PDA

View Full Version : Minimum range



Kaleun1961
11-29-2006, 01:09 PM
My current book is "Hitler: The Pathology of Evil" by George Victor.

Amazon.ca Link (http://www.amazon.ca/Hitler-Pathology-Evil-George-Victor/dp/1574881329/sr=8-2/qid=1164829635/ref=sr_1_2/701-5037785-6509921?ie=UTF8&s=books)

If you want to find it in your country, I guess you could search the relevant stores where you live.

Excerpt from the Amazon.ca site about this book:

"Any student of World War II knows that Adolph Hitler was a complex and demon-ridden man. Victor, a Jewish psychotherapist dealing with personality disorders, argues that Hitler's troubled pathology has never been seriously studied because of fears that he might emerge as a guiltless and even sympathetic victim of forces beyond his control. In this painstaking analysis of Hitler's family background and childhood, supported by exhaustive study of his written and spoken utterances, the author makes a convincing case of how the German leader came to be deeply disturbed and shows how these findings manifested themselves in Hitler's social philosophy, leadership style, and, eventually, his fateful policy decisions. Less convincing is his contention that Hitler deliberately avoided quick victories over Britain and the Soviet Union to have time to complete the Holocaust. Even so, this is a fascinating and extremely lucid journey into the mind of one of the century's most pivotal figures."

I'm on the last few chapters of this book; should finish it by the weekend. As I read it, I find myself in agreement with the opinion expressed above. Being the sort of fellow I am, my mind wandered off into the world of "what if?" again. So, I am hoping to stimulate a discussion along the lines, "What if Hitler died before the war?" or "What if Hitler never came to power?"

I am of the opinion, in part due to the ideas presented in "Hitler: The Pathology of Evil" that Germany without Hitler may have still become a fascist state, but not necessarily with the expansionist policies brought in by Hitler. I'm thinking that Germany, due to internal chaos from the economic situation and the strife caused by bickering between the Right and the Left, was probably going to end up as a fascist state even without Hitler. Of course a Communist coup was always a possibility, but I think the forces of the Right were more powerful and destined to come to power, with or without the Nazis.

It is interesting to ponder the idea of what events would have followed if the Right took power in 1930's Germany without Hitler. I would guess that there would still be a military buildup, an authoritarian regime of some sort, but not the expansionist policies that were instituted by Hitler, i.e. Lebensraum as official State policy. Would there have been a war with Poland, France and the UK? I think there would not have been a war without a Hitler there to prod things along. Most likely a stalemate, as a revitalized Germany standing as a bulwark against Communist expansion into central Europe. Had Stalin then tried to use force to move west, the French and British most likely would have been military allies of Germany. Imagine that!

Anyhow, if you read Victor's book, you will not but help realize that Hitler brought upon Germany all of the very things he himself feared, and it was all because of that one man's unique psychological disorders, imposed upon a nation taken advantage of at just that vulnerable moment. You may even find yourself sympathizing with the young Adolf Hitler once you understand the factors that helped form his psyche, the very thing that the author himself pondered. Not very many biographies of Hitler delve into the psychological aspects of himself, nor the policies of the Third Reich that can be traced directly to Hitler's twisted mind. If anything, you may take away from this book, as I do, the idea that monsters are not born, they are created.

I'd be glad to hear other peoples' opinions. Was fascism destined to rule Germany in the 1930's? Would a Hitler without Germany still have started WW2? All I ask is that we keep our discussion civil, in order not to cause offense and have this discussion shut down by the moderators. I'm not trying to be provocative, just stimulate what I hope will be an interesting exchange of opinion.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/K61-cropped.jpg

Kaleun1961
11-29-2006, 01:09 PM
My current book is "Hitler: The Pathology of Evil" by George Victor.

Amazon.ca Link (http://www.amazon.ca/Hitler-Pathology-Evil-George-Victor/dp/1574881329/sr=8-2/qid=1164829635/ref=sr_1_2/701-5037785-6509921?ie=UTF8&s=books)

If you want to find it in your country, I guess you could search the relevant stores where you live.

Excerpt from the Amazon.ca site about this book:

"Any student of World War II knows that Adolph Hitler was a complex and demon-ridden man. Victor, a Jewish psychotherapist dealing with personality disorders, argues that Hitler's troubled pathology has never been seriously studied because of fears that he might emerge as a guiltless and even sympathetic victim of forces beyond his control. In this painstaking analysis of Hitler's family background and childhood, supported by exhaustive study of his written and spoken utterances, the author makes a convincing case of how the German leader came to be deeply disturbed and shows how these findings manifested themselves in Hitler's social philosophy, leadership style, and, eventually, his fateful policy decisions. Less convincing is his contention that Hitler deliberately avoided quick victories over Britain and the Soviet Union to have time to complete the Holocaust. Even so, this is a fascinating and extremely lucid journey into the mind of one of the century's most pivotal figures."

I'm on the last few chapters of this book; should finish it by the weekend. As I read it, I find myself in agreement with the opinion expressed above. Being the sort of fellow I am, my mind wandered off into the world of "what if?" again. So, I am hoping to stimulate a discussion along the lines, "What if Hitler died before the war?" or "What if Hitler never came to power?"

I am of the opinion, in part due to the ideas presented in "Hitler: The Pathology of Evil" that Germany without Hitler may have still become a fascist state, but not necessarily with the expansionist policies brought in by Hitler. I'm thinking that Germany, due to internal chaos from the economic situation and the strife caused by bickering between the Right and the Left, was probably going to end up as a fascist state even without Hitler. Of course a Communist coup was always a possibility, but I think the forces of the Right were more powerful and destined to come to power, with or without the Nazis.

It is interesting to ponder the idea of what events would have followed if the Right took power in 1930's Germany without Hitler. I would guess that there would still be a military buildup, an authoritarian regime of some sort, but not the expansionist policies that were instituted by Hitler, i.e. Lebensraum as official State policy. Would there have been a war with Poland, France and the UK? I think there would not have been a war without a Hitler there to prod things along. Most likely a stalemate, as a revitalized Germany standing as a bulwark against Communist expansion into central Europe. Had Stalin then tried to use force to move west, the French and British most likely would have been military allies of Germany. Imagine that!

Anyhow, if you read Victor's book, you will not but help realize that Hitler brought upon Germany all of the very things he himself feared, and it was all because of that one man's unique psychological disorders, imposed upon a nation taken advantage of at just that vulnerable moment. You may even find yourself sympathizing with the young Adolf Hitler once you understand the factors that helped form his psyche, the very thing that the author himself pondered. Not very many biographies of Hitler delve into the psychological aspects of himself, nor the policies of the Third Reich that can be traced directly to Hitler's twisted mind. If anything, you may take away from this book, as I do, the idea that monsters are not born, they are created.

I'd be glad to hear other peoples' opinions. Was fascism destined to rule Germany in the 1930's? Would a Hitler without Germany still have started WW2? All I ask is that we keep our discussion civil, in order not to cause offense and have this discussion shut down by the moderators. I'm not trying to be provocative, just stimulate what I hope will be an interesting exchange of opinion.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/K61-cropped.jpg

GerritJ9
11-29-2006, 02:01 PM
I find the reasoning that Adolf deliberately avoided quick victories over the UK and the USSR in order to gain time to complete the Holocaust utter rubbish. Had he won the BoB and Barbarossa, he would have had all the time in the world to do ANYTHING he wanted to. I'll reserve judgement until I've actually read the book, but if this is the kind of stuff the author is spouting then I don't think he can be taken too seriously.
There was always a chance of the KPD (Communists) seizing power in the late 1920s and early 1930s, but it would have had the same result as in 1919- they would have been crushed. Thalmann knew that, which is why such a revolt never took place and the KPD tried to achieve a majority through the ballot box. Had they managed to do so- who knows?
The Weimar Republic was finished- it was something nobody wanted, too closely associated with Versailles, a treaty nobody in Germany really accepted, from the NSDAP to the KPD (probably the only thing all political parties could agree upon). It was just a matter of time before somebody created a right-wing dictatorship, I think. It would not have been as criminal as Adolf's gang (no Holocaust, for instance) but I do think they would have demanded the return of former German territory with a German majority such as the Saar, Sudetenland, Danzig and other territory such as the area around Posen.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

The KNIL is dead. Long live the KNIL!

klcarroll
11-29-2006, 02:08 PM
Germany without Hitler??

Wow! ??????..You???re asking a question that may be far too broad and complicated to ever be answered.

The first problem I perceive is that you can???t eliminate Hitler without eliminating most of those that started out as his cronies and rose up the ladder of power with him: ??????.All of those people brought their own ideas and personal idiosyncrasies to the table, and their absence would have a broad impact. The result of removing a group of people from the historical picture may result in the analyst being confronted with an impossible number of variables to consider.

The second problem is that it simply isn???t possible to consider this question with Hitler being replaced by a void: ??????SOMEONE would have filled the position occupied by Hitler, and without knowing who that might be, it is impossible to speculate on how that leader would respond to the pressures and demands that Hitler was subject to during the term of his leadership.

You???re right; ??????It???s an intriguing question, and I will follow this thread with interest.

I???m just not sure I have the ???cajones??? to make any serious speculations on the subject.

Kaleun1961
11-29-2006, 02:17 PM
Thanks for your comments, GerritJ9. The fellow who wrote that quotation that I cited in my first post in this thread also disagreed with that, as do I. I think more the point that the author is trying to make is not that Hitler so much dawdled about the war, as that he was of so short an attention span at times that he never seemed able to complete a project. Yet Hitler could at times achieve focus, for instance his rise to power required intense dedication, which was otherwise lacking in his personal life. I think a more relevant observation, which the author does develop, is that Hitler's own masochistic tendencies [otherwise only revealed during his sexual encounters with women] lead him in his unwitting desire to be punished, i.e. his state policy had Germany taking on opponents who they had no realistic or high possibility of defeating: Russia and the USA.

Hitler did require the cloak of secrecy that was possible only in wartime to unveil his darkest ambitions: eradication of the Jews and some rarely known plans of Hitler to sterilize larger portions of the German public, above and beyond those "undesirable" types. The author reveals the secret efforts of Himmler and Hitler to develop a secret means of sterilzing people. This was not meant for any other than members of "acceptable" German public. His ultimate aim, the author asserts, was at some point to restrict "breeding" to the most desirable of the "Aryans": the blonde hair, blue-eyed, tall men and women who in their eyes were the epitome of Germany's "volk."

Aside from that particular criticism, I still think this is a worthwhile book for the serious student of Third Reich history.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/K61-cropped.jpg

MarkSynthesis
11-29-2006, 03:12 PM
That's a fascinating point....the state of Germany had Hitler not risen to power.

The Treaty of Versailles was indeed something that sculpted the popular politics of the time--and yet, we have to remember, Weimar Germany was, for its short existence, a very radical, even cosmopolitan (I think that's the word) nation. Which way would have Germany gone? The way of the Prussian Military State, or the way of the Weimar Social Radicals?

On one hand, Paul von Hindenburg was widely seen as the father of the state up till his death--but he himself swore loyalty to the new Weimar Government, thus refusing to allow possible a restoration of the monarchy. I suppose it would depend on what kind of legacy von Hindenburg left to his countrymen.

On the other end of the spectrum, economic struggle and the collapse of the German currency had brough the parties of the radical left into the mainstream--the SPD was, as always, a force to be reckoned with, and the KPD had it's own following too.

I can't really give any sort of an answer, I guess. I dabble a bit in fictional writing (helps clear my head and relieve stress), and one of the long term projects I've worked on was a bit set in an Imperial Germany that lasted well through the 1940s, without the Great War. Unfotunately, that's Imperial, not Weimar, Germany...

Stingray-65
11-29-2006, 03:41 PM
@ K61
This is indeed an intriguing subject to ponder!

Sort of along the same lines... I saw a special on the History channel not long ago about how the British employed profiling methods to assess how Hitler might react under certain circumstances, such as his demeanor should he start losing the war. They determined that Hitler had a "Messiah-complex" where he actually believed that he had been "spared" (many of his siblings had died during early childhood) for greater things. Anyway, they were actually able to accurately predict alot of things about him... even down to his suicide. It was all pretty amazing. I wish I could remember what the special was called.

@ klcarroll
Very good points!<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://www.geocities.com/uboat_flotilla_52/U-013Sig.jpg (http://www.geocities.com/uboat_flotilla_52/index.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v642/antsmith/voted.jpg

Bockholt
11-29-2006, 03:42 PM
There was a Nazi Party before Hitler, but they say 'Cometh the man, cometh the hour'. He certainly focused a great deal of latent racism & a sort of nation-wide chip on the shoulder felt by Germans who thought they had not been 'properly defeated' in WW1. It was, however, arranged that they were properly defeated in WW2...

It seems significant that all three Axis powers had only been formed into modern nations in the late 19th Century : Germany by Bismark, Italy by Cavour & Garibaldi and Japan by the Meiji Emperor. Going through the fascist/militarist stage appears to have been a nasty phase of their (the Italians', Germans' and Japanese people's) birth pangs before maturing into more stable societies, better able to live at peace with their neighbours and with themselves.

comanderFritz
11-29-2006, 07:50 PM
there in deed was a nazi party before hitler but without hitler it would have never grown to the size it did. if hitler would not have been then the communist would have taken germany and i cant even think about what it would be like because there is no way to know if the comunist riech would be allies with the soviet union or other countries


well theres my bit<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m65/tuddley3/usaCa.gif http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/944/signaturexl5.jpg http://www.ashlandalliance.com/assets/images/kentucky_flag_waving.gif
http://4thflotilla.proboards49.com/index.cgi
http://hosted.filefront.com/comanderfritz/

Kaleun1961
11-29-2006, 07:56 PM
I'm pleased with the responses you guys have come back with. There are some deep thinkers in this forum. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/K61-cropped.jpg

Silva_Bullet
11-30-2006, 12:24 AM
Hey, I played "Red Alert"! I know EXACTLY what would have happened... Einstein goes back in time to 'erase' Adolf, and next thing you know, there's Tesla Coils and Mammoth tanks rolling around Europe, conquering Cyprus and making that Greek gentleman cry in front of his German buddy... Don't mess with the timeline, Einie!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

"Damn the torpedoes, Full speed ahead!"

-Admiral David Glasgow Farragut

GerritJ9
11-30-2006, 05:30 AM
I think that the only persons capable of holding Weimar together in the late 1920s and early 1930s were Hindenburg and Stresemann- Hindenburg, as President, perhaps more so than Stresemann could. After their deaths, there were no more charismatic politicians, apart from Adolf, capable of achieving some sort of unity (though calling Hindenburg a politician is stretching things a bit). Without Adolf on the scene, there would have been chaos after Hindenburg's death and eventually the Army would have taken over the country and set up a military dictatorship. The Left were divided, the SPD hating the KPD almost as much as they hated the Right and the feelings were mutual so any form of cooperation between the two would have been problematical at best. Furthermore, they did not have a combined parliamentary majority even if they HAD cooperated. The Army, which was where the REAL power lay, would have been supported by the Right. The combined forces of the Army and the Right would never have accepted a coup by the Left and as 1919 showed they would have fiercely crushed any attempt by KPD and/or SPD to seize power other than through the ballot box. But without Adolf, who knows what the results of the ballot box would have been? How would people who voted for Adolf have voted if he and the NSDAP had not been on the scene?<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

The KNIL is dead. Long live the KNIL!

Hoatee
11-30-2006, 05:55 AM
Let's not forget the popularity of Rohm at the head of the Storm Troopers. The Night of the Long Knives didn't happen for nothing. If Rohm had taken over the Party together with the likes of the Strasser brothers, the Nazi Party might have taken on a more socialist character (while remaining nationalist).

Churruca1977
11-30-2006, 09:34 AM
Last patrol I just found myself in the middle of a large convoy. Weather was terrible high waves, hard rain, fog...visual range only up to 400m. Hopefully the convoy was heading 090 and I was facing 360. I thought...cool...I can slaughter with both front and rear launchers. I started to shoot both sides..C3 cargos at 250m...setting torpedos at fast speed...surprisinly torpedos hitted ships at a perfect 90?? angle only to bounce and fall to the bottom of the sea...
So..is there a minimum range or something?

Bockholt
11-30-2006, 01:37 PM
I suppose they would been more tolerant of homosexuals if Rohm had been in charge!

BTW : 2 things - (1) you must read Ian Kershaw's 2 vol biog of Hitler:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/203-4318881-43...keywords=Ian+Kershaw (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/203-4318881-4311144?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Ian+Kershaw)

- easily the best analysis both of the political & military side and also of Hitler's personality and private life.

