Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We could argue that the invasion of USSR has other reasons (ideological and strategical ones)
The prime and urgent reason at that point was to get the resources of the east for air-war purposes. This accelerated Hitler's master plan.
The native US Americans had their lands stolen from them by invaders from the west who coveted their land and its resources. Hitler saw what the USA did, which catapulted the USA into a world economic power, and used it as a precedent for invading and stealing land in the east and also eliminating the populations - by starvation and death camps. In his mind what was good for the goose was good for the gander.
Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze xxiiv: "America should provide the pivot for our understanding of the Third Reich. In seeking to explain the urgency of Hitler's aggression, historians have underestimated his acute awareness of the threat posed to Germany, along with the rest of the European powers, by the emergence of the USA as the global superpower."
Tooze: Preface xxvi:
"Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the USA"
The UK became a world player over centuries building up a massive trading empire and world trade routes. The USA did it quickly by expanding west taking land. The precedence of the USA in taking land and removing the populations was one way Germany could be an instant major economy, major power, self sufficient in most aspects and have world influence.
The German mentality was one of being a world economic player alongside the UK and USA.
The precedence of the USA's rapid rise to a world economic power, based on land acquisition by force from indigenous people and the Mexicans, and largely eliminating the indigenous populations convinced the Germans they could do the same to their east.
French people "never won a war" (also a stereotype I read somewhere).
They have lost in almost every war:
North America was almost entirely French at the very beginning (the continent was then called "La Nouvelle France", the New France, since the old one is in the old continent, Europe).
Then the French went into tons of wars against Great Britain. Every time they have lost a war, the UK got some territories in North America in return, until North America became an English possession before the Independence. Then there was a short breakthrough during Napoleon times, but very soon the other European Powers crushed them hard. Afterwards, Paris was captured by the Germans (or Prussians) and lost humiliated in the war of 1870, shortly before the German Unification in 1871.
Then came WW1 and WW2 and here everyone knows what happens. The French were about to loose WW1 until they begged the US to intervene. During Nazi times, the French showed great cowardliness since they preferred cooperating with Hitler just to run away from the suffer. In the opinion of many people, France (even though belonging to the winning Allies side) did not even won the two World Wars. Actually, Stalin refused to include France as a major power in the UN 5 major seats since he considered that the country was officially pro- German (which was true because Charles de Gaulle 's government or similar institution was not recognized/ official).
The US wanted the opposite because it was in its advantage to have France permanently seated to support its decisions, especially that the American and Russian relationships kind of degraded in the lasts days of the War.
Nowadays this cowardliness is showed through the issue of the Germanic province of Alsace- Lorraine (which today belongs to France). France refuses to recognize German language there (or at least the Alsatian dialect) because they are afraid the people there will recall for the Reintegration of the province to Germany. Unbelievable!
Instead of respecting the unique heritage of the province, they are ruining it. Today, not even 10% speak German/ Alsatian at home, though all family names as well as city names contradict the "Francisation" process that France followed after World War 2 (Strasbourg (for Straßburg), Colmar (for Kolmar), Riquewihr (for Reichweihr),Mulhouse (for Mülhausen), ...).
Italy however dealt way better with the German-speaking region of South Tirol. The German language is there fully protected and everyone must to learn it at school. The culture, the food even the laws were not "italianized". Its amazing job they did and today the province is the most prosperous in Italy.
I do not think that France will reach this maturity level, because it is truly coward.
Those French Germanic provinces will soon be German again. I imagine within a century or so Germany will have its lands in France and Poland back
Those French Germanic provinces will soon be German again. I imagine within a century or so Germany will have its lands in France and Poland back
I don't think Germany would even want them if France gave them freely. Coal mines are closed, industries left, unemployment skyrocketed and the most dangerous French city is there. Moreover they hardly speak German anymore.
Mulhouse. It's not really the worse, in Seine-Saint Denis there is more insecurity. It's quite recent in Mulhouse and very disturbing because Alsace is usually a quiet place. The city were quite covered not so long ago because many jackass travel to Germany or Switzerland to theft, burn cars, deal drugs, etc.
But Nazis failed to realize that the Lebensraum Theory does not work on heavely populated territories or taking up land of powerful countries. The Americans had success because they invaded wild, almost empty land, and when they took California from Mexico, the territory was scarcely populated, also Argentina, as Argentinians tried to remove entirely all the Indian population and Australia.
The theory failed everywhere else, North Africa, Africa, India, etc.
A lot of the theory comes from the New World, not only from North America, but also from Germans in Argentina.
But Nazis failed to realize that the Lebensraum Theory does not work on heavely populated territories or taking up land of powerful countries. The Americans had success because they invaded wild, almost empty land, and when they took California from Mexico, the territory was scarcely populated, also Argentina, as Argentinians tried to remove entirely all the Indian population and Australia.
The theory failed everywhere else, North Africa, Africa, India, etc.
A lot of the theory comes from the New World, not only from North America, but also from Germans in Argentina.
The main successful example was the Roman Empire which lasted almost a millennium and which is the root of the European identity. Nazis didn't took a lot of symbols from them randomly. The Lebensraum Theory could maybe have worked if Hitler wasn't so greedy, he did exactly the same mistake as Napoleon.
The USA is not really a good example because Americans replaced the original population, German wanted to imitate the British, French and Spanish. And even if all those countries have now lost their influence, they left an undeniable culture heritage to all the place they colonized.
But I think Germans would have failed anyway, they were too national-centric to successfully propagate their culture. Romans succeeded because they accepted the "lower people" like they were and gave them the opportunity to become Roman citizens if they worked hard. Moreover they didn't only exploited their "vital area" but invested on them. Colonial powers did the same. Nazis didn't, it was all about Germanic race.
Thanks. Interesting. I hope that Strasbourg isn't dangerous. I'm going to visit to it someday.
Quote:
Seine-Saint Denis there is more insecurity.
I was there for only a hour during the midday and haven't any problems, but perhaps I was fortunate. The only thing that annoyed me was that some jesting fellows garbaged a little in the basilica.
I heard that some people find Marseille dangerous, but haven't been there.
Romans did not follow that approach, but one based on spreading their civilization and assimilating people to their empire, Romans did not care about race at all. A similar method was employed by Spain and France and also English in highly populated countries.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
