View Single Post
Old December 31st, 2009 #14
Gott
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 1,027
Default

Hi Karl, and I figured what I wrote would piss you off. I thought of you when I was knocking the post off, at lightening, furious, mad as hell speed.
Mostly, you aren't disagreeing with me, it seems to me, except in the exact, precise detail dept. I'm all for that dept. but, at the same time, I stand basically by what I said.

For instance - the NSDAP existed for what, 25 or so years? And for the important, formative, and 'pure' part - the first part (before 'The Golden Pheasant' phase) Rohm was right there, smack in the middle of things. His being homosexual had something to do with his being offed...ok, yes. Something though, is not everything, and, I would and do say that his homosexuality was a minor consideration next to the demands of the army, which was the major reason.

I though Hitler served under Rohm in the war. Sorry about that then, and thanks for the correction. You tell me they then met in 19 o 20...and Rohm was just as homosexual then as he was in 34. Hummmm...that's only 13 years that Hitler knew and didn't feel the need to do anything...ah ha...

Again OK, if they were mutually interested in each other. It doesn't matter to me, what does matter is that the SS 36 document cited here is hogwash in the context of the history of the Party and the behavior of the Party leader...13 years....is a lot of years when the total years are 25.

I never meant to imply that Hitler endorsed homosexuality, nor do I say that anywhere in my post or in any other post. He didn't much care (on the basis of his actions - his non actions for 13 years) is what I meant to say, and is what I mean. He didn't care about it the same way he didn't care about Goebbels womanizing or Goring's corruption or idiotic decorations/uniform fetishes. He told Goebbels he couldn't divorce Magda and marry Lida Barova...that is as far as he went with Goebbels' mania for bedding anything that moved, especially if it was a movie actress. He let Goring pester the King of Italy for decorations (one of the funniest stories of the Third Reich, I think), and suffered his Green Velvet fantasy uniforms, stolen art collections and vast manorial estates for the same reason. He must have, because he allowed all of these things.

One thing I like very much about Hitler is the interesting combination of idealism and pragmatism...the polar opposite of ivory tower, utopian academics who stick resolutely to their dogmatic positions no matter how removed they are from any real world (IE, people are not perfect except in PC utopias) context.

Hitler was not homosexual, but he didn't care that Rohm was, as long as Rohm did a good job. Hitler was not a womanizer, and it was OK for Goebbels, as it was OK for Goring and all for the same reason...if they did their jobs well. He sure made a mistake with Goring...a drug addict to boot...even if it wasn't he fault.

I only really disagree with you Karl, about the Reichwehr. I don't see it your way at all on this. Hitler was not an aristocrat, and the officer class was aristocratic. The army was not NSDAP, the army didn't want to take back the Ruhr, the army didn't want to take back Austria...in fact, the army almost never wanted to do what Hitler wanted them to do. I can't write a book here, and I'm not equipped to either. But I've read plenty on this subject too, though not nearly as much as you have. Hitler became profoundly distrustful of the army leadership as any number of prominent scandals, removals from office, trials and executions will attest. History isn't chiseled in granite, and facts are interpretable in a number of, hopefully related, ways. I interpret the facts as I do and stand by them.

For instance, a PR disaster is a lot better in my book than launching into a war that one's army leadership does not want to fight, says can't be won and is unprepared to wage (not that big an army). I know the charge is treason - against Rohm. I haven't read anything that leads me to believe it to be true. As I see it this was a power struggle, and Rohm lost. He wasn’t any more of a traitor then were the guys who won that round. They all were squabbling for their piece of the pie...Hitler ruled that way...it was anything by a dictatorship a la commie centralization.

Rohm would have bypassed the army, and Germany would have had a vastly bigger pool of trained fighting men on the day the war started. What if when the giant encirclement battles took place, instead of 300,000 captives, it had been the entire Soviet army as was INTENDED, and didn't happen? Only if it had gone as intended did Germany have a chance to win. When I put a PR disaster (which could have been fixed the same way the Goebbels Magda divorce was fixed) against the extinction of Germany and the White race, I go with the PR disaster every time.

Frankly Karl, I have no problems contemplating a restoration of the Hohenzollerns at that point in history. I revere Hitler, but you know what? There used to be this glorious place called Germany and now, it is gone. There used to be this wondrous thing called The White Race, and now it is gone. In that context, what's wrong with the Kaiser?

As far as I can see from a quick reading (I'm exhausted from work too and don't even know what I'm writing here but do know I should be working instead) of your paragraph on the 'vons' - you basically are saying the same thing I did. They said no to everything (if there is one thing I really can't stand in a person it is the saying of no to everything...that's the mark of a bad person, to me). They were instinctually opposed to NS as NS was not blood aristocracy, but achievement aristocracy. Hitler was not of noble birth, he had been nothing more than a corporal, he wasn’t even German, let alone Prussian, etc. etc. You need people that agree with you, who are positive, who you feel comfortable with, who you can trust. Hitler never could trust them, they hated him and his, and he grew to hate them and theirs. Is there a better recipe for absolute disaster in a war of survival? The SA were men like Hitler...he could have trusted them.

By the time it was too late, the SS grew is scope to fill the grievous hole where the army's full-blooded commitment should have been. Way, way too late. Rohm would have had them ready, willing and able to go on the first day of the war.

Well, I knew you'd see what I wrote and reply and I expected the kind of reply (including the absolutely impeccable manners). So, I got what I deserved as in so much for work! Work that should have been finished by today and which I haven't yet...ah...started.

Heil Hitler kamerad.

PS - Oh come on Karl...the 44 defend Berlin 'army' is remotely to be compared with what the SA was on the way to being in 33? I disagree totally and find the logic - to put it mildly - dubious. A nation in ruins with millions of men dead and only boys and old men and physical defectives left amid the rubble, having no chance whatsoever and knowing it is the same thing as what the SA could have been had Hitler gone with Rohm rather than the industrialists and the General staff? Not a chance, but of course I can only speculate, which is all you can do either, as Rohm never got that chance. But I'll admit I'm speculating while you are pretending to work with facts here!

Many of the SA men came out of the Freikorps, they were hardly a bunch of dillitantes in fancy dress uniforms.

Last edited by Gott; December 31st, 2009 at 02:54 PM.