• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

History Rewritten: Myths Busted & New Truths Uncovered

Adolf Hitler 'was not a brave soldier' claims new book

Hitler's wartime role is challenged in Dr Thomas Weber's book
Adolf Hitler's image as a brave soldier was a myth, according to a University of Aberdeen historian.

Dr Thomas Weber's book Hitler's First War claims Hitler exaggerated his early role in battle, and that he was instead what was known as a "rear area pig".

Dr Weber said he had uncovered new archive material and personal documents which challenged popular understanding of Hitler and the Third Reich.

He said: "I discovered we know next to nothing about Hitler."

Continue reading the main story
Related stories

'Pink Hitler' advert row in Italy
Mein Kampf a hit on Dhaka streets
Dr Weber claims the Nazis worked to suppress and discredit accounts of Hitler's early war role.

He said as a dispatch runner Hitler was significantly distanced from his regiment's front line troops and was clearly despised by them.

Dr Weber said: "I never thought I would write about Hitler as so many books have been written about his life.

Continue reading the main story
“
Start Quote


Virtually everything that we do know is based on Mein Kampf or Nazi propaganda”

Dr Thomas Weber'
"But virtually everything that we do know is based on Mein Kampf or Nazi propaganda.

"I was surprised how much new material we found and more than 70% of my book is based on previously unused sources."

He said: "The myth of Hitler as a brave soldier and the camaraderie of the trenches was used by the Nazi party from the beginning in order to extend its appeal beyond the far right.

"The reality was a gulf between the majority of soldiers and Hitler. The commonly held view that Hitler had the dangerous job of running between trenches to deliver messages simply does not stand up.

"I found that his role was to deliver messages between regimental HQ and, for instance, battalions or the HQs of other units, and not companies, as has previously been stated - so he would have been between three and five kilometres behind the front line."

Hitler's First War will be available from 16 September.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-n ... d-10999181
Click to expand...
 
mmm i am sure he won a medal for bravery, rescuing his officer while under fire,you can be brave and still be an evil bastard.
 
Yes he was awarded the Iron Cross in 1914, the German medal for bravery.
 
Kondoru said:
wasnt he badly wounded once?
Click to expand...
I think that was the origin of

"Hitler, he only had one ....!"

(I expect wiki has a page on it somewhere! :D )
 
Hitler was quite badly wounded in the First World War when carrying messages between trenches.
 
This is like talking about if he was a good artist or not.

He was a better artist than I am
 
Being badly wounded doesn´t mean you´re brave though, just that you were in the wrong place at the wrong time. :D
 
No, and being a coward doesnt exclude you from a successful po.litical career.

(and an illustrious millitary career is just what the Nazis wanted...we dont have to believe that. They could have portrayed him as a climber for all we cared)
 
As Rich Hall said about him 'the more I hear about this guy, the less I like him'
 
Anybody who carries on whilst the enemy are shooting at him is a "brave soldier" in my book, you don't need to drag little orphans to safety with your teeth to be a hero. I doubt I'd have had the courage to do anything else than hide in my bunker, they could have taken their own fucking messages to HQ! Hitler was obviously pretty close to the action, close enough to get temporarily blinded by poison gas (which, incidentally, was first used by the British, not the dastardly Hun). As far as I'm concerned, he earned his medals, I'd have been at home, AWOL, hiding under my Mummy's table.

It's also no surprise that this historian believes that Hitler was "despised" by his fellow soldiers, around about May 1945 it became mysteriously difficult to find anyone who had a good word to say about him, suddenly everyone thought he was a rotter, and apparently always had done, few would admit to being avid supporters in the past. It was a different story in 1933, they all thought the sun shone out of his arse.
 
I guess, as i think someone pointed out on the Saddam Hussain execution thread, that good people don't have a monopoly on bravery, or other positive attributes for that matter.

He certainly was competent, unfortunately.
 
Was poison gas not used 1st by the Germans at ypres in the spring of 1915,the British army using it in the summer of 1915 at loos?
 
I saw some History Channel programme about it being used in ancient times. I sadly can´t remember the details.
 
The fortean times had an article about some roman soldiers that had been digging a mine under a persian city,and been gassed by the Persians,but i cant remember the details. :cry:
 
Very interesting...

Titanic sunk by steering blunder, new book claims
It was always thought the Titanic sank because its crew were sailing too fast and failed to see the iceberg before it was too late.
By Richard Alleyne
Published: 10:55PM BST 21 Sep 2010

But now it has been revealed they spotted it well in advance but still steamed straight into it because of a basic steering blunder.

According to a new book, the ship had plenty of time to miss the iceberg but the helmsman panicked and turned the wrong way.

By the time the catastrophic error was corrected it was too late and the side of the ship was fatally holed by the iceberg.

Even then the passengers and crew could have been saved if it had stayed put instead of steaming off again and causing water to pour into the broken hull.

The revelation, which comes out almost 100 years after the disaster, was kept secret until now by the family of the most senior officer to survive the disaster.

Second Officer Charles Lightoller covered up the error in two inquiries on both sides of the Atlantic because he was worried it would bankrupt the liner's owners and put his colleagues out of job.

Since his death – by then a war hero from the Dunkirk evacuation – it has remained hidden for fear it would ruin his reputation.

But now his granddaughter the writer Lady (Louise) Patten has revealed it in her new novel.
"It just makes it seem all the more tragic," she said.
"They could easily have avoided the iceberg if it wasn't for the blunder."

The error on the ship's maiden voyage between Southampton and New York in 1912 happened because at the time seagoing was undergoing enormous upheaval because of the conversion from sail to steam ships.

The change meant there was two different steering systems and different commands attached to them.
Some of the crew on the Titanic were used to the archaic Tiller Orders associated with sailing ships and some to the more modern Rudder Orders.
Crucially, the two steering systems were the complete opposite of one another.

So a command to turn "hard a starboard" meant turn the wheel right under the Tiller system and left under the Rudder.

When First Officer William Murdoch spotted the iceberg two miles away, his "hard a-starboard" order was misinterpreted by the Quartermaster Robert Hitchins.

He turned the ship right instead of left and, even though he was almost immediately told to correct it, it was too late and the side of the starboard bow was ripped out by the iceberg.

"The steersman panicked and the real reason why Titanic hit the iceberg, which has never come to light before, is because he turned the wheel the wrong way," said Lady Patten who is the wife of former Tory Education minister, Lord (John) Patten.

Whilst her grandfather Lightoller was not on watch at the time of the collision, her book Good as Gold reveals that a dramatic final meeting of the four senior officers took place in the First Officer’s cabin shortly before Titanic went down.

There, Lightoller heard not only about the fatal mistake, but also what happened next, up on the bridge.

While Hitchins had made a straightforward error, what followed was a deliberate decision.

Bruce Ismay, chairman of Titanic’s owner, the White Star Line, persuaded the Captain to continue sailing.

For ten minutes, Titanic went "Slow Ahead" through the sea.

This added enormously to the pressure of water flooding through the damaged hull, forcing it up and over the watertight bulkheads, sinking Titanic many hours earlier than she otherwise would have done.

"Ismay insisted on keeping going, no doubt fearful of losing his investment and damaging his company’s reputation,” said Lady Patten.

"The nearest ship was four hours away. Had she remained at ‘Stop’, it’s probable that Titanic would have floated until help arrived."

The truth of what happened on that historic night was deliberately buried.

Lightoller, the only survivor who knew precisely what had happened, and who would later go on to be a twice-decorated war hero, decided to hide what he knew from the world, including two official inquiries into the sinking.

etc...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... laims.html
 
How soon after that did the orders become standardised to the Tiller system? Or are there still some that adhere to rudder?
 
stuneville said:
How soon after that did the orders become standardised to the Tiller system? Or are there still some that adhere to rudder?
Click to expand...
I don't know the dates, but IIRC as wheels became more necessary to control the rudder in larger vessels they were often connected to mimic the action of the tiller - ie, to turn to starboard the tiller has to be pushed to port, and so the early wheels also had to be turned to port.

I suspect the article has got the names muddled: what I have just described would logically be named the Tiller system.

What is almost universal nowadays is the opposite - to turn to starboard the wheel is turned to starboard, which also turns the rudder to starboard. Hence the Rudder system would be the logical name.

I'll see if I can find out more.
 
This Wiki article doesn't add much more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_wheel_(ship)

This is more useful (dates included). It also dicusses the Titanic incident:
Tiller orders

Until the current international standards were applied in the 1930s, it was common for steering orders on ships to be given as "Tiller Orders", i.e. the order given dictated which side of the vessel the tiller was to be moved. Since the tiller's movement is reversed at the rudder, orders were seemingly given "the wrong way round". For example, to turn a ship to port (its left side), the helmsman would be given the order "starboard helm" or "x degrees starboard". The ship's tiller was then put over to the side ordered, turning the rudder to the vessel's port side, producing a turn to port.

When large steamships appeared in the late 19th century with telemotors hydraulically connecting the wheel on the bridge to the steering gear at the stern, the practice continued. However the helmsman was now no longer directly controlling the tiller, and the ship's wheel was simply turned in the desired direction (turn the wheel to port and the ship will go to port). Tiller Orders remained however: although many maritime nations had abandoned the convention by the end of the 19th century, Britain retained it until 1933 and the U.S. merchant marine until 1935.[1] One of the reasons for this system continuing, apart from it being a long-established maritime tradition, was that it provided consistency - regardless of whether a vessel was steered directly by the tiller or remotely by a wheel every vessel had a tiller of some sort and so a tiller order remained true for any vessel.

A well-known and often-depicted example occurred on the RMS Titanic in 1912 when she collided with an iceberg. The iceberg appeared directly in front of the Titanic. Her officer-of-the-watch, First Officer William Murdoch, decided to attempt to clear the berg by swinging the ship to its port side. He ordered 'Hard-a-Starboard', which was a Tiller Order. The helmsman turned the wheel to port as far as it would go. The Titanic's steering gear pushed the tiller over to the starboard side of the ship, causing the rudder to swing over to port, causing the vessel to turn port. These actions are faithfully portrayed in the 1997 film of the disaster. Although frequently described as an error, it is correct.

Although this system seems confusing and contradictory today, to generations of sailors trained on sailing vessels with tiller steering it seemed perfectly logical and was instinctively understood by all seafarers. Only when new generations of sailors trained on ships with wheel-and-tiller steering came into the industry was the system replaced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiller
Click to expand...
 
The Guardian version:

...
That Titanic hit the iceberg could be down to a misunderstanding. Because the ship sailed during the transition from sail to steam there were two different steering communication systems in operation: rudder orders for steamships, and tiller orders for sailing ships. "The two steering systems were the complete opposite of one another," said Patten. "So a command to turn 'hard a-starboard' meant turn the wheel right under one system and left under the other."

The man at the wheel, Quartermaster Robert Hitchins, was trained under rudder orders – but tiller orders were still in use in the north Atlantic. So when First Officer William Murdoch first spotted the iceberg and gave a 'hard a-starboard' order, a panicked Hitchins turned the liner into the course of the iceberg.

"The real reason why Titanic hit the iceberg is because he turned the wheel the wrong way," said Patten. By the time the error had been corrected, two minutes had been lost. Nothing could stop the iceberg breaching the hull.

Lightoller was also privy to shocking decisions that followed. Shortly before the Titanic went down, there was a final meeting of four senior officers in the First Officer's cabin. It was there that Lightoller heard of the communication mistake. He also discovered that after the iceberg struck, the captain, Edward Smith, was persuaded to keep sailing by the chairman of White Star Line, Bruce Ismay, perhaps fearful of damaging the company's reputation.

"My grandfather described the decision to try and keep Titanic moving forward as criminal," said Patten. Pressing on added to the pressure of water in the hull, forcing it over the bulkheads and sinking the ship many hours earlier than it would otherwise have sunk.

...

The claims, of course, are just that. They are another story adding to the mountain of theories that have been suggested for nearly a century.

Michael McCaughan, a maritime specialist who has been writing about Titanic for 30 years, said it was not the first time he had heard claims around the rudder/tiller orders. "In the Titanic world, it's always been one of those things that's referred to.

"But of course, as we come up to the centenary, this is clearly interesting. It's a new piece of aural evidence coming in to the public sphere and it will give rise to a lot of discussion and debate. People are still fascinated by Titanic because it's like a parable of the human condition, it's a story of profit, pleasure and memorialisation."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/se ... n-officers
 
As a foot-note* to the subject of steering ships, I once encountered some scale model 12 metre sailing boats. These were just big enough to hold one person each, with just their head and shoulders above the deck. You used your hands to control the sails, but steering was by foot pedals! I forget now which pedal you had to press for a turn to port, but I found it very counter intuitive! We had several races in these little boats, and in the excitement of close quarters racing it was easy to press the wrong pedal! If there'd been an iceberg around, I could well have hit it!

