In actual history, Hitler admired and even congratulated the achievements of the black athletes at the olympics. But the makers of this movie won't mention this at all because it's inconvenient to them. Before the release of the first trailer of said movie, they tried censoring the article about Jesse Owens too:
Hitler did NOT admire or approve of non-Aryan races competing whatsoever, actually far from it. The '36 olympics were seen as a huge promotional opportunity for Germany and Hitler wanted everything to go perfectly to show off how great the country had become. Hitler was widely admired around the world at this time, even being celebrated as Time's Man of the Year. To further their image, Hitler ordered all singnage restricting Jews (restaurants, park benches, bathrooms, etc) to be removed from Berlin and the surrounding area. Jews were told not to wear their Star of Davids. Hotel, restaurant, and other service workers were told to be tolerant and very courteous to all visiting tourists no matter their race. They carefully hid all evidence of the heinous brutality that had been occurring. It was to be a grand deceit of the highest order. (and they managed to carry it off very well too, sadly)
While I highly dislike censorship, and revisionist history especially, I can understand why they would remove Hitler shaking hands as your average movie goer would be very confused by a smiling and seemingly gracious Hitler. I still feel they should have shown things exactly as they happened and perhaps given a historical footnote around it somehow.
Hitler ordered all singnage restricting Jews (restaurants, park benches, bathrooms, etc) to be removed from Berlin and the surrounding area. Jews were told not to wear their Star of Davids.
Jews didn't have to wear the star until 1939. But way to continue to propagate a false history.
Except it was not white supremacy. It was Aryan supremacy. The victims of Hitler were light-skinned people. Nothing so proves the absurdity of the notion of race than the Nazis. They viewed Slavs and Jews as different races. In America those groups were and are see as white.
For one small thing, you might want to take a gander at the specific racial quotas included in every single American immigration act prior to 1965. Particularly the parts that pertained to immigrants coming from Eastern versus Western Europe. Hitler's cronies got a huge amount of their twisted ideas regarding inferior races directly from the Americans' own blueprint. So whether it was "Aryan" or "white" supremacy is virtually irrelevant. Because they were BOTH fundamentally rooted in the same scientifically worthless and completely (and very, very intentionally) fraudulent notions of racial "purity". So, it IS most certainly iterations of the same twisted and utterly unscientific foundational principle in either case. Racial superiority is like pregnancy. Either you are, or you aren't. There are no different degrees or "kindof, sortof, maybes" to either. Unless one is trying to avoid reality.
And lastly, Hitler's victims were most certainly not JUST light-skinned people!!! That's either a lie or ignorance of the highest possible order! And inconceivably insulting and lacking in compassion for the millions of his victims and their families beyond just the Jews!
So, like seemingly half the posts on this board you're trying to demonize one type of inhumanity, in order to somehow minimize virtually the exact same type of ugliness by those people who participated in the other.
Won't work!
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
Indeed. Owens remarked that he had never been treated so well in his entire life than the time he spent in Germany. Treated like royalty over there and then came home to segregationist oppression. Of course it was all fakery by the Germans, but they managed to fool everyone at the time.
Not even just that, but President FDR never invited him to the white house, shook his hand, sent him a letter, or anything. Dude singlehandedly shoved it up Germany's ass, and according to Owens, he was treated better by Hitler. He got a wave, a commemorative picture from him, and supposedly a handshake...even though the whole controversy was that Hitler left before shaking everyone's hands.
I mean sure, Hitler gave him respect, but he also said it wasn't fair because he descended from savages and was bred for these activities. *shrug* Hitler was a weird guy. He wants to kill all the jews YET keeps them fed, delouses their clothing on a regular basis, tries to prevent disease, and doesn't care that they're the ones making munitions and such for the war effort? So he starts killing them for ONE year and is like "Oh, I gotta use that space for air raid shelters now, forget the whole killing them thing"....he's just a weird mofo
There exists no documented proof of Hitler giving the order to exterminate the detainees. Take the mass execution part out of the equation and the story becomes less weird.
