Adolf Hitler: Unseen color slides to be published.

Hitler's place in history is known -- though of course new analyses will keep coming up. His physical appearance is, I think, of supreme irrelevance.
 
I like how Life suggests "You might also like... Adolf Hitler: Among the crowds" and "The worlds bloodiest battles", I sure like those... "You might also be interested in .." or something would work better imo.

martin
 
payasam said:
Hitler's place in history is known -- though of course new analyses will keep coming up. His physical appearance is, I think, of supreme irrelevance.
Click to expand...


I disagree that it is supremely irrelevant. These fotos are simply part of the complete record. Body language & symbolism is an element in power, not just mental acuity.
 
35mmdelux said:
The question I have always asked: How could this man have taken a civilized and educated German nation to the abyss of destruction?
Click to expand...

This question or the possible answers to it fill whole libraries. Hint: Read Kershaw's biography (which is, of course, not free from points to need critique).
 
Analysing what I happen to know, my conclusion is that Adolf Hitler was an extremely capable man, but these capabilities would never materialize in the way they did, unless for the historycal circumstances Germany was passing since the begining of the 20th century, and specially after the Versailles Treaty.

Hitler's stereotype as a fanatic mad, framed by Charlie Chaplin, happened to answer both to our deepest fears, and the allyies needs. But read even excerpts of Main Kampf, or even better, study how skilfully and with highest personal manners, he managed to hold together the high German military command splitted during adversity under diverging and unconciliable opinions after the D-Day, and you will discover that the stereotype is not but a stereotype.

I am not among those who believe the place of man in History is unrelevant, or secondary to circumstances. Not at all. Had Hitler been assasinated on time, for all the supporting hystorical circumstances, the fate of the 20th century after WWI, would have been absolutely different.

The history of the US did change due to the assasination of Abraham Lincoln. He left a vacum unfilled by many subsequent Presidents. The history of the USSR did change due to the assasination of Lenin. He was the key strategist, and the only leader there able to maintain the unity of the central committee, his assasination leading to Stalin rise.

Hence that in my opinion, everything concerning Hitler's life and actions is of great importance in the understanding of WWII, the photos -as unpleasant as they may be- and I would say rather disturbing, are of great documentary weight.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I read parts of Kershaws Hitler biography.
It seems that ridiculous people to horrible things to prove that they are not ridiculous at all.
His opponoents - the intellectual writers and journalists - were described as having ridiculed and laughed at him for so long until they found themselves in the concentration camps.
....Part of the answer may be the yearning for someone who takes hard measures in hard times. In Austria a member of our parliament is accusing the head of Austria's main Jewish organisation (who's a real estate broker) of financing leftist radicals.....just like a thousand years ago (In Nazism 1933-45 was a bit short they wanted to last 1000 years)
 
Obama at Buchenwald:

"And just as we identify with the victims, it's also important for us I think to remember that the perpetrators of such evil were human, as well, and that we have to guard against cruelty in ourselves."
 
A lot of the National Socialist ideology reflected mainstream and sometimes intellectual opinion of the times. Great Americans Margaret Sanger and Henry Ford philosophies were readily taken up by the Nazis. "New Age" author Anne Morrow Lindbergh wrote that Hitler's Germany was the wave of the future, superior to bloated, stupid democracies and vile evil communism. She had a point considering how robust the German economy and culture revived itself after the Nazi's took power. The average German tripled their earning power and prosperity in the 1930s -- that was hard to resist.

In no way excusing Hitler for his heinous deeds, France and England seemed to do almost everything they could to box Germany into a corner, while the USA did likewise to Japan. While Hitler deserves to be damned, stupid leaders like Churchill and Roosevelt deserve almost as much of our spite. Had their foreign policy been based on practical realities, the Jews would not have been gassed, Stalin would not have killed tens of millions, and the whole bloody war could have been avoided.

Showing that Hitler was a human being, outside the Marx Brothers stereotype, is important to see, especially in this time when America is being led by a charismatic orator with such high approval ratings and even outright worship.
 
Last edited:
i think that all stories about wwii and hitler are too much distorted because of superior position of britain in post war propaganda. before war hitler was very respectable leader - he was chosen as Man of the year by time magazine in 1938. so things are not so black and white - many people dont want to accept this - but i think in 100 years we will probably have a bit more realistic view about what realy happened in wwii...
i think like all wars it was simply about finances and domination and not about genocide and racism...
 
nzeeman said:
i think that all stories about wwii and hitler are too much distorted because of superior position of britain in post war propaganda. before war hitler was very respectable leader - he was chosen as Man of the year by time magazine in 1938. so things are not so black and white - many people dont want to accept this - but i think in 100 years we will probably have a bit more realistic view about what realy happened in wwii...
i think like all wars it was simply about finances and domination and not about genocide and racism...
Click to expand...

Wow. You may be right insofar as Hitler only cared about domination. Racism may have been more of a tool for him than a motivation.

However, once you have attempted genocide, and demonstrate the coldblooded efficiency of the Nazis, then its all about the genocide and racism.

Ask the survivors (Jews, gypsies, Communists, homosexuals, dark-skinned individuals) and they'll tell you.
 
crawdiddy said:
Wow. You may be right insofar as Hitler only cared about domination. Racism may have been more of a tool for him than a motivation.

However, once you have attempted genocide, and demonstrate the coldblooded efficiency of the Nazis, then its all about the genocide and racism.
Click to expand...

it may be true - i wont confront that. i just want to take all historical facts with grain of salt - because britain have a long history of faking facts and using them for their goals. i know it sounds like i am defending nazis but it is not a case - i just think that others werent so innocent as they pretend to be. first concentration camps in modern world were made by british. antisemitism was dominant in all european countries - and after war they pretended it was only in germany. allies didnt defend jewish people during the war - they were only protecting their interests... if they were defending jewis they would go to war much much earlier - but they chose to sacrifice czech and poland and waited until germans were at their door...
 
Actually, by using the invasion of Poland as a pretext for declaring war on Germany, when Poland was a lost cause to either Stalin or Hitler either way, England started the damn war. Dumb dumb dumb.

Or France and England collaborating behind their ally Italy's back to allow Hitler's appropriation of Austria left Italy no other choice but to ally itself with the Axis.

Such wonderful diplomacy!
 
Frank Petronio said:
Actually, by using the invasion of Poland as a pretext for declaring war on Germany, when Poland was a lost cause to either Stalin or Hitler either way, England started the damn war. Dumb dumb dumb.

Or France and England collaborating behind their ally Italy's back to allow Hitler's appropriation of Austria left Italy no other choice but to ally itself with the Axis.

Such wonderful diplomacy!
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying , but I actually think that it was Hitler who was dumb dumb dumb. I say this not from a position of ignorance.

As a military commander he sucked, sucked sucked.

His most outstanding victories were his early ones. These were achieved partly thru his supreme audaciousness - no one believed he actually could be serious about what he threatened so they did not prepare properly. No one actually believed he could be so insane as to start a world war. Moreover and this is the big thing, at that time he actually still listened to his generals who were among the most professional and capable soldiers in the world. His famous blitzkreig on the continent was planned and conducted by his senior military and he followed their plan although he later claimed credit. Later he believed his own propaganda and suffered defeat after defeat (thank God.) This was probably the last occasion on which he actually listened to their advice and took it.

He attacked Britain and was within a hairs breath of defeating their airforce which was what was needed to make way for an invasion, when abruptly and inexplicably he changed his tactics and began terror bombing of London instead. He did not even complete this. Part way thru he lost interest and commenced Operation Barbarossa leading ultimately to a war on two fronts. Not only this, when he did undertake the Russian campaign he divided his forces - part being sent north towards Moscow and part east towards the Baikal oil fields. Something a soldier learns never to do. When the tide turned he refused to allow his generals to run the battles from their position at the front and tried to direct command from thousands of kilometers behind the lines refusing to allow them to even make tactical withdrawals to regroup. Leading of course to their utter destruction.

When Japan attacked America Hitler inexplicably declared war on USA with results that were predictable. This still astounds military historians. Why did he do it. So of course Germany lost. No nation could ultimately stand against the greatest industrial power in the world at the time in a war that after all was a war about logisitics - as all modern conventional wars are.

