WWII Discussion Thread

Hitler actually took training for such situations. If he were to shave his head and his mustache, and change his appearance and take the position of the right profession he could pass for your average old man. Just note he was VERY old and was not as recognizable as he was in the films taken in 1938 which is how most people pictured him as oppose to 1945. He also could change his accent and voice very profoundly. Remember, he was a astounding speaker and had major control over his voice.

Hitler, if taken to the right extent, could become a master of disguise. Also with secret ally's in many MANY places he could easily escape if taken to the right place.
Even though that is true, it is very easy to distinguish people by their physical shape and head shape. Every person has different facial features, and it was said he looked a bit strangely because he took a wound from a grenade.
 
Even though that is true, it is very easy to distinguish people by their physical shape and head shape. Every person has different facial features, and it was said he looked a bit strangely because he took a wound from a grenade.
True he did have a very distinct limp which was one way of identifying him but I have been quite shocked at some of the now and then pictures of some Germans who escaped in WWII that actually got plastic surgery to look different. Hitler could have gotten very far and could have had surgery to change his appearance but not very likely. Still this is simply just conspiracy so we will never know.

I honestly believe he died despite all Ive said. I just like to look deep into both sides of each situation.
 
True he did have a very distinct limp which was one way of identifying him but I have been quite shocked at some of the now and then pictures of some Germans who escaped in WWII that actually got plastic surgery to look different. Hitler could have gotten very far and could have had surgery to change his appearance but not very likely. Still this is simply just conspiracy so we will never know.

I honestly believe he died despite all Ive said. I just like to look deep into both sides of each situation.
Out of everything that happened to him, I am thinking he was murdered or suicide.
 
Hitler in my view was a mastermind of ambition. That I will say. He was also for me probably one of the best speakers I have ever seen. No one in history has been able to rally such enthusiasm like he did.


His most moving speech notable was the speech to the Hitler Youth. I saw a documentary where they interviewed a German who was a youth at that rally and he talked about at that time, he looked to Hitler as literally a god. The way Hitler presented himself and the way Hitler spoke was that inspiring to people.

Hitlers ambitions were some of the greatest in history aside from Romes ambitions during the glory days of Emperors. He conquered all of Europe in less then a decade. It took Rome I think a few decades to do this. Also his ambitions towards invention and glory were astounding. He picked some of the best and brilliant minds in the world and funded the right projects at the right times but lacked the requirements to win the war. Strategy.

If your pride is to great you will sacrifice tactical advantages for it. He literally waited till the last second EVERY time in WWII and usually when he reacted it was too late for his decisions were just TERRIBLE. Granted Poland was the best place too invade first but my god invade Russia? Probably his #1 mistake as oppose to declaring war on the United States.

So in my mind, yes Hitler was a genius, a very prideful and ignorant genius.
Russia - the idiocy of not going through with Operation Sea King before invading Russia in search of Lebensraum.
Oh, and as for Rome - a couple centuries is more precise.
 
1. Is this a question?

2. No.

wikipedia said:
Suicide

"Hitler and Braun lived together as husband and wife in the bunker for fewer than 40 hours. Late in the morning of 30 April, with the Soviets less than 500 metres from the bunker, Hitler had a meeting with General Helmuth Weidling, commander of the Berlin Defence Area, who informed Hitler that the Berlin garrison would probably run out of ammunition that night. Weidling asked Hitler for permission for a breakout, a request he had made unsuccessfully before. Hitler did not answer at first, and Weidling went back to his headquarters in the Bendlerblock, where at about 13:00 he got Hitler's permission to try a breakout that night.[41] Hitler, two secretaries, and his personal cook then had lunch, after which Hitler and Eva Braun said their personal farewells to members of the Führerbunker staff and fellow occupants, including the Goebbels family, Martin Bormann, the secretaries, and several military officers. At around 14:30 Adolf and Eva Hitler went into Hitler's personal study.[41]

Several witnesses later reported hearing a loud gunshot at around 15:30. After waiting a few minutes, Hitler's valet, Heinz Linge, with Bormann at his side, opened the door to the study. Linge later stated he immediately noted a scent of burnt almonds, a common observation made in the presence of prussic acid, the aqueous form of hydrogen cyanide.[42] Hitler's SS adjutant, Sturmbannführer Otto Günsche, entered the study and found the lifeless bodies seated on a sofa. Eva, with her legs drawn up together, was to Hitler's left and slumped away from him. Günsche stated that Hitler "... sat ... sunken over, with blood dripping out of his right temple. He had shot himself with his own pistol, a Walther PPK 7.65".[43][42][44] The gun lay at his feet[42] and according to Oberscharführer Rochus Misch, however, Hitler's head was lying on the table in front of him.[45] Blood dripping from Hitler's right temple and chin had made a large stain on the right arm of the sofa and was pooling on the carpet. According to Linge, Eva's body had no visible physical wounds, and her face showed how she had died—cyanide poisoning.[42] Günsche and Mohnke stated "unequivocally" that all outsiders and those performing duties and work in the bunker "did not have any access" to Hitler's private living quarters during the "decisive" time of death between 15:00 and 16:00.[46]

Günsche exited the study and announced that the Führer was dead. The two bodies were carried up the stairs to ground level and through the bunker's emergency exit to the garden behind the Reich Chancellery, where they were doused with petrol.[47] After the first attempts to ignite the petrol did not work, Linge went back inside the bunker and returned with a thick roll of papers. Bormann lit the papers and threw the torch onto the bodies. As the two corpses caught fire, a small group, including Bormann, Günsche, Linge, Goebbels, Peter Högl, Ewald Lindloff, and Hans Reisser, raised their arms in salute as they stood just inside the bunker doorway.[47] On and off during the afternoon, the Soviets shelled the area in and around the Reich Chancellery. SS guards brought over additional cans of petrol to further burn the corpses. Linge later noted the fire did not completely destroy the remains, as the corpses were being burned in the open, where the distribution of heat varies.[48] The burning of the corpses lasted from 16:00 to 18:30.[49] The remains were covered up in a shallow bomb crater at around 18:30 by Lindloff and Reisser.[50]"

The conspiracy theory that Hitler survived the war is highly improbable.

New philosophy question to add to the discussion:

Is it wrong to kill [in war]? Why or why not?
 
1. Is this a question?

2. No.



The conspiracy theory that Hitler survived the war is highly improbable.

New philosophy question to add to the discussion:

Is it wrong to kill [in war]? Why or why not?
1 Question, 1 answer.

Did you read the whole thread. I went through a good amount of stuff for number 2.


Also I cant thoroughly answer that but war is something we created. We wrote the rules, and we follow and break them. When we break those rules and that is through the form of killing then yes it is wrong, in the sense or the manner of how they were killed. But we wrote the rules for war, and we came down to the conclusion that if 2 men with equal chances to kill each other are both pitted against each other on the battlefield of war then yes they have the right and the greater man between such a small battle in the never ending tide of war would be the victor in such a small trial.
(Wow what a run-on)
 
1. I'm still a little confused.

2. I did not read the entire thread, but I read a good portion. If you give me a specific "evidence" for Hitler's "survival" that you want me to research and/or discuss, feel free.

3. I personally do not know the answer to my own question, but I can bring up your points so we can look into them further and learn more about the question that is being asked.

From what I see, it appears you are saying that killing in war is not wrong (therefore hinting it is right/justifiable?) if it fulfills one or more of these criteria:
1. The killing in question does not break the "rules" of war
2. The method of the killing is considered "humane"
3. The killing took place through natural selection (stronger kills weaker)

Is this correct?

Once we establish your points, then we can move on from there so we do not have any future misunderstandings.
 
1. I'm still a little confused.

2. I did not read the entire thread, but I read a good portion. If you give me a specific "evidence" for Hitler's "survival" that you want me to research and/or discuss, feel free.

3. I personally do not know the answer to my own question, but I can bring up your points so we can look into them further and learn more about the question that is being asked.

From what I see, it appears you are saying that killing in war is not wrong (therefore hinting it is right/justifiable?) if it fulfills one or more of these criteria:
1. The killing in question does not break the "rules" of war
2. The method of the killing is considered "humane"
3. The killing took place through natural selection (stronger kills weaker)

Is this correct?

Once we establish your points, then we can move on from there so we do not have any future misunderstandings.
It was more of a topic to discuss rather then a question.

Also, yes. That is basically what war has come down to. If you put aside one mans reason, cause, and leadership and bring it down to the 2 men who are pitted against each other in a war justified by the better country then it will come down to the better man, a million times over.

Also like I said, we wrote the rules and we have fought under them and for the most part, those who dont fight under these rules are usually brought to justice unless other means of justice were justified onto themselves or by others.
Also the way you kill the man is not much the factor of where its humane or not.

Shooting a man with a gun is inhumane in itself but it is more as if two men on 2 different sides, no different from the man next to them in terms of what they are given and are pitted against each other then it would come down to the victors will power, skill, and his courage and or strength to kill under set rules.

Killing is a cruel invention created by man and it could be justified to all things but we have concluded that man can do such a wrongful act in the right through the ways of superiority through the form of war and I can honestly say I can come to peace with that.
 
1. Rules are made by humans. Humans are not perfect. Therefore, could not the rules also be imperfect? What about when new rules are put onto the table? Or old rules are negated? Would this not also corrupt the "system" of rules even more so? Or what about before the "rules of war" were even invented? It wasn't until the 1864 Geneva Convention that the "rules of war" became an international matter. How can one small group of people dictate what is right and wrong in war for the rest of the planet? On a grander, more complex scale, how can the rules of war be "absolute" if the very premise that defines them are made by the minds of people who constantly change throughout the years?

2. "Humane" is:

Dictionary said:
hu·mane/(h)yo͞oˈmān/
Adjective:
Having or showing compassion or benevolence.
Inflicting the minimum of pain.

Please explain how the "method" of killing is not a large factor, when our rules of war revolve around the methodology regarding the act of killing itself.

3. How is one supposed to define superiority? Wouldn't all people have a different or unique view of what is superior in a certain situation? If "superiority" is all that is required for a killing in war to be justifiable, then under that logic, any killing in war - no matter whether it breaks the rules of war or has an "inhumane" method of killing - would be justifiable by any country whatsoever that is fighting in the war no matter the cost. Not even genocide would be a wrong act in that case (although I'm sure we all agree genocide is wrong anyway).
 
1. Rules are made by humans. Humans are not perfect. Therefore, could not the rules also be imperfect? What about when new rules are put onto the table? Or old rules are negated? Would this not also corrupt the "system" of rules even more so? Or what about before the "rules of war" were even invented? It wasn't until the 1864 Geneva Convention that the "rules of war" became an international matter. How can one small group of people dictate what is right and wrong in war for the rest of the planet? On a grander, more complex scale, how can the rules of war be "absolute" if the very premise that defines them are made by the minds of people who constantly change throughout the years?

2. "Humane" is:



Please explain how the "method" of killing is not a large factor, when our rules of war revolve around the methodology regarding the act of killing itself.

3. How is one supposed to define superiority? Wouldn't all people have a different or unique view of what is superior in a certain situation? If "superiority" is all that is required for a killing in war to be justifiable, then under that logic, any killing in war - no matter whether it breaks the rules of war or has an "inhumane" method of killing - would be justifiable by any country whatsoever that is fighting in the war no matter the cost. Not even genocide would be a wrong act in that case (although I'm sure we all agree genocide is wrong anyway).
This honestly wasn't a topic I wanted to dive into considering this applys to killing in general now and not WW2....and this is the WW2 thread...

Anyways,
1. I didn't say anything about this. I simply come to peace with these things and dont over think them. If one is to point out that such things like this are flawed then they should point out all of humanity and rant as to what should be and should not. Perfection is far from a thing to come by and is a word that is non existent when it comes to rules and or war. However, the rules we have now are as close to what is needed.

2. You took my broad statement to far. I was referring to 3 and 2 as a whole but I was stating my original point. However, yes it does matter how one is killed but like I said, when it comes down to the 2 men on battlefield that view of killing could vary from the man dying in the most humane way possible that exists in war to a man being shot in every non fatal spot and simply dying a slow painful death. Humane is not a word that factors into war well and humane is justified by the rules that are set and like you said the people that wrote these rules are not perfect and therefore nothing could be justified as humane but, I come to peace with these things so I judge it like it is.

3. Like I said before, taking my broad simple statement way to far. I am stating from man to man. You take my statement and apply it to all war. Please limit what I say to a subject and not a whole topic in general.
 
Sorry if it is delving away from the subject of WWII, but I think it has a lot to do with WWII, considering killing happens in every major war, especially World War II.*

I will continue this discussion tomorrow. It was a joy speaking with you.

- - -

*Tragic statistics: the estimated casualties of WWII are over 60 million. The war lasted about 6 years, so that's approximately 10 million casualties per year; 833,300 per month; 27,700 per day, 1,100 per hour, 18 per minute, and 1 every 3 seconds.
 
Um... What? How is this even applicable to the subject?
It is.

I would like to have some discussion about how badass Australia was in WWII.

For a country that barely knew how to light a fire, they managed to dominate the entire Pacific with their wingmen the US.
 
It is.

I would like to have some discussion about how badass Australia was in WWII.

For a country that barely knew how to light a fire, they managed to dominate the entire Pacific with their wingmen the US.
You mean you were our wingman?
You guys got your ass kicked in the pacific on neutral islands and we came and saved your ass.
 
You mean you were our wingman?
You guys got your ass kicked in the pacific on neutral islands and we came and saved your ass.
That's a funny one, and this is why I like to have a discussion about this.

And that's not the case:

Vorsprung Explanation of Events:
Basically we Aussies are all massively hung over, and then the Japanese run outta Pokemon, so they start taking over Indonesia and shit. And we're like, "Oh fuck, we're screwed." So we're like, "Yeah, you guys can have the top half, we keep the bottom, shit's kewl." But then we're like, "Fuck that, we're champs, let's kill the fuckers.". So we all grab guns and sticks and get on boats and go to islands in the Pacific. We do some hiking in PNG and die a lot, but we kill a gigantic amount of Japanese. Then the US rock up, and they're like, "'Sup mang, we're just gonna sit in Darwin and then go shoot some things." And we're like, "Shit's kewl." And then all the American soldiers eat our food and fuck our women, and then go all wingman with their Aussie buddies and kill some Axis fuckers. Then they invent a bomb and drop it on Japan, and Australia just high fives the US, and then we eat bacon.

Oh yeah, and we also fuck shit up in the Middle East. And Europe. Basically, we just send 20 kids with dildos to fight thousands of Nazi tanks and shit. And we still whoop ass.

And then the US takes all the credit, but we don't care, 'cos we have a good economy.
 
Back
Top