Remember Hitler? Hitler lives in technicolor

[welsh]

Looks like the Germans are doing a bit of history. What do you think? Should Adolf continue to be demonized or should he be seen as an emotional human with some goofy ideas.

Is it wise for the Germans to get back into this, or might this kind of media lead to glorification of things past?

Personally, I think this is healthy and I doubt the Germans will go all Nazi and start running around with black SS outfits.

That said, hot German chicks goose stepping in black highboots is kind of kinky.
Springtime for Hitler and Germany.
Deutschland is happy again....

Hitler- I liebe ya, I liebe ya, now won't you liebe me alone!

German history

Taboo downfall

Sep 9th 2004 | BERLIN
From The Economist print edition

A new Hitler movie reopens questions about the past

Disturbed and disturbing

PORTRAYING Hitler on screen has always been a taboo. If the Führer were shown at all, it was for seconds, from behind or far away. Making him the object of a film seemed impossible. No longer. Next week, Germans will have their first close-up movie encounter with Hitler when “The Downfall”, a portrayal of the last days in the bunker, opens. In months to come, they will get a closer look at other Nazi leaders. A documentary, “The Goebbels Experiment”, will profile Hitler's propagandist; other “perpetrator” movies are in the making.

Such films have produced a heated debate. Should one humanise Hitler, showing him crying, kissing Eva Braun or being nice to his dog and secretary? Does it help to know that Goebbels was a very unpopular boy? Might such films suggest that the Germans are starting to forgive Hitler and his gang?

There is no conspiracy among film-makers to shed a softer light on Germany's past. The wave of movies has more to do with a clutch of Nazi-related anniversaries, not least the 60th anniversary of the war's end next May. Such dates naturally mean greater interest in those who started it.

Yet the films, like recent books about Allied bombing or German refugees from east Prussia, do signal a shift in how Germans see the past. As long as memories were fresh and many involved were still alive, it was easier to concentrate on the Nazis' victims. Now, with the events receding and most eye-witnesses dead, the culture of commemoration has come. This means that both the sufferings of ordinary Germans and the stories of the perpetrators attract more interest.

Nor does trying to understand imply any desire to forgive. “The Downfall” and “The Goebbels Experiment” are strictly factual. “The Downfall” is based on the work of Joachim Fest, a historian, and the memoirs of Hitler's last secretary. The Goebbels film uses his own words, taken from his diaries. In both films, the result gives the impression of a disturbed personality. Goebbels shifts between depression and euphoria; he hates everybody, except anyone who shows affection for him. “The Downfall” reveals Hitler's loss of touch with reality. Its only weakness, indeed, is that it does not really explain what made him so attractive to Germans of the time.

 

[DarkCorp]

I don't see anything wrong about someone being proud of their country, or having a sense of nationalism.

Doing what needs to be done for lebensraum and for the volk is understandable. Even today, countries do what they need to do in order to remain top dog.

What germans shouldn't forget about is the flawed eugenics principles the nazis so ardently believed in. No race is superior to another and I believe success is not governed by genetics so much as it is by hardwork and personal responsibility.

 

[Mikey]

I see no problem in Germans makinh Hitler related TV stuff - We Brits do all the time. 60 years is more than enough time for anyone to realise that the Germans have long-since moved on from those times. Also, the younger people need to know, so that they do not go wrong in the same way, as do we all.

 

[welsh]

shouldn't another one of those memories be, maybe, the holocaust?

WHile I think the Germans are depicting Adolf as a dangerous nut, what about those who would try to redeem someone as a hero who has the blood of millions on his hands?

Are you suggesting that Lebensraum was justified?

 

[Sander]

I don't see anything wrong about someone being proud of their country, or having a sense of nationalism.

Well, for one, it's plain silly. Why would you be proud of something you had no influence on whatsoever? And it can lead to a lot of stupid things....

Doing what needs to be done for lebensraum and for the volk is understandable. Even today, countries do what they need to do in order to remain top dog.

That has nothing to do with "doing what needs to be done" but with successfully exploiting your own potential. Growing is not the same as prospering, since a growing land also means you get growiing pains [sic].
As well as that, "what needs to be done"is NOT what Hitler did. There was enough room for people to live in, and the German people were in a terrible condition, but killing a bunch of Jews and starting a war with Russia weren't going to change that .

That said, it's good the Germans are startin to realise that Hitler was a man, not the personification of evil.

 

[DarkCorp]

Thats why I posted the

"What germans shouldn't forget about is the flawed eugenics principles the nazis so ardently believed in. No race is superior to another and I believe success is not governed by genetics so much as it is by hardwork and personal responsibility."

The nazis flawed eugenics principle combined with racial bigotry led up to the holocaust.

From the beginning of time to even now, war still comes down to attrition. If germany were not to grow, then where would she obtain the resources to rebuild her army, airforce and navy? If it ever came to conflict, who could stand to lose more territory? A germany who "turtles" or an enemy which plows over the opposition and re-allocates the recently gained resources to further war effort. To this day I still believe Germany would have won had they taken care of Europe first, then Russia.

Why else would the United States have so many bases of operations all around the world? Bases in Japan along with forces near Taiwan to sustain an effective military presence within the Eastern Hemisphere. Bases in Saudi Arabia and Israel to secure a foothold in the Middle East. Installing South American dictators to maintain strategic and economic interests in the region.

Why have missile silos along with nuclear submarines and bombers? Its all about the ability to withstand any pre-emptive strike and not only recover quickly, but also provide a rapid and equally devastating response.

 

[Sander]

From the beginning of time to even now, war still comes down to attrition. If germany were not to grow, then where would she obtain the resources to rebuild her army, airforce and navy? If it ever came to conflict, who could stand to lose more territory? A germany who "turtles" or an enemy which plows over the opposition and re-allocates the recently gained resources to further war effort. To this day I still believe Germany would have won had they taken care of Europe first, then Russia.

Why else would the United States have so many bases of operations all around the world? Bases in Japan along with forces near Taiwan to sustain an effective military presence within the Eastern Hemisphere. Bases in Saudi Arabia and Israel to secure a foothold in the Middle East. Installing South American dictators to maintain strategic and economic interests in the region.

Why have missile silos along with nuclear submarines? Its all about the ability to withstand any pre-emptive strike and still be able to provide an efficient counter-attack.

You're completely missing my point. Those bases abroad and those extra pieces of land are strategic bases. However, countries that expand ALWAYS suffer problems. This was most clear in Russia, Russia survived for a while by constantly expanging and expanding, it ignored the problems it had and thought it coulds solve them by just getting more land. That went reasonably well, but created a huge bloated nation, that eventually crashed down during the first part of the twentieth century. What good would that extra land have done Germany? Barely anything. Extra land just means more problems to quell a rebellious population, then more problems to manage that land, and all that without any actual benefits.

 

[DarkCorp]

Oh I understand your point Sander. America relies on bases and political influence because it has the resources to maintain global policy in that fashion. No need for total military intervention/occupation when you can rely on politics and corruption. The Soviet Union could have followed americas example but instead wallowed itself in old guard political and ideological policies. With a weakened economy, how could the Soviets keep up with american military production and R&D. By the time Gorbachev instituted Glasnost and Perestroika, it was too late.

However the question still remains in regards to how germany could have rebuilt her military in order to properly protect herself. I imagine lebensraum was put forth because the reich at the time simply didn't have the military or political clout to do what america did.

I remember an instance in the book, "The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich". The german high command had expressed doubts about invading checkloslovakia and then Poland. The generals said if the allies were to counter-attack, germany would not have the ability to withstand it nevertheless fight back.

Only after acquiring the sudetenland, Checkloslovakia and Poland were the germans able to field enough military might to then take over France and other European territories.

PS: Back in WW2, land was still valuable as a military asset. The more land you controlled meant the more soldiers you could station there and slow any possible offensive. With todays weapons technology that is no longer the case. You can have tons of soldiers in entrenched positions to slow an invading army down . However, they won't do any good when technology like satellites give away their position and instead they get smacked by precision smart bombs launched from ships miles away.

 

[welsh]

Well DarkCorp, if I get your point than you are saying that Germany had little choice based on political structural circumstances.

Perhaps this is true. The notion of land ownership and industrialization, the political power of landed nobles vested in control over agricultural productive land, might have meant that Germany could only pursue extensive growth. Surrounded by it's neighbors, it had to invade and thus follow the historical route of development that most of Europe enjoyed for over 1000 years, but had become delegitimized because the strong were satisfied with the status quo.

Perhaps.

I also think your point on US military bases is a good one. With those bases the US is able to police the sealanes that criss-cross the road, is able to maintain a liberal world economy, and thus the engine of it's own productivity. That would suggest that when the US becomes threatened by external competitors that rival it's economic supremacy, it might withdraw it's policing of global trade for either historic self-help, a new global hegemon, or an international institution. Ok.

But perhaps German's growth did not depend on territorial expansion. Many of the world's most prosperous economies today exist on little ground. South Korea, Japan, are all territorially hemmed in. Germany has showed more productive growth after World War 2 with less territory than before it.

Countries can grow extensively- they can get bigger. But they can also grow intensively. Intensive growth means doing what you do, but doing it better. If you are an auto maker and you want to make more cars- you can make another factory or improve the one you got.

Based on Germany's economic failures during World War 2- the reliance on horse drawn carriages for transporation, the failure to build that were as good or as cheap as Russia T-34's, and a number of other failures, the Germans could have grown intensively as well.

But this is a good question- does Hitler really deserve as much blame for the war as he gets. Might Germany have gone to war regardless of Hitler's rise to power.

Interesting question- any thoughts?

 

[DarkCorp]

But how could germany grow "intensively" with its economic and industrial facilities in shambles? Thats kinda of the main problem. You first need the capital to fund a business before it can succeed. S. Korea, Japan and the other nations were post WW2. America rebuilt the japanese economy from the ground up and S. Korea and post war Germany enjoyed substantial western backing as part of the Marshall plan.

Most people agree that the Treaty Of Versailles was a big if not the biggest factor for germanys role in WW2. The germans were literally so poor that they had no choice but to undertake radical expansionist policies. I mean your economy is fucked when it takes a million reichsmarks to get one american dollar. They could have borrowed money but that would only have caused more debt. Also what country could trust such a battered nation to make good on possible massive loans.

PS: Don't forget after the failed Munich Pusch, the NSDAP lost considerable clout and financial backing. The party further collapsed as Weimar Germany began to get back up on its feet. All was going good until the american stock market went to the shits and germany once again went dirt poor.

Maybe this was all one big american ploy to set the stage for its inevitable rise as the worlds superpower. Quite the conspiracists theory huh.

 

[Macaco]

It's surely a better position about germany's role in the first half of the XX century then the "pretending nothing in particular has happened" that has been standard until now.

 

[Executioner]

I don't see anything wrong about someone being proud of their country, or having a sense of nationalism.

Well, for one, it's plain silly. Why would you be proud of something you had no influence on whatsoever? And it can lead to a lot of stupid things....

There is nothing silly about taking pride in the country where you live. Influence comes in the form of taxes and votes. You can be proud of what your tax money is being used for or that a person you voted for is doing a good job.

The trouble starts when people believe there is nothing they can do to influence their government.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

Im so glad the Germans have finally decided to look at Hitler as not simply evil incarnate, but as someone who misled himself and millions to make the world a worse place. By discussing it like so they can learn what made the majority agree with his insanity and hopefully prevent a relapse in the future...

Glad to see progress,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Mikey]

Although, indirectly, and at the cost of millions of innocent (and not innocent) lives, he did make the world a better place, in a way. Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating Hitler, but since WWII Germany has improved no end after what it was like after WWI, and the whole world has learned a lesson.

 

[Sander]

There is nothing silly about taking pride in the country where you live. Influence comes in the form of taxes and votes. You can be proud of what your tax money is being used for or that a person you voted for is doing a good job.

The trouble starts when people believe there is nothing they can do to influence their government.

There's a difference between being proud that your nation is doing well, ,and being proud of your nation period. The former is rationality, the latter is nationalism. Nationalism has the distinct property that it focuses on the past, how the country was so great and should be the greatest in the world based on "historical facts".

PS: Back in WW2, land was still valuable as a military asset. The more land you controlled meant the more soldiers you could station there and slow any possible offensive. With todays weapons technology that is no longer the case. You can have tons of soldiers in entrenched positions to slow an invading army down . However, they won't do any good when technology like satellites give away their position and instead they get smacked by precision smart bombs launched from ships miles away.

That only goes if you have a population there that supports you. If you don't, you just gained more land you need to protect, without being able to use those people living there effectively. Expansion is not something that will save a nation, because expansion only works properly if the land you already have is run properly. This is so because if the land you own is NOT run properly, you have to focus on getting your own land out of the shits AND getting the new land run properly.

But perhaps German's growth did not depend on territorial expansion. Many of the world's most prosperous economies today exist on little ground. South Korea, Japan, are all territorially hemmed in. Germany has showed more productive growth after World War 2 with less territory than before it.

Also of note here is The Netherlands., which is very small, but has had a booming economy for years.

 

[DarkCorp]

If a nation cannot get the resources it needs from its own lands, then it is going to have to turn outward for help through importation. However, Germany was too poor to "grow intensively" so it didn't have the financial capability to pay for the resources she requires. Therefore the only available option was to take them by force.

And the example both Welsh and Sander use apply to the countries post-war and not pre-war status. As I said earlier, all of the devastated post war countries had extensive financial backing as part of the Marshall plan.

A country can only pursue a policy of economic growth if the proper conditions are met. When the current hedgemons are intent on keeping you down however, then a country has no other choice but to take its own measures to achieve superpower status, much like pre-war Japan and Germany.

PS: Yes Sander, in todays world a policy of permanent military occupation wouldn't work. However, the Germans had something good going and only fucked it up when they attacked Russia. It is widely agreed that if Germany had brought all of its resources to bear on the western front, the allies would have never had a chance.

 

[Sander]

If a nation cannot get the resources it needs from its own lands, then it is going to have to turn outward for help through importation.

Yes, but this wasn't the case in Germany, or at least not in such a way that it could've been solved by taking over Eastern Europe. There weren't any more interesting resources there.

And the example both Welsh and Sander use apply to the countries post-war and not pre-war status. As I said earlier, all of the devastated post war countries had extensive financial backing as part of the Marshall plan.

Not true. The Netherlands were small in the pre-war era, and were economically very solid then as well.

A country can only pursue a policy of economic growth if the proper conditions are met. When the current hedgemons are intent on keeping you down however, then a country has no other choice but to take its own measures to achieve superpower status, much like pre-war Japan and Germany.

Why do you feel that the aim of becoming a superpower actually justifies anything?

PS: Yes Sander, in todays world a policy of permanent military occupation wouldn't work. However, the Germans had something good going and only fucked it up when they attacked Russia. It is widely agreed that if Germany had brought all of its resources to bear on the western front, the allies would have never had a chance.

Of course. But this doesn't in any way mean that this would've actually been good in the long run for the Germans. No country was happy with their occupation, and while this unhappiness woud've gone away after a while, it would've done nothing for the happiness of their people. people don't become any happier if their nation is bigger or more powerful, you know.

 

[Executioner]

There's a difference between being proud that your nation is doing well, ,and being proud of your nation period. The former is rationality, the latter is nationalism. Nationalism has the distinct property that it focuses on the past, how the country was so great and should be the greatest in the world based on "historical facts".

I see what you mean now. That kind of 'pride' can be used for some rather unpleasant things.