* Pun intended! ;)
 
Here we go again. Full texy at link.

Texas weighs bid to rid schools of 'pro-Islam' books
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11402606

Open book Supporters say the resolution is needed to warn publishers not to print "anti-Christian" books

The Texas school board is set to vote on a resolution urging publishers to keep "pro-Islamic/anti-Christian" language out of textbooks in the state.

Among other complaints, the non-binding decree says some textbooks devote more lines to Islam than to Christianity and print "whitewashes" of Islamic culture.

Critics say it relies on a flawed reading of books that are out of use.

In May, the panel adopted guidelines that critics said injected conservative political ideas into the curriculum.

The measure, on which the Texas Board of Education will vote on Friday in the state capital of Austin, is drafted by Randy Rives, a businessman and former school official in the Texas city of Odessa.

Supporters say the resolution is needed to warn textbook publishers not to print "anti-Christian" books if they want to sell them to Texas schools.

"It's the pro-Islamic, anti-Christian teachings in these books, that is what we are concerned about," Mr Rives told the BBC.

"We're teaching double the beliefs and specifics about another religion than we are about Christianity, which is the foundation of our country."

The Texas Freedom Network, an organisation that says it promotes religious freedom and individual liberties and opposes "the religious right", accused the Texas board of manufacturing controversy instead of focusing on education. It said the resolution relied on a flawed reading of textbooks that overlooked certain passages.
Click to expand...
 
But dont children have the church and family to teach them about xtianity?

and RE for the other stuff?

(This is presupposing kids even bother to read textbooks...)
 
The Titanic story is bunkum. 6th Officer Moody was standing by Quartermaster Hitchens and his job was to make sure that the helm orders were being carried our correctly. And, although the Titanic did steam again a few minutes after the collision, Ismay was not on the bridge. He was in his stateroom, two decks below.

As for Syliva Lightoller's veracity as a witness, heres a post I made on a Titanic forum:
http://titanic-model.com/dc/dcboard.php ... 38424&page

-in short, someone's got a book to sell, and big claims mean big sales.
 
Jane Austen's style might not be hers, academic claims
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-11610489

Jane Austen Austen completed six novels in her lifetime

The elegant writing style of novelist Jane Austen may have been the work of her editor, an academic has claimed.

Professor Kathryn Sutherland of Oxford University reached her conclusion while studying 1,100 original handwritten pages of Austen's unpublished writings.

The manuscripts, she states, feature blots, crossing outs and "a powerful counter-grammatical way of writing".

She adds: "The polished punctuation and epigrammatic style we see in Emma and Persuasion is simply not there."

Professor Sutherland of the Faculty of English Language and Literature claims her findings refute the notion of Austen as "a perfect stylist".

It suggests, she continues, that someone else was "heavily involved" in the editing process.

She believes that person to be William Gifford, an editor who worked for Austen's publisher John Murray II.
Continue reading the main story
Analysis
Rebecca Jones Arts correspondent, BBC News

Jane Austen is widely celebrated as a supreme stylist - a writer of perfectly polished sentences.

Yet after studying more than a thousand handwritten pages of the novelist's unpublished manuscripts, Professor Kathryn Sutherland of Oxford University has concluded that Austen's style was far more free-flowing and featured a limited range of punctuation.

Letters between Austen's publisher and an editor who worked with him acknowledge the untidiness of her writing.

According to Professor Sutherland, they suggest it was the editor who then intervened to sharpen the prose of one of English Literature's most popular writers.

The research formed part of an initiative to create an online archive of all of Austen's handwritten fiction manuscripts.

The three-year project - in which King's College London, the Bodleian Library in Oxford and the British Library in London were involved - is due to be launched on 25 October.

Professor Sutherland, an Austen authority, said studying her unpublished manuscripts gave her "a more intimate appreciation" of the author's talents.

The manuscripts, she went on, "reveal Austen to be an experimental and innovative writer, constantly trying new things."

They also show her "to be even better at writing dialogue and conversation than the edited style of her published novels suggest."

Jane Austen (1775-1817) completed six novels in her lifetime, two of which were published posthumously.

************************

Rebecca Jones Arts correspondent, BBC News

Jane Austen is widely celebrated as a supreme stylist - a writer of perfectly polished sentences.

Yet after studying more than a thousand handwritten pages of the novelist's unpublished manuscripts, Professor Kathryn Sutherland of Oxford University has concluded that Austen's style was far more free-flowing and featured a limited range of punctuation.

Letters between Austen's publisher and an editor who worked with him acknowledge the untidiness of her writing.

According to Professor Sutherland, they suggest it was the editor who then intervened to sharpen the prose of one of English Literature's most popular writers.
Click to expand...
 
Revealed: How British spy lured Hitler's deputy to Britain where he was imprisoned for life
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:59 AM on 26th October 2010

It has been one of of the enduring mysteries of World War Two - why did Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess come to Britain?
Now a new book claims to have solved the riddle - and revealed how a heroic spy played a huge part in his capture.

Cunning MI6 agent Tancred Borenius tricked Hess into visiting Britain on the pretence of brokering a peace deal.
However Hess was captured and spend the rest of his life behind bars - 'considerably' weakening the German Army and 'directly contributing to the Allied victory' according to the book's author, John Harris.

The revelations come in Mr Harris' new book, titled Rudolf Hess: The British Illusion of Peace, which is published this week.
Mr Harris has spent nearly two decades researching the book and during that time interview the surviving families of dozens of British agents.
Earlier this year he established that Mr Borenius, a Finish born agent, was involved, something that has never been revealed until now.

The revelation came after Mr Harris secured a rare interview with Mr Borenius' late son Peter.
During the interview, Peter said that his father remained tight-lipped about his wartime exploits, but revealed his involvement in the Hess affair on his deathbed.
He said his father was sent by MI6 to Geneva, Switzerland, to deliver a secret message to Hess via a third party.
The message was a verbal invite to visit the English Royal Family on the pretext of forging an Anglo-Nazi alliance.

It was always Hitler's ideal plan to work with Britain, rather than fight it, in a bid to overthrow and conquer Russia.
'Tancred was key in giving Hitler hope that Britain was interested in joining an alliance,' said Mr Harris

But in a twist, Harris believes Hess was double-bluffing and claims he had no intention of forming an alliance, and had always planned to use the visit to bring about the collapse of the government.
'From my research, I have concluded that Hess wanted nothing other than to bring Britain to its knees,' Harris said.
'His intention was to depose Churchill, who would never agree to peace with Germany, and replace him with a pro-Nazi leader.'

Mr Harris said the link was one of the most important discoveries in modern military history.
He continued: 'This is the answer people have been looking for since the 1940s. My research confirms, categorically, that Tancred Borenius played a pivotal role in winning the war.
'He convinced Hitler's second-in-command to visit the UK and, when he was here, had him captured and imprisoned.
'The incredible plot that led to Hess's capture bought the UK time from a planned German invasion and ultimately was a pivotal turning point in defeating Hitler and winning the war.
'Without Tancred's involvement, there can be little doubt that Great Britain, and much of Europe, would be speaking German today.

Rudolph Hess was a prominent Nazi official acting as Adolf Hitler's deputy in the Nazi Party.
He became one of the war's most mysterious figures from the moment he flew solo into Scotland on the night of May 1941.
He was captured by Allied Forces on the ground near Glasgow after his plane ran out of fuel, forcing him to parachute to safety.

Hess himself never fully revealed the reason he visited Scotland, though it was widely reported that he had planned to broker a secret peace deal.
On Hess' arrest, Hitler claimed he had gone AWOL, while Prime Minister Winston Churchill maintained he was 'something of an envoy'.
MI6 records on the Hess affair have never been released and other 'key documents' are said to have gone missing.'

Hess was kept imprisoned in the Tower of London until after the war when he was moved to Spandau Prison, in Berlin, where he was kept in isolation until his death in 1987.
The official line is that he committed suicide, hanging himself with an electrical cord. He was an invalid 93-year-old man at the time.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z13RoAxrEW

There was once a theory that the man in Spandau was not the real Rudolf Hess: I thought we had a Conspiracy thread on it, but I can only find a few mentions of Hess on FTMB...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top