FAQ
It is currently Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:30 pm


Author Message
Ophiolite
Post  Post subject: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:52 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:00 pm
Posts: 261

Offline
Stalin was, if my unchecked recollections are correct, responsible for more deaths outside of comabt that Hitler. Yet it is Hitler who, in the West is conventionally reviled as the epitome of evil.

Do you agree with this observation and if so, why do you think it is? It seems unlikely that it was because Stalin was an ally, since almost before the war had ended the Cold War had begun. It seems more that we wish to ignore the Russians and their place in history. Again, in the West, D-Day and the subsequent battles across France and the Low Countries loom large, yet the massive battles on the Russian front are almost consigned to footnotes.

Strange. Or not?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 6:47 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4753
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
genocides are never nice, and the larger numbers merely reflect the fact that Stalin had more people at his disposal + was in power for longer
imo Pol Pot probably did a more lethal job (relatively speaking) than Stalin, and in absolute terms Mao may well have vied for Stalin's crown as exterminator-in-chief

whatever the case, Hitler's proximity and higher visibility (+ the fact that he was ultimately defeated) probably skew our perceptions

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:40 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Ophiolite wrote:
Stalin was, if my unchecked recollections are correct, responsible for more deaths outside of comabt that Hitler. Yet it is Hitler who, in the West is conventionally reviled as the epitome of evil.

Do you agree with this observation and if so, why do you think it is?

Jews exist outside of Germany. Russians don't exist outside of Russia (in any appreciable population percentages).

My thinking here is that maybe the holocaust is seen as worse because it impacts folks and families we all know and are close to and play poker with or sit beside at baseball games. Stalin's actions impacted a bunch of farmers in Russia (crude simplification, I know), so likely the response and recollection within Russia where residents know impacted families is different than the recollection elsewhere where people don't.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:37 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
Quote:
imo Pol Pot probably did a more lethal job (relatively speaking) than Stalin, and in absolute terms Mao may well have vied for Stalin's crown as exterminator-in-chief
Pol Pot belongs in this category, but probably not Mao. Mao did not launch deliberate extermination campaigns. His agricultural reforms were not designed to starve people, his re-education camps included no wholesale killing fields or industrial murder facilities or organized mass slaughtering campaigns.

The massive drought that killed so many Chinese made vulnerable by authoritarian State agricultural reforms should probably be compared to the American Dust Bowl, rather than Stalin's deliberate starvation of the kulaks.

And this factor - the role of actual disaster independent of the strongman's will, in Stalin's case the creation by Hitler's war of a scorched earth and destroyed agricultural civilization in a severe climate, a situation that would have caused many deaths under the best of governments in the privation years after WWII - is one of the circumstances that bleeds some of the pure evil out of the picture.

Hitler's extermination campaigns were unique, not only in that they were organized by some of the best and the brightest of the local Western civilization using all the modern products of Western science, the heirs to all the philosophical learning and ethical discussion of the Christian tradition and the Western Enlightenment; and not only in that they reached into the center of German culture at all economic class levels for their victims (rather than focusing on a geographically or culturally isolated group);

but in that they were created from scratch without any context of disaster or lethal privation. If Hitler hadn't launched genocide, there would have been no mass graves or large scale death under his governance.

Even Pol Pot can claim real circumstance - he had to empty his cities, because he couldn't feed them after the damage of the revolution. Cambodia was facing severe privation, even mass starvation, regardless. Even the organizers of the Hutu/Tutsi slaughter can point to circumstance - an exploding population in conflict over inadequate farmland, a future of famine and conflict regardless. Hitler created real mass murder out of fantasy, propaganda, thin air.


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:07 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
As for why Stalin has received less Western attention for his evil than earned, another aspect: that would involve attention to the physical reality generally, including the dominant role Russia played in defeating Germany in WWII and the situation Russia faced immediately after that war. And that would throw into question America's role and behavior in the early stages of the Cold War, in particular its nuclear weaponry and massive military buildup in the 1950s.

