Ignores important facts and falsely assumes Hitler to be 100% honest
-
ggregd — 10 years ago(November 06, 2015 03:14 PM)
"Would Hitler be lying in private communications, for example? Highly unlikely. "
This "documentary" only offers Hitler's public statements and German propaganda when it explains Hitler's actions. There is plenty of documentation of things he said in private that show his real intentions and give lie to his public statements. For example, before the invasion of Poland he was worried that someone would try to broker a peace, as happened with Czechoslovakia, before he got the war he wanted. Read "Hitler's Table Talk," taken directly from private dinner conversations his secretary recorded for posterity.
You don't even have to go that far. In "Mein Kamph" he detailed his plans to expand Germany's Liebensraum by invading the Soviet Union and displacing it's people, replacing them with Germans, which is exactly what he attempted.
I know I'm probably wasting my time here arguing with you because you people dismiss anything that doesn't support your "revisionist" dogma as lies, propaganda or a Jewish plot. Hopefully other people without your bias or indoctrination won't blindly accept this piece of crap as the unvarnished truth.
"This movie provides a plausible account of history." Plausible isn't the same as accurate and honest. -
Zoomorph — 10 years ago(November 06, 2015 04:45 PM)
If you don't want to waste your time:
- Provide sources to back up your assertions.
- Make it clear what the point you're trying to make is.
- Prove your point.
- Cut the insults and ad hominem attacks.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~
-
blunderbus — 10 years ago(November 08, 2015 08:48 PM)
- Why? What is the incentive to go to the effort for you? I KNOW the sources exist because I have studied them for 40 years. But why go to the effort for you? The doc never bothered with historical accuracy backed up by legit sources. Who are you do demand such effort on a movie forum about a horrible doc. You are not my sensei.
- Point is the movie was garbage. Not history at all. The source to back that fact up is the doc itself.
- To you? I doubt anyone could prove anything to you. No matter what the sources.
- Why? You are a ripe target merely for defending this distortion of historical facts. You are begging to be attacked. Almost as if you had bait in the water trolling for a bite.
-
Zoomorph — 10 years ago(November 08, 2015 11:59 PM)
The maker of this documentary put in effort and you will do so too, if you want to prove your assertions (and can). Otherwise, you should really just shut up and do something that IS worth putting effort into, if such a thing exists in your world.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~ -
ggregd — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 09:20 AM)
It's not ad hominem, it's what you people do in my experience. I think your ideas and misinformation are foolish and dangerous. If that hurts your feelings, then cry more, special snowflake.
Your MO is to cherry pick certain small details and get into endless debates about trivialities that go nowhere. It's a waste of time.
This waste of hard drive space "documentary" only repeats the exact propaganda Hitler and the Nazis disseminated throughout their rule to justify their actions to their people, and it ignores anything that doesn't fit the picture they want you to see. What more does an objective person need to know to dismiss this drivel? -
WestGreat — 9 years ago(October 31, 2016 05:42 PM)
"""I know I'm probably wasting my time here arguing with you because you people dismiss anything that doesn't support your "revisionist" dogma as lies, propaganda or a Jewish plot. Hopefully other people without your bias or indoctrination won't blindly accept this piece of crap as the unvarnished truth. """
Yet it's ok to blindly accept EVERYTHING the 'allies' have told us for 70 years, right? It's ok to imprison people and destroy their lives all because they question the historical accuracy of WWII, right? -
ggregd — 9 years ago(November 02, 2016 09:10 AM)
Sure, buddy. Because it's either one extreme or the other. The Allies weren't spotless and I believe in freedom of speech. We don't lock people up where I come from, no matter how offensive and idiotic their ideas are.
I accept the current consensus of literally all professional peer reviewed, reputable, objective historians. Which ones have you read? (Don't give me David beep Irving.) I reject pseudo-history coming from people with an agenda. I reject random yahoos on the Internet because anyone can post anything they want. I reject the repeated use of assertions that have been soundly debunked. -
noober-46518 — 10 years ago(October 04, 2015 11:10 PM)
"But it's way too one-sided and biased and tries to portray Hitler as a saint who never did anything wrong. Yeah right. It also ignores a lot of important facts and distorts events too. That means it's definitely NOT an objective or unbiased search for the truth."
Well we could definitely say the truth we have been taught has been bias as well and possibly a lie. Of course the enemy of a state in a war is always the "bad guy". And the loser of the war is always the evil country. Your right though this documentary went a little too far on the Hitler loving. However it's refreshing to get a different perspective on WW2. Really makes ya think. -
canalchivas — 10 years ago(February 02, 2016 04:39 PM)
https://media.giphy.com/media/5hHOBKJ8lw9OM/giphy.gif
Max: I've no interest in making the same mistakes Eleanor did. No interest in fencing their plunder! -
fairy_depp — 9 years ago(April 24, 2016 11:27 AM)
I completely agree.. I don't think anyone with a brain buys that Hitler was an evil tyrant who ate babies for breakfast but I also don't believe that he had entirely honest intentions or that the holocaust is entirely a product of soviet lies. I think the beginning of this documentary is very informative and Hitler certainly did good things for his people (so long as they were white Christian heterosexuals) but towards the end it became ridiculous and obvious the film maker had their own agenda - I just don't believe that multiculturalism or homosexuality is bringing about the downfall of civilisation. I am sure the war could have been avoided had the treaty of Versailles been more measured but that just doesn't explain away locking up children just because they don't fit into your ideals.. Even if I accept that zyklon b was just to treat diseases (I don't), they shouldn't have been locking innocent people away even if the soviets and others were doing it too..
