brennan
Argumentative Brit
Didn't realise the 'States had a dwarf colony.
Random Thoughts 3: A Little Bit of This, and a Little Bit of That...
- Thread starter Valka D'Ur
- Start date
-
- Tags
- keepin' it random
- Status
Not exactly, no, actually, now that i come to think of it.
But, since you obviously speak Djerman fluently and ideomatically, and you are obviously familiar with Hitler's speeches, and you have gone through the full thirteen years of Djerman public school antifascist education, including analysis of said speeches...
... you will shortly explain your reasoning in convincing fashion, won't you?
Last edited:
brennan
Argumentative Brit
From the clips i've seen, Hitler was a much better orator than Trump. He could string together whole sentences for a start.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Dwarves are frequently portrayed as being vaguely Scottish, so it follows that New World dwarves would be vaguely Appalachian.
Notably, Hitler's speeches were peppered with references to Classical and Germanic mythology, and to German history. The only heroic figure Trump refers to is himself.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Oh that's not fair. He regularly talks about how great other people are. Until they fall out with him and become the worst people in the world. Useless. And Trump never liked them. And always thought they were incompetent.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,069
Except Andrew Jackson. But given he died over 150 years before Trump was born, there's not likely to be a falling out there because of something Jackson does.
brennan
Argumentative Brit
Trump will probably take credit for Jackson at some point then.
I don't know much about Hitler's overall oratorical practices to be able to talk about any of that. But I am familiar with one of his more infamous speeches, given on 8 November 1942 in the Löwenbräukeller in Munich. The speech was made to an audience of Nazi Party comrades (Meine Parteigenossen und Parteigenossinnen!) and Alter Kämpfer and mostly discussed the ongoing combat in Stalingrad, hence its usual reference as the "Stalingrad speech". Here is a document for the speech in German. The speech was also broadcast by radio, so anyone interested in listening to it now can do so via recordings.
Hitler was, undoubtedly, a much more coherent thinker in 1942 than Trump is today. Trump can barely keep hold of ideas for any extended period of time. He often loses his thread within the same phrase, let alone the same sentence. Hitler, on the other hand, had a coherent message. He was, if not a good orator, at the very least an acceptable one. He hits many of his highlights in the speech - the vulnerability of democratic Germany, the "plunder" of the West and East, the responsibility of every other country for the war, how he allegedly offered peace only to have it rejected at every turn by enemies foreign and domestic, the conspiracy of Jews and capitalists and Bolsheviks, yada yada yada.
Two points of similarity with Trump, however, come up in the Stalingrad speech.
The first is Hitler's joke:
"Now, I don't just do things the way others want me to do them! Yes, instead, I consider what the others believe I will do, and then I do the opposite as a matter of principle. Thus when Mr. Stalin believed I would attack in the center [Heeresgruppe Mitte, or Army Group Center, fighting at Rzhev near Moscow] - I wanted to not attack in the center. Now, this was not only because Mr. Stalin thought this way, but also because I didn't even care about it [Moscow] at all. But I wanted to come to the Volga, to a specific place and a specific city. It's only a coincidence that the city holds Stalin's name. That's not why I marched there. It could've had another name. I only marched there because it is a greatly important point."
Hitler does go on to give some statistical reasons for holding Stalingrad, but they're actually just reasons to invade the Caucasus, which is notably not Stalingrad. Obviously, this joke isn't even remotely true (which is arguably one of the reasons why it's funny): Stalingrad's name and its symbolic meaning far overshadowed its importance in terms of strategic infrastructure. Symbols can be useful targets, of course, but his steadfast denial of the blatant truth here is objectively funny. And Hitler's insistence that he doesn't even really care about Moscow, or about Stalingrad's name, are exceedingly similar to Trump's remarks about anything associated with him that doesn't go well.
The second is the most egregious lie in the speech:
"That [the raw materials of the region] is what I wanted to take. As you know, we are modest. But we have taken the city. There are only a few small pockets of resistance left. Others would say, 'why not fight onwards'? Because I do not want a second Verdun. Instead, I would rather hold the city with a few small assault units."