Nobody wants that. The French and Poles and Danes don't want to have been rescued by the Russian Army, the Germans want to have been defeated by American wealth and industrial might rather than desperate Russian peasant military capability, the Americans want to be responding to dark evil and serious looming threat with virtuous strength and righteousness. The Russians don't want the origins of their modern world to be lumped in with famous horrorshows like the Third Reich. So the less attention to Stalin's rule and postwar Soviet circumstances, the better.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:47 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4753
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iceaura wrote:
Quote:
imo Pol Pot probably did a more lethal job (relatively speaking) than Stalin, and in absolute terms Mao may well have vied for Stalin's crown as exterminator-in-chief
Pol Pot belongs in this category, but probably not Mao. Mao did not launch deliberate extermination campaigns. His agricultural reforms were not designed to starve people, his re-education camps included no wholesale killing fields or industrial murder facilities or organized mass slaughtering campaigns.

The massive drought that killed so many Chinese made vulnerable by authoritarian State agricultural reforms should probably be compared to the American Dust Bowl, rather than Stalin's deliberate starvation of the kulaks.


i agree only up to a point - i don't think Mao actively aimed to kill millions in starvation, but then again, his adherence to strict ideology and his indifference to the difference between the ideal and the reality of its consequences brings to mind Stalin's adherence to Lysenkoism which caused the starvation in 1930s Russia

he may not have instructed the direct killing of opponents, but sending someone to a re-education camp sometimes amounted to a similar fate

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:57 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4753
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
still, what all the modern genocides under the great secular leaders of the 20th century have in common is that in each instance the greater good of future generations was placed ahead of the quality of life of the current generation, and ideology ahead of real people - not too dissimilar from religions who find the existence in the afterlife of more importance than the quality of the current life

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:50 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Perhaps it's a bit of racism and or ethnicism.

As a primarily Western European culture ourselves, probably we tend to hold the German people in higher esteem than the Russian people. We want to believe it would have taken a special kind of person to convince the Germans to carry out such a brutal genocide as the one they conducted in WW2. However, Russia's long and savage history of Ivan the Terrible types extends far enough back that Stalin's actions could be seen as just a continuation of tradition for them.

I also wouldn't be surprised if some evil tyrant were to take over Mongolia and send people to the gulag.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:52 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
The reason that Hitler is so synonymous with evil in the west is that many important political and industrial figures in the United States were responsible for Hitler's rise to power, as well as helping to build his war machine, and influencing his anti semitic ideas. Hitler is the big bad guy so that we don't notice this.

Image

Quote:
"The international financiers are behind all war. They are what is called the International Jew -- German Jews, French Jews, English Jews, American Jews. I believe that in all these countries except our own the Jewish financier is supreme... Here, the Jew is a threat."

---Henry Ford, 1920.

Here is a book written by Henry Ford:

Image

Henry Ford, The International Jew, volume II wrote:
Judah has begun the struggle. Judah has made the invasion. Let it come. Let no man fear it. But let every a man insist that the fight be fair. Let college students and leaders of thought know that the objective is the regnancy of the ideas and the race that have built all the civilization we see and that promises all the civilization of the future; let them also know that the attacking force is Jewish.

That is all that will be necessary. It is against this that the Jews protest. "You must not identify us," they say, "You must not use the term 'Jew'." Why? Because unless the Jewish idea can creep in under the assumption of other than Jewish origin, it is doomed. Anglo-Saxon ideas dare proclaim themselves and their origin. A proper proclamation is all that is necessary today. Compel every invading idea to run up its flag!

Hitler kept a copy of this book on his desk.

Quote:
"You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of the German youth…I read Henry Ford's book 'The International Jewry'…and became anti-Semitic."

---former Nazi youth leader Baldur Von Shirach, Nuremberg Trial.

Other famous American Hitler (as well as other fascist regime) supporters:

Edsel Ford, President of Ford Motor Company
Charles Lindbergh, famed aviator
Thomas J Watson, head of IBM
William Randolph Hearst, publisher
Graeme K. Howard, Vice President of General Motors
Joseph Kennedy, father of JFK
Paul Warburg, Federal Reserve Chairman
Max Warburg, financier
Herman Metz, Director of The Bank of Manhattan
John D. Rockerfeller, founder of Standard Oil
Walter Teagle, President of Standard Oil, NJ
Charles Mitchell, President of Standard Oil, NY
Andrew melon, head of Alcoa, banker, and Secretary of Treasury
Allen Dulles, later head of the CIA
Prescott Bush, later senator, father of George Herbert Walker Bush, grandfather of George W. Bush

American Companies that supported Hitler and fascism:

GM, Ford, DuPont, Standard Oil (now Exxon), Alcoa, Dow Chemical, Winthrop Chemical Company, ITT, Kodak, Coca-Cola, Chase Bank, IBM, General Electric, and many others

Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0925-01.htm
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/a ... _europ.htm
http://www.thehiddenevil.com/nazis.asp
http://www.11points.com/News-Politics/1 ... _the_Nazis
http://www.markswatson.com/wwiilies.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Fasci ... er_US.html

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:19 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
Here is another source I forgot to add to my last post:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books ... index.html

This one is a book and it is very detailed.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:33 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
How do your comments about Ford relate to the central thread topic about why Hitler is seen as more evil than Stalin? Your post seems to suggest little more than Ford was an antisemite, which may be interesting but is irrelevant (AFAICT) to the topic being discussed.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 4:11 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
But what about all the prominent US citizens and major corporations that helped put Hitler in power and contributed to his war machine? My post is not just about Henry Ford. It is about the fact that some very important US people and corporations share some of the blame for Hitler and what he did. This hits too close to home, so we divert attention to Hitler instead.

The question is, why is Hitler seen as a "badder" guy than Stalin? Because we had more to do with putting him in power. In social theory terms, we turn our wrath on Hitler so that we don't turn on each other. I think Roosevelt made a decision not to punish anyone for the sake of the war effort. And maybe he had no choice. Should Roosevelt have had a purge?

It seems weird to say it, but Hitler serves as a sort of iconic scapegoat in history. He is resurrected every time we face a new foe. Saddam Hussein was referred to as a new Hitler. And like Hitler, he was also put in power by us.

The Holocaust was a shocking event for the whole world. At first the whole thing was blamed on Hitler and his henchmen. Germans portrayed themselves as in fear for their very lives to be obedient to Hitler. But as scholars began to try to dissect what had actually happened, a different story began to emerge. People had choices. Participation in the actual killing in the mobile death squads, the Einsatzgruppen, was voluntary. People could opt out. I read a very good book about this called "Hitler's Willing Executioners".

Jewish survivors were ashamed, and did not want to talk about their experiences. Germans covered their crimes. It has taken decades for the real story to begin to emerge. The story of American complicity is only beginning to become widely know. "IBM and the Holocaust" is also a good book about this.

The point is that guilt over these tragic mass events is collective. It is shared widely. Like the environmental crimes committed by our species. We always prefer to put the blame on others. But working out the guilty from the innocent is an ugly process. And time consuming. In the case of the Holocaust we will never have a complete understanding.

History is written by the victors. History is Groupthink.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4753
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
The Holocaust was a shocking event for the whole world.


and you know why ? because it came out in the open to a far greater extent than Stalin's atrocities
Hitler's survivors were there to point to the shameful events - on the whole, Stalin's victims didn't have such a voice until far later, when the trail in most cases had gone cold

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:47 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
The Holocaust was a shocking event for the whole world.


and you know why ? because it came out in the open to a far greater extent than Stalin's atrocities
Hitler's survivors were there to point to the shameful events - on the whole, Stalin's victims didn't have such a voice until far later, when the trail in most cases had gone cold


I think you are correct about this.

Another reason that the Holocaust was shocking was that Hitler's crimes were so methodical and highly mechanized.

There is obviously no definitive answer to the OP. There are many factors.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sun Dec 30, 2012 9:47 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
But what about all the prominent US citizens and major corporations that helped put Hitler in power and contributed to his war machine? My post is not just about Henry Ford. It is about the fact that some very important US people and corporations share some of the blame for Hitler and what he did. This hits too close to home, so we divert attention to Hitler instead.

The question is, why is Hitler seen as a "badder" guy than Stalin? Because we had more to do with putting him in power.

This is an interesting conjecture, but I think it's probably inaccurate. It might apply if it were just US citizens who appear to perceive Hitler as worse than Stalin. However, it's not. This seems to be a fairly global perception even among non-US citizens. This recognition makes your comments appear less accurate.

Henry Ford and other "very important US people and corporations" maybe supported him in various ways, but not everyone across the planet did and yet the perception of Hitler as worse remains and seems to be the consensus view.


Futilitist wrote:
Another reason that the Holocaust was shocking was that Hitler's crimes were so methodical and highly mechanized.

I definitely agree with this, and think it is a very good insight.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:38 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
But what about all the prominent US citizens and major corporations that helped put Hitler in power and contributed to his war machine? My post is not just about Henry Ford. It is about the fact that some very important US people and corporations share some of the blame for Hitler and what he did. This hits too close to home, so we divert attention to Hitler instead.