(2) Did anyone see the World at War episode on the Holocaust on uktvHistory this evening? I definitely remember that when it was first shown in the early 1970s there were no commercial breaks. This time there were, so you could see the Warsaw Ghetto followed by Asda's Christmas offers followed by Auschwitz. Well that's alright then, it was longer ago in history now, so less & less respect need be shown to the victims...

Celeon999
11-30-2006, 01:55 PM
Kershaws works are littered with detail errors and misunderstandings because he often failed to check things in their details. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Celeon advises the works of Joachim Fest. His books are the standard pieces at universities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Although i couldnt find it on Amazon , there must also be a english translation of his masterpiece, the 1060 pages biography of Adolf Hitler for which he recieved numerous awards.


Fest's works in general (http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=sr_pg_1/202-5595369-0514246?ie=UTF8&keywords=Joachim%20Fest&rh=n%3A1025612%2Ck%3AJoachim%20Fest&page=1)

Hitler : A biography (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Hitler-Biographie-Joachim-C-Fest/dp/3548265146/sr=1-13/qid=1164919851/ref=sr_1_13/202-5595369-0514246?ie=UTF8&s=books)<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/7347/germanyf2t11x2ef.gif (http://imageshack.us) http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/582/banner016uy.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/776/banner024mg.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/8516/banner033kc.jpg (http://imageshack.us)http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/349/eecc4f2bf.gif (http://imageshack.us)
__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________
Why i have painted my plane red ? It would be unfair if they couldnt recognize that it is me who they are up against.
Everytime i shoot down a brit my hunting instinct is satisfied for another 15 minutes.

The Red Baron - Freiherr Manfred von Richthofen

Kaleun1961
11-30-2006, 02:34 PM
I read the replies from people who had purchased Kershaw's book. Most of them were of a similar mind to Celeon, stating that Kershaw had some errors or misconceptions or overlooked some things. I can't say as I haven't yet read any of his works on Hitler.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a299/K-61/Miscellaneous/K61-cropped.jpg

Bockholt
12-01-2006, 12:54 AM
Point taken, Fest is indeed the standard textbook. In English it used to be Alan Bullock's Hitler : a study in tyranny, though that's a bit dated now. A lot of them go back to Hugh Trevor-Roper whose Last days of Hitler (1947) was one of the first serious investigations.

Trevor-Roper came up with a theory of nazi Germany which is a real eye-opener. Basically, far from being a well-organised, centralized state, Germany was, between 1933 and '45 a chaos of competing factions, all being played off against one another by Hitler. At its worst you had the 'state within a state' of Himmler's SS, but all the larger-than-life nazi personalities had their own power bases. In the early days this situation could erupt into open violence like the Night of the Long Knives when Rohm & his SA were brutally eliminated. By the time of trying to handle a large scale war this situation could only be disastrous for Germany.

Furthermore it was in the nazis' interest to be in denial about the fact that they were fighting a total war. The early, easy campaigns (Austria, Poland, the Low Countries, France, Denmark) set a 'pattern' of 'war' seeming to be a forgone conclusion with nice victory parades every few weeks. The nation was not mobilized for total war - as Britain was immediately (even before 1939, during the Munich Crisis) - until it was far too late. The nazis were duped by their own lies and dragged everyone else down with them. Enormously important resources, such as railways, were wasted in executing the crazy racist policies which underlay their 'philosophy'.

There can be no doubt that all of this sprang from the mind of Adolf Hitler. It is obvious from the first few pages of Mein Kampf that his two obsessions were 'the Jews' and 'Bolshevism', both of which must be destroyed. Until quite recently it was perfectly acceptable to be a 'party member' in Communist countries & thereby make your life a lot easier (it still is in Cuba & China). It's horribly easy to forget that this was also the case in countries with fascist regimes. Because extreme right political organisations have been discredited and overthrown it's difficult to imagine that they ever had any credibility, surely people saw through the lies? But they were popular. Millions of people were not ashamed to think of themselves as fascists, even if they didn't understand the deeper meaning of extremist ideology, or like to think about where their neighbours had been taken in those cattle trucks...