Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: The FÜHRER's plans for world domination!

Post by Roberto » 08 Jul 2002 19:26

Ovidius wrote:
Roberto wrote:But as we’re at it, what Anglo-Saxon adventure brought about death and suffering on a scale comparable to that caused by the German occupation of Belarus, Ukraine and parts of Russia?


Ovidius wrote:India(conquered throughout the 18th and early 19th century, colonization had bloody episodes like Sepoy Rebellion, 1857, ended in a way strikingly similar to the 1944 Warsaw Uprising)

South Africa(concentration camps for Afrikaners/Boers where plenty of them died because of starvation/diseases/rough treatment, shooting of civilians charged with "partisan activities")


I said "death and suffering on a scale comparable to that caused by the German occupation of Belarus, Ukraine and parts of Russia", Ovi. You'll have to do better.

Roberto wrote:The only rough parallel I can think of is Belgian King Leopold’s Congo Free State, one of the greatest and least known horrors of the last century.


Ovidius wrote:Not "rough", but accurate parallel, since the Congolese affair is just as disregarded by people as what happened to the Russian/Ukrainian/Belorussian population in WWII(since the Soviets did not have a Spielberg to do a few movies on them; they only stuffed our ears with their Soviet Hero propaganda) :mrgreen:


I'll accept that. It seems to me, though, that you are now contradicting your previous statement.

Roberto wrote:Just what “assimilation” of the Slavs – beyond the kidnapping of “whatever is available to us in good blood of our type” mentioned by Himmler – did the Führer have in mind, Reverend?


Ovidius wrote:Whatever sort of assimilation, regardless what Hitler desired in his heart, because in the hypothesis of a victory over the USSR, two things needed to happen:

1. replacement of the losses suffered by the German population(from where other place than the Soviet lands?)


Which had plenty of "good blood of our type" that could be taken advantage of, but mostly consisted of sub-humans - like the "many tens of millions of people" who "will become superfluous in this area and will die or have to emigrate to Siberia."

Ovidius wrote: 2. peace on the large territory controlled, so the infrastructure destroyed by war to be rebuilt with the goal of a future "cold war" with the USA, because unlike the Soviets, who had left open a way for negotiations up to the last minute of the war, FDR wanted Unconditional Surrender only, and he was never going to give up, neither were his possible successors;


Why only big, bad FDR, Ovi? Wasn't Unconditional Surrender mainly a reaction to Nazi atrocities and a means of keeping the coalition together and to calm down Soviet suspicions of separate peace negotiations by the Western Allies? Just what "way for negotiations" with Germany did the Soviets leave open "up to the last minute of the war"?

Roberto wrote:And what about the Jews and the Gypsies? How were they to be “assimilated”?


Ovidius wrote:They weren't :mrgreen: (Outside about 150,000 German Jews & half-Jews who had taken Hitler's side and were registered as "Germans" and some of them "Mischlinge")


Full-blooded German Jews, or only half Jews or quarter Jews, Ovi? I know you can show me plenty of the latter, but can you show me one of the former?

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Re: The FÜHRER's plans for world domination!

Post by Ovidius » 09 Jul 2002 01:13

Roberto wrote:I said "death and suffering on a scale comparable to that caused by the German occupation of Belarus, Ukraine and parts of Russia", Ovi. You'll have to do better.


In absolute numbers, percents or gruesomeness? :mrgreen:

Roberto wrote:Just what "way for negotiations" with Germany did the Soviets leave open "up to the last minute of the war"?


Soviets did not ask for Unconditional Surrender. Westerners did. Not asking officially for Unconditional Surrender = (at least theoretical) possibility of negotiations.

~Ovidius

PS take a look here: http://www.thirdreichforum.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3957

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 09 Jul 2002 02:54

I would like to make some minor corrections concerning your quote:


Viriato,

Thanks for the corrections.

I think the basic thrust of my post still stands. I consider it likely that Hitler was generally satisfied with the reconstitution of Czecho-Slovakia after Munich. The hostile Benes regime, which had allied itself with the Soviet Union and made Czechoslovakia a potential base for Soviet forces against Germany, had gone, and been replaced by a subservient regime in Czechia, which carried out German policies, and a friendly ally in Slovakia. It is quite possible that Hitler would have been content to leave the situation as it was, without actually occupying Czechia; the new puppet government would have made its industrial resources available for the German war-effort (as in fact happened).

However, Hitler miscalculated in encouraging Slovakia to go for full independence. That fanned the last smouldering embers of Czech chauvinism, making it necessary for Germany to occupy Czechia militarily in order to quench those embers. Hitler thereby upset a finely balanced mechanism, leading to the British guarantee to Poland, the "blank cheque" which the Polish colonels used to bring on the war they desired in order to conquer Germany's eastern territories ( initially a bad mistake, but a move that eventually succeeded with the help of the Red Army).

It is interesting that Czechia remained very quiet throughout the war, and provided a massive contribution to the German war-effort. That was not entirely due to German repressive measures, which were actually quite mild by comparison with those in Poland, for example (the retribution visited on Lidice after the assassination of Heydrich was an aberration).

Izan
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 01:28
Location: United States

Why, thank you DeepThinker.

Post by Izan » 09 Jul 2002 03:53

One of the more educated and interesting posts made around here...of which, for the most part, are becoming fewer and farther between.

Fire away anti-Nazis!

User avatar
Richard Murphy
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 19:24
Location: Bletchley, England

Post by Richard Murphy » 09 Jul 2002 07:40

Being anti-Nazi has nothing to do with it! Being a historian (Albeit an amateur one.) interested in facts and not conjecture, has!
The simple fact is after Hitler flagrantly broke his word to observe Czecho-Slovak automony, the British government had enough of listening to a blatant liar (Somewhat more diplomatically put in both the PM's and Henderson's speeches (Published in Documents relaring to German-Polish Relations and the Outbreak of Hostilities between Great Britain and Germany on September 3, 1939 by HMSO and available on line at http://www.mytholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/ww2.htm on March 17th and 20th respectively.) and thus guaranteed the integrity of what was obviously the next item on Hitler's shopping list (the Poles).
It should be noted that similar guarantees was also issued to several other countries as well (I don't have exactly which (Turkey was one!), but I'm sure they have been mentioned before.).
Hitler seized the chance to repudiate the treaty that he had signed with the Poles whilst at the same time raising the ghost of the WW I blockade (Which, in fact, was far from the truth, the guarantee makes no mention of, and had nothing to do with, an economic embargo.) in order to deal with the most powerful of his targets (Some 2 million strong after full mobilisation.).
No matter how "spin doctors" try to dress up the Poles, British and French as the aggressors (Though the latter, which had a similar guarantee in place with the Poles before the non-aggression pact between Berlin and Poland had been signed, is rarely mentioned in this category. Paris was just as committed to it.), simply is not substantiated by fact.