I've this this board littered with 'hollywood' references. Did a search on the production company, the writers and producers. They (and the majority of the actors) have NOTHING to do with the USA. All the filming locations are outside the USA, including the shots that say 'The Ohio state University ' People who like to say things like liberal Hollywood, propaganda, revisionist history, and things of that nature just want to distort the actual message. As people have pointed out, whether Hitler did or didn't shake Jesse Owens hand is moot. As this movie explained, the USA (And others nations upon digging deeper) were willing to boycott, and the IOC threatened to reconsider their choice of Berlin as the hist nation because of their ethnic stance (later found out to be genocide).
Put it like this- if Iraq hosted the 96 games, would it matter whose hand Saddam hussein shook? He could've tounged the entire dream team, doesn't change the fact he was a blood thirsty snake
Hitler did shun a black American athlete at the 1936 Games, but it wasn't Jesse Owens. On the first day of the Olympics, just before Cornelius Johnson, an African American althlete who won the first gold medal for the U.S. that day, was to receive his award, Hitler left the stadium early.
The whole 1936 Olympics was a public relationship coup by the Nazi party to show there was nothing wrong in Germany. It worked out very well as Jesswe Owens remarked later he was treated far better in Germany than he was in America.
Jesse Owens: “Hitler didn't snub me—it was [FDR] who snubbed me. The president didn't even send me a telegram.” - quoted in Triumph, a book about the 1936 Olympics by Jeremy Schaap
Obviously Hitler and the Nazi regime did unspeakable things but nothing is helped either by glossing over the horrific treatment of african americans in segregationist America.
Common, Hitler was a maniac who were responsible for the death of millions of people. Which is why it's bad when people use him to further their political goals. Like the Zionists are doing against the Palestinian people for example.
On the contrary, Hitler's behavior towards Owens is very salient. As it demonstrates the hypocrisy of America and reveals the reality that American racism was more nefarious than Nazis.
The emphasis misdirected towards Hitler provides Americans with the irrational excuse, "at least we weren't as bad as Hitler!"
What the Nazis did was worse. If they had conquered the globe, all Jews and other undesirables would have been killed, Slavs and many Eastern Europeans would have been sterilized, and Africans would have been enslaved. Hitler shook hands with Owens as a show to make the world think Germany was a great place when it was fact evil.
1. The Nazis had no claim for world domination 2. Forced sterilization based solely on race was illegal in Nazi Germany 3. The Nazis never had African slaves (you're thinking of the US?)
"Hitler had a certain time to come to the stadium and a certain time to leave. It happened he had to leave before the victory ceremony after the 100 meters. But before he left I was on my way to a broadcast and passed near his box. He waved at me and I waved back. I think it was bad taste to criticize the 'man of the hour' in another country." - Jesse Owens.
Also Germany won the medal total so I don't think the minister would have been that devastated.
Owens himself said it wasn't Hitler that shunned him, it was his own president. If anyone denies segregation in the US then go back to school and grow a brain.
How many of you are professional historians? A lot of people like to read history, and think they know "the truth" because they liked something that they read, and they accept IT as the truth, and anything that contradicts it is "revisionist" or b.s.
I'm a professional historian, a sports historian, whose well-received Masters Thesis was about racial segregation in major league baseball, and the efforts of the fringe in the US to abolish it, during the WWII era. I do not make "emotional" posts about it, because I've read more primary sources about this era of history than any of you ever could - it was my job to do it. I spent years in the bowels of libraries, reading microfilm, micrfiche, and books, getting to the heart of racism in sports in the first half of the 20th century in the US. The people who championed the desegregation of major league baseball also covered the Berlin Olympics heavily, too, because Hitler's hatred of anything not white and German was already known.
What you all don't understand is that OUR idea of "race" isn't what THEY understood to be "race." Back then, Italians were a "race." To us, it's an ethnicity. To them, Jews were a "race," to us, Jews are a cross between a religion and a culture. So all of you are using the term "race" incorrectly as far as what people in the 1930s would use. Jews were a race separate from whites, no matter what country they came from, as far as Hitler was concerned.
And no, Hitler did NOT appreciate the black men showing up all his lily-white Aryans in the Olympics. He, in fact, fumed about it. He thought the 1936 Olympics would showcase just how much his Aryans were superior to everyone else on the planet, and when they lost to blacks, of all people, he was NOT gracious about it. He may have been forced to make a display of graciousness, but it was not what he was recorded as feeling. He was disgusted.
But yes, black Americans were treated better in Europe than they were in the US. That's a no-brainer. We're talking about the time of jim crow laws in the South, of segregation, lynchings - none of that existed in Europe, directed solely at black people, especially not at black foreigners. But at the same time, Hitler was interning millions of Jews and Eastern Europeans in concentration camps, experimenting on them like lab rats and exterminating them by the millions (and yes, this is well-documented and substantiated, even my own grandpap, a WWII soldier who helped liberate concentration camps at the end of WWII, saw the horrors, but it has been filmed, photographed, millions of soldiers from all over the world witnessed it and former SS soldiers have admitted to it, it's not rumor). This, and the fact that blacks were drafted into WWII and served with distinction, only to come home to segregation, gave more steam to the Civil Rights movement. There were also many blacks who went to Russia at the same time, looking for better treatment, and many influential African-Americans felt they were treated better by Stalin, also, another leader who, despite being one of the Allied powers, was practicing mass genocide at the same time.
None of you really has any of it right. I'm not surprised. People who don't do history for a living, who don't go to college and graduate school for it, think they can pick up some books and are experts. You have no idea the rigorous training and years upon years of training we go through, the thousands of secondary sources and multitudes of primary sources we are *required* to take in to give us as much information as we can possibly get, even on topics that are tangential to what we are studying. It's like everything else in the world: I wouldn't let someone who isn't an expert mechanic work on my car, so I'm not trusting anyone who's not an expert historian to tell me anything about the past. There's so much background information you all obviously don't know, it's no wonder this argument will go on and on amongst you.
History isn't your strong suit, hu? I suggest you go to one of the KZ's here in Germany and Poland, to see the gas chambers for yourself. It will be eye opening, I promise you.
The wheel turns. Put enough decades between yourself and the best-documented mass genicide in human history and you can say pretty much anything you want to, knowing the hate mongers who share your prejudice will applaud you, the people whom you despise (i.e., Jews) will contest your assertions and curse your name, and the great swath of the remainder -- the people who don't know any better because they didn't live through it and aren't curious enough to investigate -- will say, in all innocence, "Hmmm. The truth probably lies somewhere in between."
By the way, we still convict former SS people and guards of the camps here in Germany, who are stating they were gassing people in the chambers during their testimonies in their trials. Do you really think they would be lying?
I wouldn't even consider myself a revisionist. Funny how my original comment has been deleted. Don't even remember what I wrote but it can't have been as bad as your reply is making it out to be.
Thanks for the links, I'll be sure to check them out.
Well, for one, it's disgustingly criminal that you are still convicting former SS people - especially when the Nuremberg trial was suppose to be the end trial for the atrocities that happened. The Allied forces all agreed that "following orders" is actually a human trait that we do. You might have heard of the research done on the matter (how normal Americans were willing to electrocute a man to death just because someone in a doctor's coat told them it was okay)
I know some of the testimonies through history have NOT matched what we actually know. One person testified once that the gassings started a whole month before the camps were built. I (and you too) should take all that eyewitness evidence with a grain of salt.
Speaking of revisionism though - isn't it weird that people that are trying to alter real history regarding Owens' time in Germany are NOT considered revisionists? But those who try to hold on to the truth as described by Owens and the other athletes are labelled as such?
Not that I would expect it to actually penetrate, but you might want to read up on the Nazi notion of "Lebensraum". In particular, the plans for how it was going to be carried out. And against whom. Because, once again, it's more evidence (that of course you'll simply rationalize away) of how massively widespread and utterly psychotic and inhuman their plans were for the mass murders that they committed.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
Excuse me, but I never stated that the Nazis weren't psychotic. What imperialistic empire wasn't? Let's just not pretend that our farts or genocides smell any better.
And hasn't the Lebensraum idea been around since the 1890s? Sure, the segregation and eugenics started by the Nazis were abysmal and simply horrifying. But so was the segregation and eugenics done in the US and Asia and other European countries (Various former allied countries were performing sterilization on people without them knowing up until the 1960s)... am I rationalizing this too much? It was not my intent.
Excuse me, but when did eugenics and gas chambers become the same thing? I'm not denying eugenics. Nor am I denying the idea of superiority that was active in the 40's, just like I don't think it's rational to suggest the Nazis were somehow the only ones who thought like that.
And I think it's completely logical to ask for more evidence when someone posts a link to a debate.org article where the "pro-holocaust" or "anti-holocaust revisionist" has to downsize the death count from a million to ten thousand for it to make logical sense to him. That doesn't give much footing to the official story, I'd say.
As I stated earlier, I don't even consider myself a revisionist. Or someone trying to rationalize things. I just don't want to be emotional about something that happened 70 years ago if what I'm getting emotional about is mostly war propaganda. There were no good guys in WW2. Anyone who claims otherwise is lying to himself.
FYI my great grandfather was killed by the Nazis, so don't think I'm trying to give them a break. I'm just trying to take emotions out of this.
Excuse me, but when did eugenics and gas chambers become the same thing?
Despite your previous denials regarding whether the Jews were actually gassed in WWII, I think this one right here just about says it all, once and for all. It's almost completely irrational and contradictory on a host of levels. And quite simply, it shows one final time that mentally you're all over the place. So, sorry but I don't do all over the place.
I'm just trying to take emotions out of this.
Just about everything you write either contradicts something you wrote previously, or conflicts with what should be obvious, long-held, documented, historical fact. So if taking emotions out of this has been your aim, I'd say you're failing pretty miserably, to say the least.
So again, sorry but I've lived long enough to know when a blindly emotional rant won't be penetrated in any way, shape or form. So I think it's time for me to sign off of this so-called discussion.
PS
Just because you keep repeating that you're not a revisionist over and over is not going to somehow magically force it to become true for everyone else, if you simply repeat it to them enough times, like some kind of spell. You are. Big time. And the funny thing is, your overall conclusion is actually correct. There was obvious, and easily documentable, inhumanity on all sides during WWII. Just not in the proportions (and especially, for the reasons) that you seem to need to believe. (Particularly where the Nazis are concerned -- which may very well be the oddest part of this of all.) And the points that you try to use to prove those twisted notions are full of very, very strange denials of obvious reality and rationalizations of long-proven facts. Which very strongly suggests that your emotions tend to get the best of you when you try to discuss this subject. Which, in turn, makes it a fool's errand for anyone to even try and correct your very strange thinking. 'Cause you'll just endlessly find new ways to contort their thoughts and words into your own obviously immutable and very personal version of historical truth. No matter how seemingly indisputable the evidence is that's presented.
So...
Bye.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
reply share
All I meant that you people seem to be projecting past debates onto me.
I've barely mentioned anything nor have I stated as a fact that I know what actually happened in any camp.
Firstly, this conversation was mostly about Owens and his time in Germany.
But thank you for simply stating that everything I write is historically inaccurate and wrong instead of telling me what about it is wrong and giving me the right information (and this indisputable evidence).
But thank you for simply stating that everything I write is historically inaccurate and wrong instead of telling me what about it is wrong and giving me the right information (and this indisputable evidence).
OK, one more, based on this quote above. Because it somewhat says that you're lost, but you don't really realize how you got there. And ironically, it's the very post of yours that was deleted that precipitated the harshest of your criticisms here. To somewhat refresh your memory, that post was mostly predicated on questioning "spacejelly" about whether the Holocaust actually happened in the way that it has been described in history books for the last 60-plus years. In parts of Europe that is referred to as "Holocaust denying", and it is considered a crime punishable by law. Thus a probable reason why such a post would also be removed from this site. (And incidentally, it's quite odd that conjecturing about such a historically hideous and significant event would essentially be so easily forgettable as to not remember the post for you.)
