hitler and punishment

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by Goldenmane

Personally, I have no idea (I hope) what it is like to be Hitler or the like. I suspect, though, that it is possible that people like that don't set out to do evil (for want of a better term - no supernaturalist overtones here, merely ethical ones) for the sake of being evil. After all, it has been noted (in somewhat poetic language) that true evil is that which convinces itself of its own goodness.

Anyway, I personally doubt that Hitler saw his actions as evil and deserving of punishment - if he set out with that intention, he'd have stuck around for the punishment. If he didn't see it that way, he'd not have viewed the punishment as just punishment, but as foul victimisation or some shit. I've seen people do some pretty fucked up things and then act entirely as though they were persecuted when it was just explained to them that they did something fucking wrong.

But further to all that wibble, to the meat of the matter: I don't get the 'punishment' thing at all. Punishment seems to be a combination of magical thinking and generalised application of a sort of bullying 'might makes right' approach.

I'm running out of time, so I'll cut this short, but leave something for you all to chew over: Is 'punishment' simply 'the price you pay'? So... how do you make one person 'pay a price' for the murder of millions? If I want to kill someone, or torture them, what's the appropriate going rate?

What is the purpose and mechanism by which punishment is proposed to work, and what evidence can we bring to bear on the questions?

I don't subscibe the the punishment idea either, GM. I was simply trying to describe what can be inferred from the various histories of Hitler and WW2.

There is, of course, strong evidence that Hitler seemed to believe he was doing the right thing, but also that he was a great fan of the "end justified the means" argument. This lead him to many excesses, including breaking his OWN edicts when he became dictator.
However, few could or would stand up to him. Albert Speer was one, because he was able to utilise Hitler's love of technology to persuade him to make more rational judgements about about war production and the economy.
General Guderian seemed to have some influence too, not only on matters like trying to rationalise the tank production program [with the help of Speer], but also near the end when Hitler set up "People's Courts" to try officers [particularly generals] for operational failures, and [alledged] disloyalty and cowardice on the battlefield. Part of the failure can be blamed on Hitler himself.
For example, late in 1944, Hitler had a hissy-fit about the inanity of the infantry and some panzer divisions having towed anti-tank guns when logic, and battlefield reports, clearly indicated that self-propelled anti-tank guns [eg Jagdpanzers] killed more enemy tanks, were cheap to produced, and saved many casualties which at that stage of the war, were impossible to replace.
Guderian pointed out that it was Hitler himself who over-ruled the suggestion by Guderian and others that the self-propelled Jagdpanzers [various models, eg StugIII, PzIV, Jagdtiger, Jagdpanther] replace the towed guns in all anti-tank units.
Sure enough [as the legend goes] Hitler asked for the minutes which proved it was Hitler himself, 18 months before was the cause of the disaster of the destruction of Army Group Centre.
Hitler reversed his decision, but it was of course, far too late to affect the course of the war because conversion from towed to SP in A/T battations never exceeded one third of the TOE.

Hitler's distrust of various groups in society, such as rich industrialists, the intellectual elite, and the officer corps [especially the general staff] made him dictator over groups that worked in isolation [need to know] and often at cross-purposes.

So another possibility is that Hitler shot himself in sheer frustration due to the insight [perhaps only partial] that his Führerprinzip was a major cause of his failure and defeat. !

[gruber]

So another possibility is that Hitler shot himself in sheer frustration due to the insight [perhaps only partial] that his Führerprinzip was a major cause of his failure and defeat. !

dont forget he stuffed up russia

[Loki]

Vengeance is a pitiful if understandable motivation.

The "he got away with it" schtick is a position entirely from within the viewpoint of the person lamenting a lack of vengeance or justice (again from the individuals perception of justice as it applies to the case).

Society wasn't able to bring him to trial for his crimes (as determined by society as a whole), though the purpose of a trial, to determine what, and if, crimes have been committed and to apply measures in an attempt to re-mediate and avoid future occurrences of any crime found to have been committed was arguably achieved.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Originally Posted by gruber

dont forget he stuffed up russia

Russia was probably unwinnable in any case. His generals wanted him to pursue a war of annihilation [which was operationally correct], but he was making the economic means of waging war the first priority [also correct] as Germany depended on most of its iron ore imports from Sweden, and got most of its oil from Rumania. At no stage of the war did the Axis powers control more than 4% of the oil that was available to the allied side, so Hitler was making sense he he stated many times that the war had an economic component that could not be ignored.
But you are right, Hilter did stuff up the strategy, which first began to go to crap when he laid seige to Lenningrad, instead of taking it [whatever the cost] and linking up with the Finns. This would have made taking Moscow much easier, and the loss of Lenningrad's weapons factories [and a secure left flank] and the loss of Moscow's industries and rail net, would have, if not compelled a USSR capitulation, would have severely handicapped their attempts to thwart Hitler's southern thrust for Asian and [later] Arabian Oil.
With abundant oil, and the neutralisation of the USSR as an effective fighting force, plus some rationalisation of the aircraft, tank and transport industry [1], and interior lines, Hitler would have been very hard to defeat.

===
[1] Included in this would be the abandonment of a surface navy [though not submarines], especially in capital ships, because the coal and steel and productive capacity was needed for motorisation and tanks for the army and aircraft for the Luftwaffe.

[wearestardust]

I don't know the specific context of the comment in this instance, but whenever I hear the idea that Hitler escaped punishment, usually somewhere in the vicinity is an argument that goes like this:

"if there is no hell, then it is unjust that Hitler escaped punishment; therefore god"

which is a specific version of

"if there is no hell, how do the wicked get punished? Therefore god."

which in turn is a specific version of this argument (yes I have used this twice in 24 hours).


I think the best hypothesis for Hitler's suicide was that he didn't want to be put on public trial. IIRC he said something to that effect.

[wearestardust]

As for standing up to Hitler: Guderian and Galland both stood up to Hitler, but only on practical aspects of the war, not as a matter of principle. Both got sacked, if only temporarily in Guderian's case, for their troubles. Rommel was an ardent Nazi (as will be recalled, he got a leg up in his career due to being head of Hitler's Heer bodyguard unit before the war, and therefore having the opportunity to ask personally for command of a Panzer Division for his next job).

[gruber]

Russia was probably unwinnable in any case. His generals wanted him to pursue a war of annihilation [which was operationally correct], but he was making the economic means of waging war the first priority [also correct] as Germany depended on most of its iron ore imports from Sweden, and got most of its oil from Rumania. At no stage of the war did the Axis powers control more than 4% of the oil that was available to the allied side, so Hitler was making sense he he stated many times that the war had an economic component that could not be ignored.
But you are right, Hilter did stuff up the strategy, which first began to go to crap when he laid seige to Lenningrad, instead of taking it [whatever the cost] and linking up with the Finns. This would have made taking Moscow much easier, and the loss of Lenningrad's weapons factories [and a secure left flank] and the loss of Moscow's industries and rail net, would have, if not compelled a USSR capitulation, would have severely handicapped their attempts to thwart Hitler's southern thrust for Asian and [later] Arabian Oil.
With abundant oil, and the neutralisation of the USSR as an effective fighting force, plus some rationalisation of the aircraft, tank and transport industry [1], and interior lines, Hitler would have been very hard to defeat.

I saw a doco on the Russian invasion and when the japs declared they had no intention of invading Russia the russians moved over 3 million soldiers from the west straight down on Stalingrad