
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
The point I was trying to make was that although his work is very influential it is his assessment of the information he could find and as such is not infallible.Varegg wrote:
Actually he [Kershaw] have written the bible concerning the subject Adolf Hitler, and yes he moved away from the easy solutions and have written a book that explaines Hitler on a much deeper level than any other and have gotten very good reviews from "competing" authors/historians for his work.
If I remember correctly it wasn't possible to run for president. My understanding was that the leader of the coalition in the Reichstag became Prime Minister and that the president was independent of this (to a point).After Hitler ran for President and lost the NSDAP lost millions of votes, the economic depression was loosing its grip on Germany ... the exact seats in parliament they lost I don't have here right now but it was a major setback infront of his appointment as chancellor shortly after that actually came as a small surprice on Hitler ... Von Papen and Hindenburg wanted Hitler as vice chancellor but Hitler said no, Chancellor Schleicher wanted to desolve parliament and postpone the election for 60 days and if Hindenburg had done just that NSDAPs continuous loss of support at that time would prolly have changed history ... however Hindenburg said no and the rest is history ...
It was a gamble from Hitler and he won.
FYI:
Number of seats in the Reichstag for the NSDAP
1924, Dec 14 (1)
1928 12
1930 107
1932, July 230
1932, Nov 196
1933 288
The reduction of seats from 230 to 196 in November 1932 represented a 5% loss of votes. While it is a loss its hardly an unusual swing especially when compared with the gain of 123 seats in the proceeding election. It is perfectly conceivable to suggest that 5% of the new voters were what are now refereed to as "protest voters" and weren't expecting the NSDAP to be so popular.
It is worth highlighting that the 1932 July elections gave the NSDAP a 37% share of the national vote. This was completely unheard of in such a fragmented government system and I recall it being approximately double the largest share of the vote previously received by a single party. It would be very difficult to argue that this was anything other than an unprecedented level of support for the NSDAP.
By the time Papen & Hindenburg finally offered the role of chancellor to Hitler he had already realized the bigger picture. Hitler had all the cards in his hand and try as they might Papen & H ultimately had to appoint Hitler. It wasn't unusual for 5 parties to share the role of government to be able to achieve a majority and the Nazi party almost accomplished it on their own, it proved to be completely untenable to not have the NSDAP in government.
I am afraid I do not agree with your judgement that another election within 2 months would have changed the course of history. Ultimately all of the moderate parties had a shot at government and were failing to ease the situation. The holding of 3 elections within 6 months would have served no purpose other than to further highlight the failings of the moderate parties to be able to form a majority government. The electorate by this point were too polarized and to make such a desperate attempt to keep the most popular party out of power would not have been successful.
We dont single it out no, but it would not have been possible under a chaotic system. The first impression of Nazi rule is one of chaos, however I feel that as the system is analyzed the chaotic nature falls away.But we don't single out the final solution alone as a point of how organized the Nazis was, one must take the entire system under scrutiny and in that sense they governed through chaos, no explicit guidelines from the top down, Hitler and his crew loosely spoke what they wanted and it was basically up to the rest to try and interpret that into action ... that's the simplyfied answer, a more indept one would take a very long time ...Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Your final assessment of the Nazis as being capable only of Chaos falls far from the mark I am afraid. Once established the Nazi systems closest power structure is one of a feudal system with Barons vying for the Fuhrers influence. As gruesome as it was the final solution was highly organized. Infact it is mostly the cold hearted efficiency that people find so abhorrent.
As I briefly mentioned in my previous post, the closest analogy to the Nazi system is a Feudal one. However I need to refresh my memory on this subject to give the detailed response required.
Best book I've ever read on the Germans Sixth Army and invasion of Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%28book%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%28book%29
Hitler did run for president, not because he wanted to but because NSDAP was afraid to loose momentum if he didn't ...
Great discussion Cheeky, I can't remember last time I was offered such a knowledgeable "opponent" in a subject I love as much as WW2, tnx
Great discussion Cheeky, I can't remember last time I was offered such a knowledgeable "opponent" in a subject I love as much as WW2, tnx
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I'll have to add that to my to read list.AussieReaper wrote:
Best book I've ever read on the Germans Sixth Army and invasion of Russia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … adbook.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%28book%29
Since it is related, for those interested.
WWII Docs in order of favorite.
