'Everyone lied to me': Hitler's rant in bunker

[cookie]

A bit late in the discovery LOL but nevertheless interesting.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9634647/Everyone-lied-to-me-Hitlers-rant-in-bunker.html

 

[Shangas]

I wonder if this is going to lead to a reshooting of the film "Der Untergang"?

 

[Hunter_aka_Scotty]

This is nothing new. It was well known that Hitler believed he was betrayed by every one around him including his most fanatical followers. A sick person is almost always narcissistic. The fault is never their own.

 

[HungaryTom]

Es bleiben im Raum...

He was betrayed by the German people who lost 10 out of 66 million, conquered and occupied for him Western Europe, Balkans, Scandinavia and North Africa, then later the majority of the Soviet Union's European part but failed to overthrow& occupy the continents-sized British empire plus the Asian two thirds of the Soviet Union (Siberia+Central Asian republics) and not to forget the third continent sized enemy, namely the United States. And the rest of the world. It wasn't his fault.

 

[Flicka]

You know, I'm sure everybody did lie to him. If you are a dictator who makes it adamantly clear that you don't want the truth, you just want to hear that victory shall be yours, well, then that's what people tend to tell you.

occupied for him /.../ Scandinavia /.../

Um, no. Parts of Scandinavia. Norway and Denmark, but not Sweden, which is the largest country in Scandinavia.

 

[Stearmen]

It is still amazing that the German people followed Hitler and his gang. They were any thing but Supermen! A few years ago, a machine was made that reads lips, even from the side, with an amazing accuracy. They used it to read the lips from Eva Braun's Berghof color home movies, what a bunch of whiny back stabbers. The question isn't why they lost, it's why didn't they lose earlier?

 

[Shangas]

The Germans lost the war in 1945 for almost the same reasons that they lost the war in 1918. Lack of resources.

In 1918, the British naval blockade was starving the German homeland of imports of food and other war-essentials. In 1945, it was more or less the same thing.

I forget the source where I read this, but according to one article, it said that the difference between why Britain and the Allies won, and why Germany lost, was because Britain, its Empire, and the United States, put the WAR first and everything else second. Everyone had to understand that NO, you can't have new tyres for your car. Or NO, you can't have another gallon of gas, or NO, you can't have four eggs instead of two, because the army/navy/air-force needs it FIRST.

The difference in Germany was that Hitler threw so many things into non-essential war-work that the Army was constantly short-changed. Such as making movies, such as killing Jews, such as trying to prove to the German people that Germany was so great that it could give them the wonderful lives they wanted, without having to compromise for a big, costly war.

The result? Because Hitler kept holding back resources for things that weren't essential, Germany just ran out of gas and couldn't fight the war. And in the end, it came back to bite them in the butt.

 

[cookie]

The Germans lost the war in 1945 for almost the same reasons that they lost the war in 1918. Lack of resources.

In 1918, the British naval blockade was starving the German homeland of imports of food and other war-essentials. In 1945, it was more or less the same thing.

I forget the source where I read this, but according to one article, it said that the difference between why Britain and the Allies won, and why Germany lost, was because Britain, its Empire, and the United States, put the WAR first and everything else second. Everyone had to understand that NO, you can't have new tyres for your car. Or NO, you can't have another gallon of gas, or NO, you can't have four eggs instead of two, because the army/navy/air-force needs it FIRST.

The difference in Germany was that Hitler threw so many things into non-essential war-work that the Army was constantly short-changed. Such as making movies, such as killing Jews, such as trying to prove to the German people that Germany was so great that it could give them the wonderful lives they wanted, without having to compromise for a big, costly war.

The result? Because Hitler kept holding back resources for things that weren't essential, Germany just ran out of gas and couldn't fight the war. And in the end, it came back to bite them in the butt.

Yeah killing millions of your brightest citizens for the crime of belonging to a particular race is hard to top. Then telling all the anti-Communist Slavs you would free them and then secretly trying to eradicate the Slav race as well (Lebensraum) was pretty daft as well. Not to mention failing to develop cutting edge technology like jet planes early enough to matter and letting the British Army escape at Dunkirk. But then this new information confirms why Hitler did so. He never wanted war with the British Commonwealth and thought he could cut a deal with them to divide the world up.

As the song went "who do you think you kiddin' Mr Hitler?".

 

[HungaryTom]

This is not peace. It is an armistice for 20 years

Ferdinand Foch.
Was the only man among decisionmakers who did speak out about what was really done in Versailles.
You dont treat nations that way.
Germans would have followed anyone till the last bullet to avenge.
There was a symbolic meaning to the Compiegne act of 21 June 1940.
The German parade marched on Avenue Foch.
Only the statue of Marshall Foch is left in the original version.
There was a reason why the USA put up the Marshall plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan.
Not to repeat Wodroow Wilson.

