What was the deepest motivation of Nazism?

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
If only that were what happened.


Last millenium or this one? Which Nazi aggresionists are you defending?




posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

Originally posted by uberarcanist
If only that were what happened.


Last millenium or this one? Which Nazi aggresionists are you defending?


No, I mean, if only 9/11 happened as according to the official version of events, then your hypothesis would have some validity.

I don't want you to think, however, that I'm some sort of skinhead or whatever. I have lots of friends who are blacks, jews, indian, chinese, etc.



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Ah gotcha. And dude, I don't care. Skinheads whatever. It's the Internets. Where else ya gonna be yourself?



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Well, I'm completely 180 degrees from that philosophy, but I will have you know I don't have any problem with hurting others feelings if necessary!


[edit on 9-5-2007 by uberarcanist]



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Ha! Me either. I'm 180 from that philopsphy too, but I still don't get caught up in on-line stuff. All that I meant.

Most of the actual "skinheads" on the Internet probably have ED and kiss some Black bosses ass all day. Just saying.

But we're most off topic here. What was it again?

I do believe the German people's biggest draw was quite simply feeling good about themselves after shame.

Shame is the most powerful motivator there is. Ask any Baptist. (Or Catholic so I'm told).

[edit on 9-5-2007 by RANT]



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Ha! Me either. I'm 180 from that philopsphy too, but I still don't get caught up in on-line stuff. All that I meant.

Most of the actual "skinheads" on the Internet probably have ED and kiss some Black bosses ass all day. Just saying.

But we're most off topic here. What was it again?

I do believe the German people's biggest draw was quite simply feeling good about themselves after shame.

Shame is the most powerful motivator there is. Ask any Baptist. (Or Catholic so I'm told).

[edit on 9-5-2007 by RANT]


Yeah, I can agree with your thesis. So is modern American foreign policy a reaction to Vietnam?



posted on May, 9 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   
No clue. Wasn't there.

I don't even know I've been here for modern American foriegn policy. I know I'm very respectful and open eared to active duty I meet (not online, the real ones) and they shape my perception more than anything.

Honestly, they're messed up, feel abandoned and kinda pissed. It's not pro-Dem or Anti-Rep, just a messed up generation. There's NO solution as per what I've heard.

It's a job now, like being a sandwich artist at Subway. Your manager is an idiot, but it doesn't mean you hate sandwiches or even your employer.

Nothing like Nazi Germany in that respect. Our subculture marketing is much more pervasive than our 'culture' marketing.



posted on May, 11 2007 @ 06:40 PM
link   
I think it was humiliation. Deep and painful humiliation without being able to accept fault. A special form of humiliation, however. Germany believed itself to be a great power, to have a special destiny in the world, only to be robbed by enemy armies and (more importantly) inside traitors. The stab in the back theory was false, but blaming it on Jews, Leftists and pacifists set a very bad precedent.

Of course, its not anywhere near as simple as that, but I feel it is an underlying theme common to rabid nationalism, fascism and Nazism.

Of course, Fascism is a horribly underdeveloped theory and Naziism, as a subset, is the worst of them all. Mein Kampf is a pile of rubbish and while the Doctrine of Fascism is somewhat better, Mussolini was hardly a clear thinker and there were subtle differences between his and Hitler's worldview.



posted on May, 27 2007 @ 07:56 PM
link   


agreed. it's the same thing we see in the muslim nations, extremism arises from poverty, degradation, and humiliations, and the feeling of non-effectiveness. when people have nothing to care fro in this world that's meaningfull, they turn to the abstract, and religion is so far the most "popular." Normal moderate religion isn't exactly something to turn to if you have nothing, you'll feel like you just need to explode your feelings on the world, or basically you feel the need to blame, and once the need to blame starts to come to make sense to you in your brain, that's where you'll actually perpetuate that balme into anger, and then act. and usually that act is not totally peacefull, and goes to the extreme. otherwise terrorism is just an act of war funded by external or internal powers to further geopolitical or economic interests and goals. The latter is the most common, in my thought.


INc2006, your comments are very insightful. Although I am quite opposed to millitant Islam, at a human level I agree with you that the West (and Isreal)n have either wittingly or unwittingly degraded and humiliated the Islamic nations.

The West unfortunately is and will reap the whirlwind of this shortsightedness. The ingredients which created nazi germany are now gripping the middle east, so hold on to your hats for WW3



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   


The Soviets were massed for attack. Thats why operation Barbarossa was so successful.

You should read up on this period of history.

The Soviets were preparing to take over the world.


Do you have your own version of history?

This myth is the biggest lie i have ever heard in my entire life.

The only thing the Soviets were able to be preparing for was a defence of the German attack. The Soviets didn't have opportunity, experience and resources to attack first. They were not able to attack at all.

After all they didn't have any reason and desire to attack. The Soviets were busy with industrialization and different internal problems. They needed peace and nothing more.

And believe me, Russia is not as awful and evil as you can imagine.



posted on Aug, 1 2007 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Descendent
This myth is the biggest lie i have ever heard in my entire life.

The only thing the Soviets were able to be preparing for was a defence of the German attack. The Soviets didn't have opportunity, experience and resources to attack first. They were not able to attack at all.

After all they didn't have any reason and desire to attack. The Soviets were busy with industrialization and different internal problems. They needed peace and nothing more.



This seems to be a situation that many of the historians of the period seem unable to agree on and I would be interested in you expanding upon the points you make.

Obviously their attacks on Finland demonstrated the Russians capabilities and it is documented that part of the industrialisation included miltarisation, they had some 18000 aircraft, 25000 tanks. 5.7 million personnel etc by June 1941. Based on those figure I do not think they solely had peace on their minds.

The fact of the matter is whether Stalin trusted the Nazis and intended therefore to honour the non-agression pact.

According to some sources Goering had intelligence that Stalin was assembling his forces with the intention of attacking Rumania. This obvioulsy was counter to the agreed land divisions and would have been considered an act of agression. That Goering presented this information to Goebbels for propaganda purposes and not to Hitler and the High Command casts doubt on the veracity of the information though. It is more likely that Goering and Hitler were preparing the German people for what was expected to be an unpopular operation. But Zhukov was at this time trying to convince Stalin to do just that, so it is possible that Goering's information was sound.

Hitler had been stockpiling forces and supplies in the Lublin district for some time prior to June 1941 and Stalin had repeatedly asked questions regarding this. By all accounts he seems to have been satisfied with the responses which obviously denied the intent of Germany to attack. His master spy Robert Sorge is said to have contacted Stalin with confirmation that the Nazis intended to attack in 20 June 1941 (just two days out!!!) and Stalin was said to have dismissed the intelligence. However, it seems hardly plausible that Stalin would have had such absolute trust in the Germans. If indeed Stalin wasn't himself planning a pre-emptive strike or for that matter a defense - how could such a man be so naive?

Hitler of course had been negotiating with Britain for a peace and had offered an alliance against the USSR, Churchil was happy to encourage the belief that this was feasible and in this way 'egged' Hitler on to attack Russia against the advice of his High Command. Churchill hoped that the two powers would act in mutual destruction, it is probable that he had the support of Roosevelt in these secret negotiations.

The belief that the USSR were planning to attack came initially from the defector Vikor Sukorov and it has to an extent been picked up by some historians but others remain steadfast against the idea. John Erickson, who has travelled and interviewed many of those involved does not believe the USSR was prepared for Barbarossa, but he can be described as 'pro-russian'. Alan Clarke on the other hand, who due to his professional connections had unprecedented access to classified documents argues that the USSR were already engaged in a war of agression against the free countries in Europe.

So in my opinion the situation is that while the USSR was capable of waging relatively minor offensive actions they were unprepared for full scale invasion of Europe, though it seems probable that this was their eventual goal. Churchill was willing therefore to utilise the Nazis in the fight against the threat posed by the COMINTERN, the Nazi were deemed the secondary threat.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Sorry if this has been pointed out already but from what Ive read and heard, most historians agree that Hitlers biggest motivation was, at least initially.. His deep hatred for the treaty of Versailles that humiliated Germany after WW1 and his desire to re-unite the German speaking lands that were taken away from him because of that treaty.
In reality though, it probably comes down to one thing, THE same thing that almost all wars have been fought over for thousands of years, POWER



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
Obviously their attacks on Finland demonstrated the Russians capabilities and it is documented that part of the industrialisation included miltarisation, they had some 18000 aircraft, 25000 tanks. 5.7 million personnel etc by June 1941. Based on those figure I do not think they solely had peace on their minds.


I was looking through this thread previously and was intending to write about Finland also, but didn't have time and I see now that you have already pointed it out.

In relation to the answers to the question of this thread and other questions arising, such as Hitler V Stalin, I want to ask you a very significant question, which you may have overlooked, I pointed it to you before. Have you read about the 6th army and how they came to their unfortunate end. It is clear you have read alot, understood alot, and are quite intelligent. I am sure if you do study the 6th army you will realise their "defeat" was engineered. The implications of that should be obvious.

It is also interesting that both Hitler and Stalin were Jesuit-trained!!! Most of what we are ever thought about WW2 (and about almost ever major war) is full of lies and propaganda and spin.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
Sorry if this has been pointed out already but from what Ive read and heard, most historians agree that Hitlers biggest motivation was, at least initially.. His deep hatred for the treaty of Versailles that humiliated Germany after WW1 and his desire to re-unite the German speaking lands that were taken away from him because of that treaty.


You are right this was, initially at least, Hitler's motivation - but not necessarily the Nazis as a whole. After all if it was only about restoring Germany to its pre-Versailles status why break the Munich Pact by occupying Czechoslovakia beyond the Sudetenland? Hitler had absolute power over Germany BUT this in no way means his vision was the only one being enacted. Hitler was as suggestible as the next man, and a great many men were very influential on his beliefs. Not least of all Hess and Karl Haushofer.

It was not so much what Hitler wanted, which was a restoration of Germanic nationalism but what others saw as possible through the utilisation of the mass appeal of Hitler. If you were to study Hitler in detail you would realise that he led by delegation, this is the key to understanding the conflicts of ideology and power that existed in the Reich. The SS had one goal, the party another and they were constantly battling for supremacy in each territory right up until the very end.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 04:46 PM
link   
"What was the deepest motivation of Nazism?"

I'd say hate bred by fear, fed by a healthy portion of paranoia and having become a pariah after the First World War.



posted on Aug, 2 2007 @ 05:44 PM
link   
1 man can control millions using a pyramidal structure and their own greed and fear

[edit on 2-8-2007 by pai mei]



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet
I am sure if you do study the 6th army you will realise their "defeat" was engineered. The implications of that should be obvious.


I have attempted to gain some understanding of Barbarossa and there are indeed some gross miscalculations and in some cases down right incompetence of leadership. When we go that little bit deeper you cannot help but see that something more significant is at work here but what that is, is much harder to pin-point.

First and foremost Paulus was a yes man. He refused to act on initiative, he refused, despite overwhelming pressure from both his own corp commanders and von Manstein to withdraw, he could not or would not disobey Hitler - until his final surrender that is. In the eyes of many militarists he was an incompetent strategist, as undoubtably was Hitler. The combination of these two minds was devasting and the loss of life extraordinary. Famously von Wietersheim advised Paulus to be more tactically flexible and not repeat the mistakes of Verdun - Paulus responded by replacing him with General Hube.

Secondly Goering was equally culpable, he gave Hitler assurances, based upon the previous successes of supplying the some 5 units trapped in the Demjansk pocket for approximately four months, that he could keep the 6th going. The Luftwaffen dropped 70 tonnes of supplies a day throughout December (not even ten percent of that required) to Paulus' men. The inadequacy of these supplies meant that Paulus was forced to order that the 12,000 wounded not be fed and only those capable of fighting receive rations. Many, including Paulus were suffering from dysentry by this time and were too weak to retreat. Though von Manstein got within thirty miles and sent Major Eismann in with details of 'Thunderclap', Paulus claimed his men were too weak to move out and their armoured vehicles had insufficent fuel. The fact that when captured 45,000 of the 91,000 survivors died on the march to Siberia perhaps confirms this. It is likely though that more would have survived a retreat.

Goering of course was disgraced and spent the remainder of the war in increasing isolation - the tie was broken with Hitler and this in some ways can be seen as a victory for the allies. Whether planned or not.

In terms of engineering, you may have to clarify your opinion on this for me - I still have a lot to learn, this is my take so far....

Paulus was recommended by von Reichenau for command of the 6th when he was forced to retire due to illness. Guderian had recognised Paulus' lack of experience and recommended him for a more administrative role.

Von Reichenau was a devote Hitlerite, and was the catalyst for Hitler assuming head of the army, when von Runstedt and Beck refuse to accept him as their superior when he tried to replace Brauschitsch with von Reichenau. Hitler would not accept a Prussian and the Prussians would not accept von Reichenau whom they considered too political (against army code of honour). Hitler therefore appointed himself, and further replaced Beck with Halder as Chief of Staff, who though not quite a yes man but did lack balls. So from Hitler down to Paulus we have yes men and no real military strategists or tacticians.

So far then from this perspective I see only incompetence and meglomania. In some ways the situation can be put down to set of loaded circumstances and I personally feel that Hitler did not at any point plan the outcome to this effect. He was not a tactician but his distrust toward the Generals meant that he placed himself in this position and bouyed by his relative successes in the first winter offensive felt he was capable of the job. He was not, but then it is likely that he had planned the initial strikes with Hess whom he was now without. The gulf that Hess left should not be underestimated, it left Hitler completely out on a limb and in free fall from that point onwards.

If you would like to elucidate I am more than happy to consider an alternative opinion, as I have explained before, Barbarossa is a new area of study to me and I am still examining the various angles. I see greater machination from the soviets and the British than from Hitler, though Bormann is, at all times, of interest.

All the best.



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout
I must admit your reply disappoints me to some respect. You declare that you realise things don't add up, but then at the same time you are so reluctant to draw your own conclusions as to why things don't add up. You realise there is something seriously wrong with the "official" version of events, but at the same time you stick to the official version.
I would advise that if you suspect something is wrong (with any story) then follow your instincts because more often than not it will be correct, there is something wrong, namely, you were lied to, to hide the truth.

Paulson was a mere puppet, concentrate on the orders from the top, because it was from the top that battles were really shaped.

If you study the German invasion of WW2, you would see that Germanu made remarkably big gains very early, a machine that was simply far too strong for the russians. How that turned to such an amazing defeat had to be engineered, and anyone who studies the eastern front should realise it didn't happen as the story books tell us. Hitler was behind the german defeat in russia. If you have studied the eastern front and still imagine otherwise then you are very gullbile to say the least. Take a very good look at it. I don't want to go into details, and it shouldn't even be necessary for me, it is plain for everyone to see, the spectacular German defeat in Russia had to be engineered.

Once you come to realise that, the implications should be obvious. Stalin and Hitler, both puppets to the same puppet masters.

You say it is hard to pinpoint what was the motivation behind the mistakes. I say you are still looking at things as the historians want you to look at things. When attempting to understand any actions you should realise the most obvious explanations is mostly correct. But you seem to have dismissed the most obvious explanation, that Hitler deliberatley sabotaged the 6th Army. If you study the 6th armies demise you should realise it had to be sabotage. Such incompetence doesn't exist, especially in German culture and especially considering their previous overwhelming successes. The Germans didn't just go from being extremely good to being worse than very bad overnight. It had to be sabotage, and you should find enough evidence of it.

[edit on 3-8-2007 by golddragnet]



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by golddragnet
I would advise that if you suspect something is wrong (with any story) then follow your instincts because more often than not it will be correct, there is something wrong, namely, you were lied to, to hide the truth.

I am doing just that - as I explained, I think quite clearly. The main issue to my mind is why Hitler pursued Political targets and not economic and military ones. For me, as far as the German are concerned this is the key point for exploration.

Originally posted by golddragnet
Paulson was a mere puppet, concentrate on the orders from the top, because it was from the top that battles were really shaped.

This goes without saying, and I think that i clearly demonstrated this.

Originally posted by golddragnet
I don't want to go into details, and it shouldn't even be necessary for me, it is plain for everyone to see, the spectacular German defeat in Russia had to be engineered.

Why not? What is the point of any discussion if you feel that you can judge and not contribute. You bring nothing new to the table and refuse to substantiate.

Originally posted by golddragnet
Once you come to realise that, the implications should be obvious. Stalin and Hitler, both puppets to the same puppet masters.

Possibly, but substantiate your argument and perhaps we can compare and contrast. It is all very well being smug, but putting your money where your mouth is does not seem your style, I am not here to pander to your whims. I have given my opinion, fair enough you dismiss it but to do so out of hand, shows only your arrogance. In my mind you have a myopic view that renders you incapable of seeing the wood for the trees. How did the puppet masters control their puppets? Care to share?

Originally posted by golddragnet
You say it is hard to pinpoint what was the motivation behind the mistakes. I say you are still looking at things as the historians want you to look at things. When attempting to understand any actions you should realise the most obvious explanations is mostly correct. But you seem to have dismissed the most obvious explanation, that Hitler deliberatley sabotaged the 6th Army. If you study the 6th armies demise you should realise it had to be sabotage. Such incompetence doesn't exist, especially in German culture and especially considering their previous overwhelming successes. The Germans didn't just go from being extremely good to being worse than very bad overnight. It had to be sabotage, and you should find enough evidence of it.

Yes it does. Incompetence existed at all levels. You seem to fail to appreciate the nature of the highly centralised body of politic that was nazis Germany. The objective did not meet the method required to destroy Russia. I have told you before that understanding that a 'grand plan' exists is not to know what that plan is and how that is exacted. You seem to be making the assumption that everything falls into the plan and nothing goes wrong. To err is human, remember that...the 6th army was a f-up and a object lesson in the power of intelligence. It is the latter that is highly important. You seem stuck in a groove....

Where was the sabotage? In what form did it take. I know, do you?



posted on Aug, 3 2007 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by DerVaterlandsFreund
I would argue the deepest motivation of Nazism was land. Lebensraum. Germany was the most crowded state in Europe with more people on less land than any other agrarian power and was the only powerful nation in Europe at the time that still had more than 20% of the work force in agriculture.

Nazism was motivated by the need to expand to feed Germans.



you know what I think it is, I saw a good movie with that dude from high fidelity about hitlers life when he was like an artist drawing stuff from what looked like the rocketeer.






anyway you know in my opinion he probably said enough is enough, i have this same problem I will be walking done the street and some puerto rican jews will like start walking down the street thrusting their hips in a weird and awkward manner. so I would probably wanna start a bunch of crap too.

me personally i have alot of influence, but like when your hungry and some group of people I am not gonna say wich is gonna start pulsating his member like i am some immigrant or something then yes i would have a tendency to develope a severe frustration for people of that ethnic species.





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join