Has history misjudged Adolf Hitler.

[Guest]

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Perhaps if you based your comments on research rather than what you might have picked up in the back of your cab this week then they may emerged a little less touched .

Your comments about my "intolerance" belies the fact that your views and comments, no matter how foolish, continue to be expressed and discussed here.

[Mark Stapleton]

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Perhaps if you based your comments on research rather than what you might have picked up in the back of your cab this week then they may emerged a little less touched .

Your comments about my "intolerance" belies the fact that your views and comments, no matter how foolish, continue to be expressed and discussed here.

You're actually quite a nasty little fellow, aren't you?

You hand out insults like boiled lollies. What's in my basket so far, let's see: deeply foolish, badly informed, antipodean holocaust denier and purveyor of foul prejudices (although you were probably directing this last one more at Sid). Describing you as intolerant was probably a bad choice of word on my part. Rude, provocative, patronising and insulting are better, I think.

btw, I'm actually unemployed at the moment but thanks for the suggestion. You're obviously badly informed.

[Guest]

I stand by my "deeply foolish" comments about Hitler.

Perhaps if you based your comments on research rather than what you might have picked up in the back of your cab this week then they may emerged a little less touched .

Your comments about my "intolerance" belies the fact that your views and comments, no matter how foolish, continue to be expressed and discussed here.

You're actually quite a nasty little fellow, aren't you?

You hand out insults like boiled lollies. What's in my basket so far, let's see: deeply foolish, badly informed, antipodean holocaust denier and purveyor of foul prejudices (although you were probably directing this last one more at Sid). Describing you as intolerant was probably a bad choice of word on my part. Rude, provocative, patronising and insulting are better, I think.

btw, I'm actually unemployed at the moment but thanks for the suggestion. You're obviously badly informed.

I am sorry that you have chosen to feel that way rather than discuss the issues I and others have raised.

[Mike Tribe]

Andy, Owen: It's often said that when one sups with the Devil, it's prudent to use a long spoon. The dominance of an education forum by various forms of conspiracy theorist has seemed to lead to a growing number of contributors who, like Mark, consider any "official" view to be tainted. Last year, there were a number of threads which were blatantly used by neo-Nazis to spread their views concerning the "Zionist myth" of the Holocaust. Attempts by Andy and others to use genuinely historical evidence to counter such lies, the threads rapidly descended into personal abuse which led me, and others, to simply withdraw from the debate.

The current slew of posts about Hitler seem to focus on the fact that he won the Iron Cross in World War I and on irrelevant "body counts" comparing the nazi regime with Stalin, Mao or Pol Pot -- or, indeed, with the current Israeli government. Recent books on the Nazi regime by, for example, Evans or Kershaw have all referred to both points. I certainly can't see any evidence whatsoever of an "official" attempt to "hide" these facts. On the other hand, I can't see any reference to the equally established fact that Hitler was strongly distrusted by his comrades at the front by the Hitler apologists (see, for example, Ferguson's "Pity of War" pp 174-175: "his comrades in the Barvarian infantry found him something of an oddball -- humorless and punctilliously patriotic...")

The record of the Nazi regime was one which cannot but horrify anyone who has studied it in any depth: compulsory sterilization of the "racially impure", the burning of books, wide use of regime-approved torture by security forces, instructions "from the top" to ignore the "rules of war" regarding the treatment of civilians and PoWs on the Esatern Front, the euthanasia applied to the mentally deficient with Hitler's specific approval, Nazi-organized murder of Jews in Kristallnacht, confinement of homosexuals, Jews, gypsies and Jehova's Witnesses in concentration camps, deliberate extermination of millions of Jews as part of the "Final Solution", etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

It's a bit surprising, perhaps, that someone with the attitude towards education and educators which Sid claims to have should choose to participate in an "education forum". I also like to think about girls and read novels rather than doing my class assignments, but I wouldn't think of claiming that this somehow qualified as a recommendation for my views on modern history.

The historical record is really quite clear. No, history has NOT misjudged Adolf Hitler...

[Guest Stephen Turner]

.

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

Mark, I can assure you that this was not the reason for my starting this thread, we were, between us, taking Len's original thread way off topic. I had assumed our On line friendship could withstand a little to and fro, I was obviously mistaken.

[Sid Walker]

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

Mark, I can assure you that this was not the reason for my starting this thread, we were, between us, taking Len's original thread way off topic. I had assumed our On line friendship could withstand a little to and fro, I was obviously mistaken.

Steve.

One of the reasons I was so reluctant to get involved in this thread - apart from the reasons already given - is that I believe it asks a badly framed question. I don't know whather this was conscious or not on your part, but I believe it should be pointed out.

'History' does not judge anyone or anything. 'Historians' often do.

There is no consistent, unbiquitous view on many (all?) aspects pf history. There is certainly no consensus about Hitler or the events of WW2.

However, by refering to 'history' and its judgement, as you did, you imply there is such a consensus. That's a technique often used to marginalise perceived opponents - whether or not that was your intent.

Also, what type of misjudgement do you have in mind? You don't say. One may infer that you mean "Hitler is generally reckoned to have been a very bad man... yet some folk think he's not so bad after all". But you don't spell out what you mean. It's as though you have gone fishing, with no concern about what you may catch - just to see what may be in the water.

The question you posed at the outset of this thread is both loaded and unclear.

To solicit worthwhile answers, questions should be well conceived and articulated. I don't believe this topic gets to base one on either count.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

To stop several other threads from being taken off topic.

There are some Forum members who feel that History/Historians have misjudged Hitler/the Nazi's. the floor is open to debate. I, personally will not be able to respond until Friday.

I remember having teachers like this at school.

After rushing to be on time for class, we'd occasionally would find a class minder and large note from the teacher on the blackboard, saying "revize World War Two history" or some such command.

I usually responded to advice like this in a way which showed the early flowering of an independent mind. Ignoring teacher's instruction, I'd read my own book, stare out the window, think about girls, long for the week-end - anything, really, than obey what seemed to be an unreasonable command from 'teacher' who was probably having more fun than me at the time.

I'd listen when teacher really had something to say, and learnt a lot from my teachers, but not from the absentee slave-driver wannabees.

Edited, as I mised Sid's above reply

Edited September 11, 2006 by Stephen Turner

[Guest Stephen Turner]

But for your provocative post, I wouldn't have joined this thread because I believe it is no more than an ill-tempered response by Steve Turner to what he was reading in the other thread.

Mark, I can assure you that this was not the reason for my starting this thread, we were, between us, taking Len's original thread way off topic. I had assumed our On line friendship could withstand a little to and fro, I was obviously mistaken.

Steve.

One of the reasons I was so reluctant to get involved in this thread - apart from the reasons already given - is that I believe it asks a badly framed question. I don't know whather this was conscious or not on your part, but I believe it should be pointed out.

'History' does not judge anyone or anything. 'Historians' often do.

In the original question I said "History/Historians, sorry if that is to obscure for you Sid.

There is no consistent, unbiquitous view on many (all?) aspects pf history. There is certainly no consensus about Hitler or the events of WW2.

However, by refering to 'history' and its judgement, as you did, you imply there is such a consensus. That's a technique often used to marginalise perceived opponents - whether or not that was your intent.

Also, what type of misjudgement do you have in mind? You don't say. One may infer that you mean "Hitler is generally reckoned to have been a very bad man... yet some folk think he's not so bad after all". But you don't spell out what you mean. It's as though you have gone fishing, with no concern about what you may catch - just to see what may be in the water.

The question you posed at the outset of this thread is both loaded and unclear.

I suspect your real problem here is the exact opposite from that stated, the question is too clear for your taste.

To solicit worthwhile answers, questions should be well conceived and articulated. I don't believe this topic gets to base one on either count.

Then leave the damn thing alone, your unwillingness to participate here speaks volumns.