- The World at War (BBC) Simply the best WWII documentary ever made. A classic for good reason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World_at_War
- The Nazis: A Warning from History (BBC) Focused strictly on the rise and fall of the Third Reich. Interviews with unrepentant Nazi supporters and collaborators. The narrative is excellent.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nazis: … om_History
- The War (Ken Burns) Highlights the effect of the war on American towns and families. Stories and letters from veterans of the Bataan Death March, Pearl Harbor, etc. The war on a personal level. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_War_(documentary)
- Apocalypse The Second World War (France) Declassified footage of the war by front-line soldiers, top-secret operatives, resistance fighters, and private citizens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse … _World_War
- WWII in HD (History Channel) Twelve American service members during World War II. Each with different backgrounds and roles in the war effort. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWII_in_HD
I've seen plenty of others, but these top my list.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Perhaps not relevant to the replies in this thread yet but there has been a significant shift in the analysis of the third Reich since the end of WWII. Mainly this refers to the claims that people supported the Nazis out of fear or that they had no idea of what was really going on. Unfortunately the evidence to suggest otherwise has increasingly mounted with media reports on the true nature of the concentration camps being in circulation. Linked to this is the fact that the Gestapo were simply overwhelmed with reports from general public informers which got to the point where people were taken to concentration camps for making up information on their neighbors!
The other problem is that it is a very very emotive issue and so one has to be careful on their stated assessment of the available evidence.
Varegg, its always enjoyable to get into a considered discussion.
The other problem is that it is a very very emotive issue and so one has to be careful on their stated assessment of the available evidence.
Varegg, its always enjoyable to get into a considered discussion.
Just before I started my second run at Kershaws book about Hitler I read the biography about Erwin Rommel, some really eyeopeners in that book also about his relationship with Hitler and especially Goebbles.
Makes for a really good read
Erwin Rommel by Beno
Makes for a really good read
Erwin Rommel by Beno
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Nobody answered the trick question in the OP yet ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I always understood that the gestapo counted on informers because they were so overwhelmed. They encouraged informers.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Perhaps not relevant to the replies in this thread yet but there has been a significant shift in the analysis of the third Reich since the end of WWII. Mainly this refers to the claims that people supported the Nazis out of fear or that they had no idea of what was really going on. Unfortunately the evidence to suggest otherwise has increasingly mounted with media reports on the true nature of the concentration camps being in circulation. Linked to this is the fact that the Gestapo were simply overwhelmed with reports from general public informers which got to the point where people were taken to concentration camps for making up information on their neighbors!
The other problem is that it is a very very emotive issue and so one has to be careful on their stated assessment of the available evidence.
Varegg, its always enjoyable to get into a considered discussion.
But yes, informers were also known to make up stories because of personal grudges and general dislikes.
This story sticks out for me
Kmar wrote:
Her Gestapo file reveals that she became an object of suspicion for those around her.
The first person to denounce her was a distant relative, who said that she was inclined to be too friendly to Jews and that she knew too much about things that should be of no concern to women, such as military matters. This relative said that he felt driven to tell the Gestapo this because he was a reserve officer (though there was nothing in being a reserve officer that required him to do so).
Totzke was put under general surveillance by the Gestapo, but this surveillance took a strange form: it consisted of the Gestapo asking her neighbours to keep an eye on her.
There follows in the file a mass of contradictory evidence supplied by her neighbours. Sometimes Totzke gave the 'Hitler greeting' (Heil Hitler) and sometimes she didn't, but overall she made it clear that she was not going to avoid socializing with Jews (something which at this point was not a crime). One anonymous denouncer even hinted that Totzke might be a lesbian ('Miss Totzke doesn't seem to have normal predispositions'). But there is no concrete evidence that she had committed any offence.
Nonetheless, it was enough for the Gestapo to bring her in for questioning. The account of her interrogation in the file shows that she was bluntly warned about her attitude, but the Gestapo clearly didn't think she was a spy, or guilty of any of the outlandish accusations made against her. She was simply unconventional. The denunciations, however, kept coming in, and eventually the file landed on the desk of one of the most bloodthirsty Gestapo officials in Würzburg - Gormosky of Branch 2B, which dealt with Jews.
On 28 October 1941 Totzke was summoned for an interrogation. The Gestapo kept an immaculate record of what was said. Totzke acknowledged that, 'If I have anything to do with Jews any more, I know that I can reckon on a concentration camp.'
But despite this, she still kept up her friendship with Jews and was ordered once more to report to the Gestapo. She took flight with a friend and tried to cross the border into Switzerland, but the Swiss customs officials turned her over to the German authorities. In the course of a long interrogation conducted in southwest Germany, she said:
'I, for one, find the Nuremberg Laws and Nazi anti-Semitism to be totally unacceptable. I find it intolerable that such a country as Germany exists and I do not want to live here any longer.'
Eventually, after another lengthy interrogation in Würzburg, Totzke was sent to the women's concentration camp at Ravensbrück, from which we have no reason to believe she ever returned. Her courage cost her her life.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I like beevor but have to go with craig.AussieReaper wrote:
Best book I've ever read on the Germans Sixth Army and invasion of Russia.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/e … adbook.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalingrad_%28book%29
Last edited by Jay (2011-06-22 06:58:48)
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You can't research WW2 German military operations in Europe and North Africa without first reading Achtung-Panzer! (In my opinion)
It may not be a riveting read, but the concepts are crucial.
It may not be a riveting read, but the concepts are crucial.
That was an interesting read and I completely agree that they encouraged informers however I think our discussion amounts to whether the chicken or the egg came first. The point I was making was that people who were under little or no pressure to do so, actively volunteered information knowing full well the likely outcome. The Gestapo wasn't really a highly active body with people on every street corner, the reality was that the vast majority simply processed the information received from the public and decided whether to act or not. As opposed to running their own investigations and monitoring a scared populace.Kmar wrote:
I always understood that the gestapo counted on informers because they were so overwhelmed. They encouraged informers.
But yes, informers were also known to make up stories because of personal grudges and general dislikes.
This story sticks out for me
Adolf Hitlers father was born out of wedlock and originally assumed his mothers maiden name of "Schicklgruber" he later applied to change his name to that of his step father and suspected biological father "Johann Georg Hiedler" It is not known how the spelling became "Hitler"Varegg wrote:
Adolf Hitlers father changed his last name, what was it before Hitler?
Heil Schicklgruber doesn't have the same ring to it
The Gestapo didn't have to encourage much to get people to rat on eachother, that is one of the things that puzzles me with WW2 ...
Bough a new book just yesterday that I'll hopefully will get to read during the summer.
Battle of Britain by James Holland (sheds new light on the events that happened in the periode from May to October 1940)
The Gestapo didn't have to encourage much to get people to rat on eachother, that is one of the things that puzzles me with WW2 ...
Bough a new book just yesterday that I'll hopefully will get to read during the summer.
Battle of Britain by James Holland (sheds new light on the events that happened in the periode from May to October 1940)
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
really? let me give you a piece of friendly advise: you better try to understand why they put that bullshit in those books you read.Varegg wrote:
The Gestapo didn't have to encourage much to get people to rat on eachother, that is one of the things that puzzles me with WW2
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Beevor was good, I got 1/3 of the way through "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" before I couldn't take any more.
We still don't really know what Hitler was up to, maybe the recent publication of more Hitler documents will help.
http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/201 … in-LA.html
We still don't really know what Hitler was up to, maybe the recent publication of more Hitler documents will help.
http://www.toledoblade.com/Religion/201 … in-LA.html
Fuck Israel
One of the best books I've read on the root causes of WW2, particularly US involvement and an examination of the pacifist movement here.
Edit: I realize this isn't a book discussion thread, but reading to understand the history and getting varying viewpoints is critical, IMHBCO.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Got any super-accurate, unbiased, amazingly in-depth, objective Russian WW2 books for us to look at?Shahter wrote:
really? let me give you a piece of friendly advise: you better try to understand why they put that bullshit in those books you read.Varegg wrote:
The Gestapo didn't have to encourage much to get people to rat on eachother, that is one of the things that puzzles me with WW2
no, i only have biased and nonobjective. the thing is, unlike you, i can actually read russian books and, thus, can see things in perspective.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Got any super-accurate, unbiased, amazingly in-depth, objective Russian WW2 books for us to look at?Shahter wrote:
really? let me give you a piece of friendly advise: you better try to understand why they put that bullshit in those books you read.Varegg wrote:
The Gestapo didn't have to encourage much to get people to rat on eachother, that is one of the things that puzzles me with WW2
Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-23 03:03:05)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Ah, so having any perspective or being critical of sources requires an understanding of the Russian language and access to Russian books.Shahter wrote:
no, i only have biased and nonobjective. the thing is, unlike you, i can actually read russian books and, thus, can see things in perspective.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Got any super-accurate, unbiased, amazingly in-depth, objective Russian WW2 books for us to look at?Shahter wrote:
really? let me give you a piece of friendly advise: you better try to understand why they put that bullshit in those books you read.
Good to know.
on the subject of ww2? - absolutely. in case you didn't know, an overwhelming part of documents from which one should be taking his info on ww2 is written in russian.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Ah, so having any perspective or being critical of sources requires an understanding of the Russian language and access to Russian books.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
Fixed.Shahter wrote:
on the subject of ww2? - absolutely. in case you didn't know, a n overwhelming part significant source of documents from which one should be taking his info on the European theater of ww2 is written in russian.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Ah, so having any perspective or being critical of sources requires an understanding of the Russian language and access to Russian books.
And nothing ever gets translated.
Ever.
Last edited by FEOS (2011-06-23 03:18:58)
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
and no info gets doctored along with translation.
ever.
edit: and since european theater of ww2 and it's part before the free and the brave arrived for their share of the spoils defined ww2 and its outcome - yes, the part written in russian is overwhelming.
ever.
edit: and since european theater of ww2 and it's part before the free and the brave arrived for their share of the spoils defined ww2 and its outcome - yes, the part written in russian is overwhelming.
Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-23 03:23:08)
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
So suddenly, Russian books are like the Qu'ran? Only valid in the original language?Shahter wrote:
and no info gets doctored along with translation.
ever.
Historians are now part of your grand conspiracy, along with the media? Seriously?
I guess there can never be any sharing of culture across linguistic boundaries then. Ever.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular