Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?

Jim-Poncin wrote in message ...
>"Geoffrey Sinclair" <gsinclairnb@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:43d5c48c$0$3557$5a62ac22@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> 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.
>
>Apparently you don't know about the increased level of trade the SU was
>happy to engage in with Germany, right up to Hitler's attack. Those two
>systems and leaders were equally bad for the world, and deserved each other.

Ah right, time to change the subject I see, instead of trying to justify
deleting my words and calling them stale propaganda we switch to
the trade between the USSR and Germany. Instead of dealing with
the reality the Nazis risked dependence on the USSR to fight
Britain just jump to the fact there was trade and imply nothing bad
will happen to it for as long as Hitler wants.

Apparently you have missed the posts where I listed much of the trade
between the USSR and Nazi Germany before June 1941, including
the trade the USSR allowed through from Japan and Afghanistan. I
even listed the axis trade with North Africa from 1940 to 1942.

Oh yes, the reality is the more Hitler tries to defeat Britain the more
he has to rely on the USSR.

Going to address this point, given your continual claims about how it
was his life's main aim to invade the country?

Naval and air warfare are fuel intensive for a start.

By the way in the 1940s there was a clear realisation Nazi
Germany was worse than the Stalinist USSR.

>> 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.
>
>I'm not sure what you're refering to, but after what happened in mid 1940,
>and considering the inherent dificulties of modern sea borne invasions,
>Britain had about as much chance of liberating Europe from the Wehrmacht as
>a rabbit does in killing the wolf.

Ah, I see, after never defining the time period in question you
now decide you do not know what is going on.

By the way, noticed the successful British landings in Normandy in
June 1944?

See also Italy in September 1943.

Oh I guess there will be the new rider, that Britain should do it alone,
but Churchill and the UK government were falling back on the age old
British strategy, peripheral warfare and looking for allies. They made
a quite rational conclusion the Nazis could not be accommodated
and others would ultimately help Britain, voluntarily or not.

>However, Hitler had contemplated an alliance with Britain. In an interview
>he gave in late 1922 he thought that an alliance with the Bolsheviks was
>impossible. He thought Germany would be better off working with Britain and
>Italy, which appeared to be resisting French hegemony in Europe, against
>Russia, which would in give Germany its living room (Lebensraum). He
>maintained that attitude past the time of Dunkirk.

Oh my God, someone who simply has decided to use a 1922 speech
as evidence of Hitler's attitude 18 years later.

Furthermore the idea of French hegemony in Europe was over.

Furthermore since you are basically reporting what was written in
Mein Kampf you might add the fact Hitler wanted France to be
eliminated.

>If he could have assured Britain of peaceful intentions in the west,
>perhaps by a small German navy treaty, and letting the French have back
>their country, he might have made a case that would have sufficiently
>undermined Churchill and the other hard liners. However, that would have
>left Britain a reduced and peripheral power in Europe.

Yes we still have the fiction being pushed. "Hard Liners", as
opposed to mainstream, never bothering to even give us the
details of the claimed peace terms. Chamberlain had already
moved the UK to an anti Nazi war footing, Churchill followed
the direction outlined with approval for extra spending given
the crisis.

So tell us all what exactly does a reduced and peripheral power mean,
spell out the wonder peace terms.

By the way going to let the Danes, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians,
Luxembourgers, Czechs and Poles have their countries back
as well? Going to cut armaments as well?

Going to tell us after quoting Hitler's views from 1922 why the
Mein Kampf writings about eliminating France are to be ignored?

I have news for you, one day you will have to mention the Luftwaffe
and how it could attack Britain, and how the effects of bombing
were over estimated pre war, magnifying the threat.

>" Hitler, after six weeks of deliberation, reluctantly issued "War
>Directive No. 16"-the invasion of Britain, code-named "SEALION."

Of course reluctance can be for other reasons, like the dangers,
like the description of Hitler that he had just won big and wanted
to walk away with his winnings intact.

>Still
>clinging to his dream of a world divided between Germany and England,
>Hitler did not want this war.

Ah yes, the usual Adolf the peaceful line. Just ignore what Hitler
wanted, which included defeat of Britain.

By the way, how exactly was Hitler going to pay off the Japanese
and keep the British empire intact?

>In a speech given three days after the directive, he
>claimed that Germany had made determined and honest efforts to achieve
>friendship with the British Empire-an empire which it was never my intention
>to destroy or even to harm. I do realise, however, that this struggle, if it
>continues, can only end with the complete annihilation of one or the other
>of the two adversaries. Mr. Churchill may believe that this will be Germany;
>I know it will be Britain. . . . I can see no reason why this war must go
>on. I am grieved to think of the sacrifices which it will claim. 10 "
>[from http://www.ciaonet.org/book/schweller/schweller06.html ]

Well congratulations on being yet another person to take Hitler
at his public word.

Never mind his public actions and his private words.


May 24 1938, ordered a complete revision of the shipbuilding
program as "the Fuhrer must reckon Britain permanently among
his enemies".

6 January 1939 gave the Z plan ships priority for steel over
the Luftwaffe and Heer.

The work towards a Japanese alliance to threaten the British
and Americans.

The OKW war plan of 26 November 1938, Germany and Italy
attacking France and Britain.

The 1 April 1939 speech denouncing the naval agreement.

The May 1939 speech to his generals. In fact parts of most
speeches in 1939.

See also the pre war Nazi propaganda lines.

>> The same way they used to force Napoleon out, peripheral warfare and
>> blockade after securing Britain and looking for allies.
>
>Well, I think Boni got ousted by a coalition of French marshals in 1814,
>after his unfortunate venture in Russia. And I don't think Wellington would
>appreciate you calling his Waterloo battle "peripheral", which stymied
>Boni's comeback. Damndest close run thing you ever saw.

I gather you are as ignorant of the Napoleonic wars as you are of
WWII, including Britain as the workshop of Europe fitting out various
armies, and doing things like fighting in Spain and Egypt and so on,
over a large number of years. Helping other countries fight the French.

>> See the big country on the other side of the Atlantic,
>
>I not only see it, I live in the "big country" and prior to Pearl Harbor and
>Hitler's ensuing delclaration of war on the US, there was little sentiment
>for getting involved in another European bloodletting.

All I can say is yet again your preferred fiction ignores the reality of
what the US public was thinking. Entering a war was bad, leaving
the Nazis in control of Europe was worse.

Hitler encouraging the Japanese to be anti American did not
help either.

See all that aid that flowed across the Atlantic in 1940 and 1941.

See also the way the two countries swapped code breaking information
and weapons information.

>>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.
>
>Hah. Germany's military *ability* from its surviving officer corps was
>excellent in '43, '44 and even '45 - they were extremely adept and dangerous
>oponents. Nobody had the kind of experience and ability they had

And during all that time they consistently went backwards and
the reality is the higher you went the worse the performance
became, thanks to Hitler and his idea of commanders.

Also you are largely using the Germans telling us how they went.

>Their manpower and heavy equipment was attrited by the Red Army, and Hitler
>damaged their operations, especially from late 1942 on, by over ruling an
>assemblage of the best field generals in the world, and probably in history.

Yes I thought so, read the German Generals' memoirs and put the
blame all on Hitler.

As for history that is simply something that requires a measuring
stick, for the Napoleonic generals, the various generals who
fought for countries and empires around the world over the last
few thousand years. See the way the Zulu empire was built up.

Anyway see the high command of the Luftwaffe for example. See
the high command of the Wehrmacht as well. Perhaps not field
generals but they set the tasks and provided the tools and
highlighting the problems of senior commanders.

>> Himmler ended up an Army Group commander for a while."
>
>The war was lost well before Himmler's short stint as head of Army Group
>Vistula(?), and military ability fell not even
>becasue of making Wehrmacht officers do Nazi salutes and attend NASD fervor
>seminars.

I suppose you are going to ignore the way dictatorships want a
reliable military, the SS was a reliable military, but nowhere as
good as the regular army when it came to command.

Himmler was a commander who was reliable as far as Hitler
was concerned.

End result, over time, is what happened to the Italians, Mussolini
had his large reliable army, just not an effective one.

Hitler was not in power long enough to wreck the military in
peacetime, so he tried in wartime. A good clue as to what
he would do in peace time. See the way he had already
worked over the high command pre war.

>It was from Adolph over-riding his generals.
>Ex: Citadel over Guderian's recommendations; "Standfast" with a series of
>encirclements and late withdrawlas; "fortress cities" with no supplies or
>fortifications etc., etc. All gifts to the Red Army.

And I suppose the idea there were incompetent German
commanders is going to be ignored as well.

>For an excellent summary of this, see General Erhard Raus's book "Panzer
>Operations", circa p300, in which he describes a discussion he had with
>Himmler near the end of the war. Raus was a brilliant man and he pulled no
>punches in what he wanted Himmler to pass on to Hitler.

So tell us all, how much was passed on and how much was acted
upon by Hitler and/or Himmler. By the way, who else but the
General can report on the conversation? And who decided he
was a brilliant commander?

The rest is all the stuff deleted yet again, firstly more of the
"stale propaganda"

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."

Now the rest,

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".

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.

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?


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: 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: Leave your troubles at the door.
    ... Germany, which in most cases, brings out the worst in people. ... "World War II was inevitable because of the Treaty of Versailles." ... prevent Hitler from annexing Austria. ... Europe in the XXth century. ...
    (rec.audio.opinion)
  • Re: why did Hitler Kill jews ?
    ... >view of the war being a regular Europen balance of power conflict. ... Poles from land next to Germany so they could be taken over by ... >>>attacks on France and Britain. ...
    (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: Interesting, we declared war on Germany for invading Poland, but Not Russia
    ... was a nasty man called Adolf Hitler. ... He kept on demanding that Germany ... convincing argument that it was worth risking war to stop him. ... "We will guarantee the terriorial integrity of Roumania....and Poland, ...
    (uk.politics.misc)