Kind of like the US marines did on the island of Iwo Jima I guess.
It was the Elbrus and it was/is rather 17000ft. high. German 1st and 4th Gebirgsdivisionen (mountain divisions) climbed only to about 12000 ft. to the Khotiutau pass. Only 21 chosen mountain troopers continued for the peak. BTW, this occured on August 21, 1942, about 5 months before the Stalingrad pocket was closed.
Perhaps they were searching for Noah’s Ark in the Khotiutau pass, and the mountain climbing was an elaborate ploy to distract attention from the search for the Ark.
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?p=387741
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
You got to be kidding I belive in it but in turky?
I was only kidding that, that the Nazis used the mountain expedition as a cover for the search for the Ark but given the quasi mystical elements played a not important role in Nazism it certainly would not surprize me if the Nazis had been looking to find the Ark, though as you say Turkey would be a better bet, if they were looking for it, and that is where they probably would have been looking.
http://www.noahsarksearch.com/
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Nope. Do not like those uniforms. They look like country club waiters with helmets and rifles.
ok this is about ww2…maybe germany lost the war because all of her
allies russia,italy,left 2 go on englands side
Italy left because the Allies invaded and had conquered half the country, and Russia was never really an ally. Germany and Russia signed a non-agression pact, meaning that they wouldn’t go to war against each other.
What about Germany and Russia both invading Poland, Moscow telling the British Communists to sabotage British industries after Britain declares War on the Third Reich, German Panzers runing on Soviet oil during the invasion of the France. The newspaper of the French Communist party telling its members to collaborate with the occupation forces. Etc Etc
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
…
All of that nonwithstanding…
…
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck.
Generals Heinz Guderian (center) and Semyon Krivoshein (right) at the common parade in Brest.
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Well the German helmets were awsome and so were there uniforms!
Adrian,
I just took the beginning of your text to serve as a reference point. Let me see if I can respond to your responses, in response to my responses, in no particular order. (Hey, I’m losing track.)
On Hitler and his inner circle’s dabbling in the occult, I’ll use excerpts from Hitler’s Cross by Erwin W. Lutzer (ISBN 0-8024-3583-1)
· “A Symbol it really is!”, he exclaimed in Mein Kampf. “In red we see the social idea of the movement; in white the nationalistic idea, in the swastika the mission of the struggle for the victory of the Aryan man”. Though the cross of Christ was later embedded within the swastikas that adorned German churches, Hitler was not satisfied. His stated plan was to have the swastika replace the cross of Christ altogether. A new messiah called for a new cross.
· Even those who knew Hitler from his early days were well aware of his occult powers. August Kubizek, a friend, said, “It was as if another being spoke out of his body…It was not a case of a speaker carried away by his own words…I felt as though he himself listened with astonishment and emotion to what broke forth from him”.
· Of course, Hitler had to pay for his power. No one can be in league with Satan “on the cheap”. Rauschning* describes a recurring scenario: “He yells for help…seized with power that makes him tremble so violently his bed shakes…in his bedroom he is muttering…’It is he! He’s here!’ His lips turn blue…He was dripping with sweat…He was given a massage and something to drink…Then all of a sudden he screamed, ‘There! Over there in the corner!’”. *Hermann Rauschning; a friend of Hitler who later defected to the Allies.
· Hitler confided to those who were closest to him that he was under orders from higher beings in his unique mission. “I will tell you a secret,” he told Rauschning, “I am founding an order…the Man-God, that splendid being will be an object of worship…But there are other stages about which I am not permitted to speak.” We can only speculate as to who was forbidding him to reveal more.
I don’t think for a minute you think Hitler was a god. But I think, in many ways if not actually, Hitler thought of himself as a type of god (small “g”). He was a firm believer that providence ruled his destiny as a world leader.
The Serpent’s closing selling point (the biggest lie of all time) that convinced Eve to take the first bite out of the fruit God had forbade her to eat was, “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil”. First Eve, then Adam fell for it, and both were kicked out of Paradise. And no one has been able to return since because now we not only know evil, we do it constantly. That is the consequence of knowing the difference between good and evil. God makes the rules, and there are always dire consequences for breaking them. The “Original (first) Sin”, as it is popularly called, is referred to in Scripture as, “Adam’s sin” because God told Adam not to eat the fruit, and Adam told Eve. God held Adam responsible for Eve’s action because God gave her to him, and the responsibility for her as his “suitable helper”.
About my, “…this is a very dangerous thing to do, regardless” remark. By that, I mean if we rationalize about Hitler’s inner motivations, some day, some how, someone will mistakenly, or on purpose, take your speculations and present them as fact.
Think about it, we are at the mercy of those people who record history, even the eye witnesses (who often prove unreliable), if it is recorded at all. And the more time that passes between then and now, the more it can and does get distorted or lost. Ten thousand years from now archaeologists discover one of our landfills and try to figure out our culture from what remains of our garbage. Even today, there is a cottage industry of “spin doctoring” and rewriting history to suit self-serving agendas. It’s better not to contribute to the distortion of history, albeit unintentionally. Also, if the history we have is incorrect then, the lessons we learn from it will be incorrect, too. I like the way you put it, “…Hitler was a mass murdering psychopath”. That works so, let’s chisel that one in stone and be on the lookout for the next Hitler wannabe.
Last, but by no means least; I’m glad to hear I did not offend you.
If you want to continue this discussion then, we should seek another venue as philosophy and theology is really off topic for this forum.
I differently really agree with you on this one:D
Hi Kent, well I would not worry about continuing this conversation for it is valid enough in the sense one can’t really figure out why Hitler lost the War unless one is investigating what sort of person he was and why he did what he did. Now you are offering a supernatural component to his activities examined from a Christian religious perspective and it would not be my way of looking at things but it is a perfectly legitimate stance, furthermore best practice science as opposed to the bastardized version of science peddled by many scientists will always look at other systems outside of science to see whether they might usefully provide assistance to improve aspects that can be incorporated to advance science. Personally, I don’t believe in evil supernatural forces and if a supreme being created the World, well I do not believe that any of the organized religions Christanity, Judaism and Islam [ I am not commenting on other religions since I do not know enough about them ] are actually revelations from this supreme, if it in facts exists. Therefor, if does not believe in evil supernatural forces then one makes the assumption that even if Hitler thought he was talking to the devil, he was suffering delusions. Really I do not know what people might think 10,000 years from now, though I doubt if they would know or care what I thought. As for the distortion of history, people who are stupid will be stupid and people who want to tell lies will tell lies and really I can’t see that I have made it any easier for stupid people to get the wrong end of the stick, nor can I see I have made it any easier for liars to tell lies. To come back to the supernatural aspect that you suggest played a role in Hitler’s activities, at one stage he was doing pretty well, just after the fall of France in 1940 things seemed to have gone pretty well for him, what happened in the attack on Russia at the stage when the war against the Soviet Union started to go wrong, did the devil get bored or something and decided he wasn’t going to help out Hitler any longer, like I am not being sarcastic I am just trying to workout how this evil supernatural involvement works at a practical level?
Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer
Hey there
How did you get youre pic up there?
I’m game if you are.
OK, so it would appear that my position about one of the main reasons why I believe Hitler “did what he did” hinges on the existence of supernatural powers. The central question being, “Does God exist?”, and If He does, how can that be proven? For those who don’t believe God exists, logic is a good way to argue for His existence using the Bible (God’s own words, given to us by God via human writers) as the Bible is quite logical. The best evidence God provides for His own existence appears in the beginning of the letter to the Roman Church, approximately AD 57, written by the Apostle Paul.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.”
Now, I will bet that quote is not sufficient enough to convince you as it has to be taken in part, by faith. And all it does is swerve us directly into the Creation vs. Evolution debate (aka Intelligent Design vs. Darwin). Yeah, that one has been going on forever.
Most evolutionists eventually take a stand that, "The universe originated when some of the basic elements (carbon, hydrogen, methane, etc.) randomly came together by chance and slowly, over countless eons of time, evolved into what we see, today. However, by using that argument they hoist themselves on their own petard; “So, where did the ‘basic elements’ come from?” You can’t get something, especially the 'very first thing’, from nothing. (When cornered, some of them will resort to ‘extraterrestrial visitors’, but that position contains the exact same flaw.)
Once again, the Bible has the answer in the book of Hebrews, circa 50-69 AD, author unknown, but the consensus is the Apostle Paul:
“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible”
Only God can make something out of nothing because He is in reality the “very first thing”, ie: God is eternal. And yes, that must be taken by faith. But if you can’t believe then, you’re right back to nothing, again.
Another way to approach the question about whether or not to believe in the existence of God is expressed by “Pascal’s Wager”, which I will paraphrase myself, since I could not find an exact quote:
“If I believe God exists and I am wrong, I have lost nothing.
But if I believe God does not exist and I am wrong, I have lost everything.”
-Blaise Pascal – French philosopher, scientist, mathematician and probability theorist (1623-1662)
Wikipedia: Pascal’s Wager (or Pascal’s Gambit) is a suggestion posed by the French philosopher Blaise Pascal that even though the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a person should “wager” as though God exists, because so living has potentially everything to gain, and certainly nothing to lose. It was set out in note 233 of his Pensées, a posthumously published collection of notes made by Pascal in his last years as he worked on a treatise on Christian apologetics.
Historically, Pascal’s Wager was groundbreaking as it charted new territory in probability theory, was one of the first attempts to make use of the concept of infinity, marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated the future philosophies of pragmatism and voluntarism.
Adrian,
I agree with your assessment of Hitler. I don’t think that he was paranoid and I don’t think he had an irrational fear of those he sought to destroy. It is also worth noting that, in spite of the fact that the extermination started with his ideas, he didn’t really oversee much of the operation and he left it to others to do whatever was necessary to accomplish it. In reality, I think that he was rather unpreoccupied with the Final Solution and didn’t give it much thought because others were taking care of it. However, I do think that towards the end, the shock of what was happenning must have rattled him and he may have removed himself from the reality of it all.
On the topic of whether the Germans could have won, I think that the only way that they could have won would have been by taking Moscow the first time. If this would have happened and if the Germans would have treated the people decently, I don’t think that the US would have been so willing to go into war in Europe, regardless of its economic capabilities. Of course, this doesn’t mean that the Germans would have been able to hold on to Russia for an indefinite time. There are inherent problems with ruling over countries that are at considerable distances from the main government. I don’t think that the Russian people would have taken German rule for a long time.
Less of a wager, more of a cop out.
As Bertrand Russell said in a debate about these issues, it is all predicated upon accepting the bible as the word of god to prove that god exists. If the debaters don’t accept that position, then the bible is irrelevant to any discussion about the existence of god.
In the absence of the bible, where is the logic which proves the existence of the god presented in the bible?
If the bible is the source of belief and logic, what qualifies it with its various versions of a god as more believable and logical than a host of other beliefs about various sorts of other gods in other cultures?
It all comes back to belief, which is the opposite of logic.
So where is the logical consistency in the old testament’s fire and brimstone approach which is consistent with the new testament’s softer teachings of Christ? At the simplest level, an eye for an eye (and stoning an errant ox and stoning the owner of an errant ox to death in the same passage in Exodus) compared with turning the other cheek?
And where is the logic in any of that in the world at large?
If there is no god and no afterlife, then someone who lives life as if there is one and lives in accordance with the bible might well lose out during the only life they have by denying themselves various experiences and pleasures.
It is just as logical, and just as sensible in probability, to take the 50/50 position and live life as if there is no god. And have a hell of a lot more fun during one’s existence.