This is a gross falsification. By 8 November, the Germans had indeed captured most of the city, with the Red Army clinging onto a few small strips along the Volga. But the battle had already become a second Verdun, a second slaughterhouse, for the Germans and Soviets both. And it was not even remotely over. Hitler was even just then personally ordering the armies of the south to bring up their last reserves, several battalions of combat engineers, to spearhead one final assault to reach the Volga. (The Germans would reach the river, but failed to destroy either of the Soviet pockets in the city before the Red Army counteroffensive halted their attacks.) For the most part, the German forces in the city were exhausted - they were, in the parlance of the time, Schlacke, or "burned-out cinders". There were hundreds of thousands of them, not a few small units of Stosstruppen. And soon they would be encircled and captured by the imminent Red Army counteroffensive.
What does this have to do with Trump? Not quite as much, in terms of rhetorical style. Again, Hitler was usually much more eloquent than Trump. He was an effective speaker, even if few would call him a great one. Trump is not. Trump doesn't even understand what sentences are. Hitler, though, was one of the most willing individuals to employ the Big Lie on a regular basis in everything he said. Like any other magician or con man, he knew that his listeners didn't want to know the truth. They just wanted something to "believe in", even if it was incredibly flimsy, so long as they didn't have to confront reality. It's become more common since 1942, of course, among any number of tinpot scumbags. But more than anything else, this is Trump's stock in trade.
Hitler was, undoubtedly, a much more coherent thinker in 1942 than Trump is today. Trump can barely keep hold of ideas for any extended period of time. He often loses his thread within the same phrase, let alone the same sentence. Hitler, on the other hand, had a coherent message. He was, if not a good orator, at the very least an acceptable one. He hits many of his highlights in the speech - the vulnerability of democratic Germany, the "plunder" of the West and East, the responsibility of every other country for the war, how he allegedly offered peace only to have it rejected at every turn by enemies foreign and domestic, the conspiracy of Jews and capitalists and Bolsheviks, yada yada yada.
Two points of similarity with Trump, however, come up in the Stalingrad speech.
The first is Hitler's joke:
Here is my translation, adapted slightly for English conventions on sentences:Hitler said:
"Now, I don't just do things the way others want me to do them! Yes, instead, I consider what the others believe I will do, and then I do the opposite as a matter of principle. Thus when Mr. Stalin believed I would attack in the center [Heeresgruppe Mitte, or Army Group Center, fighting at Rzhev near Moscow] - I wanted to not attack in the center. Now, this was not only because Mr. Stalin thought this way, but also because I didn't even care about it [Moscow] at all. But I wanted to come to the Volga, to a specific place and a specific city. It's only a coincidence that the city holds Stalin's name. That's not why I marched there. It could've had another name. I only marched there because it is a greatly important point."
Hitler does go on to give some statistical reasons for holding Stalingrad, but they're actually just reasons to invade the Caucasus, which is notably not Stalingrad. Obviously, this joke isn't even remotely true (which is arguably one of the reasons why it's funny): Stalingrad's name and its symbolic meaning far overshadowed its importance in terms of strategic infrastructure. Symbols can be useful targets, of course, but his steadfast denial of the blatant truth here is objectively funny. And Hitler's insistence that he doesn't even really care about Moscow, or about Stalingrad's name, are exceedingly similar to Trump's remarks about anything associated with him that doesn't go well.
The second is the most egregious lie in the speech:
My translation:Hitler said:
"That [the raw materials of the region] is what I wanted to take. As you know, we are modest. But we have taken the city. There are only a few small pockets of resistance left. Others would say, 'why not fight onwards'? Because I do not want a second Verdun. Instead, I would rather hold the city with a few small assault units."
This is a gross falsification. By 8 November, the Germans had indeed captured most of the city, with the Red Army clinging onto a few small strips along the Volga. But the battle had already become a second Verdun, a second slaughterhouse, for the Germans and Soviets both. And it was not even remotely over. Hitler was even just then personally ordering the armies of the south to bring up their last reserves, several battalions of combat engineers, to spearhead one final assault to reach the Volga. (The Germans would reach the river, but failed to destroy either of the Soviet pockets in the city before the Red Army counteroffensive halted their attacks.) For the most part, the German forces in the city were exhausted - they were, in the parlance of the time, Schlacke, or "burned-out cinders". There were hundreds of thousands of them, not a few small units of Stosstruppen. And soon they would be encircled and captured by the imminent Red Army counteroffensive.
What does this have to do with Trump? Not quite as much, in terms of rhetorical style. Again, Hitler was usually much more eloquent than Trump. He was an effective speaker, even if few would call him a great one. Trump is not. Trump doesn't even understand what sentences are. Hitler, though, was one of the most willing individuals to employ the Big Lie on a regular basis in everything he said. Like any other magician or con man, he knew that his listeners didn't want to know the truth. They just wanted something to "believe in", even if it was incredibly flimsy, so long as they didn't have to confront reality. It's become more common since 1942, of course, among any number of tinpot scumbags. But more than anything else, this is Trump's stock in trade.
Zkribbler
Deity
He did turn out "many fine people" for a Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. It didn't go well.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,069
I have made an academic study of Hitler in a biographical sense, as well as his rise to power, in my day. But I'm not sure what speaking a language I've never heard of that looks, by the spelling you gave, like a Southeast Asian or West African one, or being educated by them in "antifascist studies" (one of many branches of education that, by definition, can't help but be so politically loaded and biased as to be worthless to the meaningful study of history and only useful in political and sociological study as a case study of state indoctrination) has to do with the history or former leadership of GERMANY.Not exactly, no, actually, now that i come to think of it.
But, since you obviously speak Djerman fluently and ideomatically, and you are obviously familiar with Hitler's speeches, and you have gone through the full thirteen years of Djerman public school antifascist education, including analysis of said speeches...
... you will shortly explain your reasoning in convincing fashion, won't you?
Trump is no more or less a liar than modern intellectuals are. It's just that the intellectuals are more eloquent, bury their absurd claims in reasonable-sounding frameworks and theories (see: motte-and-bailey tactics), defend one another while colluding to silence alternative viewpoints, and get superficial facts right while providing their own false "context".
(This all mostly applies to political stuff, though. I'd respect a consensus by historians that - as you say - Stalingrad's symbolic importance outweighed its strategic importance to the Germans.)
Last edited:
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,069
Saying ALL intellectuals are liars is quite the brazen generalization. Like saying all African-Americans and Hispanic-Americans are criminals, or all Moslems are terrorists (and absolutely no one else is), or all homosexuals are promiscuous and are neither capable of, nor desire, committed relationships. However, Trump (or Hitler), being individuals, can be called out for their flaws and failings much more safely.
I had no idea you thought of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity as intellectuals.
Being an intellectual is a deliberate choice. Also, I said that those who weren't involved in hot-button political topics could be trusted. So where are you getting the idea I believe ALL intellectuals are charlatans?
Pundits and journalists do behave in this fashion, but our culture ascribes unassailable moral authority to 'experts'.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,069
That is true, but I still stand that it is a broad, brazen, stereotyped generalization that is unproven and (probably with your available resources and remaining lifespan) unprovable in the absolute, or even near absolute, you've stated it, but is nothing more than clumsy, vitriolic, uninformed, contemptuous, and shallow rhetoric - like the kind that Trump and Hitler (with varying eloquence between them) like to spew.
That would depend on the topic.
Basically, you're saying that I'm making all kinds of claims I can't prove. Your post serves as a good example of what I'm talking about - at least Trump is able to simply say "Fake News Media are making all kinds of claims they can't prove."
It does now?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'm pretty sure that what he was saying about you was a whole lot more offensive than that...and accurate too.
Patine
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2011
- Messages
- 11,069
Except that "Fake News Media" is an arbitrary, unilateral, generalized label Trump just assigns, with no evidence or hard backing, to a huge and very HERTOGENOUS AND DIVERSE field of endeavour with massive variance in opinion, beliefs, conduct, agendas, and even focus, for the purpose of convincing his bran-dead, hypnotized, unquestioning, and often stupid and undereducated cult of personality, and as many other people as possible, that the ENTIRE MEDIA COMPLEX, as whole, solid bloc, is engaged in a deceitful campaign of deception IN SEEMING SOLID CONSENSUS and is an enemy of the nation.
- Status