***
"Greatness"
The secret of his success
Hitler promised greatness. Not only revenge. From total disaster to world leadership.
This is why he visited also the grave of Napoleon. Greatness.
This is why Stalin was followed by his people. Despite his terror.
He led them from total disaster in 1941 to berlin.
From feudalism to the atomic age. Greatness.
Ivan Groznij- Ivan the Great or the Terrible.
Which translation tells it all about greatness.
Greatness to the beneficiaries and terrible to the losers.
The principle of Grandeur prevailed at Versailles as well.
Kill a dozen people, you are a murderer, serial murderer.
Kill a few dozen million people and then you are 'great' historical personality.
Beyond good and evil, beyond human norms.
Those who did it had ALL a new sets of values rules and vision as well to go along with the destruction.
And this is why now in the atomic age such players are not more allowed to play.

P.S.: Flicka, I know that Sweden wasn't occupied, Raoul Wallenberg did a lot in Budapest in WW2 to save lives amidst the Apocalypse.

 

[Shangas]

Hitler very much wanted to cut a deal with the British. How hard he tried, is another matter. For example, he made it really clear to the German Navy that they weren't to target non-combatant ships. Just a few hours after war started, the R.M.S. Athenia was torpedoed by a German sub. The casualty-rate was not particularly high, but that wasn't the point - it gave the impression to the British that the Germans were gonna fight dirty and shoot unarmed passenger-ships, just like in the last war. So the gloves came off...

 

[HungaryTom]

Hitler very much wanted to cut a deal with the British. How hard he tried, is another matter. For example, he made it really clear to the German Navy that they weren't to target non-combatant ships. Just a few hours after war started, the R.M.S. Athenia was torpedoed by a German sub. The casualty-rate was not particularly high, but that wasn't the point - it gave the impression to the British that the Germans were gonna fight dirty and shoot unarmed passenger-ships, just like in the last war. So the gloves came off...

Hitler sent Rudolf Hess to Britain in 1941 prior to Barbarossa.. who failed in establishing contact....after Dunquerque, the Battle of Britain, Benghazi, the U-Boot war vs. convoys.... any pre-war sympathies or tactics of appeasement were gone. Hitler's regime declared Hess officially insane and a rogue. The only option in a global war and victory popaganda.

 

[Aristaeus]

The Germans lost the war in 1945 for almost the same reasons that they lost the war in 1918. Lack of resources.

In 1918, the British naval blockade was starving the German homeland of imports of food and other war-essentials. In 1945, it was more or less the same thing.

I forget the source where I read this, but according to one article, it said that the difference between why Britain and the Allies won, and why Germany lost, was because Britain, its Empire, and the United States, put the WAR first and everything else second. Everyone had to understand that NO, you can't have new tyres for your car. Or NO, you can't have another gallon of gas, or NO, you can't have four eggs instead of two, because the army/navy/air-force needs it FIRST.

The difference in Germany was that Hitler threw so many things into non-essential war-work that the Army was constantly short-changed. Such as making movies, such as killing Jews, such as trying to prove to the German people that Germany was so great that it could give them the wonderful lives they wanted, without having to compromise for a big, costly war.

The result? Because Hitler kept holding back resources for things that weren't essential, Germany just ran out of gas and couldn't fight the war. And in the end, it came back to bite them in the butt.

Joseph Goebbels complained about this in his diary. He could not understand how the the democracies, particularly the United States, were able to get the population to accept rationing. The National Socialists however were afried to impose such restrictions on Germans fearing that support for the war and the government would wane.

 

[Shangas]

Joseph Goebbels complained about this in his diary. He could not understand how the the democracies, particularly the United States, were able to get the population to accept rationing. The National Socialists however were afried to impose such restrictions on Germans fearing that support for the war and the government would wane.

Obviously there were lots of reasons why Germany lost the war. But that was one of them. And one of the big ones, in my opinion. Germany simply wasn't willing to make the sacrifices for the war-effort that the other countries wanted and needed to, in order to win. They believed so strongly in their aryan master-race and that they were so much better than everyone else that they just didn't need to. It's like saying that "Yes, I can beat you in race from New York to San Francisco using the same car you are, but with 1/4 the amount of gas". No, you can't. Germany set itself unrealistic visions about what it could do.

The Allies impressed on their peoples the sheer necessity of rationing and how that you could ONLY have what you wanted and absolutely NOTHING MORE. In this old film-clip from the 1940s, (I believe it was like a public information film for the British citizenry), a man was pulled before a magistrate for breaking rationing laws. When asked why he did it, he just said: "I just wanted a little bit more".

