Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?

"David Thornley" <thornley@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11sq90oik0v80ee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> In article <cPSyf.5681$WY5.1448@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Jim-Poncin <jphkjkhkj@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>"David Thornley" <thornley@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:11snjrreo6dfq5e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>> Propaganda only works if it can be convincing, and by then Hitler was
>>> known to be a liar. There was no basis for negotiation with him.
>>> Further, I see no reason he could have demonstrated that he was not
>>> a threat. The German armed forces were in fact a considerable threat,
>>
>>By what he wrote and said to his associates, his aims were basically about
>>adding "living room" for Germany.
>
> He also wrote that returning to the 1914 boundaries was not enough,
> which can be taken as meaning that he wanted not only Alsace-Lorraine
> but more of France. Let's not be too selective here.

Selective about what? I wasn't talking about the Germans returning lands
they had taken. You're stuck on that, and that view is consistent with my
view of the war being a regular Europen balance of power conflict.
I was talking about the Germans emphasizing their aims were to be the main
European ground power, and Britain could go on as before (obviously with
less influence).

>
> There was no question that he had lied,
>>but it was in the context of grabbing more land on mainland Europe, and in
>>consolidating German ethnics. Adolph wanted to form a big continental
>>power
>>block, and his principle direction of interest was east. France was
>>already
>>filled up.
>>
> So was Czechoslovakia (or, if you prefer, the Protectorate of Bohemia
> and Moravia). That didn't stop him.
>
> (BTW, Poland wasn't exactly empty. Hitler seems to have planned on
> killing off half the population in order to make room. No reason
> he couldn't have done the same thing in France.)

Poland was treated a lot differently than France. That suggests hitler
viewed them differently. The high degree of collaboration in France suggests
many there were willing "to go with the flow".


> There is some reason to believe that the 1939 absorbing of the Czech
> lands and the creation of Slovakia as a puppet government was Hitler's
> big mistake; on the other hand, he really needed to loot the Czechs
> right then to keep going economically.
>
>>How could he have convinced people he was no threat? By not launching
>>attacks on France and Britain.
>
> This didn't work in the Cold War. The Soviets, and later the Warsaw
> Pact, never did attack in Europe, but were perceived as threats up
> until the fall of Communism. Why would it work in the 1940s?

You're almost making my point for me. Two systems that weren't particularly
happy with each other, but managed not to let things get out of hand.

>
> By widely, loudly and constantly telling
>>everyone in those two countries from the Prime Ministers on down to manual
>>laborers that he did not now consider them enemies and wanted peace.
>
> Yeah, he'd treat them with the same respect and neutrality he
> treated Poland. That particular propaganda line was dead after
> the demise of Czechoslovakia.

Get real. Hitler knew an invasion of Britain was a losing proposition. He
knew Germany wasn't THE sea power, he saw it as the main land power in
Europe. He admired the British and thought their empire had a stabilizing
effect on the world. Possibly, he went easy on the British at Dunkirk
becasue in his mind he didn't want to create a total disaster for them.

He didn't really want a to fight and conquer Britain. He made a mistake in
NOT SAYING SO PLAINLY, with a "truth based" propaganda campaign plainly,
explaining that to all levels.


> Folded
>>into that message would be reminders of WW1 and what ill thought out
>>treaties had led to in that war, and implicit threats that if attacked he
>>would launch war full throttle until victory, and was not making vigorous
>>peace moves out of fear - only good will.
>>
> Except that, in order to accomplish anything, he has to show that
> peace is indeed a possibility. In particular, after the invasion of
> Poland, that wasn't the case.

And how was Britain going to free Poland from Hitler and Stalin? With the
ground fighting prowess exemplified in Crete, for instance?


>
>>Throw in some subtle stuff about how "red apes" were the real threat, and
>>what was really needed was an alliance, and maybe it would have worked.
>
> It would have worked in 1938, no problem. Not after Czechoslovakia and
> Poland were destroyed.

They weren't destroyed. The Czechs were taken over and Poland had its army
defeated.

> You seem to keep missing the point.

No your missing my point. The point was that Britain stayed in the war for
usual balance of power reasons that before Germany attacked the SU, they had
almost zero chance of fullfilling.

In fact Churchill feared defeat before Japan attacked the US and then Adolph
foolishly declared war on the US.


>Hitler had already destroyed his credibility,

You're mind is locked into events as they happened, not as they might have.

The way to be convincing, from Germany's standpoint, was to realistically
spell out their intentions, which were largely central and eastern Europe
intentions. As for as guarantees, well that had been worn a little thin by
Adolph. Maybe just pointing ouy the obvious difficulty of Germany invading
Britain successfully, and leaving each others navies alone, and no
objections to Britain erecting major coastal defenses.

Sort of a reality based campaign of negotiation and propaganda.


>>Churchill and other British nationalists who were oriented toward European
>>balance of power politics wouldn't have been happy, but maybe they would
>>have been too short of support to do much.
>>

> I find this exceedingly unlikely.

Churchill and the British establishment wouldn't have liked it much, but
Germany if there was no Barbarosa, and if Japan hadn't attacked the US,
that's where they were heading, sooner or later.


>
>>As far as moral considerations...
>
> Who said anything about moral considerations?

The propaganda, then and now.


> The plain facts were that Germany was a near-superpower, with a
> government that had proved impossible to trust, which had just
> absorbed three different countries, one by armed conquest.
>
> What do you do when there's a hungry tiger in your house? Feel
> just fine and secure because it hasn't eaten you yet?

The whole damned point of this was a discussion is that Hitler really didn't
want war with Britain, but didn't do much to get rid of his war with them.

I think you simply can't think outside of the events as they happened to
turn out.
>
> Well, I seem to remember a boatload of
>>victimized Jews traveling around western ports that nobody would take in.
>
> Actually, they were eventually taken in by countries. Unfortunately,
> some of those countries were then conquered by Germany. While Jews
> were certainly being treated badly in Germany, there was no reason to
> think that not settling them in areas Germany couldn't reach was a
> death sentence.
>
> I
>>think Ultra decoding made apparent what was being done to the Jews in the
>>east, but it wasn't important enough ot make an issue over.
>
> Wrong.

No I'm not.

JP dd9632 at hotmail.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... >happy to engage in with Germany, ... the reality is the more Hitler tries to defeat Britain the more ... were over estimated pre war, ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Germany Still Loses BB if Not Bombing London?
    ... Realpolitik for Britain would ... >> mean trying to lure the Nazis away from their Russian ally, ... > Hitler did not want the British empire falling into the hands of others: ... a certain potential for a raproachment between GB and Germany may has ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Blood Feuds Hold Kosovo Families in Thrall
    ... > out-producing Germany, had better aircraft and was bombing the fuck out ... And just and only coz Hitler was stupid and attacked SSSR, ... Britain in the 1920s and 1930s could have gone lots of different ... It so happened that Churchill picked the wrong issue when he supported the ...
    (soc.culture.yugoslavia)
  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... >>> On the claim Germany could avoid a war with the USSR, ... >>> the only agreement Hitler had not broken. ... > And the forces Hitler needs to fight Britain are diverted." ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... > So I presume if the allies were patient and launched a truth based ... > propaganda campiagn aimed at the populaces and anti-war elements ... Germany was a dictatorship, and it had a tightly controlled media. ... France and Britain were democracies whose governments were far more ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
Loading