Rehabilitating Hitler--Images

[Burrhus]

Why is that the first image of Hitler below is typical of the way he is almost exclusively portrayed? Why are pictures such as the second never shown in history books, films and other popular media? Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4444/hitlerspeech0ta.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7349/1032sh.jpg

[ironweed]

Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not all) believable.


I usually can't bring myself to post in this playpen, but I admit you've piqued my curiousity. Please explain how what appears to be staged publicity photo has any relevance at all to the truth of falsehood of a particular historical event.

As an aside, I'm kind of weirded out how much the little boy in the picture looks like my son does nowadays. Down to even the facial expression when he meets strangers for the first time. Not really afraid, but kind of apprehensive. Very weird.

Why are pictures such as the second never shown in history books, films and other popular media?

You're certain of this? I'm pretty sure Toland's biography has some pictures like the second one. I know I've seen them in books by mainstream historians at any rate.

[Fitz]

As an aside, I'm kind of weirded out how much the little boy in the picture looks like my son does nowadays. Down to even the facial expression when he meets strangers for the first time. Not really afraid, but kind of apprehensive. Very weird.

Why are you apprehensive? Do you think your little son is a Nazi after seeing this picture? Does he pull the puppy's tail or strangle the kitten when you aren't looking? Get a grip.

[ironweed]

Why are you apprehensive? Do you think your little son is a Nazi after seeing this picture?

Not at all. I'd have thought it weird in any context. Especially with that expression.

Does he pull the puppy's tail

Actually, yes he does, though our dog is far beyond the puppy stage. My son is 17 months old and not speaking yet beyond an occasional "DA!" A bit hard to reason with him when he pokes the dog in the eye or eats the dog's food or, yes, pulls his tail.

or strangle the kitten

Don't own a cat, but I don't think he'd do something like that.

when you aren't looking?

He hasn't gotten that far yet. He does what he does in front of us.

Get a grip.



1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?


I'll leave you w/Mt 7-1:3 on that last comment. :)

[Burrhus]

ironweed: I usually can't bring myself to post in this playpen, but I admit you've piqued my curiousity. Please explain how what appears to be staged publicity photo has any relevance at all to the truth of falsehood of a particular historical event.

Burrhus: Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable

My statement was a conditional if not/then maybe not, statement. Belief by those not familiar with the so-called evidence for the holocaust story is maintained in large part by the demonization of Hitler perpetrated in images. Bad logic in the manner of, Hitler was evil therefore the holocaust story is true. I am offering an alternative set of images.

Why does it appear staged? Because you are not accustomed to seeing such pictures?

Iron: You're certain of this? I'm pretty sure Toland's biography has some pictures like the second one. I know I've seen them in books by mainstream historians at any rate.

I should have said "I've never seen such pictures". I have shown these to many people who had also never seen this type of picture in mainstream sources.

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6144/ah101tb.jpg

[Burrhus]

http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/3456/ah23eq.jpg

[Fitz]

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.


I suppose that I was being judgemental. I just didn't understand from your remarks, whether you were apprehensive for your son, or if your son looks apprehensive when he meets strangers.

Hitler wasn't the devil, and I thought that's where you were going with your comments. Best of luck to you and your little boy.

[Burrhus]

http://img104.imageshack.us/img104/7708/ah28iq0.jpg

[Hartmann von Aue]

http://www.speakeasy.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=9585

[Ahknaton]

Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.
Why is it inconceivable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?

[guy]

I usually can't bring myself to post in this playpen, but I admit you've piqued my curiousity. Please explain how what appears to be staged publicity photo has any relevance at all to the truth of falsehood of a particular historical event.

As an aside, I'm kind of weirded out how much the little boy in the picture looks like my son does nowadays. Down to even the facial expression when he meets strangers for the first time. Not really afraid, but kind of apprehensive. Very weird.



You're certain of this? I'm pretty sure Toland's biography has some pictures like the second one. I know I've seen them in books by mainstream historians at any rate.

I don't usually post here either, but the type of argument presented in this thread is somewhat more intellectually intriguing than the usual endless blabber that you find here. The one thread I remember participating in in this sub-forum was of a similar nature (one in which the argument was made that outlawing and tabooing the holocaust somehow proves that it is a lie).

Both the 'outlawing' argument, and this current 'evil monster' argument do not hold water IMO, though. If Hitler was a mass murderer, the media could quite conceivably nevertheless portray him as a (wait for it) mass murderer regardless of the existence of pictures in which he looks like a non mass murderer (e.g. pictures where he poses with children).

BTW, I'm pretty sure that there are pictures of Israeli settlers posing nicely with little children, but I couldn't find any when I did a google image search for 'Israeli settlers'.

http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=%22israeli+settlers%22&btnG=Search

I guess that proves that that whole occupation story is just a lie then, eh? (Joke. Well sorta).

[Starr]

I have seen those Hitler with children pics quite a few times on documentaries on the history channel, as just one example, but no, they are nowhere near as prominent as the dark and sinister looking ones. It is done to portray him in a certain way, yes, but I am sure the vast majority of the time the people who put these shows or articles or whatever else together and show those certain images do so because they believe in the stereotype rather than out of some conscious effort to manipulate public opinion. Another very simple reason is that those scary pictures are more attention grabbing, intense, and interesting.

[Vasily Zaitsev]

*photo removied due to stupidity of thread*

[Hakluyt]

Why is that the first image of Hitler below is typical of the way he is almost exclusively portrayed? Why are pictures such as the second never shown in history books, films and other popular media? Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.
Watch any History Channel documentaries lately?

[Captain Marinesko]

Why is that the first image of Hitler below is typical of the way he is almost exclusively portrayed? Why are pictures such as the second never shown in history books, films and other popular media? Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4444/hitlerspeech0ta.jpg


Hmmm...maybe because the top picture is more relevant to Hitler and his rise to power.


I think this whole thread demonstrates the complete inability for "revisionists" to grasp basic logic, as if a few pictures of Hitler doing "nice" things means we should call verified facts of history into question. John Wayne Gacy was a clown who entertained kids; I guess he didn't sodomize and murder all the boys found under his basement right?

Damn, all that time I waste digging up archival research on the Stalin era- if only I knew that all I really needed was to flash some pictures of Stalin with his wife and kids.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Burrhus
Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.

Why is it inconceivable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?

I write carefully, please read me carefully. I did not use the word "inconceivable" in any of my posts here. Inconceivable is a bit hyperbolic as a replacement word for less (or not) believable especially when used with the conditional modifier maybe.

[Ahknaton]

I write carefully, please read me carefully. I did not use the word "inconceivable" in any of my posts here. Inconceivable is a bit hyperbolic as a replacement word for less (or not) believable especially when used with the conditional modifier maybe.
Why is it maybe less (or not at all) believable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?

[Burrhus]

Are there any pictures of Hitler butt-knocking Ernst Rohm? I wonder how many Hershey highways Hitler went down to move up the ladder within the SA?

WC: Pretend I'm Jewish and/or Black.

Need we pretend?

[Captain Marinesko]

Why is it maybe less (or not at all) believable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?


Yeah, John Wayne Gacy anyone?

[Burrhus]

Watch any History Channel documentaries lately?

No, I don't have cable and I prefer not to get my historical knowledge from "The "Greatest Generation Dedicated Channel".

[Burrhus]

the people who put these shows or articles or whatever else together and show those certain images do so because they believe in the stereotype rather than out of some conscious effort to manipulate public opinion.

I am concerned less with the 'psychological' motivation of those presenting the pictures of Hitler as an evil demon that I am with the extreme negative emotional responses conditioned by the pictures in those viewing them.

The stereotype and the manipulated public opnion seem to me to be one and the same thing.

[Captain Marinesko]

Like I already said, the picture of Hitler giving speeches is more relevant to his history than him shaking hands with children. Hitler was a master orator, and he was a political leader rather than a nanny.

[delete]

Like I already said, the picture of Hitler giving speeches is more relevant to his history than him shaking hands with children. Hitler was a master orator, and he was a political leader rather than a nanny.

I you had stopped agitating for a minute, you would at least agree that it is almost imposible to know what kind of person Hitler was, because of the worship on the one hand, and the demonization on the other.

[Captain Marinesko]

I you had stopped agitating for a minute, you would at least agree that it is almost imposible to know what kind of person Hitler was, because of the worship on the one hand, and the demonization on the other.


I do so stipulate. I personally don't think Hitler was a demon or psycho. I think he in many ways was a product of the environment of the times, and was certainly very intelligent and talented. I think to say otherwise would be purely ignorant.

[Burrhus]

Why is it maybe less (or not at all) believable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?

Burrhus: Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.

It is not my intention to prove that Hitler was not not a mass murderer by offering pictures of him that present him a more postive manner. It is my contention that the commonly seen images of him have been chosen to make him look negative and evil. It is this negative image of him that leads too many people to believe him capable of mass murder without investigating the historical facts.

The negative, conditioned emotional responses evoked by the typical 'evil' Hitler pictures compromise people's ability to look at the historical record with unbiased eyes. Before people can make a rational appraisal of Hitler in historical terms, they must unlearn the emotionally conditioned responses that have been instilled in them.

The evocative, emotional power of images should not over-ride rational investigation of the facts. It is my belief that that is unfortunately the case today.

[Captain Marinesko]

Hitler speaking is a negative image?

As for mass murder, it is important to point out that not only was he not committing it himself, but he was separated from it by many levels.

[Burrhus]

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/70/hitler22db1.jpg

[Captain Marinesko]

http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/70/hitler22db1.jpg

They see him rollin'....they hatin'.

[Winston]

Like I already said, the picture of Hitler giving speeches is more relevant to his history than him shaking hands with children. Hitler was a master orator, and he was a political leader rather than a nanny.

I have to agree with this.

There are some charming pictures of Hitler out there. There is one such photo which hasn't been posted yet (and I cannot find) were he looks like the kindest Grandfather a child could have.

[Globus]

It is not my intention to prove that Hitler was not not a mass murderer by offering pictures of him that present him a more postive manner. It is my contention that the commonly seen images of him have been chosen to make him look negative and evil.

The common images of him have been selected to communicate what is most salient about him as an historical figure. That happens to be racist antisemitism, delusions of empire, gross inhumanity and mass murder.

[Fitz]

I think this whole thread demonstrates the complete inability for "revisionists" to grasp basic logic, as if a few pictures of Hitler doing "nice" things means we should call verified facts of history into question. John Wayne Gacy was a clown who entertained kids; I guess he didn't sodomize and murder all the boys found under his basement right?


John Wayne Gacy dressing as a clown for children's parties isn't analogous with Adolf Hitler posing with children. If Hitler had sung at Bar Mitzvahs or posed for tender photos with elderly Jews, that might be analogous.

These pictures of Hitler are at least partly sincere. He loved German children and the German people and they loved him in return. By the end of the war nearly all were disillusioned, especially Hitler.

[Globus]

These pictures of Hitler are at least partly sincere. He loved German children and the German people and they loved him in return. By the end of the war nearly all were disillusioned, especially Hitler.

He loved some German children. And some German people loved him. Let's go overboard.

[ivory bill]

I think this whole thread demonstrates the complete inability for "revisionists" to grasp basic logic, as if a few pictures of Hitler doing "nice" things means we should call verified facts of history into question. John Wayne Gacy was a clown who entertained kids; I guess he didn't sodomize and murder all the boys found under his basement right?


Let me give you credit for your masterful use of logical fallacy. How many are combined in this one paragraph?

No matter, in the spirit of your post I'll just add that, had he not been caught, Gacy would have been just as avid a fan of Pedobear as you are, captain.

[koch curve]

http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/presidentvisit/images/President%20Bush%20with%20child.jpg

hey guys heres a picture of george w bush with a baby, guess this validates the massacre of half a million civillians in the iraq war

[Burrhus]

I you had stopped agitating for a minute, you would at least agree that it is almost imposible to know what kind of person Hitler was, because of the worship on the one hand, and the demonization on the other.

Precisely. Neither saint nor demon.

[Globus]

Precisely. Neither saint nor demon.

That describes most human beings. Hitler was much more demon than normal.

[koch curve]

you can find a picture of pretty much any politician or leader in a nice staged photograph of them with a child looking happy, it has no bearing on their policies or actions in office

[koch curve]

That describes most human beings. Hitler was much more demon than normal.

oh god im pretty obviously no fan of hitler but please lets tone down the hyperbole here

[ivory bill]

http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/presidentvisit/images/President%20Bush%20with%20child.jpg

hey guys heres a picture of george w bush with a baby, guess this validates the massacre of half a million civillians in the iraq war

Ach, Koch! How dare you compare the necessary weeding-out of a handful of goyisch untermenschen in Iraq with the brutal genocide of 6 million of g-d's own cherished lights-unto-the-earth?

Get it straight! Hitler was a cloven-hoofed demon, Bush is, at worst, merely a clumsy shabbas-goy. He's still a friend to Israel. Just wait until he initiates war with Iran and Syria, then you'll regret comparing him to Hitler.

[Globus]

oh god im pretty obviously no fan of hitler but please lets tone down the hyperbole here

Are you kidding!

The hyperbole is claiming that Hitler was merely neither saint nor sinner. You do make odd comments.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by Captain Marinesko
Like I already said, the picture of Hitler giving speeches is more relevant to his history than him shaking hands with children. Hitler was a master orator, and he was a political leader rather than a nanny.

What is relevant is the predominance of images of Hitler portraying him in a negative manner and the effect that this has on how people perceive and thus judge him. Hitler was both an orator and a man who was kind to children. He was a normal man like other men in most regards. The belief that he was not has been the result to a large extent of the way he has been visually presented in the mass media.

Originally Posted by Captain Marinesko
I think this whole thread demonstrates the complete inability for "revisionists" to grasp basic logic, as if a few pictures of Hitler doing "nice" things means we should call verified facts of history into question.

The problem is ,CM, that the negative images of Hitler that have dominated the way he is perceived have generated emotional responses in people that render them less able to investigate him as an historical figure in a rational, logical manner.

What objection can one make to offering images of Hitler portraying him in a more positive manner unless one has an agenda that requires that people continue to believe that he was an evil man capable of mass murder? How can a more balanced emotional perception of him "call (allegedly) verified facts of history into question"? What consitutes the facts of history should depend solely on a rational analysis of their evidentiary and logical foundations and not on spurious emotional responses evoked by negative imagery.

[Geist]

Yeah I mean why not show pictures of Churchill eating ice-scream or Stalin playing ping-pong? I mean that would be a true representation of every facet of their existence. History books could be a dispassionate list of all the wonderful events that have occurred during the last 100 years.

[Globus]

What is relevant is the predominance of images of Hitler portraying him in a negative manner and the effect that this has on how people perceive and thus judge him. Hitler was both an orator and a man who was kind to children.

No he wasn't! It's estimated that 1 million children under the age of 16 were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust.

He was a normal man like other men in most regards.

He was a mega murderer.

The belief that he was not has been the result to a large extent of the way he has been visually presented in the mass media.

No, you've got it backwards. He's presented the way he is because of who he was and what he did.

The problem is ,CM, that the negative images of Hitler that have dominated the way he is perceived have generated emotional responses in people that render them less able to investigate him as an historical figure in a rational, logical manner.

How he felt about some, idealized "Aryan" children is not an important aspect of Hitler as an historical figure. A man who commits the crimes Hitler did inevitably is responded to in emotional ways. To present him differently is an affront to history.

What objection can one make to offering images of Hitler portraying him in a more positive manner unless one has an agenda that requires that people continue to believe that he was an evil man capable of mass murder?

See, there's your problem. You deny reality and history, and actually think that presenting this crackpot as a decent human being will assist you in distorting history.

[Burrhus]

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/5162/normaladolf20hitler15jl0.jpg

[Globus]

[QUOTE=Burrhus]

http://www.holocaust-trc.org/unwanted.pdf

Hitler's Unwanted Children

Childhood in Nazi Germany was cast in the mythic illusion of a super race.
Children who did not meet the social or biological criteria of " perfect" children were
removed from their homes and communities, isolated in institutions, hospitals, work and
concentration camps, and many thousands were murdered (Aly, 1993; Burleigh, 1994;
Friedlander, 1994; Peukert, 1987). It is a myth that only children with severe disabilities
were killed or that the killings stopped in 1941; the last child was killed almost a month
after the war was over. Unwanted children were orphans, children in care because of
emotional or behavior problems, adolescent non-conformists as well as children with
physical disabilities or mental handicaps (in addition to Jewish, Gypsy and non-white
children). The campaign to remove unwanted children from the community was not only
the result of Nazi racial biology and eugenics, it was part and parcel of the effort to
impose control and conformity on the entire German population. In a climate of social chaos, economic depression and poverty, the Nazis created an economy of privilege and
conflicting spheres of jurisdiction. By persecuting selected groups of people, they were
able to establish a system of thought control that reached deeply into family life (Peukert,
1987). Terrorist tactics were used against German families, secret police and the SS were
involved in isolating and transporting children to their deaths in psychiatric hospitals and
institutions.

[koch curve]

Are you kidding!

The hyperbole is claiming that Hitler was merely neither saint nor sinner. You do make odd comments.

hitler was a human being like all of us


he just happened to be batshit insane and was resposible for the deaths of boatloads of people


in the time being i think we can rule out demonic heritage as the cause for his actions :rolleyes:

[Globus]

you stated that hitler was more demon than normal

And he was.

as insane as we want to debate him to be, i think we can safely rule out demonic heritage as the cause for his actions

And I think we can safely say you're immune to common expressions in discourse in characterizing people's actions. Furthermore, I was merely continuing the vocabularly used by the Hitler apologist. Edit: Flaming.

[koch curve]

And he was.

he was insane, but still human.

And I think we can safely say you're immune to common expressions in discourse in characterizing people's actions. Furthermore, I was merely continuing the vocabularly used by the Hitler apologist. Was that beyond you, or are you just naturally pissy?

and such hysteric language has no place in discourse on anything save hysteric language itself. hitler's actions speak for themselves, we dont need you to throw around terms like "demon" in order to understand their gravity.

it adds nothing to the debate.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
And he was.


he was insane, but still human.

No one ever said he wasn't human. But he certainly wasn't normal.


And I think we can safely say you're immune to common expressions in discourse in characterizing people's actions. Furthermore, I was merely continuing the vocabularly used by the Hitler apologist. Was that beyond you, or are you just naturally pissy?

and such hysteric language has no place in discourse on anything save hysteric language itself.

Oh bullshit. It was the vocabularly which was selected by Burrhus. Figurative language is not hysterical language.

hitler's actions speak for themselves,

Not in a forum where people deny his actions and which happens to be the theme of the sub-forum.

we dont need you to throw around terms like "demon" in order to understand their gravity.

Learn the difference between literal and figurative uses of speech. You're not too old.

[koch curve]

first off, if you want to debate who is misinterpreting common terms in discourse, it might be prudent for you to realize there is a big difference between "demonizing" (the act of building up an individual from one who has committed terrible acts to the level of a completely inhuman sadaist) and literally calling someone a demon, as you have done. i understand that you dont literally believe he was a demon per se, but honestly, there is a difference between a human with severe problems that commits heinous acts, and a demon. i dont really think that the term demon can be applied to anyonein good faith, let alone hitler.

and to continue on your reflexive behavior, just because hitler murdered six million jews, should i murder six million germans because they did it first?

as cliched and derided as it has become, there is honestly something to be said for refusing to stoop to the level of less even-keeled posters.

yet again, becoming a reactionary and calling hitler a demon only serves to derail the debate.

[Globus]

first off, if you want to debate who is misinterpreting common terms in discourse, it might be prudent for you to realize there is a big difference between "demonizing" (the act of building up an individual from one who has committed terrible acts to the level of a completely inhuman sadaist) and literally calling someone a demon, as you have done.

No there isn't. You simply do not understand the common use of language. I accepted and used the language offered by Burrhus, who presumbably doesn't think that humans are either saints or demons. That is a pretty elementary point of language discourse which I'm surprised you are ignorant of.

i understand that you dont literally believe he was a demon per se,

No kidding! I didn't "literally" call him a demon.

but honestly, there is a difference between a human with severe problems that commits heinous acts, and a demon.

No there isn't. What is a human being who commits acts we find unfathomable other than a human with severe problems?

i dont really think that the term demon can be applied to anyonein good faith, let alone hitler.

Well, I'm afraid you're going to have to get used to the manner in which normal people communicate.

and to continue on your reflexive behavior,

LOL!. You're the one engaging in reflexive behavior.

just because hitler murdered six million jews, should i murder six million germans because they did it first?

What in hell are you talking about?

Calling Hitler a demon as a descriptive term for his human behavior is perfectly fine for someone not apparently constrained by literalist and emotional reactions to language, especially when that is what was introduced as the vocabulary for discussion. Furthermore it is unlikely that many of even average understanding of language would have a problem with it.

[koch curve]

i object to your gross oversimplification of this by merely pointing to his being this archetypal "demon"


just because hitler committed these heinous acts doesnt make him some boogeyman. just because you arent able to fathom or sort out what caused the holocaust doesnt mean you have to immediately write him off as evil and deride anyone who objects to this dehumanization.

hitler remains, at the end of the debate, a human being who, wholly seperate from his deploarble acts held the capacity to love and function as an ostensibly normal human being.

the debate is about the dehumanizing of hitler, and the way he has been portrayed as a monster, or the very demon you seek to portray him as.

[Burrhus]

Yeah I mean why not show pictures of Churchill eating ice-scream or Stalin playing ping-pong? I mean that would be a true representation of every facet of their existence. History books could be a dispassionate list of all the wonderful events that have occurred during the last 100 years.

Why not show pictures of Roosevelt and Churchill appearing angry and violently gesticulating while giving a speech? Oh, because there aren't any, you say? They were always calm and reasonable in appearance.

Well at least we never see any such pictures of them. I wonder why that is? I guess that they were saints.

The point is that I am not trying to show trivial, historically insignificant pictures of Hitler. I am simply trying to offer a more balanced image of him so that people can think about him as an historical figure in a less emotionally biased manner. Why would any rational person find fault with such an effort?

People find themselves with the belief that Hitler was an evil man capable of mass murder. How they came to hold that belief is a question that can make them too uncomfortable to ask for two reasons. First, they might discover that the belief is founded on emotional conditioning and not on a rational analysis of the facts. That is a threat to the self-image that most people have of themselves as rational people who are able to hold their emotions in check when seeking the truth. People like to think well of themselves and discovering that they are less rational than they thought would be uncomfortable.

Second, and more serious, is the threat to their social relations. Even more than death people fear loneliness. Not believing that Hitler was an evil man who committed mass murder will result in being socially ostracized at best and jailed at worst (or severely beaten as happened to Robert Faurisson). Try telling your friends and relatives that you no longer believe that Hitler was an evil man and that the holocaust story is a hoax. See what happens to you.

You will be shunned and considered a fool. Those are powerful disincentives to honestly asking oneself that question as to how one came to hold the beliefs that Hitler was an evil man and the holocaust story is true.

I once believed as most people do that Hitler was an evil man and that the holocaust story was true but I challenged myself to overcome my emotional aversion to abandoning those beliefs for the sake of my intellectual integrity. When I succeeded in doing that I was able to look at the historical record in a rational, logical manner and discovered that I had been wrong.

Which is not to say as some would have it that I became a Hitler 'idolator'. I simply learned to see him in a more honest way as one normal political figure amongst a group of his contemporaries, neither a saint nor a demon, and not the worst of the lot.

[Captain Marinesko]

What is relevant is the predominance of images of Hitler portraying him in a negative manner and the effect that this has on how people perceive and thus judge him. Hitler was both an orator and a man who was kind to children. He was a normal man like other men in most regards. The belief that he was not has been the result to a large extent of the way he has been visually presented in the mass media.

How are pictures of Hitler giving impassioned speeches, which were his talent, inherently negative? They are relevant to the subject of Hitler's history. Propaganda pictures of him with children are not.



The problem is ,CM, that the negative images of Hitler that have dominated the way he is perceived have generated emotional responses in people that render them less able to investigate him as an historical figure in a rational, logical manner.

Rational how; like imagining that there was a massive conspiracy to fabricate a huge historical event that spanned several years, countries, governments, etc.?

How does a picture of Hitler giving a speech provoke an emotional response. I just think- "Hey, it's Hitler."


What objection can one make to offering images of Hitler portraying him in a more positive manner unless one has an agenda that requires that people continue to believe that he was an evil man capable of mass murder? How can a more balanced emotional perception of him "call (allegedly) verified facts of history into question"?

That's funny because I once had a Jewish English teacher who showed us such pictures, and a Jewish history teacher who designed an excercise that actually elicited sympathy for the Germans under the Weimar republic and explained why they supported Hitler.


What consitutes the facts of history should depend solely on a rational analysis of their evidentiary and logical foundations and not on spurious emotional responses evoked by negative imagery.

The facts of history in this case are not based on emotional responses or negative imagery, but rather forensics evidence, eyewitnesses, and documentation.

[Burrhus]

I can only imagine the vitriolic posts with which Globus and Koch are inundating this thread. The demonization of Hitler is the core of the holocaust hoax and that hoax is the central sacred tenet of the quasi-religious cult built around that alleged event.

http://img126.imageshack.us/img126/9234/adolfandevawithchildrenct3.jpg

[Globus]

i object to your gross oversimplification of this by merely pointing to his being this archetypal "demon"

Your objection results from your pedantry with respect to common language.

Burrhus tried to rehabilitate Hitler by characterizing his acts on a spectrum between saint and demon. He wasn't speaking literally and neither was I. My description of Hitler was accurate.

just because hitler committed these heinous acts doesnt make him some boogeyman.

A term having nothing to do with the discussion or claims made.

just because you arent able to fathom or sort out what caused the holocaust doesnt mean you have to immediately write him off as evil and deride anyone who objects to this dehumanization.

The issue has nothing to do with "fathoming" what caused anything, but with characterizing Hitler's actions and what they say about him. That is no dehumanization.

hitler remains, at the end of the debate, a human being who, wholly seperate from his deploarble acts held the capacity to love and function as an ostensibly normal human being.

Bullshit. He was anything but a normal human being and there is no such thing as seperating someone from the acts they commit.

the debate is about the dehumanizing of hitler, and the way he has been portrayed as a monster, or the very demon you seek to portray him as.

No, the debate was about whether Burrhus was going to get away with claiming Hilter was merely neither saint nor demon, a meaningless characterization meant to obscure how morally repugnant he and his actions were.

The use of figurative language and symbolic language to conduct that discussion is perfectly appropriate.

Hitler the political genius sensed that it was time to start; Hitler the demon never knew when to stop.

Sword and Swastika: Generals and Nazis in the Third Reich
By Telford Taylor
p. 139

[Globus]

Why not show pictures of Roosevelt and Churchill appearing angry and violently gesticulating while giving a speech?

Because that was not their speaking style, nor was their contribution to history limited in the way Hitler's was, and their contribution was not characterized by mass murder, genocide, and a despicable political philosophy rejected by virtually the entire world.

Well at least we never see any such pictures of them. I wonder why that is? I guess that they were saints.

Nothing new to add, I see!

The point is that I am not trying to show trivial, historically insignificant pictures of Hitler. I am simply trying to offer a more balanced image of him so that people can think about him as an historical figure in a less emotionally biased manner.

But you haven't offered any balanced picture of him. You've merely asserted that was better than depicted. That is doubtful.

[koch curve]

theres nothing appropriate about uselessly hysteric language. im not trying to nitpick, but when your entire argument revolves around the use of a buzzword, dont expect people to idly accept it.


please debate facts and not hopelessly ineffective labels.

[Globus]

I can only imagine the vitriolic posts with which Globus and Koch are inundating this thread.

No you can't. As usual you speak in ignorance. But it does the advantage of leaving you undefended when your statements are addressed!

[koch curve]

and there was nothing correct about that, the entire spectrum was incorrect. hitler was truly neither a saint nor a demon, he was, although frankly decidedly fucked up, still a human being.

the fact that he existed in a totalitarian regime that allowed him to make insane decisions without blame doesnt make him any less of a human being.

[Starr]

How he felt about some, idealized "Aryan" children is not an important aspect of Hitler as an historical figure. A man who commits the crimes Hitler did inevitably is responded to in emotional ways. To present him differently is an affront to history.

No. To present him solely in the way you believe he should be presented is an affront to truly understanding history in a logical way. In the very least you would have to admit that presenting him solely as this epitome of evil type of character takes away from the ability of people to have a more clear and rational understanding of what can lead to certain actions? can you at least agree with this?

You must also know that even if everything that is said about him and the third reich is correct(a big if, since a lot of it smells all too much like wartime propaganda that has been used by people to demonize their enemies as far back as can be traced)is this something that is unique in history? Why is it also presented in that way?

Do you realize that you are the only one who is taking these views in this thread? Not even a jew is agreeing with you.:p

[Globus]

theres nothing appropriate about uselessly hysteric language. im not trying to nitpick,

And you're doing nothing but repeating points already answered.

Figurative, symbol language is not hysterical and in the context of the plain and obvious discussion is was not a buzzword.

dont expect people to idly accept it.

I expect some people to make intelligent comments.

please debate facts and not hopelessly ineffective labels

Don't tell me what to do. Why should my or anyone else's actions be influenced in the slightest by your inability to understand very simple points that have explained to you as simply as possible?

If you don't understand it, that's your problem. It's a fact that Hitler was more demon than saint.


What generated this adulation is hard to say. In his circle of intimates Adolf Hitler was considered inspiring, charming, interesting, always well-informed and anxious to do his best for the German public, who idolized him. After 1941 his friends claimed that the worries of war and the machinations of men like Martin Bormann, his secretary, made him become remote and increasingly harsh and bitter. Yet even then, so they stated, he was not a demon, ranting and raving incoherently, as was sometimes alleged (although he would never tolerate the least criticism of anit-Jewish measures)

Reinventing Germany: German Political Development Since 1945
By Anthony Glees
P 6

[Globus]

and there was nothing correct about that, the entire spectrum was incorrect.

It most certainly was correct. It was descriptive of behaviors from one extreme to the other.

hitler was truly neither a saint nor a demon, he was, although frankly decidedly fucked up, still a human being.

You repeat the same nonsense. Calling some a demon is not denying they are human. And he was much more demon than saint.

the fact that he existed in a totalitarian regime

He didn't exist in it, for God's sake, he founded it! Suddenly your language turns him into a passive agent!!

that allowed him to make insane decisions

So he wasn't a normal human being was he?

without blame doesnt make him any less of a human being.

Repetitive, uninteresting, and inaccurate comment.

[Globus]

.

No. To present him solely in the way you believe he should be presented is an affront to truly understanding history in a logical way.

No one said anything about solely. Don't introduce falsehood into the discussion.

In the very least you would have to admit that presenting him solely as this epitome of evil type of character takes away from the ability of people to have a more clear and rational understanding of what can lead to certain actions?

No I admit no such thing. There is lots of fine scholarship on that issue.

You must also know that even if everything that is said about him and the third reich is correct(a big if, since a lot of it smells all too much like wartime propaganda

No it doesn't. You're just delusional about this history, and apparently anything which conflicts with your worldview.

The historical picture of Hitler is quite accurate. You just want to pretend he was better.

[koch curve]

And you're doing nothing but repeating points already answered.

Figurative, symbol language is not hysterical and in the context of the plain and obvious discussion is was not a buzzword.

it adds nothing, and its dowright lazy in this case.

Don't tell me what to do. Why should my or anyone else's actions be influenced in the slightest by your inability to understand very simple points that have explained to you as simply as possible?

it doesnt help the debate, plain and simple. dont try to duck behind others or debate with me the words you said. you stated, in very plain and simple words that he was more demon than saint. regardless of your intent, this doesnt apply, because he was neither. noone is.

If you don't understand it, that's your problem. It's a fact that Hitler was more demon than saint.

yet again, he was neither. there isnt some grand balance of saintly and demonic character types behind him. thats just lazy.

Reinventing Germany: German Political Development Since 1945
By Anthony Glees
P 6

how does that quote, (which definitievely states he wasnt a "demon" help your case? it just shows he was an often irrational and unstable person, which is exactly what im arguing.

[koch curve]

It most certainly was correct. It was descriptive of behaviors from one extreme to the other.

if you honestly think that the processes and behaviors of the human brain can be boiled down to "saint and demon" i propose you take an introductory psychology class.

You repeat the same nonsense. Calling some a demon is not denying they are human. And he was much more demon than saint.

yes, it does. it distances them from any sense of being a human that you could grow up with, be related to, talk to or know as a friend, and turns them into some mythical construct. like it or not, hitler was at the end of the day a person. theres no imbalance of so called "demonic behaviors" that caused him to act in the manner that he did.

He didn't exist in it, for God's sake, he founded it! Suddenly your language turns him into a passive agent!!

conceded, but that is what i had in mind, and it still doesnt affect the argument. regardless of whether he constructed it himself, he still existed in a blameless autocracy that allowed him to act in irrational ways with no threat of being forced to confront the implications of what he was doing.

So he wasn't a normal human being was he?

huh?

Repetitive, uninteresting, and inaccurate comment.

oh please, you dont have to get so offended now.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
And you're doing nothing but repeating points already answered.

Figurative, symbol language is not hysterical and in the context of the plain and obvious discussion is was not a buzzword.

it adds nothing, and its dowright lazy in this case.

On the contrary, it was an accurate corrective to the very point made by Burrhus. There was nothing lazy about it. But it is intellecually lazy to make facile comments about language even when educated on it.



Don't tell me what to do. Why should I or anyone else's actions be influenced in the slightest by your inability to understand very simple points that have explained to you as simply as possible?

it doesnt help the debate, plain and simple.

Sorry, that's your opinion, and based on my experience with you, and uninformed one.

dont try to duck behind others or debate with me the words you said.

LOL! I'll debate whomever I wish, and it was you who started the silly debate about language you don't apparently even understand.

you stated, in very plain and simple words that he was more demon than saint.

Of course I did.

regardless of your intent, this doesnt apply, because he was neither. noone is.

Apalling failure of logic. That no one is either doesn't mean one's behavior is better characterized by one than the other.

This is basic language.


If you don't understand it, that's your problem. It's a fact that Hitler was more demon than saint.

yet again, he was neither.

See the point about logic.

there isnt some grand balance of saintly and demonic character types behind him. thats just lazy.

What is lazy is repeating the same refuted nonsense over and over again.



Reinventing Germany: German Political Development Since 1945
By Anthony Glees
P 6

how does that quote, (which definitievely states he wasnt a "demon" help your case?

Of my God!! His use of the term in a figurative sense.

And it doesn't say he wasn't a demon. It says his loyal insiders didn't think he was. Try reading for comprehension. And they weren't denying him being a demon because he was a human being.

it just shows he was an often irrational and unstable person, which is exactly what im arguing.

It shows nothing of the kind and you are arguing nonsense.

http://www.humiliationstudies.org/documents/evelin/HitlerBroadMasses.pdf

But humiliation did not end there for the aristocracy. The abdication of the emperor, and the
founding of the Weimar republic was the next blow. It entailed the destruction of the divinely
‘ordained’ aristocratic order and caused constant humiliation. And thirdly, the rise of Hitler
was the most unbelievable humiliation. The aristocracy thought at first, quite falsely, that they
could ‘domesticate’ Hitler. For them he was a parvenu who high jacked their dearest theme,
national sentiment, and worse, incited ‘the masses,’ making himself irreplaceable as their
master. Many aristocrats called Hitler ‘the demon’ (according to a testimonial 3.8.1999 which
I received during fieldwork in Germany from members of the aristocracy). For those among
the aristocracy who collaborated with Hitler, the need to do so must have been felt as utter
humiliation: they were forced to work with the ‘demon,’ because the ‘demon’ had control
over the feelings of the nation. What could have been worse?

[Starr]

No it doesn't. You're just delusional about this history, and apparently anything which conflicts with your worldview.

The historical picture of Hitler is quite accurate. You just want to pretend he was better.

No, again. My worldview does not require me to make a Saint of Hitler or anything of that nature, But you have been well taught to write off Hitler as either "evil" or "pyschologically disturbed" and you can not consider anything outside of that. Because of this it is your worldview that conflicts with understanding reality. I am what you might call a white separatist, but I have never been one of those who is into the whole Hitler worship thing and I have always had more of an affinity for pre 1950-60s America than for 1930-40s Germany.

[Globus]

if you honestly think that the processes and behaviors of the human brain can be boiled down to "saint and demon" i propose you take an introductory psychology class.

No one is talking about the process of the brain or his psychology. We're discussing his actions and there is nothing wrong with descriptive continuum selected.

yes, it does.

No, it doesn't. That they are human is a given and the term has nothing to do with being non-human.

it distances them from any sense of being a human that you could grow up with, be related to, talk to or know as a friend, and turns them into some mythical construct.

No, it generally describes their behaviors in a manner well understood by people.

like it or not, hitler was at the end of the day a person.

Uggh! You do like to state the obvious!

theres no imbalance of so called "demonic behaviors" that caused him to act in the manner that he did.

Utterly irrelevant to the discussion. His actions were more demonic than saintly. That is a proposition so easy to grasp and impossible to understand that you, frankly, make a fool of yourself doing so.

conceded, but that is what i had in mind,

Well, we can only go based on your words. You should keep that in mind when making wild claims about dehumanization.

and it still doesnt affect the argument.

The argument died long ago.

regardless of whether he constructed it himself, he still existed in a blameless autocracy that allowed him to act in irrational ways

The autocracy was not blameless and the irrational acts he undertook made him more demon than saint.

oh please, you dont have to get so offended now.

Just accurately describing your inability to advance the discussion beyond the cliches you began with.

[Globus]

No, again. My worldview does not require me to make a Saint of Hitler or anything of that nature,

No one said it did.

But you have been well taught to write off Hitler as either "evil" or "pyschologically disturbed"

He very well did have psychological problems. But it doesn't take a genius, when weighing in the balance his actions in life to conclude that they were a little more heinous than the run of the mill human being!!

Because of this it is your worldview that conflicts with understanding reality.

Tit for tat. It is not a worldview that leads humanity to see Hitler for what he was. It's called common sense.

[Starr]

And what was he, Globus?

[Globus]

And what was he, Globus?

A megolamaniac almost without moral scruples. A man who's actions were more demon than saint.

[Hakluyt]

Watch any History Channel documentaries lately?
Then you don't have the same background knowledge as to what's "typical" that most Americans do. Your experience comes from 1) the extraordinarily common, such as high school textbooks and 2) Internet sources, which have a vested interest in confirming your preconceived notions.

[koch curve]

i guess its fairly pointless trying to get you to understand this, so whatever.



paint with as broad a brush as you like

[Globus]

i guess its fairly pointless trying to get you to understand this, so whatever.

And I'm afraid for someone so young you're far too comfortable with your current state of understanding of much. I think I've done my best to educate you. But you need to be open to being educated.

http://www.pace.edu/press/info/eisan.htm

Saint or Demon? The Legendary Delia Webster Opposing Slavery
Frances K. Eisan

Though colleagues like Harriet Beecher Stowe were faithful supporters, Webster paid a psychic and physical price for her antislavery activities, according to contemporary media accounts. Was she "an abductor, an agent, and a spy"; "a desecrator of her sex"; "a vile wretch"; or was she a "strong-minded woman and an original abolitionist"; "a lover of justice and hater of oppression"; "a New England schoolteacher, pious and much abused"; and "a defenseless woman because she loved humanity"? She was familiar with these contradictory assessments of her life's work.

In Koch's world, the author was suggesting that Delia Webster was considered not human by some.

[Globus]

And I'm afraid for someone so young you're far too comfortable with your current state of understanding of much. I think I've done my best to educate you. But you need to be open to being educated.

http://www.pace.edu/press/info/eisan.htm

Saint or Demon? The Legendary Delia Webster Opposing Slavery
Frances K. Eisan



In Koch's world, the author was suggesting that Delia Webster was considered not human by some.

paint with as broad a brush as you like

You mean like claiming that Arabs are dirty and uneducated?

I guess we can conclude you don't really believe what you say.

[Burrhus]

Then you don't have the same background knowledge as to what's "typical" that most Americans do. Your experience comes from 1) the extraordinarily common, such as high school textbooks and 2) Internet sources, which have a vested interest in confirming your preconceived notions.

Given that I am 60 and you are 20 and that I am an American and you are either a Canadian or an Ethiopian, I think that it is far more likely that I have the same background knowledge as as most Americans than that you do.

Most people get their visual imagery of Hitler from movies, broadcast tv, magazines and books, not from the History Channel. HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, MTV, BET and other such entertainment stations dominate cable use.

Are you trying to tell me that The History Channel is currently presenting Hitler in a predominantly positive visual manner?

Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uShFqxBBTJk

Notice the change to dark, ominous music when Hitler images appear on screen.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/8913/2scan10fs9.jpg

[Vasily Zaitsev]

If film and pictures of Hitler giving impassioned speeches were inherently negative in their propaganda value Triumph des Willens would have been a much different movie.

[Hartmann von Aue]

If film and pictures of Hitler giving impassioned speeches were inherently negative in their propaganda value Triumph des Willens would have been a much different movie.

True, but I think the point is that more flattering pictures of Hitler are seldom shown.

[Hakluyt]

Given that I am 60 and you are 20 and that I am an American and you are either a Canadian or an Ethiopian, I think that it is far more likely that I have the same background knowledge as as most Americans than that you do.
I don't, and didn't suggest so. Please read closely old man!

It is however very easy to infer broad trends about a popular culture so simplistic as the American.

Most people get their visual imagery of Hitler from movies, broadcast tv, magazines and books, not from the History Channel. HBO, Showtime, Comedy Central, MTV, BET and other such entertainment stations dominate cable use.
Der Untergang, a recent popular movie about the last days of Hitler, had some quite visually sympathetic scenes. The History Channel is an example of popular broadcast television, where such scenes as Hitler with fawn and Hitler with young child are frequent. World War Two in Colour and Third Reich in Colour in particular included dozens of such scenes at the Berghof and Obersalzburg. As for books, Toland's biography is one of the most read amongst your generation and, as already pointed out in this thread, included such photos.

Are you trying to tell me that The History Channel is currently presenting Hitler in a predominantly positive visual manner?
No.

Notice the change to dark, ominous music when Hitler images appear on screen.
That is because his actions had dark and ominous effects for the whole of Europe. The negative drama is appropriate.

[Starr]

in the time being i think we can rule out demonic heritage as the cause for his actions

Maybe it was demonic possession:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=402602&in_page_id=1770

Adolf Hitler and Russian leader Stalin were possessed by the Devil, the Vatican's chief exorcist has claimed

:222: :nuts:

[Hartmann von Aue]

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/8566/screenshottr4.jpg

[cerberus]

All public figures are janus like in nature - they have apublic face and a private face , Hitler was no different.
It is hardly likely that he was the man seen on the podium 24/7 or 365 days per year.
Hitler's public image was carefully cultivated and maintained by the propaganda which surrounded him - it helped create the cult status to which he was elevated , it won hearts and increased membership and captured votes - it added to the hysteria which is evident amongest females and the young.
Apart from the public image there was the private man , who was very different - he was no superman , no restelss matyr seeking for and only working for the good of the German people - his every waking thought was not filled with how to serve.
Hitler was like the rest of us flersh and blood and with the same vices and frailties we all have in abundance.

His "home movies" and photographs show the man outside of the public eye - the real Hitler .
We now know what his lifestyle was , what his working pattern was, what he did well and what he did badly , we now what the public image was and what the man was like "off screen".
His ability to speak was learned - it was like clothing which he could put on and take off , it as if you like "his job", and he did it very well - to some extent Hitler was "a good actor" as all public figures have to be - to some extent or another.
Photos of his with children - some are genuine - some are photo opportunities taken for public consumption.
Eva Braun was a strictly out of the public figure - he after all "was married to the nation" , made him something of a mystery to women.

Historians do not demonise him or cast him as such - certainly his actions , his lack of thought for others and his faith and conviction in his own ability and what he believed destiny had put him here to do does come through and it makes you wonder about his psychological make up.
He was not mad , not a raving psychopath but something hysterical or id driven in his personality ?

How you want or need to view Hitler , how you percieve him to be viewed by others may say more about yourself that it says about Adolf Hitler himself.

Hitler - he was after all just a man - he was no God , he was no fool either - he was not a genius - but he was clever when it came to recognising the moment and taking action - he could speak , he could motivate - he could use people - he was no coward.

A balanced view of Hitler does exist you will recognise any other when you see it - just view him as you would anyone else.
Quoted by Starr
Adolf Hitler and Russian leader Stalin were possessed by the Devil, the Vatican's chief exorcist has claimed

:crazy: :duh:
Mad indeed.

[Fitz]

I'm not sure what you mean by genius...

Hitler - he was after all just a man - he was no God , he was no fool either - he was not a genius -

we have seen how Hitler concerned himself however not only with grand
strategy but with the most minute interlocking elements of each operation:
the position of the demolition charges on canal bridges, the thickness
of the concrete in his fortifications, the calibre of the guns commanding the
Norwegian fjords. In this he was aided by a phenomenal memory and technical
insight into weapons design. On his bedside table lay the latest edition
of Weyer’s Taschenbuch der Kriegsflotten, a naval handbook like Jane’s Fighting Ships,
for the Führer to commit to memory as though he were preparing for some astounding music-hall act.

It was he who first demanded that 75-millimetre long-barrel guns be
installed in German tanks, and it was he who pinpointed one common
error in German warship design – building the forecastle so low that in
heavy seas it tended to cut beneath the waves. On his birthday in 1937, the
proud navy had presented him with a model of the Scharnhorst; late that
evening he had sent for his adjutant Puttkamer, and invited him to crouch
and squint along the model’s decks with him. He was right, of course, and
even at that late stage the forecastle had to be redesigned.

When the Red Book of arms production reached him each month, he
would take a scrap of paper and, using a coloured pencil, scribble down a
few random figures as he ran his eyes over the columns. He would throw
away the paper, but the figures remained indelibly in his memory – column
by column, year after year – to confound his more fallible aides with the
proof of their own shortcomings. Once, late in 1940, Keitel presented the
figures on the total ammunition expended in the recent French campaign;
but Hitler responded that in 1916 the German armies had consumed far
more 210-millimetre and 150-millimetre ammunition each month, and he
stated the precise quantities from memory. Afterward Keitel wearily instructed
his adjutant to forward those new figures to the OKW’s munitions
procurement office. ‘That is the new programme. If the Führer says it, you
can take it that it’s right.’

David Irving, Hitler's War, p. 277-278

[cerberus]

Fitz
I'm not sure what you mean by genius...
Fitz.
Try.
Operation Blue , Operation Citadel , Operation Barbarossa , Restricting Drumbeat to 6 submarines and sending the rest to patrol off Norway .
Just a few which spring to mind.
There are lost more.

[Fitz]

Fitz.
Try.

What do these defeats have to do with his being or not being a genius? It proves that he made mistakes. Geniuses make mistakes, or rather geniuses can fail when they are dependent on lesser men and forces beyond their control to see their vision realized.

This has more to do with your claim that "he was no God" . With that I agree and so does the record.

[Burrhus]

Hakluyt: Then you don't have the same background knowledge as to what's "typical" that most Americans do. Your experience comes from 1) the extraordinarily common, such as high school textbooks and 2) Internet sources, which have a vested interest in confirming your preconceived notions.

Originally Posted by Burrhus
Given that I am 60 and you are 20 and that I am an American and you are either a Canadian or an Ethiopian, I think that it is far more likely that I have the same background knowledge as as most Americans than that you do.

Hakluyt: I don't, and didn't suggest so. Please read closely old man!

I did read you closely, young man! You asserted that I did not have the same background knowledge as most Americans. In order for you to know that to be true you would have to have the same background knowledge as most American's and then compare that to what you believe mine to be and find that they differ.

Please read yourself closely, young man!

Hakluyt: It is however very easy to infer broad trends about a popular culture so simplistic as the American.

In what way is American popular culture "so simplistic" as compared to Ethiopian or Canadian popular culture? Should you choose to answer this question please do so in a new thread titled "Simplistic American popular culture compared to Canadian and/or Ethiopian popular culture".

Hakluyt: That is because his actions had dark and ominous effects for the whole of Europe. The negative drama is appropriate.

Based on that logic, pictures of Roosevelt and Churchill should have even darker and more ominous music accompanying their visual representations as their actions had darker and more ominous effects for the whole of Europe.

It seems to me from your comments that you believe that Hitler was closer to being an evil man rather than a good man (correct me if I'm wrong). My question is: how did you come to hold that belief?

Is it the result of WWII allied and jewish propaganda masquerading as history and its association with negative, emotionally charged imagery (with music) of Hitler or is it the result of a dispassionate, rational analysis of the historical record?

I suggest that you make a concerted effort to rid yourself of all moral opinions that you currently have with regard to Hitler, assume neither that he was good nor evil and take another look at the historical record without the distortion that accompanies such emotional disabilities.

That is the point of my effort here on this thread.

[Burrhus]

http://img253.imageshack.us/img253/6920/2scan2rl3.jpg

[Hakluyt]

I did read you closely, young man! You asserted that I did not have the same background knowledge as most Americans. In order for you to know that to be true you would have to have the same background knowledge as most American's and then compare that to what you believe mine to be and find that they differ.

Please read yourself closely, young man!
It is not necessary to possess experience to know that others possess it.

In what way is American popular culture "so simplistic" as compared to Ethiopian or Canadian popular culture? Should you choose to answer this question please do so in a new thread titled "Simplistic American popular culture compared to Canadian and/or Ethiopian popular culture".
In the sense that is is very easily understood in cause and effect, material and psychological terms (altogehter, the media) rather than ones of more complex socio-cultural import.

Based on that logic, pictures of Roosevelt and Churchill should have even darker and more ominous music accompanying their visual representations as their actions had darker and more ominous effects for the whole of Europe.

It seems to me from your comments that you believe that Hitler was closer to being an evil man rather than a good man (correct me if I'm wrong). My question is: how did you come to hold that belief?

Is it the result of WWII allied and jewish propaganda masquerading as history and its association with negative, emotionally charged imagery (with music) of Hitler or is it the result of a dispassionate, rational analysis of the historical record?

I suggest that you make a concerted effort to rid yourself of all moral opinions that you currently have with regard to Hitler, assume neither that he was good nor evil and take another look at the historical record without the distortion that accompanies such emotional disabilities.

That is the point of my effort here on this thread.
My views about Hitler have nothing to do with morality, let alone music and imagery. His government was responsible for inciting hostilities in Europe. Ignoring Allied commitments to Poland was in some ways a reasonable risk in terms of detatched, abstract strategy, but in the context of the political climate any risk whatsoever taken with the future of Europe must be seen as horribly negligent and criminally reckless.

[cerberus]

Fitz drumbeat was not a defeat.
The refusing to Donitz of freedom to deploy as the situation demanded and to overule his Submarine commander was more than poor judgement and in Donitz he was not depending on a lesser man.
Blue was Hitlers plan from start to finish , he altered the plan and refused the advice of "lesser men" - what followed at Stalingrad was his chicken.
That he almost lost every man east of the Don was down to the judgement of a "lesser man"- called Manstein.
Blue was not hall mark of a genius.
Citadel was carried out in the face of advice of "lesser men" , Hitler repeatedly delayed the attack and squandered what Guderian "a lesser man" had built up an attack which Guderian was not in favour off.
You could also look at the last attack in the West and in the east and also conclude that these actions were hardly the hallmark of a genius.
They also poured scorn on "lesser men" - men like Sepp Deitrich and 1st SS Panzer Corp ".

[Burrhus]

Fitz drumbeat was not a defeat.
The refusing to Donitz of freedom to deploy as the situation demanded and to overule his Submarine commander was more than poor judgement and in Donitz he was not depending on a lesser man.
Blue was Hitlers plan from start to finish , he altered the plan and refused the advice of "lesser men" - what followed at Stalingrad was his chicken.
That he almost lost every man east of the Don was down to the judgement of a "lesser man"- called Manstein.
Blue was not hall mark of a genius.
Citadel was carried out in the face of advice of "lesser men" , Hitler repeatedly delayed the attack and squandered what Guderian "a lesser man" had built up an attack which Guderian was not in favour off.
You could also look at the last attack in the West and in the east and also conclude that these actions were hardly the hallmark of a genius.
They also poured scorn on "lesser men" - men like Sepp Deitrich and 1st SS Panzer Corp ".

If you wish to discuss military history, do it on some other thread. Please do not continue derailing this thread. Thank you.

[Fitz]

Genius refers to intellect. I don't know why you are intent on denying Hitler's intellectual superiority but you obviously are. Genius doesn't guarantee success in any venture except for crossword puzzles, and certainly not in matters of politics or military campaigns.

You mention Barbarossa as proof that Hitler was no genius. But as I recall, Hitler's intelligence services had prepared him for the war in the East to be ended in as little as 30 days. His intelligence services could certainly be considered among the lesser men, and there were others too.


on august 18, 1941, Field Marshal von Brauchitsch submitted to him an
obstinate written argument for the immediate resumption of the attack on
Moscow, as the city’s capture would take at least two months. Hitler rejected
it outright. It was most urgent in his view to deprive Stalin of his raw
materials and arms industry. Besides, a rapid advance southward would
encourage Iran to resist the Anglo-Russian invasion which he already knew
was in the cards; in any case, he wanted the Crimea in German hands: it
was from Crimean airfields that Russian bombers had recently attacked Romania.

He was plagued at night by a recurring nightmare – the petroleum
fields of Ploesti, ablaze from end to end. His panzer generals Hoth and
Guderian were most unenthusiastic about his plans. They lamented that
their tanks were in need of overhaul. Hitler did not believe them. He had
heard the same story before Dunkirk. The two generals, he said, were obviously
just trying to conceal their own arrogant disapproval of his grand
strategy.

The Army High Command continued stubbornly with its plans to attack
Moscow. Only later was it realised that Hitler’s strategy would have offered
the better prospects. Bock’s armies would still be stalled outside Moscow
when winter set in, and Hitler’s illness bore the blame. ‘Today I still believe,’
Göring was to tell his captors, ‘that had Hitler’s original plan of genius
not been diluted like that, the eastern campaign would have been decided
by early 1942 at the latest.

Hitler's War, p. 428-429


’

[Fitz]

Sorry Burrhus. I didn't see your post until I had responded to cerberus.

[Burrhus]

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/8859/normal00007ahq3.jpg

[Dances with Wolves]

I can't edit my post I made here. Reason for this?

[cerberus]

Burhus
If you wish to discuss military history, do it on some other thread. Please do not continue derailing this thread. Thank you.
Not discussing military history - merely Hitlers application of his " genius".
Fitz says its a matter of intellect - genius is perhaps more to do with ist application.
Perhaps Burrhus you need to see the bigger picture.

[Dances with Wolves]

Burhus

Not discussing military history - merely Hitlers application of his " genius".
Fitz says its a matter of intellect - genius is perhaps more to do with ist application.
Perhaps Burrhus you need to see the bigger picture.

This is picture thread. Perhaps you need to stop hijacking it?

[Trojan]

This is picture thread. Perhaps you need to stop hijacking it?

Are you going to treat us to more pictures of your hero?

[guy]

Are you going to treat us to more pictures of your hero?
If only Sharon or Netanyahu were as clever as Hitler, I could post hundreds of pictures of them kissing babies too. :nuts:

[guy]

http://hiphoprepublican.com/uploaded_images/al_sharpton-718740.jpg


http://www.misterclip.com/Sharpton.jpg


http://www.nec.edu/academics/departments/polisci/images/as2.jpg


http://www.amny.com/media/photo/2006-02/21755823.jpg


http://dante.ilt.columbia.edu/new/library/fda_class/inferno/condemned/sharpton.jpeg


And the kicker.. Sharpton shows his love for white folk:

http://img326.imageshack.us/img326/8459/cindyal3yn.jpg

^ Notice that the white woman is Cindy Sheehan, indicating (proving???) that Sharpton is against the war in Iraq for honest and honorable reasons..

[cerberus]

I can't edit my post I made here. Reason for this?

Please refer to the admin staff , they will be able to help you out - best done directly to them .
Hope this is helpful.
If this is a "picture thread" and we are only talking about the picytures and not the man behind them I will look out some pictures of him.
Pity there are none of him riding off to kill the SA leaders.:whip:

[Burrhus]

It is not necessary to possess experience to know that others possess it.

Really? Hmmm? Well...

[Burrhus]

Please refer to the admin staff , they will be able to help you out - best done directly to them .
Hope this is helpful.
If this is a "picture thread" and we are only talking about the picytures and not the man behind them I will look out some pictures of him.
Pity there are none of him riding off to kill the SA leaders.:whip:

This not strictly speaking a picture thread but a glance at the thread title will reveal that it is a thread about Rehabilitating Hitler. Pictures presenting a negative image of Hitler would be inappropriate here. I trust that you will see the sense in that and start another thread if you so wish.

Thank you

[Captain Marinesko]

This not strictly speaking a picture thread but a glance at the thread title will reveal that it is a thread about Rehabilitating Hitler. Pictures presenting a negative image of Hitler would be inappropriate here. I trust that you will see the sense in that and start another thread if you so wish.

Thank you

You never address my point, which is that pictures of Hitler speaking(what he is known for) are not inherently negative, and propaganda pictures of him playing with children, while contributing to a comprehensive understanding of the man, are irrelevant.

[Burrhus]

People wake up every day with beliefs about the truth of many propositions. Some of those beliefs are true and some are false. Those based on personal experience have a higher probability of being true than those based on the word of another.

Some beliefs such as those about history are not amenable to personal experience. They require a rational analysis of the evidence and logic put forth in favor of their being true. Unfortunately, people generally seem unwilling to engage in that analysis about what they believe to be true about the past. Given the time and effort involved that is not an unreasonable response but it does nonetheless leave them in possession of many false beliefs.

It is commonplace knowledge that the first casualty of war is truth. Whether one believes that it is appropriate or not for the leaders of a nation to lie to its people during a war to maintain their martial spirit, anyone with intellectual integrity must agree that after the war those lies must be allowed to wither away and give way to the truth. If wartime propaganda lies are maintained after a war, one can rightly ask if the war has in fact ended or if it is ongoing in some other guise.

In the 1920s the wartime propaganda lies of WWI were thoroughly debunked in numerous works by reputable historians. There was some resistance but they were not repressed and the truth came out. People tacitly accepted without much ado the fact that they had been lied to. It was what was done in wartime and they put it behind them. But the truth did come out.

The same cannot be said about the aftermath of WWII. Propaganda lies about the inordinate brutality of the German leaders, military and people have not been allowed to pass into the rubbish bin of history as the falsehoods of wartime exigency that they were, necessary or not during that event.

In fact, the kind of historical research that occured in the 1920s with regard to WWI has been made illegal in many countries. Where it is still legal, the social taboo against it has been powerful enough to stifle it sufficiently that the general public still largely retains its belief in the truth of those wartime propaganda lies. (see here for more http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=242008&postcount=1)

I know that many of you are thinking that the WWII propaganda about Germany was true (propaganda is not necessarily false) and not lies. That may very well be the case though I do not believe it to be. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is why is it that people who are fully aware of the fact that leaders put out propaganda lies during wartime in all wars cannot accept the fact that WWII is not an exception? Why are so many people unwilling, as people in the past have been, to admit that they were lied to by their leaders as a wartime measure? Why is it that the time-tested maxim that truth is the first casualty of war does not apply to WWII?

It is my hope that those reading this thread will make the effort to suspend their beliefs about the uniquely evil nature of Adolph Hitler and the German people and engage in a dispassionate, rational investigation of the historical record. The fact that people in the past have been able to do this with respect to every other war that I know of except WWII should give people reason to wonder why that is.

One factor to consider is the vastly different technology that exists after WWII compared to earlier wars. Mass media technology such as television and movies, and reduced costs in print media have made it possible to disseminate visual images with an intensity and to an extent not possible previously. Visual images tend to induce emotional responses in viewers rather that a more rational thought process about what they are seeing.

The extensive and intensive negative imagery of Hitler and the German people has been combined and associated with the verbal propaganda lies of WWII to create a set of beliefs that are nearly immune to questioning by those holding them. The emotional intensity of the images has numbed people's capacity to over-ride their feelings and engage in the rational investigation that this important historical issue demands.

Anyone whose intellectual integrity is important to them must make the effort to suppress the emotional responses that negative imagery generates in them, suspend belief in the assumptions that underlie the accepted narrative and be willing to take a fresh look at the evidence and logic of the historical interpretation that is the foundation of the beliefs that they find themselves in possession of.

With respect to Hitler this means looking at the images of Hitler that I have posted here and realizing that they are not what you are accustomed to seeing and asking yourself why that is. Why is that the mass media inundates us with negative imagery of him? Why have these positive images had to await the arrival of the internet to gain any accss to public view (access that some are even now trying to block)? Looking honestly at these positive images of Hitler, does he not appear to be a normal person like other people and not the icon of evil that he is believed to be?

A rational investigation also means abandoning the assumption of the evil nature and criminal guilt of Hitler, the 3rd Reich and the German people during WWII. Such an investigation may sustain your current beliefs but it cannot begin with a firm belief in what is to be discovered. Abandoning such deeply held beliefs for the sake of an honest search for the truth combined with the social stigma of doing so is a difficult task but I found that not doing it made me more uncomfortable with myself than doing it.

If I am correct in my contention that the maintenance of belief in the general public of the propaganda lies of WWII is in someway a continuance of the political struggle that that war was an extension of, then the importance of making the effort to rid oneself of one's conditioned emotional responses and undertaking a fresh, rational investigation of the historical record cannot be ignored.

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/1994/17np3.jpg

[Captain Marinesko]

There is plenty of WWII propaganda that was not only disputed, but debunked long ago, such as accusations of mass production of human soap, the Katyn massacre, and others.

What you're still avoiding is an explanation as to how pictures of Hitler doing what he did best(rallying crowds) is "negative", and how propaganda of him kissing babies(as politicians do) is relevant to the general history of Hitler.

[eggheadbanga]

An itemisation of the photo-plates in Ian Kershaw's 2-volume bio of Hitler.

Vol1


1. pic of Hitler as a schoolkid, blown up, looks like an urchin, kinda cool.
2. Hitler school pic with entire class. Looks like any other bunch of ugly munchkins
3. Mummy Hitler
4. Dadddy Hitler
4. Karl Lueger, mayor of Vienna while Hitler lived there.
5. boyhood friend Kubizek
6. Hitler in Munich crowd, 1914, looking happy
7. Hitler with fellow soldiers and dog
8. generic pic of German soldiers in WWI trench reading and smoking
9. KPD demonstration (armed) in Munich, 1919
10. Freikorps armoured car, Munich 1919
11. Anton Drexler, founder of DAP
12. Ernst Roehm in army uniform
13. Hitler's DAP membership card
14. Hitler speaking in January 1923, outdoors
15, NSDAP mass rally, Munich 1923
16. Nuremberg rally, September 1923, lots of flags
17. Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg at a march-past, Munich, November 1923
18. Beerhall putsch, barricade, November 1923, with Himmler
19. Beerhall putsch, armed putschists, November 1923
20. Hitler and co-defendants posing during their trial
21. Hitler posing upon his release from prison
22. Hitler looking out of Landsberg prison cell window, postcard
23. rejected pic of Hitler in Bavarian costume
24. accepted pic of Hitler in raincoat
25. Hitler posing with alsatian Prinz, rejected
26. Weimar party rally, 1926, sign saying 'death to Marxism'
27. Nuremberg party rally, 1927, Hitler and friends giving Roman salute
28. Hitler looking silly in SA uniform/cap, rejected
29. Hitler in rhetorical pose, civilian suit, 1927, postcard
30. Hitler speaking to NSDAP leadership, 1928
31. Geli Raubal and Hitler.
32. Eva Braun posing on Heinrich Hoffmann's desk (clothed :D)
33. Hindenburg with medals
34. Von Papen
35. Bruening
36. Gregor Strasser, rival NSDAP leader
37. Thaelmann, KPD leader
38. Nazi election poster, 1932, antisemitic and anti-Marxist
39. 1932 presidential election, sandwichboard men of all candidates
40. Papen, Schleicher, Meissner, von Gayl, Hindenburg, 1932 meeting
41. Schleicher speaking in Sportpalast, 15 January 1933
42. Hitler in top hat before appointment as Chancellor
43. Day of Potsdam, 21.3.33, Hitler bows to Hindenburg
44. SA violence against communists, Chemnitz, March 1933
45. Boycott sign on Jewish doctors' surgery, April 1933
46. elderly Jew being taken into custody by Berlin police, 1934
47. Hindenburg and Hitler in civilian suits, 1934
48. Hitler and Roehm, uniforms, 1934
49. Postcard showing Fredrick Gt, Bismarck, Hindenburg and Hitler
50. Postcard; 'the Fuehrer as animal-lover' with young ickle deer
51. Hitler speaking at Reichstag after 'Roehm putsch', 1934
52. Hitler and Speer looking at architecture
53. Hitler with Bavarian girls being fatherly
54. Mercedes-Benz showroom with big picture of Hitler on wall
55. Hitler visits Ruhr with industrialists
56. cover of 'Hitler in his Mountain', 1935 picture book
57. SS recruits swearing-in at Feldherrnhalle, 1935
58. German troops march into demilitarised Rhineland, 1936

Vol 2

1. Pic of Hitler in civilian suit, standing
2, Hitler inspecting architectural models, Speer, Sauckel look on, 1936
3. Berlin Olympics, crowd roman-salutes Hitler, 1936
4. Hitler with Duke and Duchess of Windsor, Berghof, 1937
5. Field Marshal von Blomberg
6. Colonel General von Fritsch
7. Hitler addresses crowd in Vienna, 15 March 1938, after Anschluss
8. Hitler, Mussolini and Italian King, May 1938 state visit to Rome
9. Hitler in motorcade, Florence, 1938, many happy Italians
10. Exhibition in Munich, 1938, 'The Eternal Jew'
11. 'Jews in Berlin', part of same exhibition
12. Berlin synagogue on fire, Kristallnacht
13. Kassel Jewish community building, wrecked, day after Kristallnacht
14. Smashed and looted Berlin shop, after Kristallnacht
[these 5 pics take up 2 pages]
15. Goebbels and happy family
16. Goebbels broadcasting
17. Eva Braun sunbathing (shoulders only)
18. Hitler greets Chamberlain during Sudeten crisis, 1938
19. German motorcyclists cross Charles Bridge, Prague, March 1939
20. Hitler's study in Reich Chancellery
21. Goering addresses Hitler on latter's birthday, 1939, ceremonial
22. Hitler given toy Volkswagen on 1939 birthday, looks happy
23. Himmler gives portrait to Hitler on birthday, 1939
24. Hitler in evening dress at Bayreuth festival, 1939
25. Molotov and Ribbentrop sign Nazi-Soviet Pact, 1939
26. Hitler at field headquarters by railtrack, Polish campaign, 1939
27. Hitler inspects motorised troops, Warsaw, 1939
28. Hitler addresses Buergerbraeukeller, Nov 1939, shortly before bomb plot
29. Arthur Greiser, Gauleiter of the Warthegau
30. Albert Forster, Gauleiter of Danzig-Westpreussen
31. Hitler receives news of French armistice, stills from film, no raised leg
32. Hitler visits Maginot Line, 1940
33. Hitler in town near HQ in West, 1940, crowds, motorcade, smiles
34. Huge crowd in Wilhelmplatz, 6 July 1940, cheering Hitler on return from field HQ
35. Hitler waves off Franco at train station, October 1940
36. Hitler and Petain, 1940
37. Ribbentrop and Molotov, November 1940 talks
38. Hitler and Japanese foreign minister plus interpreter, March 1941
39. Hitler at field HQ, nr Wiener Neustadt, April 1941, Balkans campaign
40. Hitler and Keitel travelling to Rastenburg, 30 June 1941
41. Anti-Bolshevik Poster 'Europe's Victory is Your Prosperity'
42. Brauchitsch and Halder
43. Keitel and Hitler discussing things
44. Himmler and Heydrich (famous shot, vvvv small)
45. Poster printing Hitler's January 1939 'prophecy' "should the international Jewish financiers succeed once again in plunging the nations into a world war, the result will not be the victory of Jews but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe. Poster reprinted September 1941.
46. Hitler at Heydrich's funeral
47. Hitler comforts Heydrich's sons after funeral, Himmler looks on
48. Hitler addresses 12,000 officers at Sportpalast, 28.9.42
49. Pic of SP artillery officers sieg-heiling at same (you can tell by the cut and tone of the uniforms)
50. Field Marshal von Bock portrait photo
51. Field Marshal von Manstein portrait photo
52. Hitler speaks on Heroes Memorial Day, Match 1942, lots of flags and pomp
53. Motorcycle sidecar combo on Eastern Front, ruined town, July 1942
54. Hitler greets pavelic, 1941
55. Hitler on way to visit Antonescu, 1942
56. Hitler and King of Bulgaria, 1942
57. Hitler and Tiso, 1943
58. Hitler and Mannerheim, 1942
59. Horthy greeted by Ribbentrop, Keitel and Bormann, 1941
60. 'The over-extended front': Do-24 flying boat, Norway
61. ditto: rail gun at Leningrad siege front, 1942
62. ditto, Panzer IIIs in Libya
63. ditto, antipartisan column in Bosnia
64. Exhausted German soldier on Eastern Front sipping from canteen
65. Hitler, Goering et al at Heroes Memorial Day, 1943
66. Hitler at Beerhall in Munich, November 1943
67. Bormann portrait photo
68. Hitler and Goebbels laughing at Berchtesgaden, June 1943
69. Eastern Front, German truck bogged down in mud, spring
70. Eastern Front, tank in winter
71. Eastern Front, infantry column in summer
72. French Jews being deported in cattle-trucks, 1942
73. Polish Jews being forced to dig their own grave, 1942 (waaay too many guards for this to be a labour thing).
74. Majdanek crematoria after liberation
75. Hitler and Himmler in Obersalzberg, winter scene, March 1944
76. Sophie and Hans Scholl, 'White Rose' resistance
77. Guderian
78. General Ludwig Beck
79. Stauffenberg
80. Henning von Tresckow
81. Hitler looking shaken after 20 July 1944 assassination attempt
82. Hitler's shredded trousers being held up to camera
83. Hitler greets Mussolini after bomb plot
84. Doenitz gives radio broadcast, also studio audience, after bombplot
85. Hitler looking aged, late 1944, Berghof
86. V1 flying bomb
87. V2 rocket
88. Me262, US soldier guards it and smiles, April 1945
89. Volkssturm march-past
90. Last Heroes' Memorial Day, 11 March 1945, Goering, Doenitz, Keitel and von Gottberg, no Hitler
91. Women and children fleeing down Danzig street, March 1945
92. Hitler inspects architectural models, February 1945
92. Hitler and Julius Schaub look out of Reich Chancellery ruins, March 1945.


Given that Hitler was the head of government and soon also head of state of a major European country which went to war for six years, I think the above selection is about right.

There were pics of Dolfy with children and with animals; they look silly to us today, but they were Nazi propaganda so that's not the Hitler Channel's fault if they were to flash them up.

There were lots of pics of Hitler's associates and rivals, as well as the heads of state he allied to, but none of those he opposed, no pic of Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt or De Gaulle.

There were 9 pics in Vol 2 (out of 92 = less than 10%) which related to the Holocaust - 5 from Kristallnacht, 1 of Nazi propaganda and 3 of the events. This followed maybe 3 pictures in Vol 1 (out of 58 = less than 5%) which related to Nazi antisemitism. There were far, far more pictures of German soldiers and war scenes than there were pics relating to the Holocaust.

Where's the beef?

[Globus]

It is commonplace knowledge that the first casualty of war is truth.

But the history which long ago painted the true picture of Hitler and his regime was not a wartime phenomenon.

The same cannot be said about the aftermath of WWII. Propaganda lies about the inordinate brutality of the German leaders, military and people have not been allowed to pass into the rubbish bin of history as the falsehoods of wartime exigency that they were, necessary or not during that event.

But your claim that they are lies is merely your belief that you wake up with each morning. Maybe truth is a casualty for you because of your ideological beliefs. The purpose of this forum is not just state your cherished beliefs without a scrap of evidence or argument to support them. How do you expect to rehabilitate Hitler when you are unable to address the facts and offer instead propagandistic slogans about history, war, truth, blah, blah, blah, things that most university level history majors leave behind after their first course? THe more you talk, the less you say.

I know that many of you are thinking that the WWII propaganda about Germany was true (propaganda is not necessarily false) and not lies. That may very well be the case though I do not believe it to be.

Based on what? What facts? What reading? What historians research? Anything other than your apparent infatuation with the little dictator?

But that is not the issue here. The issue here is why is it that people who are fully aware of the fact that leaders put out propaganda lies during wartime in all wars cannot accept the fact that WWII is not an exception?

Perhaps because they know that Holocaust history and WWII history are not at all dependent on what was "put out" during the war. Perhaps because they know that these events have been studied on the basis of the evidence, evidence which you seem to have not the slighest interest in or knowledge of.

It is my hope that those reading this thread will make the effort to suspend their beliefs about the uniquely evil nature of Adolph Hitler and the German people and engage in a dispassionate, rational investigation of the historical record.

Why should they, you haven't? As far as I've been able to ascertain it requires in most cases an incredible degree of wilful ignorance of the rational investigations already done to maintain a notion as silly as Hitler should be rehabilitated. I mean, we've even got one guy who thinks he was a genius!

[Hakluyt]

Really? Hmmm? Well...
:confused:

[guy]

An itemisation of the photo-plates in Ian Kershaw's 2-volume bio of Hitler.

Vol1

[LIST]...

Given that Hitler was the head of government and soon also head of state of a major European country which went to war for six years, I think the above selection is about right.

There were pics of Dolfy with children and with animals; they look silly to us today, but they were Nazi propaganda so that's not the Hitler Channel's fault if they were to flash them up.

There were lots of pics of Hitler's associates and rivals, as well as the heads of state he allied to, but none of those he opposed, no pic of Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt or De Gaulle.

There were 9 pics in Vol 2 (out of 92 = less than 10%) which related to the Holocaust - 5 from Kristallnacht, 1 of Nazi propaganda and 3 of the events. This followed maybe 3 pictures in Vol 1 (out of 58 = less than 5%) which related to Nazi antisemitism. There were far, far more pictures of German soldiers and war scenes than there were pics relating to the Holocaust.

Where's the beef?
Just like with the 'illegalizing holocaust denial proves that the holocaust is a lie' argument, the beef is concealed from those that do not share the ideology of the poster that came up with the argument.

If the holocaust is a lie, then the fact that it is a lie might motivate people to outlawing denying it. If the holocaust is a lie, then the fact that it is a lie might motivate people to portray Hitler as an evil man.

But if the holocaust is not a lie, then outlawing the denial of it could simply be a (somewhat paranoid and arguably inefficient) safety measure against a future holocaust. And indeed, if the holocaust is not a lie, it would make sense to portray Hitler, who is responsible for perhaps 50,000,000 deaths, as what he was rather than what he and his associates wanted people to think he was.

And of course, as you noted, the depictions of Hitler are not as bad as some here suggest.

To sum it up, the premise of this thread is weak, and you don't have to know much about the holocaust to recognize that people here are grasping at extremely fine straws. Better off to continue with the endless chatter, perhaps. A concise point is simply too easy to destroy.

[eggheadbanga]

Just like with the 'illegalizing holocaust denial proves that the holocaust is a lie' argument, the beef is concealed from those that do not share the ideology of the poster that came up with the argument.

If the holocaust is a lie, then the fact that it is a lie might motivate people to outlawing denying it. If the holocaust is a lie, then the fact that it is a lie might motivate people to portray Hitler as an evil man.

But if the holocaust is not a lie, then outlawing the denial of it could simply be a (somewhat paranoid and arguably inefficient) safety measure against a future holocaust. And indeed, if the holocaust is not a lie, it would make sense to portray Hitler, who is responsible for perhaps 50,000,000 deaths, as what he was rather than what he and his associates wanted people to think he was.

And of course, as you noted, the depictions of Hitler are not as bad as some here suggest.

To sum it up, the premise of this thread is weak, and you don't have to know much about the holocaust to recognize that people here are grasping at extremely fine straws. Better off to continue with the endless chatter, perhaps. A concise point is simply too easy to destroy.


This has to be the silliest thread/argument I've yet seen from the Hitler-kissers. There were almost as many pictures of Hitler with a freaking dog as there were pictures of persecution in those Kershaw books. Funnily enough no one questions whether Hitler used cyanide on Blondi or himself, do they?

What surprises me most, considering the recent kerfuffles over Kevin Strom, is that no one has yet insinuated dubious motives to Dolfy smiling at little girls and touching them.

In this day and age, such behaviour looks incredibly suspect. You don't generally see Bush or Putin touching small children in publicity photos the way you used to see Stalin, Dolfy and other great dictators raising them up and bouncing them on their knee. Instead you see Bush reading stories to classrooms full of children KEPT AT A SAFE DISTANCE away from him. No touchee, no sinister smilee, nobody accuses the pol of being a nonce.

:D

[Hakluyt]

In this day and age, such behaviour looks incredibly suspect. You don't generally see Bush or Putin touching small children in publicity photos the way you used to see Stalin, Dolfy and other great dictators raising them up and bouncing them on their knee.Then again.. :p
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5uWEaKLzwUg

[eggheadbanga]

Then again.. :p
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5uWEaKLzwUg

Good catch!

You see, all these oriental despots are alike. :D

[cerberus]

BurhussThis not strictly speaking a picture thread but a glance at the thread title will reveal that it is a thread about Rehabilitating Hitler. Pictures presenting a negative image of Hitler would be inappropriate here. I trust that you will see the sense in that and start another thread if you so wish.

Why the need for rehab. ?
The majority of people who have read anything about Hitler can view him warts and all - when you look only at him kissing babies , entertaining members of HJ / BDM I have to ask are you trying to sell relaity or a one domesnional modle of Adolf ?
As for staring another thread - I don't see the need - I for one appreciate Hitler for exactly what he was and I see no need to do a PR job on him - it won't wash the blood away nor will it put him up for the greatest child minder Germany ever had.:)

BTW - No need to thank me for anything - I have not done anything for you.:)

Milhouse mentioned Ian Kerhsaw's Hubris Vol 1 & Nemesis Vol 2 - The photos which he rejected for use are equally worthy of our attention.
Hubris plates 23 /24 - Hitler in Bavarian costume - rejected and in a raoncoat ( accepted) , plate 25 Hitler with his alsatian ( Prinz) - rejected.
Plate 28 -Hitler in SA Uniform with kepi on - ( rejected).

The images you are showing Burhuss - they are not new and have largely been seen before - what yoiu are doing is what Dr. Goebbels and the propaganda mininstry did - you are putting his best face forward - you only look at one side of this janus figure - why is this ?

In producing only "Mr. Nice guy" you don't produce a balanced view of the man , but this is not your intention.
Do you think Hitler has had a bad press over the years ?

[Burrhus]

Look at the picture below. Pretend for the moment that you have no knowledge about these men whatsoever. If you were to see this picture with one caption that read "A gang of mass murderers" and another with the caption "A group of courageous men determined to defend their nation", which would seem more reasonable to you absent any other knowledge about them. Be honest with yourself. Suppress the emotional response that you find yourself having.

When you can say to yourself that the second caption seems to be more reasonable than the first, you will be ready to make a rational investigation of Hitler and WWII. Of course the image by itself should not be sufficient to make a judgement. You certainly ought to ask both caption writers to offer evidence in a logically structured argument in support of their description.

When you do that pay careful attention to the evidence offered and maybe more importantly to the evidence not offered. Why is that evidence not offered? Why is it assumed to exist but cannot be put forth?

Also pay careful attention to the logic of the argument. Does the conclusion of the argument really follow logically from the evidence? Look closely for logical fallacies, unstated assumptions and those not supported by any evidence. Are the evidence, assumptions, logic and conclusions consistent with your own concept of human nature and the probablities of human behavior?

Does it make sense to you? Is it appealing to those emotional responses that you have tried to suppress? Is it rational?

http://img176.imageshack.us/img176/6899/hitlerpretoriansvo5.jpg

[il ragno]

http://img218.imageshack.us/img218/6144/ah101tb.jpg

I dunno, but his resemblance to Moe Howard, already strong, is REALLY pronounced in this pic.

Pick two fingers, muttonhead!

[cerberus]

Burhuss.
You ask the reader a superficial question which you then qualify and then rightly say that no one would make a judgement based on a photograpgh with no knowledge of the background , individuals circumstances or era in which it was taken.

You would seem to think - from your presentations that no one has taken the bother to look at Hitler from all angles.
Seems that your one dimensional view of the Fuhrer fails , it is this view which revisionists largely look to - what he achieved in his life , why he did it , how he did it -this is the real rehabilitation - which is history by "veneer" , it is shallow and meaningless.

[Captain Marinesko]

Imagine if you had no prior knowledge about the people in the photo before. Are they "deranged mass murderers" or "progressive, anti-imperialists?"


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c35/jpslovjanski/krbenz.jpg

[Tiberius]

That's the Khmer Rouge, right? Indeed, they do not look like sane people. It's hard however to come to the conclusion that they are mass murderers from a picture.

[Burrhus]

Hitler painting
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/397/flower7do3.jpg

[cerberus]

Burhuss
Hitler painting
Which means what ?

[tempus fugit]

From my highly dispassionate perspective, it seems Burhus is saying that Hitler was a human. I agree with that.

[Burrhus]

From my highly dispassionate perspective, it seems Burhus is saying that Hitler was a human. I agree with that.

Precisely. And not the icon of evil that his name and image conjur up for most people. How many times has the word "inhuman" been applied in popular discourse to Hitler, the 3rd Reich and the German people?

[cerberus]

Hawkings
From my highly dispassionate perspective, it seems Burhus is saying that Hitler was a human. I agree with that.
This is not in dispute .
Burrhus
Precisely. And not the icon of evil that his name and image conjur up for most people. How many times has the word "inhuman" been applied in popular discourse to Hitler, the 3rd Reich and the German people?
There you go again Burrhus - you are looking only at one aspect of the man - he was not that simple - Hitler was responsible for inhuman acts - he could still be photographed having the children of martin Bormann , Hess or Goebbels sitting on his knee .
Your point is pointless as you try to make it , you are doing exactly what you say historians and readers of history are prone to do - which they do not , and which you do and are encouraging us to do.

[Globus]

Look at the picture below. Pretend for the moment that you have no knowledge about these men whatsoever. If you were to see this picture with one caption that read "A gang of mass murderers" and another with the caption "A group of courageous men determined to defend their nation", which would seem more reasonable to you absent any other knowledge about them.

What a ridiculous question!!!

If you knew nothing about them their photos would be of no interest to anyone and would not be known by your or anyone else.

Photos are used about Hitler because of who he was, and in using them to relate his role in history, it is more accurate to say he was a mass murderer than merely someone trying to defend his nation. You conveniently forget his plans to conquer large parts of Eastern Europe, oversee the death through starvation and other means of millions of people deemed inferior, and the creation of an expanded German empire by moving Germans into these lands, while delegating millions of other Eastern Europeans as German slave laborers.

Your bizarre take on Hitler is almost comical given the facts, which you're reduced to whitewashing on the basis of photographs!

[cerberus]

Globus
Photos are used about Hitler because of who he was, and in using them to relate his role in history, it is more accurate to say he was a mass murderer than merely someone trying to defend his nation. You conveniently forget his plans to conquer large parts of Eastern Europe, oversee the death through starvation and other means of millions of people deemed inferior, and the creation of an expanded German empire by moving Germans into these lands, while delegating millions of other Eastern Europeans as German slave laborers.
Now Globus , if you want to say something other than he was a nice old man who had a dog and liked to pat children on the head you might be asked to start a thread to "prove" otherwise.:nono:
Thank you :thanks: : :rolleyes:

[Burrhus]

The reason that I believe that Hitler's reputation deserves and needs to be rehabilitated is that the negative repute in which he is held is based on invalid logic inflamed by emotionally charged, negative imagery.

The invalid logic goes like this: The holocaust story is true because Hitler was an evil man. And, Hitler was an evil man because the holocaust story is true. That is a classic case of circular (invalid) logic. The form of this invalid logic looks like this: A if and only if B. Given A, then B. (Or) Given B, then A.

People believe that Hitler was an evil man because they believe that he perpetrated the holocaust and they believe that he perpetrated the holocaust because they believe that he was an evil man. I hope that the invalid nature of this pseudo-argument is obvious to all.

The problem is that the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story ought rightfully to depend on the evidence and internal logic of the arguments put forth in favor of its being true or false. Relying on the unsubstantiated assertion that Hitler was an evil man as an assumption in the argument purporting to demonstrate the truth of the holocaust story begs the question.

A more serious problem is that this assumption is not even generally stated explicitly in those arguments. It is simply taken for granted that those being appealed to already believe that assumption to be true. And they generally do. The question is why they do prior to the presentation of an evidentiarily sound, logically valid, rational argument.

A thorough investigation of the historical record, the evidence and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence with respect to the holocaust is a complicated and time consuming endeavor. Combining the difficulty of that effort with the emotional impact of the negative imagery that people have been inundated with for 70 years and the unpleasant social consequences of questioning the truth of the holocaust story, it is no wonder that most people simply continue to believe what they already believe rather than looking sceptically at the evidence and logic of the arguments for the truth of the holocaust story and the evil nature of Hitler.

Hopefully by now some readers of this thread will have been convinced by the positive images of Hitler presented here to at least consider the possibility that their belief in Hitler's evil nature has been created by the emotional impact of many years of being presented with intense, negative images of him and not as the result of any rational process. And hopefully, realizing the possiblity that that is the case, they will make the effort to re-assess the historical reputation of Adolph Hitler unimpeded by years of emotional conditioning.

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/2584/adolfhitlerevabraunwb7.jpg

[Globus]

The reason that I believe that Hitler's reputation deserves and needs to be rehabilitated is that the negative repute in which he is held is based on invalid logic inflamed by emotionally charged, negative imagery.

The invalid logic goes like this: The holocaust story is true because Hitler was an evil man. And, Hitler was an evil man because the holocaust story is true. That is a classic case of circular (invalid) logic. The form of this invalid logic looks like this: A if and only if B. Given A, then B. (Or) Given B, then A.

The invalid logic is Burrhus'!

The Holocaust story is true because the historical evidence proves it. Hitler's role in it, and many other atrocities, proves that he committed evil deeds.

If you're going to attempt to employ logic you might like to learn something about it.

[cerberus]

Burrhus
The reason that I believe that Hitler's reputation deserves and needs to be rehabilitated is that the negative repute in which he is held is based on invalid logic inflamed by emotionally charged, negative imagery.
Burrhus with the greatest respect Hitler's reputation is not based on that of the Victorian "penny dreadful" nor is based on the wartime propaganda newsreeel footage - it is based on a balanced presepective.
If you take the tiem to listen to professor Sir ian kershaws Open University lecture which I have previously linked to on Phora you will find that respected historians address all sides of the man - this posting jpegs of a child loving Hitler , the grandfather that every child in Germany wanted to have is what it is - in terms of making a serious historical statement of fact , well it does not.
As one judge asaid of David Irving and the same seems to be your mission - you strive to show Hitler in the most favourable light you can.
I think Sir Ian Kershaws does a somewhat better job.:)

The holocaust story is true because Hitler was an evil man
This is a simplistic stupid statement.
And, Hitler was an evil man because the holocaust story is true. That is a classic case of circular (invalid) logic. The form of this invalid logic looks like this: A if and only if B. Given A, then B. (Or) Given B, then A.

:rofl:
Will chicken or egg , what are you saying came first , again a simply silly assertion.

A thorough investigation of the historical record, the evidence and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence with respect to the holocaust is a complicated and time consuming endeavor.

Burrhus , if you want to do yet another Holocaust thread , then do so , don't hijack this thread , thank you.:hitler: ;)

The rest of you post is assumptions which are not really thought through - so your rehabilition of Hitler has run from what you term to have been " a picture thread" to one which comes back to the Holocaust.
The subject Burrhus is Hitler , now if this is the sum of your ability to do rehab. on the Fuhrer I might get more sense of of the bust of the dear chap which I have in my corner unit .

[Vindex]

Burrhus, brings a truthful point to light about the images used of Hitler are done for a reason.

The average, mass person is all black and white in thinking. They can not hold two out of the box ideas at once such as Hitler loved his own and killed the enemies of what he loved. He has to be all sinner or saint not both so to say. And even to acknowledge he was nice in areas weakens the absolutist evil image of Hitler.

So nice photo's of Hitler weaken the Devil Hitler image that has been conditioned into the minds of the masses. And starts to cause doubt and which could also lead some to sympathize with him. etc

The catholic church created the red and horned goat image of Satan for the same reasons. Until then he was shown as a Nordic or as a angel would be drawn without the wings. So the two devices where confusing the average person and not having the desired reaction the church wanted. It is the same principal as it revolves around the constant factor of the mass mind.

[Captain Marinesko]

The reason that I believe that Hitler's reputation deserves and needs to be rehabilitated is that the negative repute in which he is held is based on invalid logic inflamed by emotionally charged, negative imagery.

Do you have me on ignore or something? Throughout this entire thread I have been asking you to explain why you think pictures of Hitler speaking are "negative", particularly considering that they depict precisely what is relevant to the history of Hitler.

The argument that Hitler's reputation is based on "emotionally charged imagery"(I guess a picture of someone giving a public speech is negative and emotionally charged now), is invalid because:

A: That is not the standard by which Hitler's reputation is measured; or anyone for that matter.

B: Slanders about Hitler, such as the "one-testicle" myth or the "carpet-chewing" myth are simply urban legend, and have nothing to do with photographs.



The invalid logic goes like this: The holocaust story is true because Hitler was an evil man. And, Hitler was an evil man because the holocaust story is true. That is a classic case of circular (invalid) logic. The form of this invalid logic looks like this: A if and only if B. Given A, then B. (Or) Given B, then A.

Ironically that whole paragraph is fallacious because it's a strawman argument.


People believe that Hitler was an evil man because they believe that he perpetrated the holocaust and they believe that he perpetrated the holocaust because they believe that he was an evil man. I hope that the invalid nature of this pseudo-argument is obvious to all.

Your strawman argument is obvious to all: People believe Hitler is evil because there is plenty of historical evidence of the Third Reich's deeds inside and outside of the Holocaust; and based on that coupled with their own moral standards, they pronounce him "evil".


The problem is that the truth or falsehood of the holocaust story ought rightfully to depend on the evidence and internal logic of the arguments put forth in favor of its being true or false. Relying on the unsubstantiated assertion that Hitler was an evil man as an assumption in the argument purporting to demonstrate the truth of the holocaust story begs the question.

And the truth of the Holocaust is based on plenty of evidence, and none of it is based on the assertion that Hitler was an evil man.


A more serious problem is that this assumption is not even generally stated explicitly in those arguments. It is simply taken for granted that those being appealed to already believe that assumption to be true. And they generally do. The question is why they do prior to the presentation of an evidentiarily sound, logically valid, rational argument.

You're wasting your time attacking a strawman argument that no historian has ever made: e.g. "Hitler's evil is evidence of the Holocaust"


A thorough investigation of the historical record, the evidence and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence with respect to the holocaust is a complicated and time consuming endeavor.

Such an investigation would only confirm once again that the Holocaust happened. Get over it.



Combining the difficulty of that effort with the emotional impact of the negative imagery that people have been inundated with for 70 years and the unpleasant social consequences of questioning the truth of the holocaust story, it is no wonder that most people simply continue to believe what they already believe rather than looking sceptically at the evidence and logic of the arguments for the truth of the holocaust story and the evil nature of Hitler.


"Negative images" of Hitler have nothing to do with the reason why people believe in the Holocaust. And once AGAIN you refuse to explain your definition of "negative" images because I haven't seen even one such image posted yet.



Hopefully by now some readers of this thread will have been convinced by the positive images of Hitler presented here to at least consider the possibility that their belief in Hitler's evil nature has been created by the emotional impact of many years of being presented with intense, negative images of him and not as the result of any rational process. And hopefully, realizing the possiblity that that is the case, they will make the effort to re-assess the historical reputation of Adolph Hitler unimpeded by years of emotional conditioning.

You're American, and I assume you haven't been out of the country much, so let me explain something to you: When you travel throughout Europe, you'll meet plenty of people who aren't afraid to criticize Jews, and some openly hate Jews. But to those same people, Hitler WAS an evil man, because he invaded their nation and caused massive destruction. The Holocaust, along with the other effects of Hitler's war of aggression, were not based on unflattering photos of Hitler(which I have never seen). These things were backed up by plenty of evidence, evidence that you are ignoring while creating this insane strawman argument.

There are countries in Europe where there is barely one family who didn't lose someone during the war. Do you think that they give a damn about a picture of Hitler feeding a baby deer? For some of those countries, their greatest moment of triumph was the defeat of the Fascist occupiers. Do you think they'll spit on the graves of their ancestors just because you show them a picture of Hitler talking to a little girl?

That's reality, not semantic, philosophical, pseudo-intellectual, pseudo-logical waxing about "negative images" or strawman arguments who nobody outside of a mental asylum would make. Far more non-Jews died thanks to Hitlers' war than Jews in the Holocaust, and an equal or higher number of non-Jews died in that same program of extermination. That extermination is backed up by evidence of virtually every kind, and besides that there is the universally accepted historical chronology of WWII events not considered part of the Holocaust to contend with.

Based on that, and prevailing moral standards, many people conclude that Hitler was "evil". If you don't like that, fine. You can argue moral relativism, or you can continue to dispute the facts of history. Just don't piss on everyone's legs and tell them it's raining. Don't pretend that the history of WWII is based on "negative pictures" and emotional conditioning because if anything it's the other way around.

[Globus]

Burrhus, brings a truthful point to light about the images used of Hitler are done for a reason.

On the contrary, his fanciful notion of the reasons for Hitler imagery are predicated on his assertion that these images are biased. Milhouse has shown by examining the photo selection in one of the best known and most recent biographies of Hitler that this bias is imagined by Burrhus.

God forbid that facts should ever penetrate the wall of rigid ideology you and yours live behind.

[Lieutenant William Bligh]

The catholic church created the red and horned goat image of Satan for the same reasons. Until then he was shown as a Nordic or as a angel would be drawn without the wings. So the two devices where confusing the average person and not having the desired reaction the church wanted. It is the same principal as it revolves around the constant factor of the mass mind.

It doesn't really have that effect on me. If anything the red horned Satan is easier to laugh, rather than inspiring fear. The rebel romantic Satan is the image which inspires fear and wonder in me.

http://www.esoteric.msu.edu/jpg/Milton-Blake_Image.jpeg

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/blogs/static/gaetano/satan.jpg

[koch curve]

burrhus, to take a page right out of jp's book, i would ask what you have to say about the negative association people have with stalin. most people in america identify negatively with him, but the vast majority (if not all) of the photographs we have and see of stalin are of a kind and benevolent father figure. if all we see is this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/38127000/jpg/_38127880_stalinap150.jpg

then how come we dont have a reflexively positive image of him, in the same manner you attest we would have reflexively negative of hitler due to films of his speeches? probably because (although jp would probably debate this :P) the preponderance of evidence (for sake of avoiding a derailment into a stalin debate) that americans have heard of or seen suggests this, not because we see negative images of him, and then reach the conclusion that somehow he must have done evil things.

if a person were to see a film of hitlers speeches without the historical context of knowing who he was or what he had done, they might dislike his speaking style, find him overly dramatic and intense, or even admire him and compliment his oratory skills, but i doubt you would see anyone reacting with the hate and revulsion people with historical context reserve for him.

the reason is that they wouldnt react to those images and sounds because of the way they are presented or because of the way they sounded, but rather because they know these are the words that inspired, and in many ways caused both world war two and the holocaust.

[Captain Marinesko]

Actually Koch, I would say that while most photos of Stalin range from positive to incredibly positive(like photos of him with family), he is accused of crimes even worse than those of Hitler, with far less and sometimes no evidence. So Burrhus shouldn't complain about his hero getting the shaft.

[koch curve]

although i wouldnt count myself as a fan of stalin or communism, my great great grandfather both looked and was built nearly exactly like him, and his name was also josef, so in a way i still find myself rooting for jp and stalin whenever i read his posts having to do with him. XD

[MrAngry]

Why is that the first image of Hitler below is typical of the way he is almost exclusively portrayed? Why are pictures such as the second never shown in history books, films and other popular media? Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.


Just because Hitler has been shown in photographs posing in a benign fashion does not detract from the compelling evidence of the atrocities that were commited in his name and with his knowledge. Saddam Hussein took opportunities to portray himself as a man of the people and kissed the odd child or two, as have Kim Jong il and George Bush.

[Starr]

On the contrary, his fanciful notion of the reasons for Hitler imagery are predicated on his assertion that these images are biased. Milhouse has shown by examining the photo selection in one of the best known and most recent biographies of Hitler that this bias is imagined by Burrhus.

God forbid that facts should ever penetrate the wall of rigid ideology you and yours live behind.


Because pictures are sometimes shown that do not fit the "evil" image that Burrhus refers to does not cancel out the reality of the bias, when you think of the images that are shown the vast majority of the time. This was an interesting enough topic that i recently brought it up with a friend who watches a lot of programs about war, which includes a lot of shows about WW2 and Hitler and he(who doesn't really have any strong feelings about Hitler, jews,,etc. one way or the other)agreed with the idea of what is being said here. He also brought up, which I did not introduce into the discussion, something that I saw someone else mention, which is the creepy music that almost always accompanies images of Hitler.

Like I said, earlier, I also do not believe, the majority of the time, that these images are shown in this fashion in any kind of conscious effort to manipulate public opinion or to give more life to the holocaust story or whatever else, but the result is still the same.

[Globus]

Because pictures are sometimes shown that do not fit the "evil" image that Burrhus refers to does not cancel out the reality of the bias, when you think of the images that are shown the vast majority of the time.

So you're just going to repeat the same false statement made by Burrhus and remain immune to evidence whenever it strikes your fancy. A little academic training might have made a significant difference for you. C'est la vie!

Milhouse's listing of the photographs in a major Hitler biography remains as the only evidence for how Hitler is in fact presented visually. The contentions of people like you and Burrhus have little to do with the reality of the situation, and much to do with your apologia for a despicable ideology and a despicable excuse for a human being.

[Burrhus]

Milhouse has shown by examining the photo selection in one of the best known and most recent biographies of Hitler that this bias is imagined by Burrhus.

Notice that this a recent biography. I am talking about 60-70 years of negative imagery across a wide range of media not just one book. The rise of the internet having made more positive imagery available may have compelled book publishers to be a bit more evenhanded at last in order not to appear as biased as they have been for so long.

Offering one recent biography in an attempt to claim that a balanced representation of Hitler has been achieved seems a bit disingenuous to me. The distortion of the truth has already been accomplished and will not be undone by one book or even a few.

And it was me, Starr, who mentioned the ominous music that generally accompanies images of Hitler on tv and in movies. Most people don't think about the emotional effect that music has when paired with visual images but movie producers do. The music director is in their opinion more important than the director of the movie. Only the screenwriter is more important. I once saw a documentary that showed part of a movie with one score and then with a very different one. The difference in overall effect was dramatic. Imagine watching a romantic comedy with music from a horror film.

I agree with you that whether or not these negative images of Hitler were part of a conscious plan to manipulate public opinion, the result is still the same. I suspect that in some cases it was intentional and in others it was simply a matter of those negative images being what was available and standard fare.

http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/674/fegeleinhochzeitwy8.jpg

[JohnAFlynn]

Why is it inconceivable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?


It's not inconceivable. I think Burrhus' point was that the jewsmedia doesn't show pics of Herr Hitler kissing babies as such humanizes him and would make it more difficult for them to make people believe he was a mass murderer. It's certainly possible for someone to be a good person who cares for children and animals and his people, and still be responsible for the deaths of millions, it's just that it's easier for the jews to convince the mass of people of such alleged crimes if they also demonize the man. As it is, Hitler was a good man, and he did not order the murder of jews or anyone. Some jews, gypsies and criminals died in labor camps of disease and malnutrition, but so did some free Germans living at home. It was a war and supplies were low. It is a fact that more Germans were killed due to Allied firebombing of German cities than jews died in labor camps. Yet we don't see Churchill and FDR lambasted in the media as the worst criminals in human history. The winners (jews, in this case) write the history.

[JohnAFlynn]

Why is that the first image of Hitler below is typical of the way he is almost exclusively portrayed? Why are pictures such as the second never shown in history books, films and other popular media? Perhaps because if he wasn't really the evil monster that mainstream history has made him to be, then maybe the holocaust story is less (or not at all) believable.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/4444/hitlerspeech0ta.jpg

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7349/1032sh.jpg

Burrhus, you have inspired me to return to my use of an avatar.

[Globus]

Notice that this a recent biography. I am talking about 60-70 years of negative imagery across a wide range of media not just one book.

No, you are making a claim of such a negative imagery, one which fits your ideology. You've shown nothing which supports it, and for good reason. It is a figment of your imagination.

To accuse someone who has actually brought evidence of being disingenuous when you have provided no evidence tells us that we are talking with someone who is irrational. Someone who forms his own beliefs without relation to evidence and whose thinking processes are classic examples of the conspiracy theorist's closed belief system.

[Globus]

As it is, Hitler was a good man, and he did not order the murder of jews or anyone.

Another prisoner of his beliefs!!

Some jews, gypsies and criminals died in labor camps of disease and malnutrition, but so did some free Germans living at home.

The facts show that 5-6 million Jews were killed by Nazi Germany. But don't confuse John with any facts!

[Starr]

[QUOTE=Globus]So you're just going to repeat the same false statement made by Burrhus and remain immune to evidence whenever it strikes your fancy.

Uh, you are aware that you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing? It could just as easily be said that "evidence" has been presented in this thread that supports the idea of the thread and you are remaining immune to it. I would suspect that you, like a lot of other people, have also been greatly influenced by certain images and portrayals and that this has an affect on your opinion.

The contentions of people like you and Burrhus have little to do with the reality of the situation, and much to do with your apologia for a despicable ideology and a despicable excuse for a human being.

I already told you that I feel no need or desire to "apologize" for anyone in this case. Did you skip over that part because it is easier for you just to refute what is being said by labeling people incorrectly and then writing off those opinions as being part of some agenda?

Another prisoner of his beliefs!!

Maybe, but this is coming from someone who earlier in the thread tried to introduce the very rational argument that Hitler was "demonic":rofl:

http://www.sketchyconcepts.com/Pot%20and%20Kettle%20web.gif

Originally Posted by Ahknabashi
Why is it inconceivable that a man who was good with children might also be a mass murderer?

There is sort of a psychological fear/guilt tactic that is used with stuff like this when certain less omininous images are used. Sort of like this great image of "evil" they are trying to cultivate exists in us all potentially. In this particular case if you don't adopt all of the ideas of the day about tolerance, diversity, and equality, another holocaust could be right around the corner with beliefs just like yours being responsible. I know people have defintely seen this tactic at work. This, to me, seems even more harmful then the constant showing of the "evil" Hitler image.

[Globus]

Originally Posted by Globus
So you're just going to repeat the same false statement made by Burrhus and remain immune to evidence whenever it strikes your fancy.


Uh, you are aware that you are doing the same thing you are accusing me of doing?

False. Evidence has been presented disputing Burrhus' ignorant assertion. No evidence has been presented to the contrary.

Do you even know what evidence is?


The contentions of people like you and Burrhus have little to do with the reality of the situation, and much to do with your apologia for a despicable ideology and a despicable excuse for a human being.

I already told you that I feel no need or desire to "apologize" for anyone in this case.

What you claim is not relevant. What you exhibit is.


Another prisoner of his beliefs!!

Maybe,

No, definitely, as your posts reveal over and over again. You've got far to many opinions and far to little knowledge in support of it.

but this is coming from someone who earlier in the thread tried to introduce the very rational argument that Hitler was "demonic"

Another falsehood. Are you able to read? Burrhus posed a saint and demon continuum on which to judge Hitler. I said, quite obviously Hilter was more demon than saint. The use of symbolic language and the difference between figurature and literative use of language should have been something you learned in High School.

[Burrhus]

Burrhus, you have inspired me to return to my use of an avatar.

Glad to be of service.

[Trojan]

As it is, Hitler was a good man, and he did not order the murder of jews or anyone.

The Hitler worshipers are just crawling out of the wood work these days.

Nothing of substance, but plenty of useless banter.

:deadhorse:

[cerberus]

Trojan
Nothing of substance, but plenty of useless banter.
Banter does not cut the ice and it proves nothing which did not also exist in any of the worlds leaders either then or today - Burhuss for all his rehab. has not said anything new.
How the media portrays Hitler - I hear dark and menacing music any time he appears - and Burhuss by his own admission does not watch cable or Sky.( (Which after a while tells one little - with a few very rare exceptions).

http://www.open2.net/oulecture2005/the_lecture.html

Above link will take you to a 45 minute lecture by Professor Ian Kershaw ( Author of the 2 x books Milhouse mentioned).
In his lecture Kershaw mentions a quote by a modern german historian in which stated that "the plunge into war was caused by the will of one madman".
Kershaw states that today this type of "apologia is no longer tenable".

Now given the "revisionist" view of historians of Kershaws stature - the so called "court historians" ( as per David Irvings et al. ) , is this in keeping with the public image of Hitler ?
Burrhus refers to photographs as being proof - he then distorts this proof and plays ignorant to it to make a point - does his point even exist ?

[Captain Marinesko]

This thread, coupled with another one I am following has convinced me that the new crop of WNs/NS have some kind of mental defect that prevents them from accounting for and/or explaining their claims. How many times have I in this thread alone(similar experiences occur with other WNs on other topics) have I asked Burrhus to explain how pictures of Hitler speaking are "negative" and "emotionally charged". I have pointed out that the judgement of Hitler is based on verified actions, not the decision that he was "evil" based on pictures.

Not a WORD has been directed toward those points. It's as if the new crop of WNs lives in some kind of fantasy world where inconvenient challenges to their claims just don't exist.

[Petr]

It's as if the new crop of WNs lives in some kind of fantasy world where inconvenient challenges to their claims just don't exist.
I myself try to address and overturn the very best arguments that my opponents can come up with - I do not try to pretend that I have triumphed after pushing down some minor strawmen, like amateur revisionists trumpet "four million to one million" Auschwitz plaques.


Hitler on Russians

"If the English were to be driven out of India, India would perish. Our role in Russia will be analogous to that of England in India."

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=13695&highlight=hitler+russians


Petr

[Captain Marinesko]

I myself try to address and overturn the very best arguments that my opponents can come up with - I do not try to pretend that I have triumphed after pushing down some minor strawmen, like amateur revisionists trumpet "four million to one million" Auschwitz plaques.




I see you get what I'm talking about here. It's like you constantly see exchanges like this:

THEM: "People like you try to shut down debate(about Holocaust/9-11, etc.)!"

ME: Explain how we do that.

THEM: Our view of Hitler is based on negative, emotionally charged images.

ME: Explain how presented images of Hitler are negative and/or emotionally charged.

THEM: You use logical fallacies.

ME: Please use the search function and show one to me.



Every time it's either silence or another accusation. When I worked in the movement(I am still convinced that with all the crap I saw, the people have definitely changed in the last two years), I believed we were fighting for truth. If someone challenged one of my claims, I at least tried to back it up. If anything a major factor in my change of heart was the total realization that many of NS/movement claims really can't be backed up. At that point your options are: A: Start lying, a favorite of movement leaders, WN celebrities, and revisionists. B: Just ignore challenges(the new tactic apparently), or C: Recognize the inherent flaws in WN ideology and sever oneself from the movement. "C" seemed like the logical choice.

(BONUS!!: Watch one of the WN's accuse me of "derailing" this thread after two days of posts that directly addressed the topic and thread-maker which received no acknowledgement whatsoever.)

[ivory bill]

I see you get what I'm talking about here. It's like you constantly see exchanges like this:

THEM: "People like you try to shut down debate(about Holocaust/9-11, etc.)!"

ME: Explain how we do that.

THEM: Our view of Hitler is based on negative, emotionally charged images.

ME: Explain how presented images of Hitler are negative and/or emotionally charged.

THEM: You use logical fallacies.

ME: Please use the search function and show one to me.



Every time it's either silence or another accusation. When I worked in the movement(I am still convinced that with all the crap I saw, the people have definitely changed in the last two years), I believed we were fighting for truth. If someone challenged one of my claims, I at least tried to back it up. If anything a major factor in my change of heart was the total realization that many of NS/movement claims really can't be backed up. At that point your options are: A: Start lying, a favorite of movement leaders, WN celebrities, and revisionists. B: Just ignore challenges(the new tactic apparently), or C: Recognize the inherent flaws in WN ideology and sever oneself from the movement. "C" seemed like the logical choice.

(BONUS!!: Watch one of the WN's accuse me of "derailing" this thread after two days of posts that directly addressed the topic and thread-maker which received no acknowledgement whatsoever.)

One has to wonder why a bright fellow such as you would come back here each day to argue with such unworthy folks. In your own mind you've already "won" every debate. What is your purpose in continuing to argue with people who are such ignorant liars? Do you expect different results each morning when you log on? Do you hope that today you will be able to convert the capitalists to communism? Convert the Nazis to proper and approved thoughts? Silence the holocaust skeptics? Make the 9-11 "conspiraloons" stop questioning the approved official story? Convince the forum that you are truly a bright fellow?

What do you call someone who returns again and again to argue with people he regards as feeble-minded liars? A fool? A bully? Another feeble-minded liar?

[Captain Marinesko]

Bill, the purpose of these forums are for debate and communication. The reasons why people do so on them is not important. The thing is some people like to come on here and write long, waxing philosophical essays that attack a strawman argument that nobody ever uses.

As in the case of this thread, there is no "debate" going on, since it seems the person that started this has a large number of the responders on his ignore list.

[JohnAFlynn]

http://www.jrtc-polk.army.mil/presidentvisit/images/President%20Bush%20with%20child.jpg

hey guys heres a picture of george w bush with a baby, guess this validates the massacre of half a million civillians in the iraq war


LOL. What do you care? They're all goy cattle, right?

[cerberus]

Captain Marinesko
As in the case of this thread, there is no "debate" going on, since it seems the person that started this has a large number of the responders on his ignore list.


yes its a bit like having an election and having those who might vote against you put in a place like Dachau .:rofl:
I guess I too am on the ignore list - at present my blood pressure does not seem to have risen by so much as one mm of mercury.

[Burrhus]

http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8245/ah39hu3.jpg

[Shades of Revolution]

I don't believe for a moment that a person of such pure evil has ever been born that they could not love or appreciate a single solitary thing in life, and only existed to kill and destroy.

Of course Hitler loved his family and his people, but that simply can't justify the actions of himself and his party during WWII.

[Trojan]

Of course Hitler loved his family and his people, but that simply can't justify the actions of himself and his party during WWII.

Which is exactly what the apologists want to brush aside - or deny, depending on the political winds of the moment.

[Hlinkova Garda]

I'd say these men do look like determined, courageous men. But then, what is your point, Burr-up-my-ass? THESE Nazis were intelligent, courageous men of their time, so if you're trying to draw a connection between them and scum-sucking Neo-Nazi thugs like you, as well as the degenerate riff-raff over at VNN, then you're mentally discombobulated, to say the least.

PS: You're lucky I was banned by Bill White over on VNN, or I'd come over there and rip you a new asshole, fuckwad.





which begs the point ....seeing as you brought it up why were you
banned from what i & others were told you were e-mailing Mods and TWO BIT Mathews some photos of young children into thier PM mail box during a heated flame war and tried to claim you were just forwarding

[JohnAFlynn]

Imagine if you had no prior knowledge about the people in the photo before. Are they "deranged mass murderers" or "progressive, anti-imperialists?"


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c35/jpslovjanski/krbenz.jpg

Neither. They look like the gook mafia.

[JohnAFlynn]

(BONUS!!: Watch one of the WN's accuse me of "derailing" this thread after two days of posts that directly addressed the topic and thread-maker which received no acknowledgement whatsoever.)


You're really derailing this thread, CM.

[Captain Marinesko]

I hope you're being sarcastic. Although I have to admit that if I had known that Burrhus had me on ignore, I probably wouldn't have posted many messages here at all.

[cerberus]

Capt. Marinesko
I hope you're being sarcastic. Although I have to admit that if I had known that Burrhus had me on ignore, I probably wouldn't have posted many messages here at all.
__________________
Welcome to Dachau .:)
I think it is a well populated ignore list.:)

[Captain Marinesko]

Capt. Marinesko

Welcome to Dachau .:)
I think it is a well populated ignore list.:)

What I don't understand is what exactly does he get out of asking such rhetorical questions? I mean his whole thread here is basically begging for a response, and yet he puts people on ignore so easily. WTF?

[cerberus]

Good question - but when you can't answer ignore is always an easy option and then you can blame the people you are ignoring.
Just seems like an excuse to post photos of Adolf with children.
Having said that , Burhuss has not posted up that photo of Der Fuhrer handing out EK2's to 12 yearold boys , you have to admire how Hitler was determined to fight to the last 10-12 year old child as he sipped lemon tea and had salads under Berlin whilst all above was reduced to ruins.
"From a grateful Fuhrer! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Captain Marinesko]

In that case he should have just named the thread: "Pictures of Hitler being nice" and left it at that.

I wasted my time here apparently.

[Fitz]

Burhuss has not posted up that photo of Der Fuhrer handing out EK2's to 12 yearold boys , you have to admire how Hitler was determined to fight to the last 10-12 year old child as he sipped lemon tea and had salads under Berlin whilst all above was reduced to ruins.
"From a grateful Fuhrer! :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The Jews slaughtered their own women and children at Masada and today they are considered national heroes in Israel. You obviously have a good handle on the facts of WWII, but your moralizing is amateurish and annoying. Sorry again Burrhus.

[ivory bill]

In that case he should have just named the thread: "Pictures of Hitler being nice" and left it at that.

I wasted my time here apparently.

"Captain" JP Marinesko wasted his time blathering on an internet forum???
Gee, that's never happened before! :rolleyes:

[Captain Marinesko]

"Captain" JP Marinesko wasted his time blathering on an internet forum???
Gee, that's never happened before! :rolleyes:


Right, and so everyone else here isn't wasting time right? I'm sure you're using your time very wisely.

[ivory bill]

Right, and so everyone else here isn't wasting time right? I'm sure you're using your time very wisely.

I spent the weekend doing what I said I would. I don't care what you did or do. Gotta go now, blather on.

[Captain Marinesko]

Good for you.

[cerberus]

FitzThe Jews slaughtered their own women and children at Masada and today they are considered national heroes in Israel. You obviously have a good handle on the facts of WWII, but your moralizing is amateurish and annoying.
Excuse me - who mentioned the Jews - I don't think we are talking about the Jews - are you trying to draw some parrallel there ? :rolleyes:
Address Hitler - if you want to do the Jews again , and God alone knows why start a thread on Masada.

I should point out to you that Hitler is not a national hero nor is he likely to be , just in case you are labouring under some form of illusion.

[klipgeit]

I you had stopped agitating for a minute, you would at least agree that it is almost imposible to know what kind of person Hitler was, because of the worship on the one hand, and the demonization on the other.


Correct.
Then the famous good and bad in every person.
NO ONE can always be bad and NO ONE can always be good.
And what is really "Evil"

Is Evil nailing Jesus to the cross or is Evil ,Jesus allowing Judas to string himself up.??????????
I reckon only the people nearest to Hitler could really comment not us some 60 years later.
Pictures are not a 1000 words.
He hated Untermenschen
Rings a bell when you lot discuss Blacks and Jews

My uncle-Dutch-adored him for his firmness and for his love for the German people.Did he overlook atrocities?????No,he blamed the higher command for the disaster at Stalingrad.
What would Rommel have said of him??????????

[cerberus]

klipgeit
My uncle-Dutch-adored him for his firmness and for his love for the German people.Did he overlook atrocities?????No,he blamed the higher command for the disaster at Stalingrad.
What would Rommel have said of him??????????
At the risk of Burhuss telling me off - ask your uncle to read something about Stalingrad and Operation Blue.
His love of the German people - lets see now - Telling Speer not to worry about the needs of the German people in a post war world , the survivors would not be requring anything.

[delete]

klipgeit

At the risk of Burhuss telling me off - ask your uncle to read something about Stalingrad and Operation Blue.
His love of the German people - lets see now - Telling Speer not to worry about the needs of the German people in a post war world , the survivors would not be requring anything.

Speer survived the Nuremberg trial IIRC, by playing blameless. Speers words don't have to mean much.

[JohnAFlynn]

I hope you're being sarcastic. Although I have to admit that if I had known that Burrhus had me on ignore, I probably wouldn't have posted many messages here at all.


:rofl: Of course. I had assumed you would be certain of the sarcasm when I quoted you predicting an accusation of derailing right in the same post as I accused you of derailing the thread.

:rofl: :rofl:

[Fitz]

His love of the German people - lets see now - Telling Speer not to worry about the needs of the German people in a post war world , the survivors would not be requring anything.

You might do better at understanding history if you tried putting yourself in the time and place of the participants, rather than the other way around.

[cerberus]

delete
Speer survived the Nuremberg trial IIRC, by playing blameless. Speers words don't have to mean much.
Speer - See Getta Serney's book on Speer or Joachim Fest's - Speer did know and he did play clever - he did get away - but he did not lie about what Hitler had ordered him to do.
Fitz
You might do better at understanding history if you tried putting yourself in the time and place of the participants, rather than the other way around.
Ftiz I am well read enough to be able to do that , tell me when you are going down what does it profit you or your people , whom you say you love when you "bring the world down with us" - Hitler's own words to von Beelow.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Awww.....look at the nice man and the little kid. How could anyone think this kindly fellow would hurt somebody?

http://www.revolucia.ru/wallpaper_stalin.jpg

[Burrhus]

From a thread in the Lounge
Keystone:Hitler's motives for what he was about will always be tainted by Hitler himself. He's hardly an example for shaking Western people out of their doldrums. He was a product of his time and place...not ours.

Move forward.

Moving forward is precisely what I am trying to do, Keystone. But one cannot move forward when one's opponent has tied an anchor to your vessel. The anchor here is the negative emotional responses that most people have been conditioned to experience at the sight or even mere mention of Hitler, the 3rd Reich and, perhaps most importantly, National Socialism.

Let me state at the outset that the current use of 3rd Reich imagery such as uniforms and flags is ill advised. Not that there is or ought to be anything inherently wrong with them but the fact is that they still generate powerful negative emotional responses which interfere with a rational response to the issues involved. My presentation of positive images of Hitler has been an attempt to sufficiently counter that tendency in order to enable that rational response to overcome those negative emotions.

I believe that Hitler's historical reputation needs to be rehabilitated before we can move forward because the iconic evil image of Hitler has been linked to both German 3rd Reich racialism and to National Socialism as a political philosophy. This demonization of racialism and National Socialism by extension from Hitler has led by further extension to the demonization of Nationalism per se. This is the crux of the matter.

The real purpose of those who maintained the WWII propaganda lies after the war and reinforced them so powerfully with the negative emotional conditioning to images of Hitler was not simply to damage Hitler's historical reputation but to use that iconic evil reputation as a continuing weapon in their onslaught against efforts within white nations to maintain both their territorial national and racial integrity. Hitler-hate and the demonization of National Socialism are powerful weapons in the arsenal of those who are attempting to impose their One World political and race-mixed agenda on the white nations.

Anytime any white person attempts to advocate for Nationalism or racial separatism the globalists wave the bloody flag of Hitlerism and the holocaust and say, "See, this is the kind of evil that comes from Nationalism and racialism. We must abolish nations, have one world state and mix the races by integrating them and forcing all territories to exhibit diversity". That is their goal and the demonization of Hitler and National Socialism based on wartime propaganda lies and falsefied history are their weapons.

The effect of their emotional conditioning of Hitler as evil and, by extension, National Socialism as a destructive political philosophy has been to make rational analysis of both virtually impossible for white people. They can then put forth irrational pseudo-arguments in support of their agenda without fear of any effective rational counter-arguments being listened to or understood. And it has worked quite well.

Till now. But finally there is a backlash against this demonization of Hitler and National Socialism and against the One World, race-mixing agenda that they are employed in support of. More and more people are coming to understand that Hitler was not the icon of evil that the One Worlders have portrayed him to be and that National Socialism is the political philosophy best suited to saving Western Civilization and the white race.

And that, Keystone, is moving forward. It is not a nostalgic return to the 3rd Reich of Germany in the 1933-1945 era but a movement forward into the future without the anchor of the propaganda lies that have made Hitler, National Socialism and racialism icons of evil. It is a movement forward with a more honest understanding of the past and of our common white European history freed from the guilt of crimes that our co-racialists never committed. It is a movement forward to a sane world of nations living separately in sovereignty as peacefully as possible and with a degree of racial homogeneity that each sees appropriate.

It is a movement forward to a world that I believe is the kind of world that you also want. Is it not?

[Starr]

That is a very thoughtful post and it is definitely food for thought, Burrhus.
I don't think anyone could reasonably argue against the idea that Hitler, the holocaust and nationalism has all been tied together and has been a great tool that has been used to scare and shame people away from racial solidarity and has helped push them in the direction of this globalist agenda "one world without borders" one race,etc. But I am not so sure if rehabiliting people's perceptions of hitler is the answer. I think the better option is to distance ourselves from that all together. When people among us obsess on Hitler and that whole era they are sort of helping to perpetuate this link in the minds of people. And this is a major problem as I see it. What is going on all around us in our societies, the non-stop flood of immigrants, the gutter culture, political correctness gone mad just to name a few of many negativities that we are dealing with is going to create an audience for our views all on its own. We also have the added benefit of the desire for preservaton of one's race and culture, among all of the races, being a natural tendency. We need to be able to play up on all of these things effectively, while also treading very lightly on certain stereotypes that have been used to demonize us so as not to feed into that demonization even more.

[Shades of Revolution]

The Jews slaughtered their own women and children at Masada and today they are considered national heroes in Israel.

That was suicide Fitz, not murder.

[delete]

That was suicide Fitz, not murder.

Read about the jewish masada myth here.

Sacrificing Truth: Archaeology and The Myth of Masada By: Nachman Ben-Yehuda
Mid-60's Masada excavations forged a past through falsified evidence and concealed facts.
...snip...

When And Why Was The Masada Mythical Narrative Created? (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/masadamyth9.htm)

It is not too difficult to establish the fact that the Masada mythical narrative was created by secular Zionism. (Religious Jews, Zionists and non-Zionists were, to a very large extent, not part in the creation of the myth. Many even objected fiercely to the myth). It is clear that the Masada mythical narrative began to be created at the turn of the century. It received a big boost in the 1920s. Before he 1920s Masada, as an heroic tale, was used in a debate between two famous secular Zionist ideological leaders (Achad Ha'am and Berdyczewski). In 1923 the excellent Hebrew translation of Josephus by Dr. Simchoni was published. In 1927 Y. Lamdan published his most popular Masada poem. Moreover, two key and powerful secular Zionists who were promoting Masada as a heroic tale, Shmaria Guttman and Prof. Yoseph Klosner, were operating in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

Clearly, the crystallizing Zionist movement was desperately looking for heroic Jewish tales. It needed these tales for a few reasons:
To counteract the poisonous European anti-Semitic image of the Jew as non-heroic
To create a new secular Jewish consciousness and identity
To establish a strong and unquestionable bonding of the Jews to Palestine (then) and Israel (later).

The need for this bond became very acute in the early 1940s when the threat of a Nazi invasion of Palestine was imminent (from Rommel's Korpus Afrika). These years saw the crystallization of the Masada mythical narrative in its most powerful form. The creation of the myth then, no doubt, was justified from a functional point of view as it helped many members of the Yishuv to face some truly formidable historical challenges. Thus, the Masada mythical narrative has become a major and important ingredient in shaping the national and personal identity of the new secular and Zionist Jew—proud, rooted in his/her land and willing, indeed able, to fight for this land to the end if necessary. Clearly, the Masada mythical narrative has a strong generational effect for some generations who were influenced by it the most (including that of the author). This identity connection is exactly the element that explains the negative emotional reaction stirred by connecting the word "Masada" with "Myth" and thus implying something that is untrue.

The archaeological excavations of the early 1960s headed by Prof. Yigael Yadin helped to solidify the myth. However, following the Six Days War (1967) the opening up of new sites as well as some profound changes in Israeli society, created a process where, starting in the late 1960s, Masada lost its sacred place in the secular Zionists pantheon of heroism. Basically, Masada was transformed from a shrine of heroism and a sacred place for pilgrimage into a tourist attraction. The overwhelming majority of people visiting Masada these days are non-Israelis.

[ivory bill]

That was suicide Fitz, not murder.

Murder/suicide. If you believe that all of the women and children at Masada willingly killed themselves then you probably think that everyone at Rev. Jim Jones' enclave at Georgetown, Guyana willingly drank the poisoned kool-aid. They didn't.

Did you know that the Zealots at Masada had recently slaughtered 700 fellow jews at the nearby village of En Geddi?

Read this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/portrait/masada.html

Masada was captured by the Sicarii at the outbreak of the war in 66 CE. Taking arms from Herod's storehouse, Menahem, the leader of the Sicarii, marched on Jerusalem. There he attempted to gain control of the revolt by directing the siege of the royal palace. After his followers had assassinated the high priest Ananias and his brother Ezechias, Menahem himself was killed by Eleazar and the priestly revolutionary party. Some of the Sicarii, including Eleazar ben Yair, fled to Masada. Between the events of 66 CE and 74 CE, Josephus has little to narrate about Masada and its inhabitants. It served as a refuge for Simon bar Giora, fleeing from the priestly party in control of Jerusalem. From their haven at Masada the Sicarii raided the surrounding countryside, once venturing as far north as En Geddi. The objective of these raids was to obtain supplies --who wanted to eat the one-hundred-year-old Herodian food which filled Masada's storerooms?-- and the victims were the Judeans of En Geddi and the Idumeans of the countryside, all of them Jews. The Sicarii could attack these people (over seven hundred women and children were killed at En Geddi, their greatest success) because in their eyes they were wicked and doomed to perdition. Not being members of the sectarian elect, they could be robbed and killed with impunity. This attitude explains the silence of the Sicarii during the siege of Jerusalem. No raids on the Romans from the rear, no feints to distract the Romans and to alleviate the pressure of the siege, no attempt to aid the city in its time of crisis. For the Sicarii, the Jews of Jerusalem (who had killed Mernahem) and the Romans besieging it were different categories of wicked people who would be destroyed when God would inaugurate the End and bring glory to his chosen. True, the Sicarii did accept converts," but their overall attitude is clear.

[klipgeit]

klipgeit

At the risk of Burhuss telling me off - ask your uncle to read something about Stalingrad and Operation Blue.
His love of the German people - lets see now - Telling Speer not to worry about the needs of the German people in a post war world , the survivors would not be requring anything.


He was there fighting alongside the Germans.He is dead now can't ask him anything.

You Speer story,that is a bit of a silly remark,try again with a better prewar story

Just remember that what is perceived a devil by one person will be perceived as an angel by another,and that choice is not yours to comment on.

[Sulla the Dictator]

Look at this gentle soul.

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/image/2003-12-24/21.gif

[cerberus]

klipgeit
He was there fighting alongside the Germans.He is dead now can't ask him anything.

You Speer story,that is a bit of a silly remark,try again with a better prewar story

Just remember that what is perceived a devil by one person will be perceived as an angel by another,and that choice is not yours to comment on.
Sorry to learn this, none the less it was Hitler's chicken , what your grandfather would like to have believed cannot change that.
No - its sort of accurate.
Hitler let Speer build , Speer was Hitler's tool to self expression.
Choice is one thing , fact is another.
You may make the choice between fact and fiction but you cannot make one the other , I agree that the choice is yours to make.

[cerberus]

Sulla
Look at this gentle soul.
Sulla - hannover will now point out to you that the rabbits feet are not on the ground and declare the photo to be a fake.:whip:

[Burrhus]

Will any Communists who wish the rehabilitate the historical reputations of Stalin or Mao by posting positive images of them please start their own thread for that purpose.

Likewise for those who wish to debate the details and/or morality of Mosada please start a new thread.

This thread is about rehabilitating Hitler. Please do not derail this thread. Let's stay on topic for a change.

[Captain Marinesko]

Will any Communists who wish the rehabilitate the historical reputations of Stalin or Mao by posting positive images of them please start their own thread for that purpose.

Likewise for those who wish to debate the details and/or morality of Mosada please start a new thread.

This thread is about rehabilitating Hitler. Please do not derail this thread. Let's stay on topic for a change.


Will you take us off ignore and start answering the questions repeatedly directed at you and your claims?

[Sulla the Dictator]

Will you take us off ignore and start answering the questions repeatedly directed at you and your claims?

LOL I seriously doubt it.

[Burrhus]

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/553/hitlerbraunsr2.jpg

Two paintings by Hitler

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/9471/innriveroil1911ys5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/4310/marychristadolfmp2.jpg

[Captain Marinesko]

Yeah I guess that would be a resounding "NO!"

[klipgeit]

klipgeit

Sorry to learn this, none the less it was Hitler's chicken , what your grandfather would like to have believed cannot change that.
No - its sort of accurate.
Hitler let Speer build , Speer was Hitler's tool to self expression.
Choice is one thing , fact is another.
You may make the choice between fact and fiction but you cannot make one the other , I agree that the choice is yours to make.

Hold it Cerberus.:dance2:
Piccaso's expression is the paint and canvas. He made the the choice to make fact a fiction, like a man's nose on his ass etc
There is no difference between fact and fiction
Fact is you are a MOD fiction is you are a SOD or is it :bitchfight: or the otherway around.
It was Speers wish to express his love for Hitler,by being Speer with a difference ,a spring chicken.:) in Belsen Belsen.

[cerberus]

klipgeit , I know you are trying to make a point but some how I am not quite getting it .
There is no difference between fact and fiction
They are spelt differently for a start ;) :rolleyes: , I suggest you look in the Oxford for a defination.

[cerberus]

Eva "Adolf, you never listen do you ! Are you going to cut that lawn today or do I have to do it myself!!""
There you are , proof that Hitler never did any gardening .

[Burrhus]

Starr: That is a very thoughtful post and it is definitely food for thought, Burrhus.

Thank you for the compliment and hopefully thought will be nourished.

Starr: I don't think anyone could reasonably argue against the idea that Hitler, the holocaust and nationalism has all been tied together and has been a great tool that has been used to scare and shame people away from racial solidarity and has helped push them in the direction of this globalist agenda "one world without borders" one race,etc. But I am not so sure if rehabiliting people's perceptions of hitler is the answer. I think the better option is to distance ourselves from that all together. When people among us obsess on Hitler and that whole era they are sort of helping to perpetuate this link in the minds of people. And this is a major problem as I see it.

While I agree that obsessing on Hitler and the 3rd Reich is not beneficial that is not what I am advocating for here which is a rational rehabilitation of the historical narrative with respect to Hitler, the 3rd Reich and National Socialism. What I want is for them to be portrayed honestly to the view of the general public.

The link between Hitler the evil icon and racialism and National Socialism is not perpetuated by attempting to set the historical record straight. It is perpetuated by those who use that link as a weapon in their One World, race-mixing agenda. It will do us no good to ignore the reality of that link as a weapon. As long as Hitler is perceived to be evil, Nationalism and racialism in being associated with him will also be seen as evil. The anti-nationalists and anti-racialists will always be able to drag out those conditioned emotional responses to the evil Hitler of their creation whenever nationalists and racialists try to put forth rational arguments for those positions.

Anytime we try to advocate for national sovereignty and racial homogeneity, the antis will point out the link between them and the alleged evil Hitler. They will be able to do this precisely because Hitler was a nationalist and a racialist. That cannot be denied and there is no reason why it should be. They will use the example of Hitler and the holocaust to say, "See, that's what nationalism and racialism lead to." And as long as people continue to believe that Hitler was evil and that the holocaust story is true, they will be able to use those false historical 'facts' to demonize nationalism and racialism.

There is no escaping this dilemma without rehabilitating Hitler and breaking the link between the evilness of Hitler and the holocaust on the one hand and nationalism and racialism on the other. As long as people believe that the holocaust story is true, they will believe that Hitler was evil. And as long as they believe that Hitler was evil, given that Hitler was a nationalist and a racialist, they will believe that nationalism and racialism are evil since they 'inevitably' lead to events such as the holocaust. This false chain of assumptions and bad logic must be broken if we are ever to have any chance to save the white nations of Western Civilization.

If I have not done so to this point, let me make myself clear. I am not in favor of people wearing 3rd Reich military uniforms or waving swastikas in public. I am not calling for full scale adoption of 3rd Reich political policies. Germany of 1933-1945 is in the past and always will be. Excessive nostalgia stifles creative thinking about the present and future. But that does not mean that we must reject everything from the past as useless. We learn from the past's mistakes and abandon what didn't work and retain what is still useful to us now.

I am also not, as the anti-revisonists call those who are seeking to rehabilitate Hitler, a Hitler 'idolator' or 'worshiper'. I certainly do think that he was a far better man than he has been portrayed to be in official history books and even better than most of his contemporaries but I do not see him as a saint without flaws. He was a man like other men with vices and virtues. But he was not the evil, satanic demon that popular imagery puts on public display ad nauseum in movies, tv, books and other visual and written media. Rehabilitating Hitler does not mean putting forth a false positive image of him. It means correcting the false negative image and presenting an honest, balanced image.

The need to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely an academic tempest in a teapot to be done simply to set the historical record straight on a par with debating whether Joan of Arc was a saint or a schizophrenic. It is a problem that addresses our present and future in a serious manner. Those with a global agenda of eliminating nations, creating a One World government and reducing humanity to a single, racially mixed amalgam (except for themselves) will continue to use the evil image of Hitler that they created out of false WWII propaganda to demonize those of us who oppose that agenda. Nationalists and racialists will remain marginalized and ineffective as long as they are linked to that false negative image of Hitler.They cannot break that link because it is real but they can change the nature of that link from negative to non-negative.

That requires the rehabilitation of Hitler which is what I am trying to do here.

[cerberus]

These are two of the photographs mentioned by Milhouse as shown in Professor ian Kershaw's "Hitler 1889-1936 "Hubris".
When rejected is mentioned , it means rejected by Hitler - what Burhuss presents is the image gallery as approved by Hitler - he is not really doinf rehab. at all - he is just selling Hitler in the same package as he first appeared in.

These "rejeted" views perhaps say more.

Hitler does not mean putting forth a false positive image of him. It means correcting the false negative image and presenting an honest, balanced image.

Burhuss , this image does exist - warts and all. You "say it" , you maintain that you are seeking a balance view of Hitler but you do not adhere to your own wishes.

[klipgeit]

klipgeit , I know you are trying to make a point but some how I am not quite getting it .

They are spelt differently for a start ;) :rolleyes: , I suggest you look in the Oxford for a defination.


Lol ,sure they are spelt diffrently,I use readers digest,you know as in digest,form the mouth to the anus.:) And you should not getting it.:dance2:
It is obvious you do not get it,you are a MOD and totally oblivious to obsecration.
Have a funeral on me when next you are becoming obnoxious to Hitler.

Have a nice day without any Hitler obsession.

[delete]

Look at this gentle soul.

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/image/2003-12-24/21.gif

If the animal on the picture was not laughing, but rather telling the Kid that real humans hold the bunny in the neck-skin. and not in the ears. Bunny ears was not evolved for people to use them for a handle.

[cerberus]

klipgeit
Lol ,sure they are spelt diffrently,I use readers digest,you know as in digest,form the mouth to the anus. And you should not getting it.
of course they are , :( silly me .
That oral anal connection - would you be considering the excision and removal of all existing structures and a surgical unification of the two orifices - its drastic and I would counsel against it.:whip: :hurl:
I will leave it for other more chronically fixated Hitlerites to obsess - he was really a hysterially narcistic type - very boring.

[Fitz]

That was suicide Fitz, not murder.

Josephus learned the details of the Masada story from two women who had survived the "suicide" by hiding in the cistern with their children. Their religion supposedly prohibited them from taking their own lives, so they drew lots to see who would slaughter the other. Typically you hide from someone intent on doing you harm. Doing you harm against your will I might add.

The parallel between Masada and the fall of Berlin is easy to make. That one is considered a heroic struggle against impossible odds, while the other is considered a senseless slaughter of innocents is very much on topic.

[Shades of Revolution]

Read about the jewish masada myth here.

What you have posted essentially says that there were flaws in the account told by Josephus. It does not prove murder.

Will any Communists who wish the rehabilitate the historical reputations of Stalin or Mao by posting positive images of them please start their own thread for that purpose.

Likewise for those who wish to debate the details and/or morality of Mosada please start a new thread.

The second one I can respect, but I think that what the people are trying to convey by posting pictures of Stalin and Mao is that nobody really ever doubted Hitlers love for his family or his people, and trying to convince people that Hitler was a better person than they thought because he had this side of him isn't going to work. Nobody here wants to "rehabilitate" the image of Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot, they are simply making a point.

Posting these pictures is futile, it's almost like you're trying to prove to the world that Hitler was human. Of course he was human, no sane person has ever contested that. Your efforts would be better focused on trying to make Hitler seem like a better human, than just simply a human. As you are making your points now, this comes off as more of a whitewashing of his image than a rehabilitation.

[Burrhus]

White people who hope to prevent the extinction of the white race and the disappearance of the sovereign nations of Western Civiliazation are doomed to failure as long as they continue to believe that by disavowing Hitler they can avoid having the false historical representation of him as an evil man used as weapon against them.

Thay can not. Sixty years of experience should be enough to demonstrate that fact. They have been losing ground steadily during that time and it has been consistently the case that when positive, rational racists have tried to present their position for public approval, their opponents play the evil-Hitler-card. Hitler was evil therefore racism is evil. This shibboleth has been employed over and over to demonize those who would resist the extinction of the white race.

The same is the case with nationalism. Even non-white nationalists are subjected to having the evil-Hitler-card played on them. Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad are the most recent victims. Kaddahafi, Slobodan Milosevic and numerous others have been demonized by simply being branded with this powerful negative epithet. The leaders of the various nationalist parties in Europe such as Le Pen, Griffin and the Austrian Joerg Haider have been maligned and marginalized to their publics by being compared to Hitler.

My effort to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely from a desire to set the historical record straight (though that is important in itself) but rather from a recognition that preventing the extinction of the white race and the dissolution of Western Civilization require it. If the white race and Western Civilization could be saved without rehabilitating Hitler, the importance of doing so would only be a matter of intellectual integrity in the telling of history.

But that is not the case. That effort is important precisely because it is necessary to achieve our goals. Hiding under the blankets and pretending that we have no connection to Hitler is naive. Our opponents will always, as they have for the last sixty years, pull the blankets off and hurl the accusation of evil Hitlerism at us any time we openly advocate for our positions. It is the positions on race and nationalism that they want to discredit. It just so happens that they have found the evil-Hitler-card to be the most effective means to that end.

The only chance that we have is to take that weapon out of their hands. The only way to do that is to understand that the holocaust story is a lie and that Hitler was not the evil demon that he is portrayed as being. When Hitler's historical reputation is rehabilitated, and not until then, we can begin to resist our opponents in the struggle for our race and culture without having to face the currently dominating rhetorical weapons in their arsenal...the holocaust lie and its attendant evil Hitlerism.

The emotional conditioning that has been instilled in the vast majority of people which produces feelings of repulsion at the sight of images of Hitler and of written falsehoods about the evil deeds of Hitler and the German people must be overcome if a rational analysis of the historical record is to be made. An honest telling of the events of 1933-1945 is unavoidably necessary if we are to win the struggle for our race and our nations.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5952/hitlersakinderfe1.jpg

[cerberus]

Burhuss
White people who hope to prevent the extinction of the white race and the disappearance of the sovereign nations of Western Civiliazation are doomed to failure as long as they continue to believe that by disavowing Hitler they can avoid having the false historical representation of him as an evil man used as weapon against them.
So Burhuss - you are motivated by a "WN" mission to bring salvation to the Fuhrer , you are on a hiding to nothing - you make a rod for your own back and then wonder why ?
Utter folly .
This shibboleth has been employed over and over to demonize those who would resist the extinction of the white race.

Always the Jews and always the race card, I wonder why ?
My effort to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely from a desire to set the historical record straight (though that is important in itself) but rather from a recognition that preventing the extinction of the white race and the dissolution of Western Civilization require it. If the white race and Western Civilization could be saved without rehabilitating Hitler, the importance of doing so would only be a matter of intellectual integrity in the telling of history.

Or by an act of historical distortion which lacks integrity - this is your method and your mission.
An honest telling of the events of 1933-1945 is unavoidably necessary if we are to win the struggle for our race and our nations.
You are not giving an accurate telling of the events of 33-45 , it is in conflict with your aims - if you can tell history without regard to the facts you are on a winner.
BTW This is not Ad Hom . this is the truth.


Had Burhuss taken time to listen to the lecrure I linked to by ian Kershaw he would be well aware that his presentation of an evil , evil above all evil Hitler has been very much set aside and is perhaps more useful to Burhuss than it is entertained by modern thinking historians.
I take it as a mark of the lack of thought Burhuss gives to his arguement and his outrdated and ill considered reference to Hitler in these terms that he did not consider taking into account Sir Ian Kershaws ability and contribution to our understanding of Hitler and the 1933-45 period .
Quite clearly what Burhuss suggests is wrong , it is if anything a product of his own mind set and inability to understand Hitler as a human being.

Your efforts to present Hitler as a human being - sorry Burhuss - historians have the drop on you.

http://www.open2.net/oulecture2005/the_lecture.html

You will find Burhuss that Kershaw presents a much fuller deeper portrait of the Fuhrer than you a one sided display of photos do - few will be taken in by such a shallow understanding.

[JohnAFlynn]

White people who hope to prevent the extinction of the white race and the disappearance of the sovereign nations of Western Civiliazation are doomed to failure as long as they continue to believe that by disavowing Hitler they can avoid having the false historical representation of him as an evil man used as weapon against them.

Thay can not. Sixty years of experience should be enough to demonstrate that fact. They have been losing ground steadily during that time and it has been consistently the case that when positive, rational racists have tried to present their position for public approval, their opponents play the evil-Hitler-card. Hitler was evil therefore racism is evil. This shibboleth has been employed over and over to demonize those who would resist the extinction of the white race.

The same is the case with nationalism. Even non-white nationalists are subjected to having the evil-Hitler-card played on them. Saddam Hussein and Ahmadinejad are the most recent victims. Kaddahafi, Slobodan Milosevic and numerous others have been demonized by simply being branded with this powerful negative epithet. The leaders of the various nationalist parties in Europe such as Le Pen, Griffin and the Austrian Joerg Haider have been maligned and marginalized to their publics by being compared to Hitler.

My effort to rehabilitate Hitler is not merely from a desire to set the historical record straight (though that is important in itself) but rather from a recognition that preventing the extinction of the white race and the dissolution of Western Civilization require it. If the white race and Western Civilization could be saved without rehabilitating Hitler, the importance of doing so would only be a matter of intellectual integrity in the telling of history.

But that is not the case. That effort is important precisely because it is necessary to achieve our goals. Hiding under the blankets and pretending that we have no connection to Hitler is naive. Our opponents will always, as they have for the last sixty years, pull the blankets off and hurl the accusation of evil Hitlerism at us any time we openly advocate for our positions. It is the positions on race and nationalism that they want to discredit. It just so happens that they have found the evil-Hitler-card to be the most effective means to that end.

The only chance that we have is to take that weapon out of their hands. The only way to do that is to understand that the holocaust story is a lie and that Hitler was not the evil demon that he is portrayed as being. When Hitler's historical reputation is rehabilitated, and not until then, we can begin to resist our opponents in the struggle for our race and culture without having to face the currently dominating rhetorical weapons in their arsenal...the holocaust lie and its attendant evil Hitlerism.

The emotional conditioning that has been instilled in the vast majority of people which produces feelings of repulsion at the sight of images of Hitler and of written falsehoods about the evil deeds of Hitler and the German people must be overcome if a rational analysis of the historical record is to be made. An honest telling of the events of 1933-1945 is unavoidably necessary if we are to win the struggle for our race and our nations.

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/5952/hitlersakinderfe1.jpg


That is probably the best explanation I have seen for why we need to effectively counter the jews' lies about both the holohoax and Hitler. Thank you Burrhus.

[cerberus]

JohnAFlynn
That is probably the best explanation I have seen for why we need to effectively counter the jews' lies about both the holohoax and Hitler. Thank you Burrhus.

JAF - see above link - it is ausio when you down load it - it will pour a considerable amount of water on the powder of what Burhuss says - and I have to say again - always the Jews and the Holocaust - it always comes back to that .
One thing I will say for Kershaw - he can discuss Hitler in a meaningful , eductaion and construstive manner without having to spent half his time talking about the Holocaust.
Honestly -its the same old same old time and time again and always the record that is being played takes no account of the work historians do - everything is tailored and distorted to drive that square peg into that round hole .

[Globus]

That is probably the best explanation I have seen for why we need to effectively counter the jews' lies about both the holohoax and Hitler. Thank you Burrhus.

You're problem is that Holocaust history isn't written by Jews and it isn't a lie.

But don't let that keep you from spewing your mindless Jew hatred.

[ivory bill]

Good old Globus, doing his part, logging in the hours defending the Tribe from internet calumny, dependably outraged, predictably boring.

[Starr]

But that is not the case. That effort is important precisely because it is necessary to achieve our goals. Hiding under the blankets and pretending that we have no connection to Hitler is naive. Our opponents will always, as they have for the last sixty years, pull the blankets off and hurl the accusation of evil Hitlerism at us any time we openly advocate for our positions. It is the positions on race and nationalism that they want to discredit. It just so happens that they have found the evil-Hitler-card to be the most effective means to that end.

Let them hurl the accusations, there are ways to discredit this argument without playing into their hands. One of the major and most simple ways, since people already can see the hypocrisy that surrounds this, is by reminding them that anyone else besides whites not only can, but our encouraged to advocate for their positions. If it is a good, uplifting and positive thing for them how in the world could the same thing be "evil" for us? The old stupid counter argument about how whites don't need to do this since we are a majority in the countries we live in is changing rapidly and starting to make people uncomfortable.

There could be some positive if you are very good at arguing in favor of Hitler and effectively showing that the holocaust might not be all that it is cracked up to be(and if anyone is capable of this, it would be you, burrhus), but others don't do this so well. That is my other concern with this approach.
The other thing about the holocaust that could be just as effective as trying to prove it is exaggerated is in showing the ways it is used for certain ends. This makes those who do this look less than honorable, certainly. can you think of many things worse than certain people using their "dead" for political and other purposes?

[cerberus]

Ivory Bill
Good old Globus, doing his part, logging in the hours defending the Tribe from internet calumny, dependably outraged, predictably boring.

IB I can't help but note that when Burhuss and yourself are given on a plate an appraisal of Hitler by an award winning author and historian of particular note that you are more comfortable making snipping remarks and pety flames than you are at considering the evidence and making a constructive comment.
Not a flame - just a reasonable remark - the lecture from Kershaw leaves this thread dead in water surrounded by a mass of Hitler kissing children photos.
All in all an amazingly weak and empty rational - extract a series of photos from the record and display them whilst putting your fingers in your ears.
I wish we had a "Smilie" for shaking the head.

[Globus]

Good old Globus, doing his part, logging in the hours defending the Tribe from internet calumny, dependably outraged, predictably boring.

And here's Ivory Bill with his usual contribution -- nothing!

[koch curve]

from this post on this thread is devoted to imagining a utopian forum society where both ivory bill and globus are banned

[JohnAFlynn]

You're problem is that Holocaust history isn't written by Jews and it isn't a lie.

But don't let that keep you from spewing your mindless Jew hatred.

Au contraire, mon ami juden. It is "mindful jew hatred" that I am spewing.

[Globus]

Au contraire, mon ami juden. It is "mindful jew hatred" that I am spewing.

I'm not Jewish, and there is everything mindless about your hatreds, prejudices and the pathetic view of the world they lead you to adopt.

[Starr]

I'm not Jewish

I don't think at this point that you would admit you are if you were.
But if you are not, this is what would make your obsession on this topic and the moral indignation you direct at anyone who disagrees with your views as even more strange, imo. Why does this particular topic and the topic of jews, in general, get you so fired up? I see others, such as Milhouse, being able to present his arguments in a coherant manner. The way in which you present an argument and therefore the way in which it is going to be recieved is as important as the argument, itself. Your over emotional rants and raves and the way in which you throw around words like "jew hater" does not come across as any more reasoned than the kind of people who constantly see jews and jew conspiracies(there are a few who take the revisionist position here like this, most are not and yet you classify them all into one neat little package since it suits your purposes and style of debate, which is to attack the person rather than the argument. in a sense, you argue like a black man.:rofl: ) You are just the other side of the coin and every bit as dogmatic, but you can't see this. This amuses me.

This is an honest question(what motivates you to act in this manner) and I am betting you will not answer it with anything more than petty flames.

[Globus]

I don't think at this point that you would admit you are if you were.

What makes you think that what you think has any importance whatsoever?

You've already been shown over and over again to have nothing but emotional prejudices which dictate your journey through life. You don't care about the state of knowledge of anything. You only now how to pretend that there is some logical foundation for your silly WN philosophy.

