"Hitler Tamed By Prison" - The New York Times, December 21, 1924

For some reason when I first saw the article my reaction was not " How could they get it so wrong!?" My reaction was "Something isn't right here. How did this happen?"

And the ATS thread that immediately came to mind was Something has changed, timeline?

I can't explain why.

a reply to: LiveForever8

Uncanny how hard that article works to allay any concern...makes you wonder what really went on in prison. I guess prisons were radicalizing inmates even back then.

a reply to: kosmicjack

Well that's just it.

How did this man go from failed revolutionary on Page 16 of the NYT to one of THE most significant people in the history of mankind, right along side the likes of Aristotle, William Shakespeare and Jesus?

a reply to: LiveForever8

It definitely has that "In what universe...?" feel to it. Maybe check with the Berensteiners.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Proof that the MSM has been under control for a long time.

Proof media has been gullible for a very,very long time.

Terrorism is the new Hitler.

Mencken from the 1920's

How does so much [false news] get into the American newspapers, even the good ones? Is it because journalists, as a class, are habitual liars, and prefer what is not true to what is true? I don't think it is. Rather, it is because journalists are, in the main, extremely stupid, sentimental and credulous fellows -- because nothing is easier than to fool them -- because the majority of them lack the sharp intelligence that the proper discharge of their duties demands.

en.wikiquote.org...

How things never change.

a reply to: neo96



CFR JP MORGAN CHASE BAILOUT THE NWO NOT NEW 1917 new world order Lehman Brothers Goldman Sachs bailout billion trillion inflation monetary policy federal reserve fed IRS Congress Ron Paul lectures Bernanke paulson AIG SEE NWO IS NOT NEW PART 1/2

It's amazing how external programming can make such extreme human behavior... on both ends of the spectrum.

I don't really know if we have a primary essence to our personalities at birth, but know that external stimuli and memes are strong and can make good people not so.

That's what this made me think of, anyway... trying to wrap my mind around Nazis, neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers... gads.

People, ultimately, can be scary... or not.

To be fair we're all looking at this with hindsight and with the knowledge of what subsequently happened.

Nobody's a prophet and I don't think you can expect the journalists of the New York Times to have enough foresight to envision the Holocaust or the bloodshed and destruction wrought by the Second World War.

Maybe that Hitler was a dangerous man if given a platform to espouse his ideas, but not the ultimate carnage and genocide that unfolded.

It is very interesting nonetheless.

You have to realize that the political climate in Germany at that time was pretty nasty. Hitler's attempt to overthrow the existing government was just one of multiple attempts. There is interesting history during this period, and a student of history can see how Hitler's beliefs were to some extent shaped by the situation in Germany at that time. Numerous citizens wanted a repudiation of the Versailles Treaty, which is partly why there were so many willing supporters of altering the existing government. Although there was not as much animosity after 1924, and when Hitler got out of Landsberg the political situation was not as rife for manipulation. There was also a whole lot of blaming the Jewish community for Germany's defeat, and anti-Semitism was not something unique to the Nazi Party at that time. Anyway, there were multiple revolts against the government. The Kapp Putsch, led by Erhardt, took place at the same time as another right-wing coup led by Gustav von Kahr, but the latter actually succeeded. Hitler hated the trade unions from his experiences with them during these years.The interesting part is that Hitler was imprisoned for his failed 1923 putsch, but after he came to power he actually had Kahr executed, in 1934, because he viewed him as being responsible for the failure of his coup.

As far as Hitler being released from prison he was pardoned after serving about a year of a five year sentence. His time in prison was not bad at all however, and there was not really anything done there to "reform" him. He was still doing the same old wheeling-and-dealing with his party members, as his communications were not cut off. I think he was definitely more determined after coming out of prison, which may have been mistaken for some other feelings. People think Hitler was a madman, but in fact he was sane. His actions during the early years show a keen sense of awareness. I think he became progressively worse as time went on, mainly due to two factors: first, his rampant drug abuse. Most people do not realize just how hooked he was on narcotics, to the point that he literally could not live without his personal physician, a quack named Morell, who unbeknownst to Hitler pumped him full of "Vitamultin," which contained crazy and harmful compounds. The other main factor was, possibly, Parkinson's Disease, possibly syphilis, or at the very least some physical disease. I think that his bad decision-making in military and political affairs was mainly due to these factors. The illegal substances alone gave him a feeling of invincibility, and his decisions became less and less militarily viable. At least in my personal opinion. He was not this way after coming to power, and was in my opinion starting to show signs of this at the start of the war. His failure in Barbarossa was most definitely due to a lack of decisive decision making, and wishful thinking, as an example. He was not a good military thinker, which is evidenced by his blatant disregard for the most basic elements of military strategy. As an example, his decision to split his forces when they were on the verge of capturing Moscow violated the principal of mass. And it was the inability to capture Moscow by Germany that led to soldiers being caught in the harshness of the especially bitter Russian winter of that year, which essentially destroyed what combat power they had. If I remember correctly there were hundreds of thousands of cases of frostbite in the German army at that time. The soldiers were still in their summer uniforms, because Hitler expected them to be in Moscow already. They should have been, and would have been had he not been making the decisions.

Anyway, I just wanted to correct the view that Hitler was a crazy person. Evil, yes; crazy, no. What I have always wondered was just how much his drug use affected the outcome of the war. I even wonder if Barbarossa would have occurred, or succeeded if he did go through with it, had he not been on so many mind-altering substances. And his extermination of the Jews, as hard as it might be to believe, was not really the act of a crazy man. He just really believed the crap and hate he taught to the nation. One doesn't have to be crazy to be evil. But again, if he was crazy this was not brought about until after the start of the war, and was likely due to some external cause.

a reply to: Cauliflower

Carnival is a great track, but how did Nat Merchant get in here?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: greencmp

"Peace in our time"

Everybody seems to love trashing Chamberlain nowadays but back then he tried to give the people what they wanted. It wasn't his fault WW2 started and if were around back then we probably would have applauded his efforts as well. Were it not for their mutual defense pact with Poland England and France might not have even entered WW2, we simply don't know.

At any rate if history thinks Chamberlain a fool he was an honest one and well-like by the people in his time.

I can tell you Winston Churchill (The only real hawk the whole time) was not a fan nor were a great many skeptics of diplomatic success when dealing with tyrants.

The goal (in my opinion) is to make every effort to learn from our previous mistakes.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
Yea, that book he wrote in prison, turned out to be
(or so I have been told) the second most sold book
ever written.
Rebel 5

a reply to: rebelv

You know. I've never read it. Maybe I should I guess. I was reading On the Road and Naked Lunch when it was hip in highschool to read Mein Kampf.

It seems like it would be a bore. Does he do any chapters on water colors?

a reply to: rebelv

What, more than Harry Potter and Lord Of The Rings?

Nah, it's nowhere near being the second most sold book ever written.

Time sure does make a fool of some of our decisions.

Would we do the same today? Probably...have we already with some other extremist? Yes.

Wow. What a piece of ironic history. I can't believe this is still around, I figured they'd all be destroyed or relocated to a nice dark corner of NYT's archives.

I notice that it's just a small article, probably non on the front page but who knows. It's almost like the writer of the article was sure that this would just be another pointless, back page article that would disappear in time and with history. Boy was he wrong.

a reply to: LiveForever8

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power

a reply to: GogoVicMorrow

I had to read that damned book several times over for a University class.

I can't make it past page 35 anymore without getting a screaming headache at all the rhetoric and hate.

Up to that page, he mostly just talks about his life as a young man.

Sadly, he never delved into his love of painting.

Or anything to do with love, for that matter.