Regards from the Park,

Rich

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 09 Jul 2002 08:00

I must agree with Richard here. The notion that the "smouldering embers" of "czech chauvinism" somehow constituted a threat to German security that justified invasion falls on its own obvious absurdity.

cheers

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX...

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Jul 2002 09:08

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:That's because Hitler's foreign policy became overcome by events called World War II. To view it from a Genocide-perspective or according to Allied propaganda is teleological at best. No, I don't think Hitler's geopolitical thinking did change fundamentally and I don't see the contradiction.

Who's viewing anything from a teleological perspective? My argument is entirely connected to Hitlers aims as he himself expressed them, and the basic confluence of these with actual events. You don't think Hitler's geopolitical thinking changed? Well, could you then please explain the obvious contradictions between what he had to say in MK about the absolute need to conquer space in the East, and your own thesis that he just wanted to overturn Versailles?

I think it is teleological. Some historians, like the late Fritz Fischer, have even gone so far as to re-revise the German war-guilt from the First World War in order (it appears to me) erase Hitler's *legitimate* claims against Versailles, which we all know thus leads to WWII and the Holocaust. Basically the idea is that German Nationalism-Imperialism-Militarism=Genocide. Some Germans are expecially fond of this view. :wink:

I see no inherent contradictions here. Hitler was set on reversing Versailles--and that means not just to scrap the treaty or even to gain back what was lost after 1914 but instead to end Allied containment and thus restore Germany's status as world power--by whatever means. The overseas colonies and the South Tyrol were expendable to this larger aim, even thoushg they were part of Versailles. To say that Hitler moved his chess pieces according to a set plan, when he likely didn't know exactly himself what his moves would be is more than just a little post hoc, IMHO.

Hitler points out in Mein Kampf that the Kaiser would have been better served to expand his empire on a continental basis instead of with overseas colonies and against France. The Tsarist empire was one of those "Sick Men of Europe" that a strong world power could have exploited. And certainly it was foolish to prop-up the other "sick men," the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. It was also foolish to go against Britain with a weak navy, an arms race that German likely could not win.

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:I submit that Hitler was racial-nationalist. He viewed nationalism the way Americans viewed it prior to WWII, as being a "melting pot" of Anglo-Saxons and Nordics, and only reluctantly of Latins and Slavs, who were then assimilated into the prevalent White Anglo-Saxon Protestant type. Thus, Volksdeutsch became a broader and broading category.

Could you explain just what you mean by this? Out of hand, I'm hard pressed to think of a notion more contradictory to the nazi outlook on race than "the melting pot". Are you implying that what he sought was gradual assimilation of slavic and latin nations into the Germanic race? Considering that this blatantly contradicts the very nature of national socialist racial views and is diametrically opposed to Hitlers expressed views that'd rank as quite a discovery...

It doesn't contradict them at all. The melting-pot myth in American history is just that, a myth. Why? Because it basically applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and those who could assimilate into this norm. Yes, some Latins and Slavs were assimilated, but when the demographics changed and these became the immigrant norm, the melting-pot model was stretched to the limit. Nobody believes it anymore. It died during WWII when the industrial elite imported Negroes from the rural South to fill the labor shortage.

I submit that Hitler basically did understand the melting-pot myth in American history. Into his Greater Reich he could absorb whatever Latins and Slavs he found worthy of the German type, and the rest would not be absorbed but driven out like "Cowboys and Indians." This was not very realistic by demographic comparison but it doesn't mean that he intended to kill them either. He had no intention of controlling all of Russia's vast Empire, just the European part. And he didn't need to bring all nations into the same contiguous Reich if he could exercise troublefree imperial hegemony with his magnificent army, as England did with her magnificent navy. All of Poland was not annexed and neither was Czecho-Slovakia or Hungary. And let me reiterate that Barbarossa was not inevitable.

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:]This is the way he outlined his vision to Degrelle--unless Degrelle was lying.

So, let me see if I'm getting this straight. Since Hitler spoke of the war in these terms to the leader of one of the movements for which this particular propaganda line was devised, we should attach greater weight to that than to his own writings, verbally expressed basic views and the plethora of documents relating to actual German war aims and the policies connected to them. That's not a very serious argument Scott.

Why do Hitler's critics understand Hitler's war-aims better than Hitler? Why is that a *serious* argument? I suppose Hitler was lying to Degrelle. Yes, that explains it. Hitler was a pan-German FIRST but a pan-European second. Yes, the second scheme employed some wishful thinking and opportunism. What is so hard to understand about that?

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:Goebbels certainly favored the policy of going from a pan-German to a pan-European crusade against Bolshevism. That doesn't make it ingenuine

You fail to see that under the circumstances, the difference between these were largely a matter of presentation. The only pan-European crusade against Bolshevism that was conceivable at that point was the one the Ostheer was already undertaking. Presenting this as a "Pan-European" rather than "Pan-German" affair meant exactly zip in actual reality.

That's because Germany was losing the war and it's hard to get allies when you are losing. So what if it meant "Zip"? That doesn't make Hitler's aims insincere, just unfulfilled. I didn't say it wasn't a day late and a dollar short--assuming it would have made ANY difference anyway, and I doubt it would-have because Germany couldn't arm everybody for any kind of pan-European crusade. That's why he favored Blitzkrieg and only embraced the pan-European nature of the "struggle against Bolshevism" when the situation became one of siege--the proverbial bulwark to the East.

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:He did not want a long war and he did not really want a troublesome non-German empire, not even on the continent if it could be avoided.

You keep saying this, in direct contradiction to Hitlers own words, whilst offering not a shred of support for it. There is a limit to how long you can do that and still expect to be taken seriously you know.

Which isn't my problem. I don't care if I'm the only one that understands this point. As far as I'm concerned Hitler understood it.