And Jew haters are repulsive to all decent human beings. You're claim about presenting coherent arguments is your usual fairy tale. When people present arguments, they are rebutted. When they present nothing but hatred, they are responded to appropriately. There is nothing as thin skinned as a hater.

[Starr]

This is an honest question(what motivates you to act in this manner) and I am betting you will not answer it with anything more than petty flames.

I must be psychic.

You're claim about presenting coherent arguments is your usual fairy tale

I used the word coherant in reference to Milhouse. Surely you can see a world of difference in his style and yours, right?

I would also label Burrhus and Shirt(off the top of my head) as being able to offer their arguments in a coherant and reasoned manner and yet, you "debate" them with the same broad brush "you are a hater" tactic.

And Jew haters are repulsive to all decent human beings. You're claim about presenting coherent arguments is your usual fairy tale. When people present arguments, they are rebutted. When they present nothing but hatred, they are responded to appropriately. There is nothing as thin skinned as a hater.

Oh, god, spare the theatrics. this is an impossible task for you, isn't it? Who are you, Abe Foxman?:rofl:

anyway back on topic.......

[Globus]

I must be psychic.

No, you're just used to that circular reasoning that conspiracy types become prisoners of.

It passes for thinking for some.

[cerberus]

Starr
There could be some positive if you are very good at arguing in favor of Hitler and effectively showing that the holocaust might not be all that it is cracked up to be(and if anyone is capable of this, it would be you, burrhus), but others don't do this so well. That is my other concern with this approach.
Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he is unwilling to engage - he has already been given via a lecture by Sir Ian Kershaw a comprehensive debunk of his percieved presentation of Hitler , both that which he mainatins Hitler is presented as by historians and that which he would seek to present himself to the exclusion of any other facet of the man's personality.
Burhuss does not address the very obvious spin doctoring management of the public image of the Fuhrer , Burhuss sells a myth at the expense of address the basic issues of the man himself.
I have presented him which the view of a professional historian , who has written the most comprehensive study of the man to date and Burhuss has said not a single word, not one.
His arguement is dead in the water.

As far as his being the man to advocate that the Holocaust did not occur this can only be done if the facts are addressed and history is not cherry picked - to date this is the basis of the revisionist rejection theories , again Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he refuses to enage and has half the commentators on ignore.
Preaching to the converted or talking to yourself is a brillant way of advacning your cause - like driving round in circles it gets you nowhere , fast.

[Burrhus]

Starr: Let them hurl the accusations, there are ways to discredit this argument without playing into their hands. One of the major and most simple ways, since people already can see the hypocrisy that surrounds this, is by reminding them that anyone else besides whites not only can, but our encouraged to advocate for their positions. If it is a good, uplifting and positive thing for them how in the world could the same thing be "evil" for us? The old stupid counter argument about how whites don't need to do this since we are a majority in the countries we live in is changing rapidly and starting to make people uncomfortable.

Yes, rational arguments can be and are made in favor of positive racism, racial separation and nationalism. The problem is that as soon as those arguments begin to be effective and people start listening, the anti-white race-mixers pull out the evil-Hitler card and those rational arguments dissolve in a puddle of emotionally conditioned feelings of repulsion instilled in people by the pairing of negative images of Hitler with the propaganda lies about WWII and the holocaust.

Starr: There could be some positive if you are very good at arguing in favor of Hitler and effectively showing that the holocaust might not be all that it is cracked up to be(and if anyone is capable of this, it would be you, burrhus), but others don't do this so well. That is my other concern with this approach.

If I understand you correctly here, you are saying that people without sufficient background knowledge about Hitler and the holocaust would find themselves bested in debates with the true believers. That is probably true and would be ill advised. But that is not what I have been advocating for here. I am not even trying to convince people that Hitler was "good" (a very complicated word) or that the holocaust story is false (which I believe it to be).

My purpose here has been quite simple and I had hoped clear. What I would like for people to take away from this thread is an awareness of the fact that what they believe to be true about Hitler, the 3rd Reich, the German people and the holocaust story is the result of emotional conditioning generated by pairing negative images of Hitler and other German scenes with WWII propaganda which, rightly or wrongly, was put forth to create the kind of fanaticism and hysteria that wartime leaders feel that they need to instill in their people in order to prosecute a war.

That war is over but the political agenda that it was the extension of is not over. What is needed now is for people to understand what was done to them that has caused them to continue to hold beliefs that are not based on a rational analysis of the historical record. What I am hoping for is that people can see that Hitler was not the evil demon that he has been portrayed as and suppress their emotional responses sufficiently to finally engage in that rational analysis and see that Hitler was a better man than they believe him to be. Then they can look at the war and the propaganda lies that grew into the false holocaust story without the emotional interference that is currently the case for most people. Then they can begin to acquire the background knowledge that they need to debate the true believers successfully.

When people can do that, I am confident that they will see Hitler and the holocaust story in a different way. An honest way. Hitler was not an evil man and the holocaust story is not true.

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/7167/adolf20hitler29yj3.jpg

[Captain Marinesko]

What's the point of "rational arguments" when you ignore any questions of your claims, coward?

[guy]

What's the point of "rational arguments" when you ignore any questions of your claims, coward?
By putting every holocaust "acceptor" on ignore, Burrhus is essentially "tabooing" holocaust acceptance. And of course, Burrhus also made the claim that tabooing something proves that it is true (e.g. in the case of holocaust denial). Thus, by his own "logic" and behavior, Burrhus is proving that holocaust acceptance is true.

[cerberus]

Burrhuss
Yes, rational arguments can be and are made in favor of positive racism, racial separation and nationalism.
So what has this got to do with Hitler as an historical figure ?
if Burhuss would examine Kershaws lecture he wouldsee that it does not have anything to do with nationalism as a modern political issue - kershaw discusses him in terms of the historical context of his life and times.
By mixing the two what does this achieve ?

guy
By putting every holocaust "acceptor" on ignore, Burrhus is essentially "tabooing" holocaust acceptance. And of course, Burrhus also made the claim that tabooing something proves that it is true (e.g. in the case of holocaust denial). Thus, by his own "logic" and behavior, Burrhus is proving that holocaust acceptance is true.
Burhuss sends himself to "Coventry".
Captain Marinesko
What's the point of "rational arguments" when you ignore any questions of your claims, coward?
I don't think Burhuss is a coward , but he certainly makes no progress and a series of photographs viewed out of context does not prove anything.
AS Kershaw said of "Der Untergang" and the headlines regarding the movie "treating Hitler like a human being"
" Woah ! Hitler a human being , just when we had been told he was a monster from Mars"
He goes on to say that presenting "Hitler as a carpet bitting madman" is hardly accurate.

Burhuss it is your views which present the sterotype - the sterotype you require to endorse your own views - news is Burhuss the world has moved on - it is your own view which is inaccurate - you are to some extent creating your own image and blaming others for sustaining it - big straw man .
Not a leg to stand on.
Its a good job you are ignoring everyone Burhuss it at least keeps your illusions intact - problem is people are reading the replies and as you don't contribute - you are not heard, or at best it is indirectly.

This "proximity talking" is silly but if its what you want to do fire away as it stands you are not making any ground.

[Captain Marinesko]

The problem is he presents all these waxing philosophical questions, "why, why, why", but his claims are mostly strawmen, and he won't answer simple questions about his premise. For example, he won't answer as to why pictures of Hitler speaking are "negative". In one post he pretends that a major reason why people believe the Holocaust is because "negative images"(which he won't clarify) condition people. "Hitler is evil, ergo the Holocaust happened", basically. Of course nobody in their right mind bases the evidence for the Holocaust on Hitler's "evil".

He doesn't feel any responsibility to explain his claims or theories.

[cerberus]

What do the images say - they say nothing because the context within which Burhuss wants to present them is divorced from the subject matter of the Holocaust or even WW2.
I have seen revisionists do the same with photographs taken on site at Auchwitz - the fate of those shown is deemed to be "contested" or at worst they are described as people standing beside a train or standing beside trees.
the context is removed and the content of the image is rendered meaningless - Burhuss plays a similar game and calls it " rehabilation of a negative image".

The arguement or rather that lack of it is so shallow you could not dip your toe in it.

[Starr]

There isn't anyone who personifies the evil, dark, scary look like this guy. I don't think I have ever seen one picture where he does not look like this:

http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/History/MidEast/04/phillip/ayatollah.jpg

Done for similar reasons I suppose

[delete]

Starr

Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he is unwilling to engage - he has already been given via a lecture by Sir Ian Kershaw a comprehensive debunk of his percieved presentation of Hitler , both that which he mainatins Hitler is presented as by historians and that which he would seek to present himself to the exclusion of any other facet of the man's personality.
Burhuss does not address the very obvious spin doctoring management of the public image of the Fuhrer , Burhuss sells a myth at the expense of address the basic issues of the man himself.
I have presented him which the view of a professional historian , who has written the most comprehensive study of the man to date and Burhuss has said not a single word, not one.
His arguement is dead in the water.

As far as his being the man to advocate that the Holocaust did not occur this can only be done if the facts are addressed and history is not cherry picked - to date this is the basis of the revisionist rejection theories , again Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he refuses to enage and has half the commentators on ignore.
Preaching to the converted or talking to yourself is a brillant way of advacning your cause - like driving round in circles it gets you nowhere , fast.

Your post is just one long ad hominem. To see this, we can only change a few vital words in your text. :)

Starr

Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he is unwilling to engage - he has already been given via a lecture by the Pope a comprehensive debunk of his percieved presentation of Christ , both that which he mainatins Christ is presented as by theologians and that which he would seek to present himself to the exclusion of any other facet of the man's personality.
Burhuss does not address the very obvious spin doctoring management of the public image of the Christ , Burhuss sells a myth at the expense of address the basic issues of the man himself.
I have presented him which the view of a professional theologian , who has written the most comprehensive study of the man to date and Burhuss has said not a single word, not one.
His arguement is dead in the water.

As far as his being the man to advocate that the Resurrection did not occur this can only be done if the facts are addressed and history is not cherry picked - to date this is the basis of the atheist rejection theories , again Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he refuses to enage and has half the commentators on ignore.
Preaching to the converted or talking to yourself is a brillant way of advacning your cause - like driving round in circles it gets you nowhere , fast.

[Globus]

Your post is just one long ad hominem. To see this, we can only change a few vital words in your text. :)

LOL!

Changing those words does nothing to reveal his comments as ad hominem. He clearly points out that Burrhus never offers a sliver of evidence for his views and never dares respond to people who point that, and his errors, out.

[cerberus]

Ad.hom - sorry delete - it is a statement of fact.
Changing the name changes change nothing , amusing but pointless.

[Burrhus]

Originally Posted by cerberus
Starr

Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he is unwilling to engage

Who says that I can't, cerberus? Obviously I can given the fact that I am doing so. Some thought in the choice of the words that you use is advised.

I am perfectly willing to engage in debate (which is what I presume that you meant to but didn't write). I am not however willing to waste my time debating with people who lack the intelligence and intellectual integrity to offer rational, honest counter-arguments to those which I (and others here) offer. I am not willing to debate people who are uncivil and hurl abusive language at their opponents in an attempt, all too often successful, to start flame wars which drive away curious third-party readers and threaten to have threads locked by diligent moderators.

Consider the quality of your posts, cerberus. They have all the hallmarks of a 12 year-old writer (eg., see below). They are replete with spelling, punctuation, grammar, syntax and semantic errors which indicate a lack of respect for your readers. The failure to proofread your posts is a sign of failure to sufficiently think through what you have to say. I re-read my posts two or three times before submitting them, checking for such errors but more importantly while I am doing that I also re-think what I have written for logical and factual errors that I may have made. I also remove any fits of pique that may have overcome me in a moment of anger.

This is not a trivial matter, cerberus. Re-reading and re-thinking what one has written while proofreading is an aid in assuring that what one has written is rational and comprehensible. The failure to do this is common and to be expected in young writers and hopefully will be overcome through maturing and education. At your age it is inexcusable and I prefer not to engage in debate with someone who writes in such an immature manner. Adults do not waste time debating with children.

Your arguments and those of the others whom I choose to ignore here exhibit all the traits of irrational responses under the control of their emotions rather than well thought out rational arguments free of emotional interference. That is at best. The worst case possibility, I will not mention here.

I have just spent one hour on this response. Time better spent on something else.

Consider this post:

Originally Posted by cerberus
Starr

Burhuss (mis-spelled) cannot advocate a position if he is unwilling to engage (in or with whom? ) - he has already been given via a lecture by Sir Ian Kershaw a comprehensive debunk (not a noun) of his percieved (mis-spelled) presentation of Hitler , both that which he mainatins (mis-spelled) Hitler is presented as by historians (syntactically improper construction)and that which he would seek to present himself (misplaced pronoun)to the exclusion of any other facet of the man's personality.
Burhuss (mis-spelled) does not address the very obvious spin (missing hyphen) doctoring management of the public image of the Fuhrer , Burhuss (mis-spelled) sells a myth at the expense of address (addressing ) the basic issues of the man (poor style, should read, "concerning the man") himself.
I have presented him which the view of a professional historian , (no comma needed here) who has written the most comprehensive study of the man to date and Burhuss (mis-spelled) has said not a single word, not one.
His arguement (mis-spelled) is dead in the water.

As far as his being the man to advocate that the Holocaust did not occur this (phrase in bold does not, as it ought to, correspond semantically to the word this in italics)can only be done if the facts are addressed and history is not cherry picked - to date this is the basis of the revisionist rejection theories (period, no comma, new sentence) , again Burhuss cannot advocate a position if he refuses to enage (in or with?)and has half the commentators on ignore (just how do you know how many I have on ignore?).
Preaching to the converted or talking to yourself is a brillant way of advacning (mis-spelled) your cause - like driving round (poor word choice, should be "around") in circles (missing hyphen) it gets you nowhere , (No comma needed here) fast.

This is only one of your posts, Cerberus. I could have chosen any of hundreds of others. They are generally of this low compositional quality indicative of carelessness in thought and lack of concern for one's readers.

As I have said before, I am willing to debate anyone who displays the capacity to present a rational argument in a mature and reasonably well-written manner. Those whom I choose to ignore here do not display those characteristics.

I should note that I only read your text above because Delete quoted it in one of his posts.

[Burrhus]

http://img241.imageshack.us/img241/4719/hitler202620kleine20me4lr5.jpg

[cerberus]

As I have said before, I am willing to debate anyone who displays the capacity to present a rational argument in a mature and reasonably well-written manner. Those whom I choose to ignore here do not display those characteristics.

I is gtatfil fer the lessin and wishes I was a smat as you and alolf is or waz as hes now dead as a maggit. .;) :rolleyes: :hitler:
Don't go to any bother on my account.
The photograph Burrhuss - does this give me to think that Hitler was fond of young girls - what does it tell you ?
It is meaningless , as is your case.
I do believe Burrhuss I did hit a nerve and given the number of people you are currently ignoring - many who not only write better but are more informed than myself but it does lead me to believe that you are not being entirely honest in your answers.
Now this is something which I would not expect from a man of your age, one fast approaching the age group of a senior citizen.
Now enough of this ad. hom - that you don't want to lower yourself to answer me troubles me not - but at least have the manners to answer Milhouse and Captain Marinesko - in these two gentlemen you can have no such excuse.

[guy]

I am perfectly willing to engage in debate...
If that were true, you could at the very least scroll over some of your opponents' posts from time to time, in search of a legitimate argument. The fact that you ignore almost all of your opponents almost all of the time, even though you spend so much time here, and even though it will only take a few minutes to scroll over some of your opponents' posts, indicates that this is not the case.

[cerberus]

Guy
If that were true, you could at the very least scroll over some of your opponents' posts from time to time, in search of a legitimate argument. The fact that you ignore almost all of your opponents almost all of the time, even though you spend so much time here, and even though it will only take a few minutes to scroll over some of your opponents' posts, indicates that this is not the case.
Well Burrhuss was willing to give me a D minus for my poor english and keyboard skills which shows that he has read at least one post - his reason for doing so - more intersted in the Ad. Hom . aspect that any willingness to answer any questions or points made by other more worthy posts.
Burrhuss makes much of the need to accurate in the structure of the post and labours on this , to which we are all grateful to him - but as I have pointed out and as Guy has also observed Burrhuss has no intention of answering anyone , nice jpegs of Hitler - all we can expect.
You may now fall on your own sword Burrhuss , in your own time that is. :thanks:
Now Burhus if you might be willing to demonstrate your willingness and ability to : As I have said before, I am willing to debate anyone who displays the capacity to present a rational argument in a mature and reasonably well-written manner..
Or is Those whom I choose to ignore here do not display those characteristics.
simply your get out clause ?
As I read it and you have demonstrated it seems that anyone who does not agree with you is automatically falls into the above category.
Do what you want Burrhuss - I didn't miss any sleep and won't and do keep posting the meaningless jpegs of Hitler taking flowers from children and shaking hands with the workers - they don't really mean anything and the more you post them up the more lame your arguement becomes. Your unwillingness to engage with anyone only compounds your problem , it is you who is utterly failing to get his message across - and I mean utterly.

[Captain Marinesko]

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c35/jpslovjanski/ohshithitler.jpg

[cerberus]

I think it might be Burhuss .:rofl:

[cerberus]

Burhuss - The "Hitler MYTH" Images and reality in The Third Reich. Ian Kershaw. ( Oxford University Press - ISBN 0-19-280206-2. (2001).

Kershaw deals with Hitler , the image and reality of the 3rd Reich in rather more detail than a superficial display of photographs , none of which have any date , any detail , any context or any explaination.

I take it Burhuss has not nor is he going to listen to Professor Kershaws lecture on Hitler - even though it addresses his own views of the Fuhrer head on - perhaps if Burhuss had been asked to give a lecture on Hitler we might have been
shown a power point presentation of various images of Hitler meeting youngsters to recieve flowers , ending with him giving out Iron Crosses 2nd Class "from a grateful Fuhrer".:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :hitler:

Attached a copy of a postcard I have - shows Hitler as he liked to be shown , my view is that he is on the lookout for another bunch of flowers .:whip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98bgfFNnoDA&mode=related&search=

[Fenrisulfr]

This is my favorite photo of Hitler. :rofl:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/csaszar30/HolocaustMythExposed-01-FakedPhoto.jpg


I bet he singlehandedly killed all those people.

[cerberus]

What did Ludendorf say "This acursed man (Hitler) will bring down the entire "Reich"

I was using this from Kipling earlier this evening - it could have been written with Hitler in mind.


"I could not dig: I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young ?"

[Burrhus]

Happy Birthday, Adolph.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6817/hitlergirlwithflowersml2.jpg

[eggheadbanga]

Happy Birthday, Adolph.

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/6817/hitlergirlwithflowersml2.jpg

At least spell his name right. It's of course actually Dolfy.

:D

[cerberus]

What did you give him Burhuss ?
I would give him community service for nicking flowers from little children.

In all seriousness it a date which has gone unnoticed , sinking of RMS Titanic (14th April ?) also passed without a whisper.

[Basil Fawlty]

I shall be torching a longboat to the strains of Siegfried's Funeral Music from Wagner's Götterdämmerung in Killary Habrour, Ireland's one and only fjord.

Afterwards there will be a short reception at which wine from the Rhineland along with a non-alcoholic alternative (in honour of Uncle Adolf's teetotalling) will be served including canapes such as Herman Goering sandwiches, Goebbels salad, and some Eva Prawn.

The evening's entertainments will consist of a torchlight parade ending with a re-enactment of Kristallnacht on various jewellers and furriers in the Dublin 2 region. I've invited the ambassador's of Germany and Austria but have so far received no reply, how rude. I'm hoping to receive some EU funding for the day's proceedings.

[cerberus]

Basil
will consist of a torchlight parade
basil , if you might give some " clarification" - will you be taking a "traditional route" , have you given sufficent notice to the parades commission.
PS Do they cover party rallies as well ?

[Burrhus]

I shall be torching a longboat to the strains of Siegfried's Funeral Music from Wagner's Götterdämmerung in Killary Habrour, Ireland's one and only fjord.

Afterwards there will be a short reception at which wine from the Rhineland along with a non-alcoholic alternative (in honour of Uncle Adolf's teetotalling) will be served including canapes such as Herman Goering sandwiches, Goebbels salad, and some Eva Prawn.

The evening's entertainments will consist of a torchlight parade ending with a re-enactment of Kristallnacht on various jewellers and furriers in the Dublin 2 region. I've invited the ambassador's of Germany and Austria but have so far received no reply, how rude. I'm hoping to receive some EU funding for the day's proceedings.

Wish I could have been there. Save a window for me to break.

[Basil Fawlty]

Basil

basil , if you might give some " clarification" - will you be taking a "traditional route"The route we take will become the traditional route.
have you given sufficent notice to the parades commission.No, we are going for the authentic Munich feel and are hoping to recreate the kind of scenes of the Putsch, you know, street battles, that kind of thing, outdo last year's abortive orange march riot in Dublin (what the hell were they thinking of?)

[cerberus]

Basil
(what the hell were they thinking of?)
What indeed. My guess is they took a left turn after leaving Drumcree in heavy fog .
The route we take will become the traditional route.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_D7WtOHZd0

Re worked as a Dublin Special - as casting director Basil you can pick your own team , Burhuss wants a window kept for him.
PS You will have to pen a scene in which someone presents flowers , after all , its traditional and historically accurate:)

[Jake Featherston]

Killary Habrour, Ireland's one and only fjord.

What's the defining characteristic of a fjord, anyway? Does it have something to do with glaciation?