Originally posted by thedarktower
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin
just a quick thing, you mentioned Hitler wanted to go to war with Russia and Britain. At first, Germany and Russia were allied, Stalin and Hitler were
on good terms, until they grew suspicious of one another. Germany had a naval base in Russia for a while and i seen an interview on the histroy
channel with an ex Russian soldier during WW2 who said they all got on rather well at the docks.
Of course they got along well. What reason would there be for dock-workers to hate each other?
These were the "people", not the leaders. "People" never want war, and "people" only seldomly hate other people categorally.
Nevertheless the Hitler-Stalin pact was a great surprise for many Germans. They had been trained that the "Communists" were nothing more than
stooges of the "international jew".. So there was some consternation. But all in all the foot-soldiers got along well.
The dock's were not the only place that they met. Long before the pact, going back to the Weimar days, the Soviets and Germans would be working
jointly on building tanks, and writing doctrine for tank-warfare. It's really not a black and white picture.
But, in Hitler's mind and the minds of the Nazis elite, there was no question: The pact with Stalin was made out of necessity and was to go on only
as long as the free hand in the west was needed. Then it was the Soviets turn to be attacked.
It was one of the truly gigantic miscalculations of the Nazis.
My point is not that the Germans hated the Soviets or vice versa and that that led to the war.
The Hitler-Stalin pact was firstly and foremost a pact of economic assistance. The Germans needed the peace with Russia to have a free hand in the
West. And they needed the Soviet commodities to wage the offensive in the West. These were the primary reasons for the 1-year "friendship" between
the Nazis and the Soviets. From Hitlers writings, his talks and his planning it is absolutely irrefutable that this was a short term solution; that
the Soviets would be attacked was clear long before that deal was made. I would refer you to Hitlers Table talks, his own writings, his delibarations
with the Werhmacht.
If you consider the different elements of the coalition under Hitler - the old elites, the Nazis, and the nationalistic-völkisch groups then it is
quite clear that war in the east was the primary goal of the campaign. Conquering "Lebensraum" in the east was an agreed part of Nazi ideology. You
can check that claim by reading any and all early writings of Nazis such as Himmler, Goebbels, Darré, Rosenberg, Backe, Sebottendorff. You will also
find this view prevalent among the top German Generals, Brauchitsch, Jodel and Halder. They all knew - at least from 33/34/35 on, that the ultimate
fight would be on the eastern front.
Look at the RUSHA files. Look at Generalplan Ost. These thing didn't just pop up in 1941 - these were basic tenets of Nazi ideology that can be
traced back to the very beginnings of the NSDAP. Basically, the NSDAP secured widespread cooperation among the Nationalist/Völkisch circles by
promising to fullfil their dream of eastern expansion ( a goal that is part of German expansionism ever since the days of Luther and the German Order
in medieval times, and remains so today)
Also, Hitler expected Britain to side with him at the start, Neville Chamberlain didnt want to go to war with him. When there was trouble between
Germany and Czechoslovakia, he was quoted as saying: "why bother about a country so far away and that we know little about". When Hitler invaded
Poland after Churchill said he would consider it an act of war, thats when things went ahead.
I can't disagree with that analysis. This is why I said GB could have, just like the US, stayed out of the war. This doesn't change the fact that
Hitler was the aggressor. Germany had no legal claim on all of Chechoslovakia and certainly not on any part of Poland except for the corridor.
It's true that Hitler was naive enough to believe that Britain would eventually be ok with the Nazis expansion.
This was the same basic mistake that the German elites made in the first world war.
I do not find any of this to be a reason to expulcate anything Hitler did.
Also, an interesting fact i heard from my histroy teacher in college. The first civilian bombing of the war by air was German on London, though it was
a mistake. The Luftwaffe were going for military targets and were blowing of course, the weather was very bad and they had to drop their payload to
get home. They thought they were over the sea when they dropped the first bombs, but were over London. Apparently some of the pilots were executed as
a result. Then Britain retailaited by bombing German towns, and so it went back and forth from there.
This has some truth to it, but it is not entirely true. I'll provide you with a basic narrative.
In the battle for Britain, it quickly became evident that the Germans had neither the bombing capacity nor the fighter-escort capacity to destroy the
RAF or to significantly hurt GB's armaments production.
So very early in the campaign Goering re-directed the effort of the bombing campaign on civilian targets - especially London, Liverpool, the big
cities. Goering's reasoning behind this was that if they could not strike the british were it really hurt militarily, they could demoralize the
populace of GB by intense civilian bombing. The reasoning was false; the "Blitz" proved the one thing that really welded GB together and made them
determined to fight or go down dying.
It was not exactly the result of a mistake that London was repeatedly bombed. Goering's orders survived the war and they are quite clear.
But it is true that the Germans never once had the capability (or maybe even the intent) to bomb Britain the way that Britain and the USA bombed
Germany from 1943 on. I'm pretty sure the British would have done so regardless of German actions. But luckily for them, the British can today take
the high ground and simply assert that the "Germans started doing that, therefore it was ok".
This is in accordance with historical fact, even though it may be a lie (they may have dones so anyway). That's one of the pleasures of being the
attacked in a war; you can always claim that your violence is reactive while your opponents violence can be portrayed as active.
[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]
[edit on 12-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]