What is consider "victory" for Germany?

[Boomerang1996]

What is Hitler's ambition? Complete defeat for the Soviet Union to ensure the everlasting power of the reich? Project his power across the Atlantic and face the USN on high seas? Or a total world domination?

[Kilgore Trout]

Read Mein Kampf. Hitler wanted to restore the old Holy Roman Empire at its greatest size, and expand it eastward. In this, he emulated the notions of "First Reich" emperors Charlemagne (Karl der Grosse) and Otto der Grosse. He regarded the predominately British (then, U.S.) over-running of N.America, achieved by repeated treaties with native tribes made expediently and temporarily and then broken; divide and conquer playing of one group against another; ethnic cleansing and forced removal of whole tribes and restricting them to "reservations;" then supplying them with blankets covered with smallpox germs, etc.; as the way to do this.
Hitler may have been many things, but one thing he was not is original. In fact, his constant justification was that everything he undertook had already been dome by others somewhere else many times and, if it was alright for THEM to do it, why couldn't he and Grossdeutschland do it too? Of course, similar actions continue to be done by many in many places since then (e.g.: Rwanda), and often by governments that, having warred against the Nazis in WWII, should have known better (e.g.; British gov.t of Churchill and its treatment of Mau Maus in 1950's). Or, by Israel that daily bemoans (admittedly, with justification) about its people suffered under the Nazis (Palestiinian suppression).
Hitler envisioned an industrialised Grossdeutschland in western Europe with huge pastoral farm land in the east, populated by a German upper class (like southern U.S. "colonels") and a Slavic underclass (like pre-Civil War U.S. blacks). Some groups might be confined to reserve-like areas. Vast motorways and railways would transport food and goods back and forth. - This is also not drastically different from the original notions by the Canadian government for its prairie region (1860's-1900). The city of Linz would have an enormous art gallery, featuring his works front and centre.
He seemed quite serious when he spoke of the British Empire as a necessary entity that he preferred to see preserved. He had no designs on Africa, the Americas, or south Asia. Even when the Nazis overan part of western Europe in 1940, he was content to leave the rump of Vichy France.

[Uncle Fritz]

Hitler and the nazis were ultra-occidental. They were considering slavic east their primal foe and western nations as their allies and brothers (look at radical differences in occupation of Poland and France). Hitler wanted Nazi Empire from Atlantic to Urals that will last 1000 years. In order to achieve this Hitler recreated crimes and patterns of conquest of earlier colonial powers, particularly anglosaxons (Kitchener's concentration camps, extermination of indians, idea of "master race" devised originally in England etc.). Nazis assumed that west, that comitted so much bloody crimes since Columbus, will accept their transgressions and turn a blind eye to their intended empire-building that among other things required extermination of jewish communities (west earlier completely ignored 1915 armenian genocide and Hitler took notice of that). This paradigm of unlimited hostility toward initially-neutral Slavs and one-sided love to Anglosaxons was to be their undoing. Anglosaxons may were criminals on world scale (and this is how Third World perceive them today) but hypocrisy was one of the strongest traits permeating their political culture: it was OK for THEM to wipe out entire cultures, enslave and exterminate entire races but competitive Germany was of course branded and condemned (Hitler really should paid more attention to anglosaxon discourse of WWI especially Wilson's hypocritic idealism and british "crusade against huns"). On the other hand Slavs were the only people on the planet who could probably understand Hitler's antisemitic obsessions and would happily aid him in his crusade against Stalin and "judaebolshevism". Nazis made a fatal mistake when they assumed that Slavs are the main enemy while all the time they were their potential ally - the only one they got. In fact it turned out, that America led by FDR quasi-federal regime was Hitler's longest and most determined foe. So Nazis lost on their own wish becouse their "racial" hatred blinded them to the reality. As Sun Tzu has said "learn who your enemy really is" and that Nazis didn't figure out

Off topic: I've read Hitlers Tabletalk and I was actually surprised that he devoted little attention to the jews: instead most of the time he rages against barbaric Russians and catholic church. It seems he was more antisemitic during his public speeches. Curious.

[The_Enigma]

No need to project ones power across the seas - building a fleet to fight the USN - or engage in a conquest of everything. Seize control of the pivot area, and one controls the world


‘The natural seats of power’, from Mackinder, H.J. (1904) ‘The geographical pivot of history’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 435.

[Kilgore Trout]

The "heartland theory" ideas of Halford Mackinder had great influence in German intellectual circles. The problem is, no one power or set of allied powers has ever controlled this "heartland." The theory was later countered by Arnold Spykman's "periphery theory." Based on the results of the World Wars, Spykman's view currently holds sway but, as noted above, the issue was never been put to a fair test. And now, since nuclear weapons, do borders and geographic location really count anymore?

[Uncle Fritz]

Mackinder's theory was a nonsense. Not a single one of peoples that held control over this pivot territory ever exterted global control. Steppe nomads, mongols and later backwater tzarist Russia - what they contributed to human civilization in terms of technology? Nothing. Did they projected influence over the globe? Nope. The pivot area was always a seat of underdeveloped peons

Positioned firmly in pivot area, Tzarist Russia of 19th century was most regressive power on earth and Her main adversary, the British Empire was a truly global power that influenced the world in a myriad of ways. Did British held control over pivot area? NO

[The_Enigma]

But why the British Empire was a true global power is another issue (power of the Royal Navy and able to bankrole practically anything they wanted to, but did not control the worlds resources or wanted to - free trade policies). The key idea behind the theory was, controling the pivot would provide you with over half of the world resources (true in the head of the guy in early 1900s). The steppe nomads never controlled the whole area under the control of one faction, the mongols disintergrated into several factions and thus never had real control of the area, Tzarist Russia/USSR/Russia share the area with a number of other states and do not have total control.

As a wise man once said: "Do I really look like a guy with a plan? You know what I am? I'm a dog chasing cars. I wouldn't know what to do with one if I caught it! You know, I just... *do* things." One would have to develop and exploit those resources, not just sit on them indicating some form of decent government would be required.

The theory has never been put to the test imo, and i only really posted it as a joke as an opinion one would not need to invade the USA to dominate the world

[Kilgore Trout]

It is NOT a joke that one can "dominate" the world without "attacking" the U.S. To dominate is to be the most influential. That has no relationship to attacking anyone/thing. It can be done economically - as China is rapidly beginning to do - or in resources - as those who control the majority of petroleum reserves try to do. But that is a distraction. The question was what would Hitler have considered a "victory." And that, quite clearly, was to have his own empire that mirrored the U.S. or Canada: Industrial/cultural centre in the west, pastoral east. He was quite content to let Britain alone and did not really seem to care about N. America at all, save as a locale for Karl May books. He would have been quiet content to have a self-supporting empire that spanned from the Rhine R. to the Urals. That, in his view, was all the living space and resources that his empire would require.

[Boomerang1996]

No need to project ones power across the seas - building a fleet to fight the USN - or engage in a conquest of everything. Seize control of the pivot area, and one controls the world


‘The natural seats of power’, from Mackinder, H.J. (1904) ‘The geographical pivot of history’, The Geographical Journal, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 435.

From the Urals to Siberia, aren't most of those wasteland? Well, at least there are a few industries behind the Urals. I would think of controlling west Russia and the Middle East is more realistic. I would argue that the one who controls the ocean controls the world. An ability to create a massive amphibious invasion allow them to colonize lands. British ruled the water and Americans are ruling the water, they are both superpowers at their time. Perhaps I am one of the very few guys who actually believe naval power is more significant than land power.

[The_Enigma]

From the Urals to Siberia, aren't most of those wasteland? Well, at least there are a few industries behind the Urals. I would think of controlling west Russia and the Middle East is more realistic. I would argue that the one who controls the ocean controls the world. An ability to create a massive amphibious invasion allow them to colonize lands. British ruled the water and Americans are ruling the water, they are both superpowers at their time. Perhaps I am one of the very few guys who actually believe naval power is more significant than land power.

I believe the point of the theory (developed when the oil reserves of the Middle East had not been discovered, and do not believe they had fully been discovered during the war years) was that if one controls the pivot, one has access to more than enough resources and land to be self-suffient - if exploited. It is pretty unrealistic in the short term i will admit. However, with more than enough resources to hand how can naval power combat that?

During the First World War Germany, being surrounded, was able to be succesfully blockaded. During the Second World War, with the Soviets as a temporary ally, Germany was able to negate the naval power of the Royal Navy. That of course changed with Barbarosssa but by which time, my understanding is, they had captured or had access to enough resources to offset the effects for a few years.

Yet i did not intend to derail the thread somewhat with these ideas. I do agree that the naval power of the Anglo-Americans provided them the means to strike where and when they wanted and this would play the decisive role. But again, i do not believe Germany had access to the shipyards needed to outbuild the United States Navy - they lacked the means to outbuilt the Royal Navy - thus the only realistic option would appear to be control as many resources as possible to push the west into stalemate assuming they can do so before running out of steam.

[Michate]

The "heartland theory" ideas of Halford Mackinder had great influence in German intellectual circles. The problem is, no one power or set of allied powers has ever controlled this "heartland." The theory was later countered by Arnold Spykman's "periphery theory." Based on the results of the World Wars, Spykman's view currently holds sway but, as noted above, the issue was never been put to a fair test. And now, since nuclear weapons, do borders and geographic location really count anymore?

The theory seems still in vogue in some US circles, see Brezinski's "The Grand Chessboard".

Though the Anglo empire and the American empire of today, which were/are the greatest entities of power on the earth can be better described as ocean-based "thalassocraties" (see e.g. Carl Schmitt).

[Kilgore Trout]

I agree with the general thrust of much of the above. Certainly, if your goal was military hegemony over the entire world (pre-nuclear weapons), access to the oceans and a large, powerful navy to dominate them is the way to do it. But the question was "What is "victory" for Germany?" - and in that, the poser meant Hitler's Germany. I have never encountered any serious evidence that Hitler had the least interest in "world domination." He repeatedly spoke of wanting a strong, secure, self-supporting Teutonic empire. Given that, it seemed he would have been quite content to just be left alone, and he didn't seem to care what the orientals, or blacks, or Jews or (fill in the blank) did. It is not necessary to have all of the most sophisticated and costly technology to have a fruitful and happy life. If you have all you need or desire within your own realm, you do not need world trade.

As an aside: It is unrealistically dismissive to consider Siberia "wasteland." Look at Canada: most of the terrain and climate is very similar. Canada is considerably more developed, but neither area is very much so. Geologists and agricultural and forestry experts consider both areas as horns of plenty that have scarcely been touched. As the global climate warms and the equatorial region turns to desert, Canada and Siberia will feed the world for centuries.

[Posthumousdecay]

I think victory for Hitler would have been the conquest of western Russia to the Volga or Urals in the east, domination of western Europe (which he had),Britain agreeing to a peace of some sort or surrendering,control over the Mediterranean and North Africa or having an ally that was (Italy maybe if Barbarossa was successful and Italy remained uninvaded with Mussolini still in power), and finally the removal,ousting, or extermination of the Jews from the European continent. I think Hitler would have been pleased with these successes and complete world domination could be considered at a future time when German population numbers and economic/military resources could be built up to sufficient quantities to consider such an endeavor, because if he lived that long i'm sure Hitler would have eventually attempted it. But with the victories and territories conquered that I mentioned above Germany would be self sufficient for decades. Anything east of the Urals is basically Siberia or the Kamchatka peninsula,both of which are pretty inhospitable for living. Theres a reason 75% of Russian people live west of Urals.The soil is more fertile and the weather is much better comparatively than the east. The east of Russia isnt a wasteland but pretty much the soil is frozen year round(northern Siberia),transportation is extremely difficult,not to mention the worlds largest forest is in Siberia as well which makes population difficult. I dont think building a huge navy for offensive amphibious operations would really be needed as war with the U.S. at this point if not already in process would not be a necessary need for self sufficiency. A moderate defence fleet would be ample for protecting the reich at this point w/o Britain as a springboard for invasion the U.S. would have a daunting task to invade from across the Atlantic. If anything a buildup of the merchant fleet would be needed to transport all the newfound resources across the Caspian and Black seas as well as the Mediterranean and Baltic plus the many large rivers in west Russia. Thats just my thoughts on the matter however so feel free to give alternate opinions, I'd be interested to hear them.

[Kilgore Trout]

See immediately above. Personally, I have NEVER encountered any reliable evidence of desire or intent by Hitler to be the least concerned about "world domination." If you are aware of any, you should present it in order for your comment to be seriously considered.

[Terry Duncan]

The term Welthauptstadt (World Capital) was already used by Hitler three months prior on the night between the 11th and 12 March 1942 in the Wolf's Lair:

"As world capital Berlin will only be comparable with Ancient Egypt, Babylon, and Rome! What is London, what is Paris compared to that!"
—Werner Jochmann: Adolf Hitler. Monologe im Führerhauptquartier 1941–1944, p. 318. Munich, 1980.

Hardly conclusive but it does show the matter was not entirely unfamiliar to Hitler's mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welthauptstadt_Germania