Hitler's foreign policy aims

[michael mills]

Hitler.............. had made a similar remark about the success of the 'extermination' of the Armenians in a newspaper interview in 1931: see Edouard Calic, Unmasked: Two Confidential Interviews with Hitler (Chatto & Windus 1971), p 81.

Calic is a discredited source, and is strongly suspected of manufacturing and/or falsifying documents.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edouard_Calic

His book "Unmasked" purports to present two previously unknown records of interviews with Hitler by a certain Richard Breiting, a Leipzig journalist. Apart from Calic's book there is no independent evidence that any such interviews had taken place, and doubt was cast on the authenticity of the alleged records of interview by the historians Trevor-Roper, Mommsen and Tobias.

It is a measure of Robertson's lack of historical objectivity that he resorts to such a dubious source as Calic.

[sarahgoodson]

It needs to be borne in mind that the chapters on foreign policy in Part II, in which the well-known Lebensraum ideas were espoused, as well as his so-called "Second Book", were most probably ghost-written by a person who had absorbed the geopolitical ideas of the Haushofers, the most likely candidate being Rudolf Hess, who had studied under the Haushofers at Munich University.

The Second Book was written by Hitler himself between late July and early June 1928.

Hess wrote in a letter dated June 16, 1928 concerning a request for an appointment for Bernhard Hust with a reply that "Herr Hitler is likely to be in Berlin for several days at the beginning of July.. A visit by Pg. [National Socialist party member] Rust can hardly be considered earlier, as Herr Hitler will probably be away from Munich until his trip to Berlin, in order to write his book."

[michael mills]

The letter by Hess does not make it impossible for large parts of the so-called Second Book to have been ghost-written.

What can be said with reasonable confidence is that Hitler commissioned the writing of the book, mainly for the purpose of opposing the factions in the German right-wing nationalist parties that wanted to promote hostility to Italy over the South Tyrol issue, since he was a strong proponent of gaining Italy as an ally, as propounded in "Mein Kampf".

In any case, if parts of the "Second Book" had been initially drafted by someone other than Hitler, Hess would have been hardly likely to admit that openly in a letter, since the image of Hitler as the formulator of all National Socialist policy needed to be maintained.

What happened in the period June-July 1928 is most probably that Hitler was engaged in assembling the text of the "Second Book" out of material contributed by a geopolitical theoretician, perhaps Hess, perhaps even Haushofer, together with his own thoughts on the South Tyrol issue, and putting it into his own preferred style.

There remains the question of why the book was never published, with the text itself never being put into a final, publishable form. One possible explanation is that Hitler was dissatisfied with the text, regarding it as too theoretical and prescriptive, and not wanting to be tied down to any foreign policy line. He always regarded himself as a "man of action" rather than as a "man of ideas", and in foreign policy, although he had the firm essential goal of building a powerful Germany and establishing its hegemony over Europe, he wanted to keep his hands free to follow any course that would lead to the achievement of that goal.

[michael mills]

With regard to Hitler's speech on 22 August 1939, there are references to it in certain contemporary diaries that enable a better understanding of what Hitler actually said and meant. Extracts from those diaries are at this source:

https://www2.bc.edu/~heineman/roadiv.html

22 August 1939 Engel Diary Entry

Führer expressed himself this evening as reassured and impressed after his speech to the Commanding Generals. He requested Schmundt once again to get a reading of the reaction from the generals. As a group they are a unique body. The Führer believes himself to be a really good psychologist of people, and in his meetings (no matter whether before the people or before his party comrades ) he always knows whether or not his words are having an effect. It is quite a different thing with these old officers, who put on a rigid, masked face from which no one can learn anything. The same thing happened to him again today.

Politically, he told us again that he was convinced that Poland would remain isolated. England and France were only bluffing, and he had no intention of getting himself involved in negotiations with these countries in the near future. If England leaves him in peace, he will do nothing against her. France is another story entirely. The settlement of Alsace-Lorraine is still outstanding. While that is a case for later worries, it will one day have to be cleared up....

The Führer repeated that he now looked more quietly upon developments than he had for some months. The fronts were now drawn, and the other side can choose. His greatest fear is that some "stupid emotional acrobat would approach him with weak-kneed proposals" in the last minute and thus destroy his whole game plan and force him once again to give in.

24 August 1939 Helmuth Groscurth Diary Entry

Reported to Frankenberg and then to the chief (Canaris) and Tippelskirch. It seems that the war against Poland is fixed for the 26th. The chief showed me for two hours long his diaries, and especially his notes that he had taken from the Führer's speech before the commanding generals. He is done in by it. Everything in it is lies, and deceptions, not a single element of truth....

The Führer insisted that we could only hold out as we are now for a very few years, and so we must now conquer. Only he and the Duce are capable of this. But either one of them could "on any day and at any hour be destroyed by a criminal or an idiot." Therefore, he was forced to act quickly. He had first thought to carry out a war against the West. But he has now had to give that up for the time being. First he wants to free up his rear by attacking Poland. Recently, he said, the political leadership has had to work enormously hard; now it is the turn of the armed forces to show what they can do.

The war must be conducted with great brutality and ruthlessness and lead to the complete destruction of Poland. The purpose was not to conquer land, but to destroy their power. He will see to it that sufficient causes are presented for the war. Later on, no one in history will inquire about the grounds....

I have learned that the pretext for the war will be provided by 150 prisoners from the Concentration Camps, who will be decked out in Polish uniforms and then slaughtered! This is Heydrich's contribution. W.C (Canaris) has tried everything to void this plan, citing the full abhorrence of the army, etc. etc.

The interpretation of Hitler's words by two officers who were opposed to him shows that when he referred to the "elimination of Poland's vital force", he was not proposing a massacre of the Polish civilian population, but rather the destruction of "Polish power", which obviously means the power of the Polish State, both political and military.

[sarahgoodson]

Michael Mills,

All the evidence points to Hitler himself writing the book.

Do you have any evidence it was ghost-written?

[michael mills]

I said that parts of it were probably ghost-written, namely the chapters that present a theory of history based on struggle between races, because those chapters read almost like a textbook, being tightly argued and showing a logical development of ideas from a basic premiss. The logicality of those chapters suggests that they were drafted by an intellect more disciplined than Hitler's, whose genuine writings all read as if he were giving a speech, being very polemical in tone.

There are parts of the book that are in his normal polemical style, for example when he criticises those German nationalists who insist on hostility to Italy over the South Tyrol issue. As I wrote, it is most likely that the so-called "Second Book" was originally intended as political polemic against Hitler's rivals in the German right-wing nationalist movement, but then morphed into something more theoretical through the addition of the chapters referred to above.

Whatever the case, the whole project was abandoned, and the book was left uncompleted, simply trailing off without any conclusion. That could be because Hitler concluded that the book's main purpose of criticising hostility toward Italy could better achieved in other ways, such as a polemical pamphlet, and that a book expounding a theory of international relations simply was not needed. After all, Hitler never claimed to be an ideological theoretician, and often mocked those of his entourage such as Rosenberg who tried to be such; he always saw himself as primarily a propagandist, a "Trommler" and a man of action who achieved aims rather than formulating ideas.

As to evidence of the book's having been ghost-written in part, there is no external evidence in the sense of some intellectual or academically-trained person putting his hand up and admitting to having drafted the theoretical sections. However, there is good internal evidence in the form of the style and nature of those sections. Generally, when a person produces a work that differs from his usual style and appears to be above that person's known intellectual level, then the suspicion arises of that work's having been ghost-written or even plagiarised.

For the same reason Hitler's so-called "Political Testament", a collection of statements by Hitler allegedly taken down by Bormann in the early months of 1945, is suspected of being a post-war forgery by Francois Genoud, who first published that collection (in French!).

The upshot is that the so-called "Second Book" cannot be taken as a reliable guide to Hitler's foreign-policy aims, just as "Mein Kampf" cannot be taken as such a guide.

[sarahgoodson]

Michael Mills,

There is no evidence to support your assertion that parts of it were ghost-written. In the introduction of the book, Weinberg presents all the available evidence to show that it was Hitler who wrote the book.

The main reason more than likely it was never finished and even attempted to be sold is because of how poor Mein Kampf had been selling.

Although it would be ridiculous to use Mein Kampf and the Second Book as gospel for Hitler's foreign policy aims, the essential aims of Lebensraum for the German people, German expansion going beyond what the Treaty of Versailles stripped from Germany, removing racially foreign elements from Reich, etc, can all be found within both books.

[michael mills]

Weinberg presented evidence to show that the type-written pages he discovered in the US National Archives had been written in 1928 and were not a post-war forgery, and were part of a project commissioned by Hitler for the purpose of opposing rival German nationalists who were proposing hostility toward Italy over the South Tyrol issue.

None of that evidence demonstrates that no part of the book could have been ghost-written for Hitler. To the copntrary, the evidence of the text itself strongly suggests that the theoretical parts of the book were drafted by a trained intellect with the ability to mount a reasoned, logical argument, ie someone other than Hitler.

Have you read the book in the original German? I have, and I can tell you that the theoretical chapters propounding a racial theory of World history simply do not read like Hitler's usual declamatory and polemic style.

It is obvious that the text was never finished, since it just trails off without any conclusion. It has all the hallmarks of having been put together out of different elements, including polemical sections against Hitler's rivals in the nationalist movement and against Stresemann, most probably drafted by Hitler himself, as well as the theoretical chapters. It is also clear that the project of putting the text together in a publishable form was abandoned before it was completed, and there is no hard evidence as to why it was not completed. Weinberg's explanation is purely a surmise, as is mine.

[Gorque]

What makes me question the veracity of the L-3 document is the paragraph regarding Göring:

The speech was listened to enthusiastically> Goering jumped on the table. Bloodthirsty thanks and bloody promises. He danced around like a savage. The few doubtful ones remained silent.

Firstly, the embellishments such as Göring dancing like a 'savage' on a table and 'Bloodthirsty thanks and bloody promises' should give pause to anyone regarding this document as genuine and, secondly, Göring was one of the doubters regarding whether or not Germany was ready for armed conflict in 1939.

[sarahgoodson]

Michael Mills,

No historian doubts the authenticity of the document or that Hitler himself wrote it.

I haven't read it in German as I can't understand German.

Do you have actually any evidence to support your assertion or just your opinion?

[Boby]

None of that evidence demonstrates that no part of the book could have been ghost-written for Hitler. To the copntrary, the evidence of the text itself strongly suggests that the theoretical parts of the book were drafted by a trained intellect with the ability to mount a reasoned, logical argument, ie someone other than Hitler.

Have you read the book in the original German? I have, and I can tell you that the theoretical chapters propounding a racial theory of World history simply do not read like Hitler's usual declamatory and polemic style.

.

Do you mean Hitler was unable to mount "a reasoned, logical argument"? I think this is all very weak, frankly. Thanks to Plöckinger research, we now know that MK was not dictated to, or partly ghost-written by Hess and others. I also strongly doubt Hitler commissioned anything in 1928; he didn't like these things. If he feel the need of another book, then only himself would be the author, not others.

See Plöckinger, Geschichte eines Buches, S. 161-164 for the second book. Hess letters confirms "Wolf/Tribune" was working in a book about foreign policy.

[michael mills]

If he feel the need of another book, then only himself would be the author, not others.

Perhaps that is the reason why the book was never published. or even properly finished.

[Boby]

Hi

Weinberg said back in 1961 that it was dictated to Amann in the summer of 1928 but where is the evidence? If this was the case, why he never mentioned it in the post-war?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/book ... -book.html

[michael mills]

The chapters expounding a racial theory of history do not give the appearance of having been dictated by Hitler off the top of his head, since they are too polished and well constructed.

If the typescript found by Weinberg was indeed dictated by Hitler to Amann who typed it, then Hitler must have been reading from a prepared script, at least in the theoretical chapters. That is to say, those chapters were drafted and probably edited to give them an internal consistency, and only then dictated to whoever typed them.

The "Second Book" consists of two elements that are partly interwoven but largely separate in the text. One part consists of a polemical attack on Hitler's rivals who criticised him over the South Tyrol issue and a defence of his policy of seeking an alliance with Italy; it is this part that is the reason for writing the book. The other part consists of a racial and geopolitical theory of history and international relations; as an example, the power of the "North American Union", as the United States is consistently referred to in the book, is attributed to the de-facto racial selection attendant upon the process of migration, combined with access to unlimited living space.

It is this theoretical part that struck me as having been ghost-written, or at least initially drafted by someone with a trained academic mind and a thorough grasp of geopolitical theory.

[Boby]

Hi Michael

This is a very interesting possibility. But who was the ghostwriter? I don't think he was a leading NSDAP member at the time. Perhaps someone from Múnich university?

Regards