And the judge replies: "If we all of us, took just a little bit more, then we should all be left starving".

Yes, it was just a filmic presentation, but it was designed to show the people WHY there was rationing.

I mean, on a slightly broader scale, let's have a look...

1940, Britain forms the Home Guard.

It wasn't until October, 1944, that Germany bothered to form the Volksturm.

Britain was making all kinds of war-preparations early on in the war. Moving fuel-dumps, evacuations, taking down signs, setting up traps, pillboxes and all manner of things, in case the Germans invaded.

It wasn't until it was far too late, that Germany started fortifying Berlin against the Russians. And by then, the Russians were within shelling-range of the capital. Hitler never envisioned a situation where the German capital itself, would come under direct attack (or at least, direct invasion), and so never bothered to plan for it.

If Hitler believed someone lied to him, it's because he set himself up to be lied, through bad decisions and poor choices. You're not going to tell Adolf Hitler that YES, Berlin is being shelled because YOU forgot to put up proper anti-tank defences, are you? No. You're going to say "Jah, mein Fuehrer, vee haff lied to you und the capital is threatened because our armies have failed you".

 

[Hunter_aka_Scotty]

Well said Shangas! Very well said.

 

[cookie]

Hitler sent Rudolf Hess to Britain in 1941 prior to Barbarossa.. who failed in establishing contact....after Dunquerque, the Battle of Britain, Benghazi, the U-Boot war vs. convoys.... any pre-war sympathies or tactics of appeasement were gone. Hitler's regime declared Hess officially insane and a rogue. The only option in a global war and victory popaganda.

The whole story of the 'Peace Party" ruse of which the Duke of Hamilton was a supposed leader (where Hess landed was his estate) was just the culmination of the outfoxing of the Germans. Britain's Secret Service concocted a ruse that the UK had a traitorous alternative Government ready to sue for peace. It was one of the great stunts of the early War era. It has been suggested that one of the reasons Hitler let the Dunkirk escape happen was his desire for the Peace Party to take over. Hence he did not go in hard on the British Army at the moment when his generals were begging him to finish them off. Of course if he had of finshed them off - ironically - the UK would have had to sue for peace - in all probability.

 

[p51]

1940, Britain forms the Home Guard.
It wasn't until October, 1944, that Germany bothered to form the Volksturm.

True, but Britain thought (and rightly so) that they could be invaded in 1940. And Hitler almost tried making Operation Sea Lion happen.
Germany didn't feel any serious threat of ground invasion until the fall of 44, when the Volkstrum was formed.
I'm reading "The Forgotten Soldier" right now and the accusations that it was a made-up memior aside, it really gives you an idea what the soldiers on the Russians front likely had to deal with. I've talked with vets of that front in the past and all told me they couldn't understand how Germany got as far as it did Eastward with almost no logisitical support of any kind. They often had no fuel, ammo or food. Knowing this, German soldiers did amazing things with no resources in regard to what they accomplished (NOT in regard to the reason they were there or the things that were done to people).
I was a logitician in the Army and I am utterly amazed that the German military had almost no logistical support, in comparison to its enemies. Most logistical support was canibalized into combat forces when times got tough, and never returned to their proper role. All armies do that in times of stress (plenty of cooks and mechanics were in the American front line during the Battle of the Bulge for example), but the Germans kept doing it and kept the men in the role of grunts. No allied nation would ever have done that.
Make no mistake, the people in Germany probably had no clue that their leaders were gutting the nation to shore up a false front. The entire war was conducted like a massive ponzi scheme. I've always felt this is why Germany lost the war.

 

[Shangas]

Attacking Russia was probably the single biggest mistake that the Germans made during the war. I'm sure they must've known that they couldn't win against the Reds. Russia is a GIGANTIC country. All its menfolk have to do is reverse back into their homeland and sit and wait while the Germans freeze their butts off.

That's not to say that Germany didn't make great inroads into Russia, but at what cost to the German war-effort? And it's not like it really accomplished anything, to be honest. Even when Russian cities were invaded, such as Stalingrad, the Reds put up such resistance that it was almost pointless for the Germans to hang around.

Sergeant Pavlov and his men commandeered an apartment-block in downtown Stalingrad. They picked it because it opened out directly onto a big, open city square. They fortified it, blew out the interior walls, dug tunnels, sandbagged the doors and windows, and turned it into a miniature stronghold. They sat there for something like three months, blasting the heads off any German who so much as dared to look at it. They were driving back up to twelve German attacks A DAY from that house, for three months nonstop. And they never once surrendered.

