4 ms·
Interesting that the article seems to state that Hitler AND Luddendorf had led the Beer Hall Putsch, as my understanding is that he sorta fell into it and was p
by jszymborski 10y ago
Interesting that the article seems to state that Hitler AND Luddendorf had led the Beer Hall Putsch, as my understanding is that he sorta fell into it and was pawned.
While Luddendorf was certainly in agreement of Hitler's rhetoric re: restoring Germany's former military might, my understanding was that Luddendorf's role in the Beer Hall Putsch consisted of Hitler waving a gun at him, putting him in another room when he refused to join his movement, and announcing to the audience gathered at the Beer Hall that he Luddendorf had agreed to lead the rebellion.
Luddendorf then agreed to it when he saw the support, and the following day when shooting broke out at a police standoff with some couple thousand Nazi's, Luddendorf strode through the volley of bullets to the police line where he surrendered himself promptly.
Or atleast that was the narrative that was presented to me in William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
It still amazes me today how anyone could walk away from such an incredibly embarrassing failure as the Beer Hall Putsch, but it seems to have been something of an acceptable occurrence at the time. I mean, Hitler often spoke as death as the only alternative to him achieving his revolution, but ran off after the first shot was fired to his country home!
Hitler was even received well when he was tried, and given a very lenient sentence. I guess for Germany coming out of WWI, violence was a far more acceptable and commonplace thing than it is in my world
- bebopfunk 10y agoI believe you care correct about Luddendorf. That was the narrative outlined in 1924: The Year That Made Hitler, if Peter Ross Range is to be believed.
- erikb 10y agoDon't believe secondary source A more because you've found secondary source B agreeing with it. To really validate a statement you need to figure out source A's primary source, e.g. a police report of the event. Then compare it to primary source of B. You may end up seeing that both A and B are actually referring to an unchecked secondary source themselves, maybe even the same.
- bebopfunk 10y agoA valid point if I was working on any academic research. Or if the history carried any relevancy beyond a curiosity. I understand the concern with secondary source, however that was specifically why I added a disclaimer stating "if that author is to believed", or something to that effect. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to explain your concern as it may help others.
- erikb 10y agoWell, nobody asks you to write scientific papers if you don't want to. However, don't believe the story about Luddendorf is correct, just because you've read it in another secondary source. The level of doubt about the first mention should stay exactly the same as long as nobody has done some background checking.
- bebopfunk 10y agoThey could both be citing different primary sources, did you ever stop to consider that? Or were you busy stuffing that strawman? Let me know when you've checked the primary source on both. Then I'll listen to your pedanticism. Until then you're being just as speculative as I am. Except, I at least cited a source and provided a disclaimer for the information I posted.
- erikb 10y agoA) Yeah, they could have, true. I also could become a billionaire tomorrow at 10:31 am. But the probability is so close towards 0% that it's much smarter to not assume it. B) Strawmans are awesome. Don't dare to criticise my strawman. I'm an artist! C) Yes, adding more reading material is always nice, and none of my comments was supposed to discredit that. Thanks for adding it. D) Still, don't increase your hopes because you've read another secondary source.
- digi_owl 10y agoMakes me think of similar events that played out in Japan. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_15_Incident
- JetSpiegel 10y ago> Aside from the murder of the prime minister, the attempted coup d'état came to nothing, and the rebellion as a whole proved a failure. The participants took a taxi to the police headquarters and surrendered themselves to the Kempeitai without a struggle. Did they wore clown shoes too? This seems almost to silly to be true.