Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?

Jim-Poncin wrote in message ...
>"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?

Selective of the evidence by which the western allies had to judge
Hitler.

Namely by mid 1939 he could not be trusted to keep his word.
He was expansionist.
He was racist.
He was rearming far beyond defence needs, indeed it was becoming
clear he needed to expand or risk economic problems.

By mid 1940, he would invade neutral countries.

>I wasn't talking about the Germans returning lands
>they had taken.

Correct, mainly because it gives your fiction a problem,
so you need to keep it out.

>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 have no doubt if someone mentions a Nazi's pet cat you
would tell us about how it confirms your views. Someone
who deletes so many facts has a real problem coping
with what really happened.

Balance of power changes the borders but leaves the countries
involved with their original societies, the Nazis were into big
changes to society.

>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).

Let us start with that quaint institution known as the Luftwaffe.
Let us continue with the pre war ideas of what bombing could
do.

Is the idea Germany will remain a land power in the strictest
terms, no air force? Otherwise it is a direct threat to anything
British within rage of Luftwaffe bombers.

Naval power alone was not enough in WWII, nor for that matter
was land power, air power had to be added.

Oh yes, what exactly would happen to the other European
countries under this idea?

How are they supposed to co-exist with this land power and also
the fact it was growing stronger as it took over Eastern Europe?

Also the more and more of Europe the Nazis control the easier
it is to defeat the British and anyone else for that matter.

>> 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 lock, 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".

Hitler treated France quite differently for a number of reasons,

The French overseas colonies (a big one).
His alliance commitments to Italy (It wanted parts of France)
German racism.
Nazi racism.
The co-operation of an apparently legitimate government.
Pre war plans, which required a new servant race and removal of
Poles from land next to Germany so they could be taken over by
Germans. Alsace and Lorraine were already earmarked to become
German again.

>> 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.

Going to ignore the way atomic weapons made a world war III
a mutually assured destruction?


Going to ignore the way the cold war drew on the lessons of WWII
when it come to things like pre war diplomacy and military readiness?

Going to note how the Warsaw pact collapsed under its own weight?
And it was under much less stress than Nazi Germany.

The more Hitler fights Britain in 1940/41 the more he has to
trust the USSR, because of the resources the war machine
needs.

>> 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.

Ah yes, the great "I now Hitler's mind" line.

If it was a losing proposition then there was a great deal wasted
by the German war machine in the July to October 1940 period.

Lots of aircraft and aircrew for a start.

Lots of economic disruption by the withdrawal of barges to serve
as invasion craft.

The invasion idea had to be tried, if airpower was really as good
as the pre war theories then it could clear the way for an invasion.
Since no one had tried this before it was time to see what happened.

> He
>knew Germany wasn't THE sea power, he saw it as the main land power in
>Europe.

Going to factor in airpower at any stage?

And by the way why should everyone else agree Germany could be
a major land power? Given it meant Germany could invade so many
countries if it chose.

>He admired the British and thought their empire had a stabilizing
>effect on the world.

This is selective quoting, ignoring when Hitler said bad things about
the British Empire.

How about his views on democracies?

By the way look up the Z plan. It was aimed at Britain.

By the end of the 1930's he had decided he needed to fight
Britain.

The German military had recognised Britain could continue any
war with Germany independently if needed, unlike France.

>Possibly, he went easy on the British at Dunkirk
>becasue in his mind he didn't want to create a total disaster for them.

This is another fictional claim. The halting of the Panzers was
endorsed by Hitler, not ordered by him. For quite reasonable
military reasons, like the state of the tanks and the way everyone
agreed (including the RN) that most of the troops were trapped.

>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.

You are really living in a fictional world.

The Z plan.

The size and presumed power of the Luftwaffe bomber force.

The fact the world judged Hitler could not be trusted.

His views on democracy.

His views on Britain.

>> 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?

The usual way, as per the Napoleonic wars, with French help if we
are talking about 1939, and with the US help after that and likely
the help of the USSR.

>>>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.

Ah the resort to semantics, the independent states of Poland and
Czechoslovakia were destroyed.

By the way I gather the idea is to claim the Poles did not lose any
territory when their army was destroyed.

>> 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.

No you are missing the point, you have no evidence to support your
claim. The British remained in the war because of the nature of
the Nazis. They were trying to completely remake society, removing
or killing those classified unfit, pushing the view the citizen served
the state, along with the destruction of political freedoms.

Also the Nazis did not know when to stop, continually invading
other countries or effectively taking them over. The western
world was not going to know peace with the Nazis in power.

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

Again we have the selective quoting, as of mid 1940 Churchill was
of the view the British could hold out for a long time and allow other
events to help its cause.

>>Hitler had already destroyed his credibility,
>
>You're mind is locked into events as they happened, not as they might have.

This is really funny, facts are not allowed to intrude, the fiction
must be used instead.

>The way to be convincing, from Germany's standpoint, was to realistically
>spell out their intentions, which were largely central and eastern Europe
>intentions.

Hi England, we are going to take over most of Eastern Europe
which would give us the ability to build the forces to invade you,
like all the other European countries we want.

Oh yes, expect us to kill lots of your citizens as unfit. Signed
Adolf and the Nazis.

>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.

What a joke, Coastal defences? How long did the Atlantic wall
hold up the allies.

Oh yes the obvious difficulty in building a fleet and air force to
successfully invade Britain is a lot easier if Germany controls
much of Europe. And given the Nazis were so expansionist
the reality is the countries of Europe were on a list, there was
very little chance of avoiding nazi domination short of removing
the Nazis from power.

>Sort of a reality based campaign of negotiation and propaganda.

One day you will actually tell us the offers that could have been
made not "I am a land power" statements.

>>>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.

This really ignores the US help to the British from early 1941
onwards, the lend lease act and finally USN support in the
Atlantic. Oh yes, Germany signed a treaty with Japan that
obliged Japan to attack the US if the US joined the war in Europe.


So from the US point of view the Germans were busy finding
enemies for the US.

>>>As far as moral considerations...
>>
>> Who said anything about moral considerations?
>
>The propaganda, then and now.

Meaningless.

>> 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.

And what people have been trying to tell you is that Hitler by 1939
had zero credibility when it came to words. He would have to make
a radical change, like disarmament before he would be believed.

Furthermore your claims about how things could be done are a joke,
ignoring the rise of airpower for a start.

>I think you simply can't think outside of the events as they happened to
>turn out.

No what we have is someone trying to pretend black is white and
using selective facts.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: PHIL ALLISON: WW2 US - Australian relations. As off-topic asI can make it :-)
    ... and NZ had committed a big chunk of their resources to helping Britain ... The basic problem before WW2 was that certain countries were increasing ... matter of hoping a strong Germany would resist USSR's expansion (ironic ... When Japan attacked Pearl Harbour, America declared war on Japan only, ...
    (rec.audio.tubes)
  • 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: The Rest of the Story!
    ... major wars (described as conventional wars fought among the advanced ... Korea or in Germany. ... that if a war erupts we're looking at 40000 or 50000 probably within ... Albion" Some international relations theorists have portrayed Britain ...
    (alt.sports.baseball.bos-redsox)
  • Re: IJN supply question
    ... Britain from 1919 was ... France to agree with Germany any reasonable and acceptable point. ... Hitler crossed it knowing that war would ensue - Britain and France ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Did Stalin engineer WW2?
    ... War," by Bogdan Rozen. ... evidence to back up this theory, including a speech by Stalin ... treaty with Nazi Germany, ... and they could project their power world wide. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)