I watched about 80 percent of this long documentary series on YouTube before it was taken down. It was very interesting
-
michaeldecker — 10 years ago(September 21, 2015 01:15 PM)
Yes - good points, well made. I've made it around halfway through this and while very obviously biased there are some interesting points that never seemed to make it into British history lessons (for example that Russia invaded Poland at exactly the same time Germany did, but we only declared war on Germany? And did Serbia really welcome their invasion as liberation after 900 years?).
If you can make it through the dismally amateurish production (interminable scrolling text, droning music, ripped-off films/series) then it provides an interesting counterpoint - but not one that should be entirely relied upon for its veracity! -
Zoomorph — 10 years ago(October 01, 2015 01:48 PM)
It was very interesting to hear the other side. But it's way too one-sided and biased and tries to portray Hitler as a saint who never did anything wrong. Yeah right.
Very weak argument on your part. Basically, you don't believe that anyone or Hitler could be as good as this documentary portrays him, and therefore you assess the documentary as being wrong.
But why don't you consider that your belief may be wrong?
It also ignores a lot of important facts and distorts events too.
You can't just say that without providing evidence.
First, it assumes that Hitler was 100 percent honest and never lied..
This movie provides a plausible account of history. The thing about history is that we can never know the full and exact truth. History only knows a few details here and there and tries to piece together a narrative that explains them. If you assume someone is lying or truthful or evil or good you can create a different narrative.
Context is key, in my opinion. Would Hitler be lying in private communications, for example? Highly unlikely. Would people be lying in court testimony? Much more likely. Would they lie for tactical advantages, such as to surprise a country with invasion? Certainly.
I don't take issue, as you do, with assuming that much that Hitler said was truthful. I think that the main reason people take issue with this is that they want to arrive at the conclusion that Hitler is an extremely evil and bad man, and the only way they can maintain that in light of many of the things he said is to claim that he was lying.
Moreover, this documentary is not professionally produced at all.
That's not a valid criticism in my opinion. The main reason why it's not professional produced is that it's such a taboo and censored subject that nobody is allowed to touch professionally.
It involves no cost, only time.
Time is money.
It's also making no money (unlike most professional productions).
Furthermore, much of the scrolling text contains assertions and quotes that are not sourced or documented, so their authenticity is suspect. When it comes to text scrolling on the screen, anyone can write anything, it doesn't have to be accurate or sourced.
Hah! I bet you wouldn't even look up the sources if they were referenced.
While writing references for every quote may have assisted you in your verification of the quotes, it also would have detracted somewhat from the movie by cluttering it with references that most people would be too lazy to actually look up.
Luckily, in the modern day we have the internet where you can type any quote into a search engine and get a plethora of information about it, so don't complain that you can't conduct further research into the information provided in this movie you most certainly can.
So the credibility of this documentary is highly suspect.
The credibility of EVERYTHING ought to be suspect. The only reason people tend not to suspect the credibility of something is if it affirms a bias that they already want to believe in (or were indoctrinated to believe in), which is hardly a good reason.
If any of us wanted to get as close to the truth as possible, we'd need to conduct as much personal research and investigation as we can. Unfortunately, most people are lazy or don't have time, so they defer to popular opinion or expert opinion. Those who reject popular and expert (governmental) credibility are usually deemed as "conspiracy theorists" and ostracized from our modern society (even if they were previously considered "experts" themselves).
However, that doesn't mean that we should adopt the extreme opposite view that Hitler was a saint who did no wrong, as Dennis Wise has.
I disagree. I think that adopting the opposite extreme view can be effective at waking people up. In argument, it's called playing the devil's advocate.
Neither extreme is accurate.
This is actually a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
For a more balanced and fair assessment of Hitler, and of his good traits and bad traits, and his complex motivations and character, I suggest you read the book, "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny" by Professor Stolfi which you can find on Amazon.com.
Thanks for the recommendation. I suggest that everyone research as much as they can to understand all different perspectives/viewpoints and before forming their own opinion.
~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~ -
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..
