There Will Be Another Hitler Some Day

[Persia]

Ewald von Kleist, 88, a former officer in the German Wehrmacht and the last surviving member of the July 20, 1944 plot against Hitler, discusses Germany's elimination of conscription, why German soldiers need to toughen up and his failed attempt to kill Adolf Hitler.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,748844,00.html

[Siddhawarrior]

Ewald von Kleist, 88, a former officer in the German Wehrmacht and the last surviving member of the July 20, 1944 plot against Hitler, discusses Germany's elimination of conscription, why German soldiers need to toughen up and his failed attempt to kill Adolf Hitler.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,748844,00.html

We need more of him in the western world.

[Sthenno]

He puts forward a rather one-sided argument. I'd say the conditions under which Hitler came to power have far more in common with the situation in the US than with Iran or Pakistan. Why does he assume that these countries are capable of producing a Hitler and not western countries? Similarly, he seems to believe that these countries would not be safe with a nuclear weapon but it's OK for western countries to have them.

[StarChild 83]

He puts forward a rather one-sided argument. I'd say the conditions under which Hitler came to power have far more in common with the situation in the US than with Iran or Pakistan. Why does he assume that these countries are capable of producing a Hitler and not western countries? Similarly, he seems to believe that these countries would not be safe with a nuclear weapon but it's OK for western countries to have them.

He mentions "But the nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States are not the problem." He later says "We can all recall the images of Iranian children with green headbands running straight into Iraqi machine-gun fire. Their parents allowed this to happen because they believed their children were fulfilling the will of Allah." as in countries willing to use that kind of tactic, ones with considerably less military power are the countries whose goal it would be to gain access of nuclear weapons. Those are also the countries that would use it, because there is no way else to compete in a conventional war against a stronger, bigger, more advanced military without an equalizer such as a nuke.

[Drayno]

"Nothing is more valuable than the blood of the people you are responsible for. People should be made to understand this."

If only our own countries realized this.

Edited March 19, 2011 by Turbo Turtle

[Helen of Annoy]

We need more of him in the western world.

Von Kleist or Hitler?

The first admits his memory is not like it used to be, the later... well, let’s start with burning books. If anyone wants their books burned, do it yourself, there’s no need to bring psychopath to power so he can order it done for you. Don’t be lazy. And don’t make me go further into this topic.

The nukes... well, those who can build them can have them. Don't hand it out to obviously unstable and/or half-literate people, regardless of how much that would annoy your competition and problem solved.

[Sthenno]

He mentions "But the nuclear weapons of Russia and the United States are not the problem." He later says "We can all recall the images of Iranian children with green headbands running straight into Iraqi machine-gun fire. Their parents allowed this to happen because they believed their children were fulfilling the will of Allah." as in countries willing to use that kind of tactic, ones with considerably less military power are the countries whose goal it would be to gain access of nuclear weapons. Those are also the countries that would use it, because there is no way else to compete in a conventional war against a stronger, bigger, more advanced military without an equalizer such as a nuke.

But its still one-sided. From the other side, the prospect of a big superpower that's prone to invading countries on a whim hoarding weapons that you're not allowed to have probably seems quite threatening too. For every Westerner horrified at how people's beliefs affect their humanity, there is a mother in Afghanistan or Iraq wondering what kind of monsters would bomb her house and kill her children.

[The Silver Thong]

With the ability of mutual destruction we will never see another Hitler nor will one arise to create what Hitler created.

[Sthenno]

"Nothing is more valuable than the blood of the people you are responsible for. People should be made to understand this."

If only our own countries realized this.

And where would Mr Kleist be now if the Americans had followed this advice in WWII?

[StarChild 83]

But its still one-sided. From the other side, the prospect of a big superpower that's prone to invading countries on a whim hoarding weapons that you're not allowed to have probably seems quite threatening too. For every Westerner horrified at how people's beliefs affect their humanity, there is a mother in Afghanistan or Iraq wondering what kind of monsters would bomb her house and kill her children.

Yes the world is a very violent place, but that's a whole other topic. The countries who feel backed into a corner at times and who would resort to such a devastating act are those who should be "watched" and yes sometime the U.S. has acted hastily and sometimes without all the facts. But like I said when you feel threatened and backed into a corner is when your true self takes over. Even if all the countries in the world decide to sign some sort of agreement that they will dispose of all their nukes. It would probably be a safe bet to say 100% of them would also try and hide a stockpile for "emergency use".

[Drayno]

And where would Mr. Kleist be now if the Americans had followed this advice in WWII?

Alive.

It stated very clearly, surrounding his case that the charges were filed void due to a lack of conclusive evidence. So he was not to be considered a part of the scheme. This has nothing to do with Americans maintaining their imperialistic support of the Monroe Doctrine; for the bombing of Pearl Harbor was indeed an attack on American soil, as dictated by American Imperialism.

Though suspected of involvement, he escaped the fate of most of the other conspirators -- including his father -- when charges were dismissed due to a lack of evidence.

Now, if the Americans had followed isolationism the world would be different.

- Germany would have had Atomic weaponry first.

- Germany would have most likely won World War II.

- Germany would have most likely destroyed Russia, annexing its territories, thus there would have been a large scale battle between a German-ruled and annexed European territories versus the Americas - which could have ended up with Mexico turning against us; as foreshadowed by the Zimmerman telegram, at the price of reclaiming previously owned Mexican provinces.

Nonetheless, he would have been alive, or dead.

It does not really matter; life is a terminal illness.

[Sthenno]

Yes the world is a very violent place, but that's a whole other topic. The countries who feel backed into a corner at times and who would resort to such a devastating act are those who should be "watched" and yes sometime the U.S. has acted hastily and sometimes without all the facts. But like I said when you feel threatened and backed into a corner is when your true self takes over. Even if all the countries in the world decide to sign some sort of agreement that they will dispose of all their nukes. It would probably be a safe bet to say 100% of them would also try and hide a stockpile for "emergency use".

According to who? There's no historical evidence to support this theory. You could equally argue that large, powerful nations with a proven disregard for innocent civilians are perfectly capable of resorting to such devastating tactics. The point is, there are many nations capable of producing 'the next Hitler' and it seems prejudiced to me that he points his finger at Iran.

[Eldorado]

Isolationism?

It was Germany that declared war on the US first, not the other way round.

Kinda hard to stay out of a war in those circumstances.

Edited March 20, 2011 by Eldorado

[Siddhawarrior]

Von Kleist or Hitler?

The first admits his memory is not like it used to be, the later... well, let’s start with burning books. If anyone wants their books burned, do it yourself, there’s no need to bring psychopath to power so he can order it done for you. Don’t be lazy. And don’t make me go further into this topic.

The nukes... well, those who can build them can have them. Don't hand it out to obviously unstable and/or half-literate people, regardless of how much that would annoy your competition and problem solved.

I'm talking about Von Kleist. As for Hitler we all know he was simply a puppet for a dark syndicate force.

[Space Commander Travis]

Isn't it funny how any discussion of any topic related to international conflict, then or now, always brings out the loopiest theories anyone can think of. Hitler wasn't a psychopath; WWII was all arranged to further American Imperialism.

If Pearl Harbor was staged by anyone, it could just as plausibly, by this line of thinking, have been staged by Britain and Russia to finally prompt the US to join in the war.

[Eldorado]

I think a lot of folk struggle to comprehend just how evil some humans can be, so look for some other contributory factors like satanism, mind-altering drugs or falling out of their cot when 3 months old.

Truth is as history has told us; some humans don't need any help to be evil b-------.

[questionmark]

Isolationism?

It was Germany that declared war on the US first, not the other way round.

Kinda hard to stay out of a war in those circumstances.

Which is something that everybody always tries to ignore and certainly is never mentioned in the blood sweat and tears commemorative speeches.

[danielost]

He puts forward a rather one-sided argument. I'd say the conditions under which Hitler came to power have far more in common with the situation in the US than with Iran or Pakistan. Why does he assume that these countries are capable of producing a Hitler and not western countries? Similarly, he seems to believe that these countries would not be safe with a nuclear weapon but it's OK for western countries to have them.

if the USA produces another person from history it will be a ceaser. ceaser seized control of rome, to stop the corruption, it didnt work. ie the government was the only way to save the roman republic. does that sound like what is going on today.

(sorry about the spelling)

[danielost]

Alive.

It stated very clearly, surrounding his case that the charges were filed void due to a lack of conclusive evidence. So he was not to be considered a part of the scheme. This has nothing to do with Americans maintaining their imperialistic support of the Monroe Doctrine; for the bombing of Pearl Harbor was indeed an attack on American soil, as dictated by American Imperialism.

Now, if the Americans had followed isolationism the world would be different.

- Germany would have had Atomic weaponry first.

- Germany would have most likely won World War II.

- Germany would have most likely destroyed Russia, annexing its territories, thus there would have been a large scale battle between a German-ruled and annexed European territories versus the Americas - which could have ended up with Mexico turning against us; as foreshadowed by the Zimmerman telegram, at the price of reclaiming previously owned Mexican provinces.

Nonetheless, he would have been alive, or dead.

It does not really matter; life is a terminal illness.

hitler had already given up on the atomic weapon.

england had already defeated the german airforce,so they werent going to be invaded.

again hitler couldnt have defeated the russians due to the fact he couldnt deside which city he wanted to take first. how ever with no western front in france the russians wouldnt have been able to move against hitler either at least no further than they starting points.

[Flashbangwollap]

hitler had already given up on the atomic weapon.

england had already defeated the german airforce,so they werent going to be invaded.

again hitler couldnt have defeated the russians due to the fact he couldnt deside which city he wanted to take first. how ever with no western front in france the russians wouldnt have been able to move against hitler either at least no further than they starting points.

Stalin was another Hitler imo. If the Yanks hadn't supported England when Germany had a strangle hole on shipping due to the Wolf packs of U Boats, England would have quite possibly fallen.

Had that happened Russian would have been next. The whole of Europe had fought to a stand still but by foolish thinking by Japan, believing they could take what they wanted in the Pacific the Americans may not have entered the War so whole heartedly. Pearl Harbour put the nail in the coffin of Japanese and Axis ambitions. Truly they awoke the sleeping giant.

Starlin built the iron curtain after the end of the war making his feelings towards the west in general well known.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Flashbangwollap

[danielost]

Stalin was another Hitler imo. If the Yanks hadn't supported England when Germany had a strangle hole on shipping due to the Wolf packs of U Boats, England would have quite possibly fallen.

Had that happened Russian would have been next. The whole of Europe had fought to a stand still but by foolish thinking by Japan, believing they could take what they wanted in the Pacific the Americans may not have entered the War so whole heartedly. Pearl Harbour put the nail in the coffin of Japanese and Axis ambitions. Truly they awoke the sleeping giant.

Starlin built the iron curtain after the end of the war making his feelings towards the west in general well known.

i don't think staling was another Hitler, he really didn't have an ambitions outside of Russia until after world war 2, or was it he didn't have a big enough military until he had to build one to beat back the Germans.

but then Hitler as really another Napoleon, but with his tanks he only got about 5 miles deeper into Russia than Napoleon did.

your right about japan, in fact Hitler signed his treaty with japan with the idea that they would keep America out of the war. and we did everything but call the emperor names to get them to attack us. but what is funny is it was the British attack on a French fleet that showed them how to attack pearl.

[Flashbangwollap]

i don't think staling was another Hitler, he really didn't have an ambitions outside of Russia until after world war 2, or was it he didn't have a big enough military until he had to build one to beat back the Germans.

but then Hitler as really another Napoleon, but with his tanks he only got about 5 miles deeper into Russia than Napoleon did.

your right about japan, in fact Hitler signed his treaty with japan with the idea that they would keep America out of the war. and we did everything but call the emperor names to get them to attack us. but what is funny is it was the British attack on a French fleet that showed them how to attack pearl.

Hitler intervened on when to move on Russia and so brought about his own defeat. The military in Germany wanted to build up longer but Hitler wouldn't have it. Had the military had their way it would have been curtains for Britain as they wanted to invade England next.

Stalin had most of the military leadership in Russia killed when he made his move for leadership in Russia.

The Brits had to take out the French fleet to stop Hitler using it against us. Indeed a small part of the French fleet managed to escape to England.

The Japanese had a far better carrier fleet than the Brits and their pilots were second to none at the time. They didn't need any lessons from the British. We were still flying biplanes while the Japanese had Kates and Zero's.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Flashbangwollap

[danielost]

Hitler intervened on when to move on Russia and so brought about his own defeat. The military in Germany wanted to build up longer but Hitler wouldn't have it. Had the military had their way it would have been curtains for Britain as they wanted to invade England next.

Stalin had most of the military leadership in Russia killed when he made his move for leadership in Russia.

The Brits had to take out the French fleet to stop Hitler using it against us. Indeed a small part of the French fleet managed to escape to England.

The Japanese had a far better carrier fleet than the Brits and their pilots were second to none at the time. They didn't need any lessons from the British. We were still flying biplanes while the Japanese had Kates and Zero's.

everyone knows that is everyone who knows anything about ww2 knows hitler knew nothing about how to fight a war. but what do you want from a private. but he and stalin did the samething, they killed off all of their top generals for disagreeing with them.

Edited March 22, 2011 by danielost

[Space Commander Travis]

everyone knows that is everyone who knows anything about ww2 knows hitler knew nothing about how to fight a war. but what do you want from a private. but he and stalin did the samething, they killed off all of their top generals for disagreeing with them.

As regards Hitler, only after the Stauffenberg plot; even though he did fire Guderian over a disagreement in policy, he let him retire and take up farming, until he called him back. It was after the summer of '44 that he really lost it. Hitler may not have known about how to fight a war, but up until the invasion of Russia his intuition seemed to serve him pretty well enough. (Other than the invasion of Britain, which he was always rather half-hearted about.) Stalin, on the other hand, did do himslf no favours at all by not only firing but shooting most of his experienced officers in the years leading up tot he war.

[danielost]

As regards Hitler, only after the Stauffenberg plot; even though he did fire Guderian over a disagreement in policy, he let him retire and take up farming, until he called him back. It was after the summer of '44 that he really lost it. Hitler may not have known about how to fight a war, but up until the invasion of Russia his intuition seemed to serve him pretty well enough. (Other than the invasion of Britain, which he was always rather half-hearted about.) Stalin, on the other hand, did do himslf no favours at all by not only firing but shooting most of his experienced officers in the years leading up tot he war.

i dont know about his intuition, but he didnt really face an army except france. he went around that and took paris.