Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?

Jim-Poncin wrote in message ...
>"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:43d1bd28$0$4369$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Ah I see one line of my text managed to make it to this non reply.
>>
>> Jim-Poncin wrote in message ...
>>>"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>news:43cf2154$0$23565$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Jim-Poncin wrote in message ...
>>>>>"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>><snip, snip>
>>>>
>>>> Ah yes I note yet again all the inconvenient points are removed.
>>>
>>>They were points repeating stale propaganda.
>>
>> Ah yes I note yet again all the inconvenient points are removed.
>> Now with added editorial.
>>
>> Here the points again, People can decide if these are stale propaganda.
>>
>> On the claim Germany could avoid a war with the USSR,
>>
>> "The main problem here is both Germany and the USSR were mobilising,
>> and until the British exit the war Germany stays mobilised, something
>> that would worry the USSR, given the agreement with them is just about
>> the only agreement Hitler had not broken.
>
>Everybody knows all this.

Apparently this is stale propaganda.

The rest of the claimed stale propaganda has been deleted,
here it is again, to the next ">"

So the USSR increases its forces, and Germany responds and so on.
And the forces Hitler needs to fight Britain are diverted."

On how Britain was going to liberate Nazi controlled lands,

"I presume this is as of June 1940.

The same way they used to force Napoleon out, peripheral warfare and
blockade after securing Britain and looking for allies. See the big country
on the other side of the Atlantic, see also the way the Nazis managed to
alienate so many of the people they tried to rule. See the bad relations
between the USSR and Nazi Germany during the 1930s and note they
had finished dividing eastern Europe between them by mid 1941. The
only way to expand was against each other.

The thing you need to note is the way Germany's military ability
declined during the war as Hitler made it more politically reliable.
Himmler ended up an Army Group commander for a while."

On forcing the USSR to give up its latest conquests,

"The simple calculation that Hitler and Stalin could not co-exist, after
all Hitler's platform was to destroy communism, Stalin's propaganda
against Hitler was in a similar vein, up until the signing of the pact in
1939. Then the reality Hitler could not be trusted."

On the post war attempts by Churchill to force the USSR to give
up its latest conquests.

"The reality was in 1945 Britain required the US to "do something"
against the USSR plus agree to more years of warfare. So they
tried diplomacy."

Churchill on Katyn Wood,

"He did not like it. Then he did not like communism either."

>> Of course the reality that there were three countries in Europe
>> who could stop Germany, either Britain and France in an
>> alliance or the USSR, is going to be ignored.
>
>Strange. I guess you're trying to set up a bunch of strawman arguments. This
>isn't productive.

Yes folks, apparently my statements go from "stale propaganda" to
"strawman" in the blink of an editorial.

>> Instead we have
>> someone trying to pretend Hitler had no ambitions against
>> the British.
>
>Instead of your straw arguments, here's what I have said.

Ah yes the editorial followed by the restatement of the fiction.

>As stated a number of times, Hitler told his associates he admired the
>British empire and thought it helped stabilize the world.

As has been stated a number of times this is a highly selective
use of Hitler quotes and ignores his views in 1938 and 1939,
Things like the Z plan.

>He probably let
>the British off the hook by not going full force at Dunkirk.

As has been stated before this is wrong, Hitler approved the
Army decision to stop.

>Subsequently,
>Hitler made some peace gestures to Britain. Churchill, as a British
>nationalist, rejected them. I think it's plain he didn't want to accept a
>reduced role for Britain in Europe, and the world. This war was similar to
>other balance of power struggles.

No what we have is someone determined to ignore the Nazi message
and practices. Someone ignoring what Hitler offered to the world and,
in the specific case, Britain in mid 1940.

Churchill rejected the idea of peace because the terms were simply
unacceptable. Both for Britain and the average British citizen.

If Churchill did not want to accept a reduced role for Britain then he
would have been wanting to leave the war. It was quite clear the
costs of the war and the social changes in places like India would
reduce British power.

