Ignores important facts and falsely assumes Hitler to be 100% honest

Yes - good points, well made. I've made it around halfway through this and while very obviously biased there are some interesting points that never seemed to make it into British history lessons (for example that Russia invaded Poland at exactly the same time Germany did, but we only declared war on Germany? And did Serbia really welcome their invasion as liberation after 900 years?).

If you can make it through the dismally amateurish production (interminable scrolling text, droning music, ripped-off films/series) then it provides an interesting counterpoint - but not one that should be entirely relied upon for its veracity!

> It was very interesting to hear the other side. But it's way too one-sided and biased and tries to portray Hitler as a saint who never did anything wrong. Yeah right.

Very weak argument on your part. Basically, you don't believe that anyone or Hitler could be as good as this documentary portrays him, and therefore you assess the documentary as being wrong.

But why don't you consider that your belief may be wrong?

> It also ignores a lot of important facts and distorts events too.

You can't just say that without providing evidence.

> First, it assumes that Hitler was 100 percent honest and never lied...................................

This movie provides a plausible account of history. The thing about history is that we can never know the full and exact truth. History only knows a few details here and there and tries to piece together a narrative that explains them. If you assume someone is lying or truthful or evil or good you can create a different narrative.

Context is key, in my opinion. Would Hitler be lying in private communications, for example? Highly unlikely. Would people be lying in court testimony? Much more likely. Would they lie for tactical advantages, such as to surprise a country with invasion? Certainly.

I don't take issue, as you do, with assuming that much that Hitler said was truthful. I think that the main reason people take issue with this is that they want to arrive at the conclusion that Hitler is an extremely evil and bad man, and the only way they can maintain that in light of many of the things he said is to claim that he was lying.

> Moreover, this documentary is not professionally produced at all.

That's not a valid criticism in my opinion. The main reason why it's not professional produced is that it's such a taboo and censored subject that nobody is allowed to touch professionally.

> It involves no cost, only time.

Time is money....

It's also making no money (unlike most professional productions).

> Furthermore, much of the scrolling text contains assertions and quotes that are not sourced or documented, so their authenticity is suspect. When it comes to text scrolling on the screen, anyone can write anything, it doesn't have to be accurate or sourced.

Hah! I bet you wouldn't even look up the sources if they were referenced.

While writing references for every quote may have assisted you in your verification of the quotes, it also would have detracted somewhat from the movie by cluttering it with references that most people would be too lazy to actually look up.

Luckily, in the modern day we have the internet where you can type any quote into a search engine and get a plethora of information about it, so don't complain that you can't conduct further research into the information provided in this movie -- you most certainly can.

> So the credibility of this documentary is highly suspect.

The credibility of EVERYTHING ought to be suspect. The only reason people tend not to suspect the credibility of something is if it affirms a bias that they already want to believe in (or were indoctrinated to believe in), which is hardly a good reason.

If any of us wanted to get as close to the truth as possible, we'd need to conduct as much personal research and investigation as we can. Unfortunately, most people are lazy or don't have time, so they defer to popular opinion or expert opinion. Those who reject popular and expert (governmental) credibility are usually deemed as "conspiracy theorists" and ostracized from our modern society (even if they were previously considered "experts" themselves).

> However, that doesn't mean that we should adopt the extreme opposite view that Hitler was a saint who did no wrong, as Dennis Wise has.

I disagree. I think that adopting the opposite extreme view can be effective at waking people up. In argument, it's called playing the devil's advocate.

> Neither extreme is accurate.

This is actually a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

> For a more balanced and fair assessment of Hitler, and of his good traits and bad traits, and his complex motivations and character, I suggest you read the book, "Hitler: Beyond Evil and Tyranny" by Professor Stolfi which you can find on Amazon.com.

Thanks for the recommendation. I suggest that everyone research as much as they can to understand all different perspectives/viewpoints and before forming their own opinion.



~ Observe, and act with clarity. ~

"But it's way too one-sided and biased and tries to portray Hitler as a saint who never did anything wrong. Yeah right. It also ignores a lot of important facts and distorts events too. That means it's definitely NOT an objective or unbiased search for the truth."


Well we could definitely say the truth we have been taught has been bias as well and possibly a lie. Of course the enemy of a state in a war is always the "bad guy". And the loser of the war is always the evil country. Your right though this documentary went a little too far on the Hitler loving. However it's refreshing to get a different perspective on WW2. Really makes ya think.

https://media.giphy.com/media/5hHOBKJ8lw9OM/giphy.gif

Max: I've no interest in making the same mistakes Eleanor did. No interest in fencing their plunder!

I completely agree.. I don't think anyone with a brain buys that Hitler was an evil tyrant who ate babies for breakfast but I also don't believe that he had entirely honest intentions or that the holocaust is entirely a product of soviet lies. I think the beginning of this documentary is very informative and Hitler certainly did good things for his people (so long as they were white Christian heterosexuals) but towards the end it became ridiculous and obvious the film maker had their own agenda - I just don't believe that multiculturalism or homosexuality is bringing about the downfall of civilisation. I am sure the war could have been avoided had the treaty of Versailles been more measured but that just doesn't explain away locking up children just because they don't fit into your ideals.. Even if I accept that zyklon b was just to treat diseases (I don't), they shouldn't have been locking innocent people away even if the soviets and others were doing it too..

great assessment. though maybe too far anti hitler pro allies with the stuff on why germany invaded several countries. truth is complex on causes. plenty of things to prove germany was right but theres also a lot of suspect stuff which dont help either sides cause

GSNT is a well put together documentary, great place to start but its far from fountain of truth bible on hitler and ww2 i see people saying it is. as others and you have said its too pro saint savior Hitler.

To know who hitler and elite nsdap was you have to read likes of mein kampf, table talk and the SS literature which was for the elite SS mind. not the stupid pro christian stuff they put out to appease masses

Your not going to watch any documentary and know the full truth on subjects like ww2 and rise of hitler. got to to dig deeper read different sources and perspectives