When the Battle of Stalingrad was over, Russian generals supposedly boasted that more Germans died trying to take one tiny apartment-block in the middle of Stalingrad, than died trying to invade Paris. Probably not true, but it might be.

In the documentary: "Sinking Hitler's Supership" (About the sinking of the S.S. Wilhelm Gustloff), the historians testified to the fact that in the East, the Germans (by this time, late 1944/early 1945) were exhausted. They had run out of fresh troops, they were freezing, starving, they had no fuel for their tanks, trucks, motor-bikes, they'd run out of ammunition and they were in full retreat.

 

[HungaryTom]

II think Germans and the Japanese as well did all they could do in WW2. And the Allies too. All nations. The extent of their max. expansion in 1942 and in 1941 respectively shows to what exactly their forces and ultimate sacrifice were sufficient. And how many years and counter efforts were needed to bring about their total collapse.
By enemies who weren't as aryan and yamato.

Germans were somehow having their high time in WW2 compared to WW1 and all their wars before. They basically fought with the same Mauser Karabiner 98K the 1935 remake of a 19th century Mauser Gewehr (rifle) from 1898. Everybody in the WW2 Buff crowd talks about the same elite 5 or so Waffen SS tank divisions plus Panzer Lehr and Grossdeutschland divisions of the Wehrmacht (plus a few a few aces and U-Boot captains - legacy of GER propaganda) but in fact the majority of the "remaining" 180 GER divisions were not even all mechanized. There were less than 500 Tiger II tanks and some 1300 Tiger I produced ALTOGETHER. As cookie wrote, the German cutting edge technology was hardly there, mainly in the heads of Wernher von Braun & Co. and the prototypes got out far too late. Rather a good test phase was done with the few hundred jet fighter ME-262 in 1945 or the Sturmgewehr 44 was rather a useful and combat tested 0-series for the Soviets to make their legendary Avtomat Kalashnikov product line.

But this goes for all nations that got "great" in some point of time. The Greeks who were invaded in 1941 within a month or so had basically the same weapons as had all their opponents whom they overthrew under one Makedonian King, Alexander the great, The Italians who weren't a big deal in WW2 didn't have much more different weapons than the other tribes and empires whom they conquered when they built up Rome, the Huns and Mongols had beaten enemies who were as good horsemen shooting arrows backwards, The French who were defeated by the Brits for 100 years were the same French who than destroyed Prussians, English, Russians under Napoleon, the Germans who were auxiliaries to Bonaparte and pinned down in WW1 basically at their Borders in the Western Front, occupying only Belgium - in WW2 just conquered Europe basically with the same XIXth century Mauser karabiners. And no particular logistics as you write. What kind of logistics did the Soviets have throughout the war? Without proper rifles, the MG were reserved for the NKVD units to kill them in case of retreat? What ?? They were much less photogenic who in all their 'barbaric' manner and 'unsightly' uniforms have beaten the elite of the elite of the world, grinding down repeatedly all the refilled SS and Wehrmacht the cream of the crop units and the rest as well, were having their weak moment in Afghanistan.... War is a lot more than just materials and supplies. These great achievements were having another secret i.e. not that the winner had laser weapons and his enemies had just sticks and stones-

And there are units in every armed forces of the world that every commander would gladly take - elite forces and heroism have nothing to do with race and phenotype as suggested by the Axis powers but rather with the mental and spiritual state.

Genocides, the other side of the coin: this is so barbaric that it was NEVER put in the show window by the perpetrators, and even denied. It is only shown by their enemies. Propaganda knew that you can not shine with these unspeakable acts. Only the rhetorics were public.

 

[filfoster]

I think Shangas' first post is a good summary.

On Hess: The evidence that Hess was sent to Britain is far less compelling than the official version that he was a dim bulb who thought he was on a mission that would be 'approved' if he was successful. Hess's understanding of who did what in England was comic. The Duke of Hamilton hardly mattered at all. This amateur historian is satisfied he was a loyal nonentity whose voluntary absence from the scene was an amusing footnote to the war.
He was the Nazi equivalent of the lawyer "Uncle Tom" from Rumpole of the Bailey:
a harmless hanger-on, with a nice office and title, who was tolerated but not very important.
The Nazis seemed to have a good supply of these folks: Darre, Rosenberg, Lutze, Lohse, the list goes on.

 

[Shangas]

I read in a book of odd facts, that upon hearing that Hess had landed (and been arrested) on British soil, Churchill paid him no mind at all.

"Hess or no Hess, I'm off to see the Marx Brothers!", he was supposed to have said.