The question is, why is Hitler seen as a "badder" guy than Stalin? Because we had more to do with putting him in power.

This is an interesting conjecture, but I think it's probably inaccurate. It might apply if it were just US citizens who appear to perceive Hitler as worse than Stalin. However, it's not. This seems to be a fairly global perception even among non-US citizens. This recognition makes your comments appear less accurate.

Factor in that it was also England and the west who were deep in bed with Hitler pre-war, and they also share some of the collective guilt. Add to that the fact that the western powers won the war and imposed the myths on the rest of the world. And also that the Russian people (well connected ones, certainly) also see Hitler as a "badder" dude than Stalin. Some of Stalin's badness has been lessened by Hitler's badness. After all, Stalin was the Russian leader, and Hitler was the foreign invader that Stalin helped repel.

iNow wrote:
Henry Ford and other "very important US people and corporations" maybe supported him in various ways, but not everyone across the planet did and yet the perception of Hitler as worse remains and seems to be the consensus view.

The people who did support Hitler lived in the same societies that fought to rid the world of Hitler. It is easier to blame Hitler than to rat out the collaborators and upset the whole society to assign guilt more widely and appropriately. We chose the easy path, as humans always do.

An interesting thing about Henry Ford is that Hitler was very influenced by Ford's anti semitism, starting as early as 1920. The Holocaust might not have occurred if not for Ford's role, but that is obviously a conjecture.

iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
Another reason that the Holocaust was shocking was that Hitler's crimes were so methodical and highly mechanized.

I definitely agree with this, and think it is a very good insight.

Yes. Death camps, mobile killing squads, gas chambers, ovens, mass graves, and piles of shoes, glasses, and hair, etc. made the Holocaust one of the most shocking events of all time, so far at least. The Holocaust made Hitler the superstar of all megalomaniacs.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:36 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4753
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
i sometimes wonder : if Hitler had conquered Russia, who would have written the historical accounts ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:14 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
After all, Stalin was the Russian leader, and Hitler was the foreign invader that Stalin helped repel.

I find this reason more compelling than many others. In addition to the fact that Hitler was much more methodical and mechanized and this is part of the reason we generally see him as worse, I think Stalin probably gets a bit of "a pass" since he helped us defeat Hitler. The enemy of my enemy is my friend... that type of thing. That action from Stalin... coming in to help conquer Hitler... in many senses probably helps to counter-balance the his other evils when we form a picture of him in our minds.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:13 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4753
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iNow wrote:
That action from Stalin... coming in to help conquer Hitler... in many senses probably helps to counter-balance the his other evils when we form a picture of him in our minds.


which is rather strange considering that Hitler was initially tolerated because he was seen as a useful opponent against the blossoming of communism in central europe

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 12:15 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
marnixR wrote:
i sometimes wonder : if Hitler had conquered Russia, who would have written the historical accounts ?

If Hitler had managed to control the oil fields at Baku, we might have had to nuke him to win the war.

marnixR wrote:
iNow wrote:
That action from Stalin... coming in to help conquer Hitler... in many senses probably helps to counter-balance the his other evils when we form a picture of him in our minds.


which is rather strange considering that Hitler was initially tolerated because he was seen as a useful opponent against the blossoming of communism in central europe

Just like Saddam Hussein was initially useful against the Iranians. Think about it.

Hitler wasn't just tolerated for his anti communism. He was also encouraged and financed. Here is an interesting link about who financed Hitler's rise to power.:

http://reformed-theology.org/html/books ... ter_07.htm

Who Financed Adolph Hitler, chapter 7 wrote:
In the early 1930s financial assistance to Hitler began to flow more readily. There took place in Germany a series of meetings, irrefutably documented in several sources, between German industrialists, Hitler himself, and more often Hitler's representatives Hjalmar Sehaeht and Rudolf Hess. The critical point is that the German industrialists financing Hitler were predominantly directors of cartels with American associations, ownership, participation, or some form of subsidiary connection. The Hitler backers were not, by and large, firms of purely German origin, or representative of German family business. Except for Thyssen and Kirdoff, in most cases they were the German multi-national firms — i.e., I.G. Farben, A.E.G., DAPAG, etc. These multi-nationals had been built up by American loans in the 1920s, and in the early 1930s had American directors and heavy American financial participation.
...
Another elusive case of reported financing of Hitler is that of Fritz Thyssen, the German steel magnate who associated himself with the Nazi movement in the early 20s. When interrogated in 1945 under Project Dustbin,11 Thyssen recalled that he was approached in 1923 by General Ludendorf at the time of French evacuation of the Ruhr. Shortly after this meeting Thyssen was introduced to Hitler and provided funds for the Nazis through General Ludendorf. In 1930-1931 Emil Kirdorf approached Thyssen and subsequently sent Rudolf Hess to negotiate further funding for the Nazi Party. This time Thyssen arranged a credit of 250,000 marks at the Bank Voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. at 18 Zuidblaak in Rotterdam, Holland, founded in 1918 with H.J. Kouwenhoven and D.C. Schutte as managing partners.12 This bank was a subsidiary of the August Thyssen Bank of Germany (formerly von der Heydt's Bank A.G.). It was Thyssen's personal banking operation, and it was affiliated with the W. A. Harriman financial interests in New York.

Prescott Bush worked for W. A. Harriman.

Who Financed Adolph Hitler, chapter 7 wrote:
In May 1932 the so-called "Kaiserhof Meeting" took place between Schmitz of I.G. Farben, Max Ilgner of American I.G. Farben, Kiep of Hamburg-America Line, and Diem of the German Potash Trust. More than 500,000 marks was raised at this meeting and deposited to the credit of Rudolf Hess in the Deutsche Bank. It is noteworthy, in light of the "Warburg myth" described in Chapter Ten that Max Ilgner of the American I.G. Farben contributed 100,000 RM, or one-fifth of the total. The "Sidney Warburg" book claims Warburg involvement in the funding of Hitler, and Paul Warburg was a director of American I.G. Farben22 while Max Warburg was a director of I.G. Farben.

There exists irrefutable documentary evidence of a further role of international bankers and industrialists in the financing of the Nazi Party and the Volkspartie for the March 1933 German election. A total of three million Reichmarks was subscribed by prominent firms and businessmen, suitably "washed" through an account at the Delbruck Schickler Bank, and then passed into the hands of Rudolf Hess for use by Hitler and the NSDAP. This transfer of funds was followed by the Reichstag fire, abrogation of constitutional rights, and consolidation of Nazi power. Access to the Reichstag by the arsonists was obtained through a tunnel from a house where Putzi Hanfstaengel was staying; the Reichstag fire itself was used by Hitler as a pretext to abolish constitutional rights. In brief, within a few weeks of the major funding of Hitler there was a linked sequence of major events: the financial contribution from prominent bankers and industrialists to the 1933 election, burning of the Reichstag, abrogation of constitutional rights, and subsequent seizure of power by the Nazi Party.

The fund-raising meeting was held February 20, 1933 in the home of Goering, who was then president of the Reichstag, with Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht acting as host.

From Hitler's speech to the assembled industrialists:

Quote:
It is not enough to say we do not want Communism in our economy. If we continue on our old political course, then we shall perish .... It is the noblest task of the leader to find ideals that are stronger than the factors that pull the people together. I recognized even while in the hospital that one had to search for new ideals conducive to reconstruction. I found them in nationalism, in the value of personality, and in the denial of reconciliation between nations ....

Now we stand before the last election. Regardless of the outcome, there will be no retreat, even if the coming election does not bring about decision, one way or another. If the election does not decide, the decision must be brought about by other means. I have intervened in order to give the people once more the chance to decide their fate by themselves ....

There are only two possibilities, either to crowd back the opponent on constitutional grounds, and for this purpose once more this election; or a struggle will be conducted with other weapons, which may demand greater sacrifices. I hope the German people thus recognize the greatness of the hour.


Hjalmar Schacht organized this historic meeting. We have previously described Schacht's links with the United States: his father was cashier for the Berlin Branch of Equitable Assurance, and Hjalmar was intimately involved almost on a monthly basis with Wall Street.

The largest contributor to the fund was I.G. Farben, which como mitted itself for 80 percent (or 500,000 marks) of the total. Director A. Steinke, of BUBIAG (Braunkohlen-u. Brikett-Industrie A.G.), an I.G. Farben subsidiary, personally contributed another 200,000 marks. In brief, 45 percent of the funds for the 1933 election came from I.G. Farben. If we look at the directors of American I.G. Farben — the U.S. subsidiary of I.G. Farben — we get close to the roots of Wall Street involvement with Hitler. The board of American I.G. Farben at this time contained some of the most prestigious names among American industrialists: Edsel B. Ford of the Ford Motor Company, C.E. Mitchell of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and Walter Teagle, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, and President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Georgia Warm Springs Foundation.

Paul M. Warburg, first director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and chairman of the Bank of Manhattan, was a Farben director and in Germany his brother Max Warburg was also a director of I.G, Farben. H. A. Metz of I.G. Farben was also a director of the Warburg's Bank of Manhattan. Finally, Carl Bosch of American I.G. Farben was also a director of Ford Motor Company A-G in Germany.

Three board members of American I.G. Farben were found guilty at the Nuremburg War Crimes Trials: Max Ilgner, F. Ter Meer, and Hermann Schmitz. As we have noted, the American board members — Edsel Ford, C. E. Mitchell, Walter Teagle, and Paul Warburg — were not placed on trial at Nuremburg, and so far as the records are concerned, it appears that they were not even questioned about their knowledge of the 1933 Hitler fund.

...
As we have seen, the evidence is incontrovertible regarding political cash contributions to Hitler at the crucial point of the takeover of power in Germany — and Hitler's earlier speech to the industrialists clearly revealed that a coercive takeover was the premeditated intent.

We know exactly who contributed, how much, and through what channels. It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers. These Wall Street financiers were at the heart of the financial elite and they were prominent in contemporary American politics. Gerard Swope of General Electric was author of Roosevelt's New Deal, Teagle was one of NRA's top administrators, Paul Warburg and his associates at American I.G. Farben were Roosevelt advisors. It is perhaps not an extraordinary coincidence that Roosevelt's New Deal — called a "fascist measure" by Herbert Hoover — should have so closely resembled Hitler's program for Germany, and that both Hitler and Roosevelt took power in the same month of the same year — March 1933.

This part of the history is not very well known. I wonder why?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:45 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
This part of the history is not very well known. I wonder why?

Possibly because so much of it is speculative and subjective insinuations.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:05 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
This part of the history is not very well known. I wonder why?

Possibly because so much of it is speculative and subjective insinuations.

Why do you say that? Did you read the link? It is chapter 7 of a book. It seems pretty well researched, and I could cite other sources for this information, as well.

From the book:
Quote:
As we have seen, the evidence is incontrovertible regarding political cash contributions to Hitler at the crucial point of the takeover of power in Germany — and Hitler's earlier speech to the industrialists clearly revealed that a coercive takeover was the premeditated intent.

We know exactly who contributed, how much, and through what channels. It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers.

Why, specifically, is this wrong?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:36 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
I didn't say it was wrong. I said that it's possible that this idea you've put forth is less well known because it's speculative.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:48 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
I didn't say it was wrong. I said that it's possible that this idea you've put forth is less well known because it's speculative.

All history is subjective. All history is speculative. You used the phrase "speculative and subjective insinuations".

merriam-webster wrote:
in·sin·u·a·tion noun \(ˌ)in-ˌsin-yə-ˈwā-shən, -yü-ˈā-\

Definition of INSINUATION

1
: the act or process of insinuating
2
: something that is insinuated; especially : a sly, subtle, and usually derogatory utterance
See insinuation defined for English-language learners »
Examples of INSINUATION

I resent her insinuation that I can't do it without her help.
He criticizes his opponents by insinuation rather than directly.

I don't believe that this is a fair characterization of a seemingly well researched book. The conclusions drawn are direct, not sly, or subtle. Derogatory is in the eyes of the beholder.

Why did you use the word Insinuation?

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
jimmydasaint
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:20 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Farnham Royal, Bucks

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
This part of the history is not very well known. I wonder why?
Why do you say that? Did you read the link? It is chapter 7 of a book. It seems pretty well researched, and I could cite other sources for this information, as well.


From the book:
Quote:
As we have seen, the evidence is incontrovertible regarding political cash contributions to Hitler at the crucial point of the takeover of power in Germany — and Hitler's earlier speech to the industrialists clearly revealed that a coercive takeover was the premeditated intent.

We know exactly who contributed, how much, and through what channels. It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers. Why, specifically, is this wrong?


From my very limited study of history, it is fairly evident that Hitler was financed by Wall St. Furthermore, there is some evidence that financiers also backed the Russian Revolution in 1917 that eventually gave Stalin his impetus to wipe out Ukrainian kulaks in a terrible genocide that was greater in magnitude possibly than any other in history (estimates of about 7 million, although others have mentioned far higher overall figures).

Quote:
In addition to his famous loan to Japan, Schiff financed loans to many other nations, including those that would come to comprise the Central Powers. When World War I finally did break out, he used his reputation and influence to urge President Woodrow Wilson, and others, to put an end to the war as quickly as possible, even without an Allied victory. He feared for the lives of his family, back in Germany, but also for the future of his adopted land. He engineered loans to France, and other nations for humanitarian purposes, and spoke out against submarine warfare.

Schiff made sure none of the funds from his loans ever went to Russia, which continued to severely oppress the Jewish people. When the Tsar's government fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews would end. He formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor illis (I am a barbarian to those who do not know me) Ovid


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:14 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5496
Location: Austin, Texas

Offline
Futilitist wrote:
I don't believe that this is a fair characterization of a seemingly well researched book.

Noted.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:06 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
iNow wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
I don't believe that this is a fair characterization of a seemingly well researched book.

Noted.


Thanks.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:50 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
jimmydasaint wrote:
Futilitist wrote:
This part of the history is not very well known. I wonder why?
Why do you say that? Did you read the link? It is chapter 7 of a book. It seems pretty well researched, and I could cite other sources for this information, as well.


From the book:
Quote:
As we have seen, the evidence is incontrovertible regarding political cash contributions to Hitler at the crucial point of the takeover of power in Germany — and Hitler's earlier speech to the industrialists clearly revealed that a coercive takeover was the premeditated intent.

We know exactly who contributed, how much, and through what channels. It is notable that the largest contributors — I.G. Farben, German General Electric (and its affiliated company Osram), and Thyssen — were affiliated with Wall Street financiers. Why, specifically, is this wrong?


From my very limited study of history, it is fairly evident that Hitler was financed by Wall St. Furthermore, there is some evidence that financiers also backed the Russian Revolution in 1917 that eventually gave Stalin his impetus to wipe out Ukrainian kulaks in a terrible genocide that was greater in magnitude possibly than any other in history (estimates of about 7 million, although others have mentioned far higher overall figures).

Quote:
In addition to his famous loan to Japan, Schiff financed loans to many other nations, including those that would come to comprise the Central Powers. When World War I finally did break out, he used his reputation and influence to urge President Woodrow Wilson, and others, to put an end to the war as quickly as possible, even without an Allied victory. He feared for the lives of his family, back in Germany, but also for the future of his adopted land. He engineered loans to France, and other nations for humanitarian purposes, and spoke out against submarine warfare.

Schiff made sure none of the funds from his loans ever went to Russia, which continued to severely oppress the Jewish people. When the Tsar's government fell in 1917, Schiff believed that the oppression of Jews would end. He formally repealed the impediments within his firm against lending to Russia.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_Schiff
http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm


I think these are good observations. We in the west don't know very much about how the Russian revolution happened.

Also note that the further back in history you go, the less real information is available. Do we really know the true reasons and causes of the US Civil War, for example? Or the Revolutionary War?

The news eventually becomes history, but the news is not a good reflection of actual events, either. Thus, history begins as a poor approximation and becomes poorer with each revision. We argue over what happened until an acceptable collective compromise is reached.

History is just another expression of the basic story telling urge that drives our species.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
kojax
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 8:10 am
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 11:43 am
Posts: 582

Offline
Maybe the fact we financed Hitler just makes him look all the more traitorous. He accepted our money and then turned on us. What a jerk.


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:19 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
kojax wrote:
Maybe the fact we financed Hitler just makes him look all the more traitorous. He accepted our money and then turned on us. What a jerk.


I think this is an interesting thread. Hopefully the discussion will continue.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Obviously
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:57 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2011 3:31 am
Posts: 45
Location: Norway

Offline
Human lamps, anyone?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" - Philip K. Dick

Does that apply to insane people too?


Top
Futilitist
Post  Post subject: Re: Hitler or Stalin  |  Posted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:28 am
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:33 pm
Posts: 656

Offline
kojax wrote:
Maybe the fact we financed Hitler just makes him look all the more traitorous. He accepted our money and then turned on us. What a jerk.


Maybe we financed Hitler as part of a plan by us to take over the world. And it worked.

---Futilitist :ugeek:


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy