Calm down, dear, it's only chaos

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon But your placing all these others on the same level of importance and influence in world history as Hitler, when they obviously aren't. After Jesus Christ, he is the second most discussed individual in the world, doesn't that tell you something?

Actually, the German citizenry is what gave Hitler any power. Without their willingness to go forward and follow his directions, Hitler might have been relegated to virtual obscurity. Under fatalist thought, humanity was violated.

People give authority power, whether we're addressing parliamentary corruption or domineering behavior in the workplace. Without people, even Christ would be nothing.

Grandpa h.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: grandpa Actually, the German citizenry is what gave Hitler any power. Without their willingness to go forward and follow his directions, Hitler might have been relegated to virtual obscurity. Under fatalist thought, humanity was violated. People give authority power, whether we're addressing parliamentary corruption or domineering behavior in the workplace. Without people, even Christ would be nothing.

You know what a leader is without a following?

Just a guy taking a walk.

Unamerican

nice but "inamerican" would be funnier.

[Chris the Chees]

But your placing all these others on the same level of importance and influence in world history as Hitler, when they obviously aren't.

Really? Prove it.

Without the rail workers in Germany who actively shipped Jews to the death camps the holocaust could not have happened. Without the SS the holocaust could not have occurred. Hitler's role in the Holocaust is but one part, he didn't organise the holocaust, he didn't implement the holocaust single-handedly and individually he didn't kill any Jews. Indeed there is not one document where Hitler puts his name on an order to kill Jews, not one.

Hitler's element of responsibility comes in to it because it was his regime, but to claim that he shaped the regime single-handed, and is individually responsible for it is manifestly false. It simply cannot be true.

After Jesus Christ, he is the second most discussed individual in the world, doesn't that tell you something?

Argumentum ad populum. Your argument is a fallacy.

Most of the people discussing Hitler have no idea what they are talking about. They haven't read the better historians, and they have no idea about the individualist/structuralist debate that exists among historians.

Yeah of course he couldn't have got anywhere without all those other guys to help, but he was the focus that bought them all together to make the Nazi party what it became.

But by the same token, while he may have been a focal point both ideologically and as a personality, he still is just a cog in a wider mechanism. Other of the parts may seem less integral, but still without them there is no machine, which means that other parts are just as integral, which proves the structuralist position to be true.

thats why he was the leader.

Non sequitur; remember the age old expression, 'the power behind the throne'? While not going as far as Mommsen in describing Hitler as a ‘weak dictator’, the argument is a solid one. Hitler hated doing any work; he got up in the afternoon, attended a couple of meetings a day for a few hours and then spent the rest of the day, and much of the night watching movies. As a result he left the bulk of the work to his power hungry lieutenants. This gave them an inordinate amount of power and influence in the regimes decision making process, which placed Hitler in stark contrast to Stalin.

I doubt they were willing, in the lead up to WW2 the Nazi party had the streets under their control, and if anyone objected to them they were just beaten up or killed.

The myth of the Gestapo having ears at every door has been utterly debunked.

Sorry, but you wouldn't have had WW2 without him.

The same goes for a vast army of other individuals. A. J. P. Taylor argued that Hitler provided a role, in terms of reaction to the 1919 treaty, which is exactly what any other German leader would have done.

My paragraphs and grammar, are also better than yours.

You have made grammatical errors in just about every post of yours I have read. So even if you grammar is better than mine, it is still far from perfect; indeed the exact opposite is true, so it is highly hypocritical of you to criticise my stylistic faults while you maintain plenty of your own. It is also worth noting that picking up spelling errors is the refuge of those who lack actual arguments.

[Winter wind]

Quote by: chris Argumentum ad populum.

I've given up trying convince him it's a fallacy.

But, somehow I feel like your arguing his point. If hitler wasn't the powerful one, then it was destined to happen anyway because the people were egging for it.

Not a problem, just...curious.

[Anmon]

=grandpa;497094]Actually, the German citizenry is what gave Hitler any power.

I don't think they had much choice in the matter, if you objected to Hitler, his street goons took you away for a bashing or worse.

Without people, even Christ would be nothing.

I see it more being the other way around actually.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon I don't think they had much choice in the matter, if you objected to Hitler, his street goons took you away for a bashing or worse. I see it more being the other way around actually.

His street goons wouldn't have stood a chance against an anti-authoritarian Germany. Furthermore, what would Hitler have been without the street goons?

You do bring up a point, though. People follow leaders most when they fear repercussions. If we disobey or disrupt a system, we're threatened with a crashing economy, or something worse. Of course, a collapse needn't absolutely occur. That usually also depends on belief.

Grandpa h.

[Anmon]

=grandpa;497231]His street goons wouldn't have stood a chance against an anti-authoritarian Germany. Furthermore, what would Hitler have been without the street goons?

The anti- authoritarian Germany is a dream, the Germans love strong authority and leadership, they just bit off more than they could chew with old Hitler.
And where would the street goons have been without him?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon The anti- authoritarian Germany is a dream, the Germans love strong authority and leadership, they just bit off more than they could chew with old Hitler. And where would the street goons have been without him?

Who knows? Keep in mind, we're only engaging in what-ifs. It's impossble to say with absolute certainty what would have become of Hitler, his party, Hermann Goering or Germany in general if things developed quite differently.

But Germany has distanced itself from Hitler, and it doesn't seem like most Germans want a new Hitler to emerge. In other words, people learned from the past in order to better invent their own future.
Could someone very much like Hitler rise in Germany again?
Perhaps, but probably not. The world is better of without him and his ilk.

Grandpa h.

[Chris the Chees]

Quote by: Winter wind I've given up trying convince him it's a fallacy. But, somehow I feel like your arguing his point. If Hitler wasn't the powerful one, then it was destined to happen anyway because the people were egging for it. Not a problem, just...curious.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that they were 'egging for it' per say. The Nazi regime was a secretive one; they didn't let the people know fully what they were up to.

As for the argument, I don't think its an either/or scenario. On the one hand Hitler controlled the party, but at the same time the party evolved independently of Hitler. His underlings made huge life changing, even life ending, decisions for thousands (even millions) of people based on their own individual whims and whether they thought their initiative would please Hitler. In these sense Hitler was hugely powerful, but in another much of the decisions regarding the regime and its future were not taken by him, nor was the regime shaped in his image. Hitler also gave his lieutenants a huge degree of leeway to do what they liked.

A fine example of this is the SS. Hitler thought Himmler’s fetish for the occult was laughable, but that didn’t stop him from allowing Himmler to develop the SS into a bizarre state within a state; an institution with its own rules, religious eccentricities and with its own ‘unique’ disciplinary system. Even by the standards of the Nazi regime the SS was really bizarre and very little of it conformed to Hitler’s own opinions or way of thinking. So in that sense Hitler didn’t shape the Third Reich, the structure he created moulded its self.

[Anmon]

=grandpa;497240]Who knows? Keep in mind, we're only engaging in what-ifs. It's impossble to say with absolute certainty what would have become of Hitler, his party, Hermann Goering or Germany in general if things developed quite differently.

They were always going to develop, the butterfly theory is bollocks.

But Germany has distanced itself from Hitler, and it doesn't seem like most Germans want a new Hitler to emerge. In other words, people learned from the past in order to better invent their own future. Could someone very much like Hitler rise in Germany again? Perhaps, but probably not. The world is better of without him and his ilk.

Unfortunately we now have America and Bush instead leading us into the NWO, which will probably make Hitlers Germany look like a Sunday picnic.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon They were always going to develop, the butterfly theory is bollocks. Unfortunately we now have America and Bush instead leading us into the NWO, which will probably make Hitlers Germany look like a Sunday picnic.

That's sort of true. US leaders are in fact ordering invasions of other countries, setting up new detention centers and probing national responses to Nazi-style ID programs.

Grandpa h.

[Anmon]

Did you know FEMA is building and organising large holding compounds in America? Some are ready, and apparently equipped with gas chambers.

YouTube - Unhidden Agendas: Off To Camp FEMA
YouTube - Fema Underground

[Maryjane]

I tend to agree that in most cases control is just an illusion. When life gets really hectic and you feel like you can't take anymore, sometimes you have to be the one to stop and let things take care of themselves. It's worked for me in my most extreme situations of stress. Things turned out better than I had ever anticipated but that's hard to see when you are living in a chaotic state of mind.
Right now I'm trying not to panic over the stock market and our economy.

[Dr_Acula]

with the whole hitler thing:

according to Weber, charismatic leaders (like adolf) always exist within a society, constantly trying to get to power. However, they only are successful when the people need it. Charismatic leaders don't get to power, they are called to it, they respond the people's hidden need for one, which always happens during times of crisis: they fill the deseparation with promises filled with hope and emotion. They are a product of the situation. And if hitler wouldnt have been there, someone else would have. Besides, there are many big socioeconmical issues that show that world war two was inevitable, regardless of the nazis.

and about jk rowling: i think a woman with her talent would have come up with a good novel anyway, maybe it wouldnt have been about a wizard, perhpas it may have been about time travelers, but it still would have been as sucessful, or even more, as long as her writing skills reamined the same.

so the butterfly effect is not an important thing, because its has no foundation. sometimes its true (ex: the character of a king can determine the fate of an old nation), sometimes its not. it has no predictibe capacity and it istn based on a proper research. its not to be given any importance.

[Anmon]

=Dr_Acula;497323] And if hitler wouldnt have been there, someone else would have.

Your right in a way, and he was there actually with Hitler, Ernst Rohm leader of the SA, the 70,000 strong armed wing of the Nazi party, their brown shirted bully boys. Fate hedged its bet on Hitler and had a back up ready, but as Hitler grew stronger, Rohm was disposed of when his stand in purpose had run its course.
Hitler was always going to be there.

Besides, there are many big socioeconmical issues that show that world war two was inevitable, regardless of the nazis.

As in Europe?
Do you mean Germany would have eventually started another war against Europe without the Nazis?

[grandpa]

Quote by: Anmon Your right in a way, and he was there actually with Hitler, Ernst Rohm leader of the SA, the 70,000 strong armed wing of the Nazi party, their brown shirted bully boys. Fate hedged its bet on Hitler and had a back up ready, but as Hitler grew stronger, Rohm was disposed of when his stand in purpose had run its course.

Well, the Nazis did have their lot of career "bully boys". I'm not trying to downplay that:

"Roehm was replaced by Victor Lutze as head of the SA. Lutze was a weak
man and the SA gradually lost its power in Hitler's Germany. The Schutz
Staffeinel (SS) under the leadership of Himmler grew rapidly during the
next few years, replacing the SA as the dominant force in Germany."

Sturm Abteilung (SA) : Nazi Germany

But the idea this absolutely had to transpire is worth challenging, both on purely logical and moral grounds.

Grandpa h.