If he was a good General he would have understood this.

When the Normandy invasion occurred he held to his illogical belief that this was a diversion and refused to release German forces at a critical time of the battle , holding them back for the "real" invasion, which of course, never came. Then throughout the battle on the continent he went on diverting essential military supplies to his mad plan for the final solution instead of concentrating on winning the war. The list of Hitler's mistakes as a leader and commander goes on and on and on.

All because he had an overweaning belief in his own superiority as a commander, a mad belief in his own destiny and refused to the professional soldiers who fought for him. I think he can be accurately classified as a madman if extreme psychopathy, grandiosity and megolomania qualify someone as mad. Personally I think they do. (Or would you prefer that he was called a monster. All of these epithets are fitting in my view.)

"It seems that ridiculous people to horrible things to prove that they are not ridiculous at all."

I agree with this. If you read about say psychopathy you will see that this is a kind of feature. Psychopaths often had problems early in their life and have something to prove to the world. SO they brutalize every one they come into contact with - unless they need to charm them. And psychopaths are the ultimate charmers when they have to be. As Hitler was although I think his diagnosis would be more than simple pyschopathy. His genius - if this is the right word was that somehow he captured the zeitgeist - the spirit of the times in Germany which was a great nation but sufferred from hubris after their defeat in WW1 and the humiliation of Versailles. He offerred to restore the country's greatness and they fell for it.
 
Last edited:
Not only this, when he did undertake the Russian campaign he divided his forces - part being sent north towards Moscow and part east towards the Baikal oil fields.
Click to expand...

You must be confusing Baikal with Baku: places many thousand kilometers apart. Also, he lost Russian campaign (and then the whole war) by a very thin margin: it was on the verge in 1941-42. The biggest consequence of declaration of war to the USA was indirect military aid to the allies it then provided, not some direct military confrontation. If not the lend-lease, USSR possibly couldn't hold up.

Not saying that Hitler was a good strategist, just that some things are easy to find obvious with hindsight.
 
varjag said:
You must be confusing Baikal with Baku: places many thousand kilometers apart. Also, he lost Russian campaign (and then the whole war) by a very thin margin: it was on the verge in 1941-42. The biggest consequence of declaration of war to the USA was indirect military aid to the allies it then provided, not some direct military confrontation. If not the lend-lease, USSR possibly couldn't hold up.

Not saying that Hitler was a good strategist, just that some things are easy to find obvious with hindsight.
Click to expand...

You are right of course, my mind made the wrong association. My wife is Russian - she would kill me. Shhhhhhhhhhhh!
 
You don't fight a three front war. He was an idiot. The Russian Winter did his Luftwaffe and Army in on the Eastern Front. He did his best Generals in after they tried to get rid of him. The Corporal that micromanaged the War down to making an ME-262 into a bomber. "The Smallest Child can See that it is a Fighter" he was told. Oversimplified? Maybe. That's what I got out of the book "The First and the Last" by Adolf Galland. I also attended Galland's lecture in the 1980's that he gave for Virginia Bader. Adolf Galland was in charge of the Fighter wings of the Luftwaffe. Until he questioned Goering and was sent back to an operational squadron of ME-262's. He was German.

I read a number of books written by author's that fought on both sides of the War. It gave a good perspective. One of my other favorite books was "The Blond Knight of Germany", the story of Erich Hartman. I also met him in 1972 during a Transpo exhibition. He fought against the Russians, and downed 352 aircraft. He did not think much of Hitler, either.
 
Last edited:
"The future," Hitler once said to Jaeger, "belongs to color photography."
Click to expand...


The quality of some of these colour images is startling and being somewhat of a photo history luddite I hadn't realised it (colour slide) was around at that time!

We can talk about war and politics any time by the way ... but here it will get the thread closed in no time at all I suspect! :rolleyes:
 
Was Jaeger shooting Leica is what Id like to know? What type slide -- Kodachromes? I also want to know why these werent published earlier, given that they were in Life magazine hands?


<TKS for the history lesson>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom