without moustache for real


Hitler as a school boy, 10 years old in 1899, portrait



Hitler's class photo of 1901 as a 12 years old school boy. He was with Ludwig Wittgenstein in the same school desk

http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/eu/oe/Palomino_Hitler-verhetztes-kind-ENGL.html



emo hitler

Oh. I'm shocked.

Now that (if true) is shocking.

I don't buy it.

devogue wrote:

Now that (if true) is shocking.

I don't buy it.

what..that he didn't have a moustache at twelve ?

Wikipedia says, an expert says, that's not Wittgenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wit ... and_Hitler

NineBerry wrote:Wikipedia says, an expert says, that's not Wittgenstein

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wit ... and_Hitler

what a bad time to live for someone like wittkenstein,never mind going to the same school as hitler

Matt_B wrote:

devogue wrote:

devogue wrote:Now Heydrich always looked seriously evil - there's a really unsettling bit of footage of him in full SS garb walking towards a film camera and the look on his face is somehow incredibly disturbing.

Just found that footage here:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nZ2HBTv1hE[/youtube]

Watch from 1:08

I wouldn't blame the cameraman if he wet himself and started crying.

That's rather evil, I'll grant you.

Still, take away all that we know about Heydrich as a person and all the Nazi imagery, and he's not exactly a bad-looking chap; very much an ideal for the aspiring young men of 1930s Germany, I'd have thought. Then again, maybe that just makes him all the more disturbing to look at?

Himmler, on the other hand, leaves me struggling to find a photograph that's not of "criminal record" quality.

Heydrich looks like Christopher Eccleston in a bad mood.

So how's he doing on Hot or Not?

NineOneFour wrote:So how's he doing on Hot or Not?

Apparently as hot as a crematorium...

devogue wrote:

Now that (if true) is shocking.

I don't buy it.

I would love some confirmation on this picture.

that kid does look a bit hitlerish

Sgt Kelly wrote:Didn't the movie 'Der Untergang' get into trouble in Germany because it portrayed Hitler as too human ?

Yup. People wanting the raving, carpet-chewing monster Hollywood Hitler were put off when he was shown as a considerate boss, and with the frailties of humans. The famous rant scene, plus some (genuine) lines about the necessity of his deeds, makes the effect all the more chilling, though - here's a man who can appear kind, and in the next second saying things like that the German race doesn't deserve to survive if it is overwhelmed by subhumans. The movie is excellent.

Varangian wrote:

Sgt Kelly wrote:Didn't the movie 'Der Untergang' get into trouble in Germany because it portrayed Hitler as too human ?

Yup. People wanting the raving, carpet-chewing monster Hollywood Hitler were put off when he was shown as a considerate boss, and with the frailties of humans. The famous rant scene, plus some (genuine) lines about the necessity of his deeds, makes the effect all the more chilling, though - here's a man who can appear kind, and in the next second saying things like that the German race doesn't deserve to survive if it is overwhelmed by subhumans. The movie is excellent.

I imagine in all honesty that was closer to the real Hitler. In Hitler's table talk, he's sitting around chatting and telling jokes. You want creepy, that's creepy.

Human monsters are rarely 100% monstrous - otherwise no one would follow them. The monsters also always believe that the Other Guys are the monsters and they themselves are only doing what is necessary/right/God-willed, etc.

As a side note: I was asked by a professor if Stalin and Hitler had actually done anything good.

It was a bit of an odd question and I was hard pressed for an answer.

Many like to assume Hitler was a lunatic and feeble minded. History proves otherwise. It’s difficult to be objective because if anyone says anything positive about him, they’re assumed to be a neo-Nazi or that they secretly admire him.

History must be objective, and above all, honest. Even a man like Hitler needs to be studied with an open mind. To dismiss him as an idiot is not dong history, it’s character assassination based upon feelings, not truth.

The museum, while acknowledging the tragedy that over 50 million people died during World War 2, retains its non-biased status by refraining from making political judgments of any sort. Neither does it make the standard, uninformative, and cliched historical judgement that the victor of the war was "good" and that the loser of the war was "bad." Instead, all materials and resources are provided as a documentation of the time period and as scholastic resources with notes for clarification. No biased judgments, slanderous labels or childish name calling exist here as they do in most of the writings on this topic.

http://www.hitler.org/




To 914:
Excellent post topic and picture. I’ve looked at that picture over and over again, There’s no way to describe it but… weird!

I thought I’d know Hitler to see him had I lived during that time, I would have bet money on it. Without the moustache however, I would have walked past him on the street totally unaware who he was. I’ve asked myself, ‘How can such a small feature make such a huge difference?’

I can’t answer that, but it’s eerie how that would almost grant him anonymity in a crowd.

Skinny Puppy wrote:As a side note: I was asked by a professor if Stalin and Hitler had actually done anything good.

It was a bit of an odd question and I was hard pressed for an answer.

Many like to assume Hitler was a lunatic and feeble minded. History proves otherwise. It’s difficult to be objective because if anyone says anything positive about him, they’re assumed to be a neo-Nazi or that they secretly admire him.

History must be objective, and above all, honest. Even a man like Hitler needs to be studied with an open mind. To dismiss him as an idiot is not dong history, it’s character assassination based upon feelings, not truth.

The museum, while acknowledging the tragedy that over 50 million people died during World War 2, retains its non-biased status by refraining from making political judgments of any sort. Neither does it make the standard, uninformative, and cliched historical judgement that the victor of the war was "good" and that the loser of the war was "bad." Instead, all materials and resources are provided as a documentation of the time period and as scholastic resources with notes for clarification. No biased judgments, slanderous labels or childish name calling exist here as they do in most of the writings on this topic.

http://www.hitler.org/




To 914:
Excellent post topic and picture. I’ve looked at that picture over and over again, There’s no way to describe it but… weird!

I thought I’d know Hitler to see him had I lived during that time, I would have bet money on it. Without the moustache however, I would have walked past him on the street totally unaware who he was. I’ve asked myself, ‘How can such a small feature make such a huge difference?’

I can’t answer that, but it’s eerie how that would almost grant him anonymity in a crowd.

Hitler helped build the autobahn, and therefore is indirectly responsible for the US Interstate Highway System.

No, really.

NineOneFour wrote:I imagine in all honesty that was closer to the real Hitler. In Hitler's table talk, he's sitting around chatting and telling jokes. You want creepy, that's creepy.

The same thing is also shown in his public persona at the time, too. Most of the time, he wasn't ranting behind a podium; pictures & videos of him were like those of any other politician, just walking around talking to people or listening to them, shaking hands, smiling, and such. Even during speeches at a podium, he didn't spend the whole time screaming. The ranting clips we see now for a few seconds at a time are chosen to represent the way he's thought of now, not to represent what was actually going on during the majority of a speech. An effective speech-maker (which he was) knows you can't be yelling the whole time. You have to set up brief emotional outbursts like that with calmer, quieter intervals first.

FIFY

HughMcB wrote:

devogue wrote:

Now that (if true) is shocking.

I don't buy it.

I would love some confirmation on this picture.

from what i've read on the wiki page that nineberry linked to,these two were in the same school but not in the same class as their age would suggest.

Wittgenstein and Hitler were born just six days apart, though Hitler had been held back a year, while Wittgenstein was moved forward by one, so they ended up two grades apart at the Realschule.[31] Monk estimates they were both at the school during the 1904–1905 school year, but says there is no evidence they had anything to do with each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein#Jewish_background_and_Hitler

devogue wrote:

Now that (if true) is shocking.

I don't buy it.

I've got that full class photo in a book called The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich with a great bit of predictive labelling.

Below: Group photograph taken at Linz. Hitler back row, far right.

Coincidence?!


Yeah, I'm pretty certain.