A fantasy. Hitler took orders from no one. No biographer could prove it, and all the first-hand accounts are to the contrary. He built the NSDAP almost single-handedly. Anti-Semitism was common in Germany, along with a Darwinian attitude that the struggle for species survival was more important than niceties. The quest for lebensraum was forecast in "Mein Kampf." Hitler's rise to power was a hit-or-miss white-knuckle affair. Read the history and learn.
"Read the history and learn." Reading the history is a farce. There is no history book that is accurate.
You need to do 'unrelated' history and make connections; you also need to look at the declassified records from KGB, CIA, FBI etc. There is where you make connections and get the reality.
Hmm. So you have read all the history books (not just about this topic) and they are all inaccurate? But all the "unrelated" history books are MORE accurate---so long as you knit them together and fill in the blanks with your own imagination? Likewise, it is a bad idea to study the history of science and engineering in order to find out how to do anything?
Not trying to make a sale. What I'm trying to do is get people to dig more deeply to find out what the reality was/is. History books, since I was a child around 70 years ago have been changing, the same way engineering books change: yes, they do, constantly, and contain many errors. You see, I did engineering for decades, with a 5 year sojourn in teaching college; I knew many 'authors' of engineering books, with errors that remained uncorrected.
History has been modified to fit one specific group's intent, such that finding the truth isn't easy. You MUST resort to other sources, such as the declassified materials from the old USSR, the records from Germany and so forth. You MUST find actual pictures from the times, and compare them to what you read/see in the books. You must find statements from people who were there, on occasion some of the officers of the various armies of WWII. No history books used in 'schools', including universities, include any of that.
You will find differences between books of the 1950s, 60s, 70s on up to the "revisionist (or "modern") history that completely misrepresent happenings.
Until you have direct experience with the 'powers that be' revising history, you WILL have doubts. Personally, my military time and doings were revised, different dates, different occurrences, different places. If a person reads the "history" of 1867-68, for instance, and compares that to what I did during that time, you'd find me in 3 places at the same time, then 2 places at the same time, and what I did during Tet almost completely erased, including records of the helos I crewed.
But... you will believe what you want to believe, or what you were taught to believe.
What makes you think I haven't been reading history from direct sources? The fact that I don't agree with the "theory" narrative? What I've seen is Hitler's actual background glossed over and ignored, replaced with a convenient myth. I've seen the Paperclip program similarly mythologized, not by history writers but by the popular press. I've read war history as related by MacArthur and Patton.
I don't dispute that contemporary history has been shaded by, shall we say, authors who are interested parties. (I am currently reading "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, concerning the career of Senator Joe McCarthy.) I am aware of the Venona transcripts and what they imply.
My background is in aeronautical engineering, and I have not had the problems you cite with errant sources. Most commonly-referenced texts are subject to revision of continuing editions, to update material and make corrections. Some texts are simply out of date, but being out of date is no evidence of a sinister plan. Authors die. Books do not sell well and do not have revised editions.
It is more the case, as I see it, that "believe what you want to believe" is the hallmark of many participants on this page, who accept speculation as fact, and ignorance as enlightenment.
A fantasy. Hitler took orders from no one. No biographer could prove it, and all the first-hand accounts are to the contrary. He built the NSDAP almost single-handedly. Anti-Semitism was common in Germany, along with a Darwinian attitude that the struggle for species survival was more important than niceties. The quest for lebensraum was forecast in "Mein Kampf." Hitler's rise to power was a hit-or-miss white-knuckle affair. Read the history and learn.
"Read the history and learn." Reading the history is a farce. There is no history book that is accurate. You need to do 'unrelated' history and make connections; you also need to look at the declassified records from KGB, CIA, FBI etc. There is where you make connections and get the reality.
Hmm. So you have read all the history books (not just about this topic) and they are all inaccurate? But all the "unrelated" history books are MORE accurate---so long as you knit them together and fill in the blanks with your own imagination? Likewise, it is a bad idea to study the history of science and engineering in order to find out how to do anything?
I'm sorry. You don't know how to make a sale.
Not trying to make a sale. What I'm trying to do is get people to dig more deeply to find out what the reality was/is. History books, since I was a child around 70 years ago have been changing, the same way engineering books change: yes, they do, constantly, and contain many errors. You see, I did engineering for decades, with a 5 year sojourn in teaching college; I knew many 'authors' of engineering books, with errors that remained uncorrected.
History has been modified to fit one specific group's intent, such that finding the truth isn't easy. You MUST resort to other sources, such as the declassified materials from the old USSR, the records from Germany and so forth. You MUST find actual pictures from the times, and compare them to what you read/see in the books. You must find statements from people who were there, on occasion some of the officers of the various armies of WWII. No history books used in 'schools', including universities, include any of that. You will find differences between books of the 1950s, 60s, 70s on up to the "revisionist (or "modern") history that completely misrepresent happenings.
Until you have direct experience with the 'powers that be' revising history, you WILL have doubts. Personally, my military time and doings were revised, different dates, different occurrences, different places. If a person reads the "history" of 1867-68, for instance, and compares that to what I did during that time, you'd find me in 3 places at the same time, then 2 places at the same time, and what I did during Tet almost completely erased, including records of the helos I crewed.
But... you will believe what you want to believe, or what you were taught to believe.
What makes you think I haven't been reading history from direct sources? The fact that I don't agree with the "theory" narrative? What I've seen is Hitler's actual background glossed over and ignored, replaced with a convenient myth. I've seen the Paperclip program similarly mythologized, not by history writers but by the popular press. I've read war history as related by MacArthur and Patton.
I don't dispute that contemporary history has been shaded by, shall we say, authors who are interested parties. (I am currently reading "Blacklisted by History" by M. Stanton Evans, concerning the career of Senator Joe McCarthy.) I am aware of the Venona transcripts and what they imply.
My background is in aeronautical engineering, and I have not had the problems you cite with errant sources. Most commonly-referenced texts are subject to revision of continuing editions, to update material and make corrections. Some texts are simply out of date, but being out of date is no evidence of a sinister plan. Authors die. Books do not sell well and do not have revised editions.
It is more the case, as I see it, that "believe what you want to believe" is the hallmark of many participants on this page, who accept speculation as fact, and ignorance as enlightenment.
Way to ignore everything else they said about Russia’s plan to invade Europe and Germany’s Operation Barbarossa.
Who is the "they" in "they said"? I have no idea what you are trying to say, and it does not refute what I said.
seadevil110 you fucking retard. If you don’t know what I’m referring to, that means you never even read his post.
Stupid mother fucker