The Tsarist, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires were troublesome because of their CENTRIFUGAL, i.e., multi-ethnic nature. The American Imperium was a NATION instead of an Empire because it was WASP; that was the source of its strength in Hitler's view (and that is true in traditional American historical thinking as well because of the melting-pot myth). The British Empire represented the "White Man's Burden" and in some places was colonized by White men (e.g., Australia). Thus, the British Empire is (erroneously, I believe) contrasted to the Spanish or Portuguese empires which crumbled of their own dead weight because they were multiracial. Thus they exploited raw materials and treasure for their capitals and this drained away men and blood without producing any colonies of lasting (human) worth. What is so hard to understand about this view? It is a rather traditional one: Western civilization vs. the world.

Bismarck's Imperium, the Second Reich, was GERMAN; it was not multiethnic. Thus, it was a NATION--as Hitler considered the basis of nationalism to be kindred-blood and common-language. He wanted all Germans, whether from Austria or the Volga, to be "returned" to ONE Reich, with ONE State, and under ONE Führer. To this end he was willing to Germanize some Latins and Slavs, who after all, are still Aryans. But not Jews. They were not Germans by decree--and they had to leave. In wartime, they were even considered the enemy, but I digress.

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:I'm not too enamored by the Table Talks, which are slanted, IMHO, and consider then suspect. We can gain some insights but should be careful. Just about everything ever written about Hitler was a "consistent theme" by his enemies, opportunists, or as German apologia or an outright tissue-of-lies using post hoc reasoning.

I'm not surprised that you aren't. However, they don't go away just because you don't like them. And whatever anyone might feel about Hitler historiography in general, or about David Irving, is of no significance in this regard.

At best the Table Talks are lurid hearsay composed by Hitler's critics. I don't make them "go away." I just don't consider them gospel and don't understand why anyone else would. And speaking of gospel, as far as Mein Kampf itself goes, written long before WWII, I don't like to get into Bible Bashes for the same reason because both sides will interpret "scripture" however they want.

On the rest, I must say I generally agree with Roberto.

Which is your own loss. :mrgreen:

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:Don't feel bad. You are not alone. It just takes some practice.

Thanks for the sympathy - I am now able to proudly state that I have tackled this seemingly insurmountable technical obstacle through the simple expedient of unticking the "disable BBCode in this post"-box :)

Pardon my arrogance once again. I'm going to do this post as a double with the second one in revealed CODE. That way you (and anyone who is interested) can see how to do the BBCode format properly--which is not something that Roberto has mastered yet, for sure. :P

Best Regards,
Scott

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

Re: THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX...

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Jul 2002 09:10

Code: Select all

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]That's because Hitler's foreign policy became overcome by events called World War II. To view it from a Genocide-perspective or according to Allied propaganda is teleological at best. No, I don't think Hitler's geopolitical thinking did change fundamentally and I don't see the contradiction. [/quote]
Who's viewing anything from a teleological perspective? My argument is entirely connected to Hitlers aims as he himself expressed them, and the basic confluence of these with actual events. You don't think Hitler's geopolitical thinking changed? Well, could you then please explain the obvious contradictions between what he had to say in MK about the absolute need to conquer space in the East, and your own thesis that he just wanted to overturn Versailles?[/quote]
I think it is teleological. Some historians, like the late Fritz Fischer, have even gone so far as to re-revise the German war-guilt from the First World War in order (it appears to me) erase Hitler's *legitimate* claims against Versailles, which we all know thus leads to WWII and the Holocaust. Basically the idea is that German Nationalism-Imperialism-Militarism=Genocide. Some Germans are expecially fond of this view.  :wink:

I see no inherent contradictions here. Hitler was set on reversing Versailles--and that means not just to scrap the treaty or even to gain back what was lost after 1914 but instead to end Allied containment and thus restore Germany's status as world power--by whatever means. The overseas colonies and the South Tyrol were expendable to this larger aim, even thoushg they were part of Versailles. To say that Hitler moved his chess pieces according to a set plan, when he likely didn't know exactly himself what his moves would be is more than just a little post hoc, IMHO.

Hitler points out in [i]Mein Kampf[/i] that the Kaiser would have been better served to expand his empire on a continental basis instead of with overseas colonies and against France. The Tsarist empire was one of those "Sick Men of Europe" that a strong world power could have exploited. And certainly it was foolish to prop-up the other "sick men," the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires. It was also foolish to go against Britain with a weak navy, an arms race that German likely could not win.

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]I submit that Hitler was racial-nationalist. He viewed nationalism the way Americans viewed it prior to WWII, as being a "melting pot" of Anglo-Saxons and Nordics, and only reluctantly of Latins and Slavs, who were then assimilated into the prevalent White Anglo-Saxon Protestant type. Thus, Volksdeutsch became a broader and broading category. [/quote]
Could you explain just what you mean by this? Out of hand, I'm hard pressed to think of a notion more contradictory to the nazi outlook on race than "the melting pot". Are you implying that what he sought was gradual assimilation of slavic and latin nations into the Germanic race? Considering that this blatantly contradicts the very nature of national socialist racial views and is diametrically opposed to Hitlers expressed views that'd rank as quite a discovery...[/quote]
It doesn't contradict them at all. The melting-pot myth in American history is just that, a myth. Why? Because it basically applied to White Anglo-Saxon Protestants and those who could assimilate into this norm. Yes, some Latins and Slavs were assimilated, but when the demographics changed and these became the immigrant norm, the melting-pot model was stretched to the limit. Nobody believes it anymore. It died during WWII when the industrial elite imported Negroes from the rural South to fill the labor shortage.

I submit that Hitler basically did understand the melting-pot myth in American history. Into his Greater Reich he could absorb whatever Latins and Slavs he found worthy of the German type, and the rest would not be absorbed but driven out like "Cowboys and Indians." This was not very realistic by demographic comparison but it doesn't mean that he intended to kill them either. He had no intention of controlling all of Russia's vast Empire, just the European part. And he didn't need to bring all nations into the same contiguous Reich if he could exercise troublefree imperial hegemony with his magnificent army, as England did with her magnificent navy. All of Poland was not annexed and neither was Czecho-Slovakia or Hungary. And let me reiterate that Barbarossa was not inevitable.

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]]This is the way he outlined his vision to Degrelle--unless Degrelle was lying. [/quote]
So, let me see if I'm getting this straight. Since Hitler spoke of the war in these terms to the leader of one of the movements for which this particular propaganda line was devised, we should attach greater weight to that than to his own writings, verbally expressed basic views and the plethora of documents relating to actual German war aims and the policies connected to them. That's not a very serious argument Scott.[/quote]
Why do Hitler's critics understand Hitler's war-aims better than Hitler? Why is that a *serious* argument? I suppose Hitler was lying to Degrelle. Yes, that explains it. Hitler was a pan-German FIRST but a pan-European second. Yes, the second scheme employed some wishful thinking and opportunism. What is so hard to understand about that?

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]Goebbels certainly favored the policy of going from a pan-German to a pan-European crusade against Bolshevism. That doesn't make it ingenuine[/quote]
You fail to see that under the circumstances, the difference between these were largely a matter of presentation. The only pan-European crusade against Bolshevism that was conceivable at that point was the one the Ostheer was already undertaking. Presenting this as a "Pan-European" rather than "Pan-German" affair meant exactly zip in actual reality.[/quote]
That's because Germany was losing the war and it's hard to get allies when you are losing. So what if it meant "Zip"? That doesn't make Hitler's aims insincere, just unfulfilled. I didn't say it wasn't a day late and a dollar short--assuming it would have made ANY difference anyway, and I doubt it would-have because Germany couldn't arm everybody for any kind of pan-European crusade. That's why he favored Blitzkrieg and only embraced the pan-European nature of the "struggle against Bolshevism" when the situation became one of siege--the proverbial bulwark to the East.

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]He did not want a long war and he did not really want a troublesome non-German empire, not even on the continent if it could be avoided. [/quote]
You keep saying this, in direct contradiction to Hitlers own words, whilst offering not a shred of support for it. There is a limit to how long you can do that and still expect to be taken seriously you know.[/quote]
Which isn't my problem. I don't care if I'm the only one that understands this point. As far as I'm concerned Hitler understood it.

The Tsarist, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires were troublesome because of their CENTRIFUGAL, i.e., multi-ethnic nature. The American Imperium was a NATION instead of an Empire because it was WASP; that was the source of its strength in Hitler's view (and that is true in traditional American historical thinking as well because of the melting-pot myth). The British Empire represented the "White Man's Burden" and in some places was colonized by White men (e.g., Australia). Thus, the British Empire is (erroneously, I believe) contrasted to the Spanish or Portuguese empires which crumbled of their own dead weight because they were multiracial. Thus they exploited raw materials and treasure for their capitals and this drained away men and blood without producing any colonies of lasting (human) worth. What is so hard to understand about this view? It is a rather traditional one: Western civilization vs. the world.

Bismarck's Imperium, the Second Reich, was GERMAN; it was not multiethnic. Thus, it was a NATION--as Hitler considered the basis of nationalism to be kindred-blood and common-language. He wanted all Germans, whether from Austria or the Volga, to be "returned" to ONE Reich, with ONE State, and under ONE Führer. To this end he was willing to Germanize some Latins and Slavs, who after all, are still Aryans. But not Jews. They were not Germans by decree--and they had to leave. In wartime, they were even considered the enemy, but I digress.

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]I'm not too enamored by the Table Talks, which are slanted, IMHO, and consider then suspect. We can gain some insights but should be careful. Just about everything ever written about Hitler was a "consistent theme" by his enemies, opportunists, or as German apologia or an outright tissue-of-lies using post hoc reasoning.[/quote]
I'm not surprised that you aren't. However, they don't go away just because you don't like them. And whatever anyone might feel about Hitler historiography in general, or about David Irving, is of no significance in this regard.[/quote]
At best the Table Talks are lurid hearsay composed by Hitler's critics. I don't make them "go away." I just don't consider them gospel and don't understand why anyone else would. And speaking of gospel, as far as [i]Mein Kampf[/i] itself goes, written long before WWII, I don't like to get into Bible Bashes for the same reason because both sides will interpret "scripture" however they want.

[quote]On the rest, I must say I generally agree with Roberto.[/quote]
Which is your own loss.  :mrgreen:

[quote="Qvist"][quote="Scott"]Don't feel bad. You are not alone. It just takes some practice. [/quote]
Thanks for the sympathy - I am now able to proudly state that I have tackled this seemingly insurmountable technical obstacle through the simple expedient of unticking the "disable BBCode in this post"-box  :)[/quote]
Pardon my arrogance once again. I'm going to do this post as a double with the second one in revealed CODE. That way you (and anyone who is interested) can see how to do the BBCode format properly--which is not something that Roberto has mastered yet, for sure.  :P

Best Regards,
Scott

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

GERMAN Hegemony...

Post by Scott Smith » 09 Jul 2002 09:20

Qvist wrote:I must agree with Richard here. The notion that the "smouldering embers" of "czech chauvinism" somehow constituted a threat to German security that justified invasion falls on its own obvious absurdity.

It was rightly considered a threat to German hegemony, regarding which Hitler was left dissatisfied after Munich to begin with. He took immediate action, but not because of a security threat to Germany, of course. He merely nipped a problem in the bud and got ALL of what he really wanted at Munich.

But Richard is right. Hitler won the battle but lost the war. Given the Anglo-Saxon mentality, calling their own doublecross "appeasement," Hitler should have been backpedalling after Munich instead of rattling sabers, and thus not giving the British hardliners any ammunition. The Polish guarantee was infinitely worse for German security than the "smouldering embers of Czech chauvinism." And that "Guarantee" was not something easily rectified. The rest we call World War II.
:)

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 09 Jul 2002 09:28

Qvist wrote:
I must agree with Richard here. The notion that the "smouldering embers" of "czech chauvinism" somehow constituted a threat to German security that justified invasion falls on its own obvious absurdity.


Qvist,

Did I write that that the smouldering embers of Czech chauvinism constituted a threat to German security? No, I did not. Please refrain from putting words into my mouth, it is a most dishonest thing to do.

I in no way implied that the rump state of Czechia posed any threat to Germany. In fact, I explicitly said that the Government of Czechia was a German puppet, and did the will of Germany. I also said that Hitler would quite probably have been satisfied with that arrangement.