So quite simply, denying the magnitude of what was done to the Jews, AND the uniquely far-reaching (and very, very much race-based) overall plans for Hitler's intended 1,000 year long Third Reich will almost always land you in very major hot water. Why? (And in answer to your very obvious frustration.) Because, despite all the other atrocities that where very much committed on all sides during WWII, the facts concerning the overall magnitude of the plans of this particular atrocity are far and away the most fully examined and documented. And as a result, the most indisputable...to people who are trying to take the emotion out of this.
So it comes down to this. You are essentially arguing against the accepted reality of almost every history and reference book in the Western world. So, the impetus is not on everyone else to prove and/or show what they believe to you. The impetus is completely on you to present YOUR evidence of what it is that you think you have personally uncovered that makes every researcher, historian, journalist and (most of all) witness, mistaken in what they've believed for the last 60 years. And I believe you're going to find very, very few people in your lifetime that are ever going to be even a tiny bit negotiable toward your "unique" perspectives. Because, fundamentally, those unique perspectives have a nasty little tendency to unknowingly (at least one would hope) rationalize and minimize the sufferings of tens of millions of Nazi victims with statements like, "well, everyone else did it too".
So, once again, the impetus is always going to be squarely on you.
No man lies so boldly as the man who is indignant.
reply share
the Holocaust actually happened in the way that it has been described in history books for the last 60-plus years.
So, if a lie is repeated long enough... it's automatically true? I'm not talking about the holocaust now, but are you this seems very anti-revisionist (and not just holocaust revisionist). Are you actually saying that it's impossible for history books to have any wrong information? Have you heard about historical lies? I was taught about Pythagoras and his creations, Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake" and how Nero burned down Rome, but those things are inaccurate - regardless of how long they've been taught.
In parts of Europe that is referred to as "Holocaust denying", and it is considered a crime punishable by law.
Which is stupid. Nobody should be arrested for opinions or thoughts. There are people in the US that think no one has ever walked on the moon, we don't throw them in jail.
it's quite odd that conjecturing about such a historically hideous and significant event would essentially be so easily forgettable as to not remember the post for you
I honestly don't remember what I wrote, I just like commenting and conversing about a various amount of topics, I didn't consider anything I was writing to be "delete-worthy" or else I might not have written it. If I could see my original post, I would love to reevaluate it. I might even apologize for it if I re-read it back and saw that it was offensive. I certainly didn't mean to offend.
So quite simply, denying the magnitude of what was done to the Jews
are you claiming the only victims of National Socialism were those of Jewish ancestry?
this particular atrocity are far and away the most fully examined and documented.
It's certainly the most talked about atrocity. But I would love more detail about how just fully examined it is. I only know a handful of holocaust historians whose names keep coming back up when I read about the subject matter and there are revisions that even they agree with. So I would never consider any part of history to be an open and shut case.
You are essentially arguing against the accepted reality of almost every history and reference book in the Western world.
Again, people can accept things that aren't true. Just because a majority believes something doesn't automatically make it right. And even that debate.org article that spacejelly posted had the "anti-revisionist" mentioning that the chimney was Soviet war propaganda reconstructed after the war. So even if 99% of the official story is correct, that would still mean that 1% of the accepted truth is 70 year old Soviet war propaganda and there is no reason for me to believe that. If that's the case. Now, 1% might not be accurate, I'm just using that number for the sake of argument.
rationalize and minimize the sufferings of tens of millions of Nazi victims with statements like, "well, everyone else did it too".
But focusing almost entirely on the Jewish victims is not minimizing the suffering of the hundreds of millions of other people that also died in the war?
I don't know why you posted that debate.org link. The "anti-revisionist" states that it takes less cyanide residue to kill humans than lice and states only 10,000 people were gassed. He's gutting that official story. And he even admits that the chimney is fake...