The Nazis were not into balance of power. This is rather like telling
us Stalin would stop at Finland as "balance of power".

>Hitler viewed Germany as a land power.

Still not bothering to mention the Luftwaffe I see and what it was
expected to be able to do to Britain.

Nor the Z plan.

Nor the way a German victory in the east would gain the Nazis
additional resources and free others for building the forces
needed to attack and invade Britain.

> His main desires were expansion in the east.

Amazingly this is apparently all Britain needs, "main aim", not entire
aim. You know Stalin took eastern Europe in 1945, this was his main
aim, so do not worry about him going any further, after all the Red
Army did leave Austria in the 1950s, right? It evacuated some Danish
islands in the 1940s , right?

>Many of his generals were worried about an attack on the Soviet
>union. Ex: Paulus correctly predicted a major logistics problem developing
>near Smolensk(?) in war games. Probably, the things that gave Hitler the
>confidence to attack the SU were the poor Red Army equipment seen in Poland
>and, much greater, its incompetence after attacking Finland. He chose to do
>the attack, and as we all know, it didn't work out very well.

When in trouble head for the motherhood statements. Nothing in the
above paragraph about Hitler's aims, broken promises or peace
offers.

>Nothing to get hysterical about.

The only hysterics here is from laughter. The way anything contradicting
the claimed fiction has to be deleted.

Deleted text.

Think of it this way, imagine one of the radical groups around
today, have them take power in a country/state/province near
you and carry out their plans. I am sure you would be happy
for them to do this, after all it will be their last territorial demand,
right?

On the idea the victims of the Nazi killing programs were

"genocide of a group that had a long history of religious
victimization, and a recent history of leftist political activism."

Gypsies? Christian clergy? Handicapped Germans? Polish
Intelligencia? Communist party officials in the USSR?

The Nazis were into radical eugenics, in this case killing the
claimed unfit as opposed to eugenics idea of preventing them
from having children.

And this has what to do with the fact the Japanese could help him
by threatening Britain France and the US? Have you looked at the
treaties Hitler signed with Japan?

Furthermore the southern Italians were part of Italy, a political ally.

Why not simply stay closer to home, the way so few senior Nazis
actually fulfilled the stereotypes they claimed to want.

What we have is someone trying to fit WWII into the reasons for the
previous couple of centuries of European war, ignoring the even earlier
set of wars over the split in the western Christian Churches. The religious
wars were noted for their savagery, since God was on "our" side, WWII
was a return to that, not an economic war, in this case it was "race" not
religious grouping. Hitler believed there had to be a master race
ruling everyone else and the removal or killing of the unfit.

Finally what I really like is the idea someone who claims Hitler's
main aims were

"He wanted to depopulate and German colonize the east. "

Is busy telling us how it would be easy for Hitler not to attack
the USSR.

Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.

.

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: The Sun about the RMT guy sat in First Class
    ... the war had been fought clandestinely before the German troops ... Hitler, or those who then fulfilled what the governments of France, ... German bourgeoisie. ... USSR by ordering them to take over the Eastern part of Poland. ...
    (uk.railway)
  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... On the claim Germany could avoid a war with the USSR, ... And the forces Hitler needs to fight Britain are diverted." ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: Anglo-French war plans in 1940?
    ... thought that either the British would fall into line, ... Well, to do Hitler justice, he never thought pre-May 1940 that he would have ... to think about "taking out Britain" in the near future, ... long war of attrition, WW1-style. ...
    (soc.history.war.world-war-ii)
  • Re: OT: Most murders carried out by migrants
    ... Are you seriously suggesting that if Britain had ignored the invasion of Poland it wouldn't have been only a matter of time until Hitler got around to Britain? ... The sensible option would have been to bide the time, slowly building up the armed forces and training the population for war so that by the time it was unavoidable it could have been fought on a good footing. ... It is my opinion that had the declaration of war been delayed until there were armed forces sufficient to stage warfare, the likelihood is that the Holocaust would not have taken place on such a level. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
Loading