The attempts of the Czech military to prevent the full secession of Slovakia upset Hitler's plans to create a totally independent Slovakia that would be an ally of Germany, and a counter-balance to any remaining anti-German elements in Czechia. That is why Hitler bullied the Czech puppet government into "requesting" the entry of German forces. I never said that the moves (very weak) by the Czech military posed any threat to Germany. However, they did threaten to upset the new structure that Hitler had succeeded in putting in place (a subordinate Czechia and an independent Slovakia allied to Germany).

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 09 Jul 2002 09:34

Michael -

In that case, my apologies for in all honesty misjudging your meaning - no affront intended. Although I would still maintain that there was rather more to the occupation of Behemia and Moravia than that.

cheers

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8906
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 09 Jul 2002 09:50

Richard Murphy wrote:
It should be noted that similar guarantees was also issued to several other countries as well (I don't have exactly which (Turkey was one!), but I'm sure they have been mentioned before.).


Indeed! The guarantee was also offered to Romania and Greece. Hitler did not go to war against Romania, but sought to win it away from its alignment with Britain and France and to make it an ally, as he had tried in vain to do with Poland. Eventually he was successful in that endeavour, after the defeat of france in 1940; Romania became Germany's strongest ally in the war against the Soviet Union.

Despite the British guarantee to Greece, Hitler did not intend to go to war with that country. He would have preferred that it remain neutral, and he did not want the british to have any excuse to station its forces there, which would threaten Germany's source of oil in Romania. However, Mussolini foolishly attacked Greece, without telling Hitler and against the latter's will; that gave Britain the excuse to land troops in Greece, precisely the thing that Hitler most feared. He was then forced to invade Greece in order to remove the new threat to his southern flank.

The German invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece did not add anything to German power; rather they represented a drain on it. Hitler would have preferred both countries as neutrals or allies; he almost got Yugoslavia as an ally, but was foiled by Serb nationalism.





Hitler seized the chance to repudiate the treaty that he had signed with the Poles whilst at the same time raising the ghost of the WW I blockade (Which, in fact, was far from the truth, the guarantee makes no mention of, and had nothing to do with, an economic embargo.) in order to deal with the most powerful of his targets (Some 2 million strong after full mobilisation.).


What is the proof that Hitler was eager to repudiate the non-aggression pact with Poland of 1934? I am sure he would have preferred to retain it, and have Poland as an ally, in the same way as Slovakia. The pact has effectively negated the Franco-Polish alliance, which was the lynchpin of the Versailles system that encircled Germany.

Hitler only repudiated the pact once Poland accepted the British guarantee, thereby aligning itself with Britain against Germany. It is an incontrovertible fact that a faction within the Polish Government, particularly the Foreign Minister Beck, wanted war with Germany in order to conquer the territory up to the Oder-Neisse line (that was the policy promoted by Dmowski). Once they had the British guarantee, the Polish colonels could risk war with Germany since Britain and France would be bound to help them (a fatal miscalculation!).

It is quite possible that Britain and France did not really want war. They probably thought that the Hitler regime would collapse as soon as it was placed under pressure, and that there would be a military uprising. They had been misled by the German conservative opposition, which had fed them the line that such an uprising would take place as soon as war appeared inevitable. That was the line peddled by Canaris to his British contacts, and in doing so he may have been playing a double game, seeking to undermine the allied will to attack in the West immediately.

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 09 Jul 2002 12:14

Scott -

I think it is teleological. Some historians, like the late Fritz Fischer, have even gone so far as to re-revise the German war-guilt from the First World War in order (it appears to me) erase Hitler's *legitimate* claims against Versailles, which we all know thus leads to WWII and the Holocaust. Basically the idea is that German Nationalism-Imperialism-Militarism=Genocide. Some Germans are expecially fond of this view.


I am neither Fritz Fischer nor Some Germans, and do not expound the sort of view you are criticising, so what are you on about? Teleology is when you interpret individual facts solely in the light of later outcomes to which they are related, thus investing them with a unity of meaning they did not at the time possess. This is IMO not a good way to write history. Obviously though, this does not mean that events and facts do not point towards future facts and events, and that there are no connections between them - if it did, then all historical explanation would be impossible. Nor does it mean that it is teleological to relate actual decisions and policies to previous, clearly stated views about aims when the two have a unitary character. Indeed, it would be foolish and completely counter-intuitive not to do so. The point in fact here is that Hitlers course of action was along the lines one would expect on the basis of his geopolitical analysis and stated aims. There are few serious anomalies which requires other explanations. So why then insist that the reasons were other? Where are the grounds for disregarding his own stated views when these in fact match actual events? And, most importantly, where is the documentation justifying such an approach?


I see no inherent contradictions here. Hitler was set on reversing Versailles--and that means not just to scrap the treaty or even to gain back what was lost after 1914 but instead to end Allied containment and thus restore Germany's status as world power--by whatever means.


and

He had no intention of controlling all of Russia's vast Empire, just the European part. And he didn't need to bring all nations into the same contiguous Reich if he could exercise troublefree imperial hegemony with his magnificent army, as England did with her magnificent navy.


I see. So when you say "reverse the treaty of Versailles", you are in actuality talking about the same thing as I am when I say "Hitlers empire": A greater Germany, brough about by expansion, with a hegemonical position in Europe and in control of Russia up to the Urals. Fine by me - a rose by any other name and so forth.

To say that Hitler moved his chess pieces according to a set plan, when he likely didn't know exactly himself what his moves would be is more than just a little post hoc, IMHO.


Who says that he did? My point is that his long-terms aims were fixed, the methods by which he sought to achieve them were flexible. And when we are talking about what Hitler sought or wanted or aspired to, we are talking about the former, not the latter. And concrete and individual choices he made must be understood in the light of both.

Into his Greater Reich he could absorb whatever Latins and Slavs he found worthy of the German type, and the rest would not be absorbed but driven out like "Cowboys and Indians." This was not very realistic by demographic comparison but it doesn't mean that he intended to kill them either.


I refer you to the documents from Wirtschaftsstab Ost and Himmlers Posen speech as quoted by Roberto (and to the relevance of which your opinion of Roberto is irrelevant). I am sure I don't have to point out the essential difference between these as primary sources and our musings as expressions of opinion. What these clearly indicate is that:

a) Germany had long-term plans for control and utilisation of these territories
b) Intended to cleanse them of the vast majority of their population
c) The matter of whether these lived or died as a result of German policies was entirely without interest
d) That the intended policies would in all probability lead to the death of 10 million or more

Agree? Let's not get into what would be the appropriate name for such a policy. It is the actual content that matters.

Why do Hitler's critics understand Hitler's war-aims better than Hitler? Why is that a *serious* argument? I suppose Hitler was lying to Degrelle. Yes, that explains it. Hitler was a pan-German FIRST but a pan-European second. Yes, the second scheme employed some wishful thinking and opportunism. What is so hard to understand about that?



Who says anything about Hitlers critics? What I wrote was:

his own writings, verbally expressed basic views and the plethora of documents relating to actual German war aims and the policies connected to them.


In other words, Hitler himself and the documentation of the German government. Beacuse if you can find documents describing, discussing or ordering a change of policy from Pan-German to Pan-European anti-bolshevist, in terms that makes it reasonable to conclude that this reflected a change in the German leadership's war aims rather than essentially a propaganda matter, I would like to hear about them.

this though is especially rich:

Hitler was a pan-German FIRST but a pan-European second.


Logically, you simply cannot be both, that is unless the latter is simply reducible to the former. If it is, they both translate into exactly the same thing: A Germany of hegemonic power in Europe, with the rest of Europe firmly bound to the German orbit. This is of course European unity of a sort, it is the unity of hegemony, and in this case of a hegemony achieved through conquest if not annexation. Personally, I call that empire. If you wish to call it something else, go ahead. But that doesn't change the reality of what it was, any more than an added "Pan-European" dimension had any bearing whatsoever on the real content of German policy and aims.

That's because Germany was losing the war and it's hard to get allies when you are losing. So what if it meant "Zip"? That doesn't make Hitler's aims insincere, just unfulfilled.


I mean it meant zip in the sense that it did not alter the role Hitler had in mind for the rest of Europe if the crusade should succeed. His "Pan-Europeanism" was simply an appeal for involvment in the war against the Soviet Union - it did not entail a more equal role in his European order for the occupied countries, then or in the future, it did not entail any willingness to submit German interests or ambitions to those of Europe at large. Not only in practical terms but also in essence it in fact entailed exactly the same thing as "Pan-Germanism" - European interests would be determined by Germany and were identical to German interests. If you disagree, could you point out just what Hitler wanted to fulfill, but couldn't?

Which isn't my problem. I don't care if I'm the only one that understands this point. As far as I'm concerned Hitler understood it.


That is called abdication from discussion. None us can expect to carry the authority to determine truth without reference.

Bismarck's Imperium, the Second Reich, was GERMAN; it was not multiethnic. Thus, it was a NATION--as Hitler considered the basis of nationalism to be kindred-blood and common-language. He wanted all Germans, whether from Austria or the Volga, to be "returned" to ONE Reich, with ONE State, and under ONE Führer.


I have said this before, but shall say it again. Nobody claims that Hitler wanted to create something akin to the Habsburg empire by annexing France or whatever. But consider the implications of his project such as you yourself have described it.

Hegemony in Europe - meaning, through whatever structural arrangement, the power for Germany to dispose of European affairs as it liked. This presupposes inability of other great European powers to oppose Germany on any issue in Europe, this again presupposes war against same.

All ethnic Germans collected in one Reich - you had ethnic Germans in Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, the Baltic and the Soviet Union. Since presumably he did not intend to evacuate these from the territories in which they lived, how might they then be brought into the Reich? What does this ambition translate to for the countries in question? Especially as there was also a policy of expulsion and partly starvation for other ethnicla groups who happened to be living on the same territory?

At best the Table Talks are lurid hearsay composed by Hitler's critics. I don't make them "go away." I just don't consider them gospel and don't understand why anyone else would. And speaking of gospel, as far as Mein Kampf itself goes, written long before WWII, I don't like to get into Bible Bashes for the same reason because both sides will interpret "scripture" however they want.


Oh really. Well, then I suppose I should just forget everything Adolf said himself and take your word for it that he really meant something else. You just don't get it do you. You are trying to dismiss two primary sources of central importance on no ther grounds than -exactly- lurid hearsay, this time from yourself. Would you happen to have any particular justification for your belief that the Monologe im Führerhauptquartier are just lurid hearsay, that is, apart from your own highly convenient conviction that that's the way it is?

Pardon my arrogance once again. I'm going to do this post as a double with the second one in revealed CODE. That way you (and anyone who is interested) can see how to do the BBCode format properly--which is not something that Roberto has mastered yet, for sure.


ah - but you see, I've already found out for myself, the hard way. Thanks all the same. :)


cheers

User avatar
Richard Murphy
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 19:24
Location: Bletchley, England

Post by Richard Murphy » 10 Jul 2002 07:35

michael mills wrote: Indeed! The guarantee was also offered to Romania and Greece. Hitler did not go to war against Romania, but sought to win it away from its alignment with Britain and France and to make it an ally, as he had tried in vain to do with Poland. Eventually he was successful in that endeavour, after the defeat of france in 1940; Romania became Germany's strongest ally in the war against the Soviet Union.

So where is the "provocation" for the attack on Poland? Surely it would have been in Germany's best interests to get Warsaw on-side, even if it meant delaying a "solution" to the Danzig problem. Or was the fact that the Poles were not prepared to succumb to the "will of the Führer" justification in, and of, itself?
Despite the British guarantee to Greece, Hitler did not intend to go to war with that country. He would have preferred that it remain neutral, and he did not want the british to have any excuse to station its forces there, which would threaten Germany's source of oil in Romania. However, Mussolini foolishly attacked Greece, without telling Hitler and against the latter's will

That's the problem with allies, they don't always do what you want them to do (Though kidnaping their children sometimes helps!)
that gave Britain the excuse to land troops in Greece, precisely the thing that Hitler most feared. He was then forced to invade Greece in order to remove the new threat to his southern flank.

"excuses" don't come into it! Just as with Poland, the UK honoured it's agreements! Obviously it was considerably easier for the UK to ship troops (Many of them from New Zealand and Australia.) across the Med. than it was to go through the Skagerack (Apologies if that's mis-spelt.), and shot itself in the foot as regards the North African front, (Though this proved to be only a flesh wound!), but the fact remains that whilst Hitler was happy to use diplomatic agreements to his own advantage as long as they suited him, the UK stuck by theirs, even if it was to their own initial disadvantage!
The German invasions of Yugoslavia and Greece did not add anything to German power; rather they represented a drain on it. Hitler would have preferred both countries as neutrals or allies; he almost got Yugoslavia as an ally, but was foiled by Serb nationalism.

The Balkans were the most significant of all Germany's export markets, both prior to, and post, WW I. For Hitler to have alienated even that "sphere of influence" shows, in part, the contempt in which he held anyone that was not subserveant to his wishes.
What is the proof that Hitler was eager to repudiate the non-aggression pact with Poland of 1934?

Common sense and an analysis of his actions and reactions to any form of opposition, whether it be domestic or foreign.
I am sure he would have preferred to retain it, and have Poland as an ally, in the same way as Slovakia.

"Allied" in the sense of being in the thrall, and totally dependent upon, Germany? Just as Germany was free to ally with any other state as it saw fit (Most hypocritically with the Soviet Union.), so was Poland. the "Polish Colonels" chose not to and we all know the outcome.
The pact has effectively negated the Franco-Polish alliance, which was the lynchpin of the Versailles system that encircled Germany.

Germany was not "encircled"! It was free to negotiate treaties of whatever nature it desired, but chose to use force to settle issues when the other party wouldn't agree to whatever terms it imposed
Hitler only repudiated the pact once Poland accepted the British guarantee, thereby aligning itself with Britain against Germany.

Wrong! Read the text of the agreement between London and Warsaw, Germany is not mentioned once.
It is an incontrovertible fact that a faction within the Polish Government, particularly the Foreign Minister Beck, wanted war with Germany in order to conquer the territory up to the Oder-Neisse line (that was the policy promoted by Dmowski).

It is also an "inconvertible fact" that much of the German High Command wanted a war with Poland. So what?
Once they had the British guarantee, the Polish colonels could risk war with Germany since Britain and France would be bound to help them (a fatal miscalculation!).

Where is the evidence of an imminent Polish offensive?
It is quite possible that Britain and France did not really want war.

But Hitler left them with no choice.
They probably thought that the Hitler regime would collapse as soon as it was placed under pressure, and that there would be a military uprising.
They had been misled by the German conservative opposition, which had fed them the line that such an uprising would take place as soon as war appeared inevitable. That was the line peddled by Canaris to his British contacts, and in doing so he may have been playing a double game, seeking to undermine the allied will to attack in the West immediately.

There had been considerable opposition to Hitler's adventurism, most notably in the run up to Munich, from the military (Including a full scale plot to remove the Führer.), unfortunately (For Germany and Europe as a whole.), the diplomatic cave in "negotiated" there pulled the rug from under them, but Hitler's complete disregard for the agreement (As proven in March '39), and the failure of Halder et al to step in, made war inevitable.

Regards from the Park,

Rich

PS. I admit to not having a copy of the previously mentioned memoirs of the Polish Ambassador to Berlin, but would be interested in seeing it, please post details of how far the negotiations got.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

DIVIDE AND RULE...

Post by Scott Smith » 10 Jul 2002 12:05

Hi Qvist,

I'm not accusing you of the teleological fallacy. Perhaps you indeed understand it better than anyone else I've discussed things with so far on this board and it's one of my pet peeves.

I just disagree on certain conclusions, that's all. Let's take your points and contrast my views.

a) Germany had long-term plans for control and utilisation of these territories

Very long-term if at all and and not exactly written in stone.

b) Intended to cleanse them of the vast majority of their population

I don't think so, but the lands might be colonized and annexed and Germanized to some degree. It was absurd to compare this to conquering/settling the American frontier, and not the least in demographic terms. And I disagree with a "Genocide approach" to historical problems in general (not that this is your stance).

c) The matter of whether these lived or died as a result of German policies was entirely without interest

Perhaps, but I submit that military planners have other priorities in wartime. Only rich countries like the United States can employ humanitarian propaganda effectively because they have the gravy (and guns) to do so.

d) That the intended policies would in all probability lead to the death of 10 million or more

I'm sorry but I'm going to have to wax skeptical on this. At any rate, it was in the context of a war which easily killed 50 million. The "Spanish" Influenza pandemic of 1918, which likely would not have happened without the population disruptions of the First World War, killed 40 million, and even orphaned my grandfather in Idaho, about as far away from the Kaiser's "rape of Belgium" as you can get. I just think that even well-intentioned moralizing is specious in the extreme.

I didn't say that I would throw out the Table Talks. But, nevertheless, I don't consider what Hitler's critics, his opportunists, and postwar sensationalists wrote about Hitler's ruminations between the cabbage and the alfalfa course to be a primary source of his views. That's just my opinion, and I'm just not going to weigh it so heavily. However, I recognize that history is an art as much as a science and a lot of interpretation is subjective, which doesn't necessarily make it wrong.

Now, you mentioned Himmler's 1943 Posen speech, but it may not even be genuine. I might be inclined to accept it if there were electronic analysis of the recording collection. But considering the source of the material (a phonograph disk found in the executed Rosenberg's office) by the Allied prosecution, no less, I'm just not going to see it as a smoking-gun. Sorry. We might as well include exhortations to disembowel Japs and use their guts to grease the treads of our tanks.

Now, you mentioned Roberto. My problem with his dogmatic Is-Too/Is-Not approach is that he basically takes the views of his favorite Genocide historians and argues their case BLINDLY and without any analysis of his own. If he can think outside of the box he hasn't shown it to me. I don't like History by Holo-site or by search-engine. I prefer to read what I will and form my own opinions, and I don't think they are more wrong because I don't bother to cite Ph.D.s. with their own axes to grind.

You accuse me of abdication of discussion. Well, I am just a humble, lovable shoeshine boy. I post here because it makes life a little easier to bear by having intelligent discussion and a little fun. If I were publishing it might be a legitimate criticism. But even if I got twelve monkeys to agree with my opinions, that doesn't make them more or less true. Complicated matters such as a person's motivations are extremely difficult to unravel anyway. I don't know of a suitable way to empiricize it. I am not going to be satisfied with the standard story, however, that we fought the Good War, because that's not what I think we did--however popular that view is, or may become. That's my bias and I am upfront with it.

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:
Qvist wrote:this though is especially rich:

Hitler was a pan-German FIRST but a pan-European second.

Logically, you simply cannot be both, that is unless the latter is simply reducible to the former.

I don't think they are logically exclusive. The USA synthesized this with its melting-pot myth. Besides, pure German nationalism reluctantly gave way to the latter (albeit imperfectly).

If it is, they both translate into exactly the same thing: A Germany of hegemonic power in Europe, with the rest of Europe firmly bound to the German orbit.

A superpower exercises de facto hegemony just by the gravity-well of its economic and cultural power. All "satellite" states are not RULED by Berlin but are certainly influenced by her, and the foreign intelligentsia educated in German universities. And we haven't even discussed German military power yet.

This is of course European unity of a sort, it is the unity of hegemony, and in this case of a hegemony achieved through conquest if not annexation. Personally, I call that empire.

I wouldn't call it an empire unless it directly meant the RULE of non-German peoples (taxation/tribute and the whole works). With World War, yes, Hitler's national objectives were swamped by the immediate demands of empire--and without that cordon sanitaire, she had no hope of surviving a war-of-attrition.

If you wish to call it something else, go ahead. But that doesn't change the reality of what it was, any more than an added "Pan-European" dimension had any bearing whatsoever on the real content of German policy and aims.

Here are some definitions in my desk dictionary:

HEGEMONY: The predominate influence of one state over others. (My emphasis.) This does not necessarily mean rule.

EMPIRE: A political unit, often comprising a number of territories or nations, ruled by a single supreme authority. (Emphasis mine.) This was certainly the case during the war but it does not follow that this was Hitler's goal. I maintain that Hitler eschewed the thought of empire.

SUPERPOWER: A powerful and influential nation, especially one that dominates its satellites AND allies in an intenational power bloc. (Emphasis mine.) I'm arguing that this is closer to Hitler's aspirations and what the Versailles treaty most especially sought to prevent. There was also a certain amount of economic rivalry at work here that is ingrained so deeply between the English and the Germans that containing the Russians in either the 19th or the 20th century pales by comparison. The German cousin is the mortal enemy in the Anglo-Saxon mentality after 1871 (but by 1910 at the latest).

BALKANIZATION: To divide (a region or territory) into small, often hostile units. From the political division of the Balkans in the early 20th century. This is Albion's traditional foreign policy. If properly arranged it allowed her to concentrate on her overseas empire in "splendid isolation" from the continent. German unification in 1871 and the Kaiser's naval arms race shattered that dream and the new objective until 1945 was German containment.

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:
That's because Germany was losing the war and it's hard to get allies when you are losing. So what if it meant "Zip"? That doesn't make Hitler's aims insincere, just unfulfilled.

I mean it meant zip in the sense that it did not alter the role Hitler had in mind for the rest of Europe if the crusade should succeed. His "Pan-Europeanism" was simply an appeal for involvment in the war against the Soviet Union - it did not entail a more equal role in his European order for the occupied countries, then or in the future, it did not entail any willingness to submit German interests or ambitions to those of Europe at large.

That is one of the reasons why Hitler was so reluctant to resort to it--even if he could have adequately armed non-Germans for a pan-European crusade against Bolshevism, which he couldn't--he would have to negotiate with them as equals and he hoped in the short-term to exploit non-German territories. Hitler was more than willing to negotiate with foreign allies as equals, if they were worthy of his respect. That is why he admired Degrelle so much. However, mostly he found his Latin allies/associates to be greedy and unreliable fair-weathered friends, and certainly of no use to him against the riches of the Albionese Empire, let alone the Soviet Union. Having more resources to boost foreign sympathizers would have been helpful but not decisive, IMHO.

Not only in practical terms but also in essence it in fact entailed exactly the same thing as "Pan-Germanism" - European interests would be determined by Germany and were identical to German interests. If you disagree, could you point out just what Hitler wanted to fulfill, but couldn't?

I'm not sure that I understand the question. Hitler couldn't arm the Ukrainians, for example, although the SS was interested. I admit that he was reluctant to do it. But he couldn't have done it anyway. This does not however mean that he wanted to "ethnically cleanse" them so that Germany could take the land or enslave them in a sort of postwar Teutonic-Slav feudal system. I think that is hyperbole. What is even worse, is the notion that Hitler planned this from his Genocidal Beer Hall days. :wink:

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:Bismarck's Imperium, the Second Reich, was GERMAN; it was not multiethnic. Thus, it was a NATION--as Hitler considered the basis of nationalism to be kindred-blood and common-language. He wanted all Germans, whether from Austria or the Volga, to be "returned" to ONE Reich, with ONE State, and under ONE Führer.

I have said this before, but shall say it again. Nobody claims that Hitler wanted to create something akin to the Habsburg empire by annexing France or whatever. But consider the implications of his project such as you yourself have described it.

It means simply that Europe can't be balkanized by Great Britain/USA. Yes, Germany will have the commanding voice, as did the USA in NATO.

Hegemony in Europe - meaning, through whatever structural arrangement, the power for Germany to dispose of European affairs as it liked. This presupposes inability of other great European powers to oppose Germany on any issue in Europe, this again presupposes war against same.

And this is only a problem when Germany does it--not France or Albion? I don't think so. The Allies were quite willing to turn Europe over to the Communist Russians as long as Germany was neutered. They sought a repeat of 1648 and didn't care about the consequences. The USA just wanted to inherit the Japanese and British empires to expand financial markets and held strange romantic notions about the Soviets for far too long.

All ethnic Germans collected in one Reich - you had ethnic Germans in Denmark, Belgium, France, Italy, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Romania, Poland, the Baltic and the Soviet Union. Since presumably he did not intend to evacuate these from the territories in which they lived, how might they then be brought into the Reich? What does this ambition translate to for the countries in question? Especially as there was also a policy of expulsion and partly starvation for other ethnicla groups who happened to be living on the same territory?

This is just reductio ad absurdum. Hitler was willing to "sacrifice" some German minorities for larger issues. He did so with the South Tyrol. He did not claim anything from France before she declared war on Germany, but if he could have gotten a permanent understanding with them after an English armistice (i.e., an end of the war) then he might have been willing to seriously renounce claims to German-speaking Alsace-Lorraine, especially if these populations were cool to the Reich, as might be expected anyway after anti-Germanization measures from 1919-1940.

Best Regards,
Scott

A German fleet is a clear moral threat to the world!
(Read: A threat to English supremacy and politico-economic interests.)

Image

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”