Adolf Hitler: Unseen color slides to be published.

Back in the 30' you had to mount the slides yourself into the slide frames. The slide frames themselves were small mechanical wonders ten times the cost/price of today. At least. Could it be that these pictures has been scanned in the frames? It could also be that the cameras back then had this round-corners-signature.

Hitler loved watching films. He even saw Chaplin's The Great Dictator and had a good laugh, - but had it banned from viewing in Germany. (After German protests, both the Norwegian and the Swedish governments had to ban the film back in the 30'). And it is mentioned that he also saw slides shows presented by both Jaeger and Hofmann and even both photographs and colour films taken by his mistress Eva Braun. She was quite a good photographer.
 
Can anyone recommend a book - a good overview of Hitler himself, and his context in the war, including the aforementioned military decisions? I was never interested in history when i was younger. [I'll also look into Hitler's Empire: How the Nazis Ruled Europe by Mark Mazower - thanks, "outfitter"]

Hitler in color - wow. He looks so much more 'human' than in the b+w images/footage. Perhaps it's the occasional smiles, as well. It's a fascinating topic. And, people must be forgiven for mentioning the pain still associated with these matters. Even though it may have begun as a thread about photographs, the subject matter is still sensitive. I don't see how it can be separated. We're not really talking about photographs that are meant to be evaluated for aesthetic concerns. This IS a historical record. How do you talk about the pictures and remove the history?
 
There is a lot of Hitler biographies around. A few stands out. Like Alan Bullock's (1961) 'Hitler, a study in Tyranny', which was one of the first that was written and still one of the best.

Then 'Hitler, Eine Biographie' (1973), totally boring brickstone, but most likely a very correct historical reference work of 900 pages, written by the German historian, Joachim Fest.

Interestingly, one of the best books I have read about Hitler is 'The Hitler Book' (2005), which is a translation of the secret dossier prepared for Stalin based on interogations of Hitler's closest personal aids. Here, we read that Hitler gave the orders to bring about 'die endlösung des Judenfrage'. Written proof and witnesses confirming that Hitler did indeed give such orders are difficult to find. But under interogation by the NKVD - under torture, no doubt, many of Hitler's aids did confirm that Hitler gave such orders. Among the aids confirming this were Hitler's adjutants, Heinz Linge and Otto Günche. The translators have corrected a few names and dates, obvious minor mistakes, except for this, 'The Hitler Book' is a very important addition to the research of Hitler's life.

There has been released 'tonns' of picture books of Hitler and his private entourage. He was surounded by good photographers who had as a mission to take pictures to document the history and use the pictures in the propaganda. I suspect that Time/Life has the copyright to much of the good stuff, like the many colour photographs.
 
Last edited:
To Time / Life -- Dislcose all photographs in your possession regarding this man and turn them over for proper recordation and study by historians.
 
peterm1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Hi Peter,
I would like to note that in your description Hitler appears as the sole decision making factor at the German side, while to my understanding he was the final decision making factor.

It may appear as if both things are the same but my definition leaves room for one of the most important aspects of his military behaviour: high respect for his generals, their opinions and the unity within his staff - a unity to be maintained not by fear but compromise and consensus.

Thus, before the Normandy invasion, the German high command was split about how to prepare for the foreseen invasion on any of the France northern coasts. The German military leadership was deeply split between two camps: on one hand field marshall Gerd von Rundstedt maintained that the allied invasion must be defeated on the sea and by no means allowed to land on France soil, while on the other hand the legendary Rommel, was convinced it would be unpossible to stop the allyies landing and therefore they should be beaten in land Eropean battle.

Both conceptions had an extremely diverging implication as for the actual deployment of the German army. While Rundstedt theory required a massive and thick alignment along the coasts, having a cathastrophic implication for the German army once the line would be breached, Rommel wanted to concentrate the main of the German Army in different strategic spots inland, in order to be able to discharge counter offensives.

You can imagine the pressure, the heat, the implications of all these issues within the German highest decision makers. Once not long ago, watching a TV doco advertizing Hitler's stupid mind vis a vis the allied invasion, I was deeply impressed by his diplomatic mediation between his generals, making the issue of their unity the most important of all.

This kind of superior vision, qualifies him very far from the Chaplin stereotype.

Concerning the military outcome of the dispute, Hitler took a middle way, splitting the forces into three plans, one according to Rundstedt theory, the other following Rommel's theory, and the third under Hitler's direct command. Not bad in my view as the third alternative left him the option for the unexpected.

Another example of Hitler's fine grain touch was general Von Paulus return to Germany, after loosing the battle of Stalingrad, and perhaps the fate of WWII. While Hitler urged Paulus time and again not to surrender and keep the pressure on the Soviets, and the poor Paulus could not take it anymore the multiple disgrace at the lines, Paulus openly disobeyed Hitler's command and surrendered.

But once back in Germany, Hitler didn't pass him by arms, and instead took Paulus military degree back, leaving him alive and unmolested.

Now, I myself am far to pass a judgement about Hitler's military wisdom, or to say it in other words have I been in his shoes I would remain an amateur painter and grow my grandsons.

But I wanted to stick to my point, and it is that by no means he was a stupid man. You can be a highly enligthened one, and still be a mass murderer at the same time.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom