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.
Well, Prior to 1939 the Rome-Berlin Axis Conquered, Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and the Rhineland, and they didn't want war?
Hitler build is army from less than 100k to over 3,000,000, and he didn't want war?
Hitler built an entire navy, and he didn't want war?
He attacked neutral Poland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, and Netherlands, and he didn't want war?
Yes, he didn't want the Greek war, because Greece was a dictatorship with friendly relations with Nazi Germany, and maybe could have been an ally, then Italy attacked.
In the most simple regard, Hitler did not want war, and he really didn't expect any sort of real war. What Hitler wanted was to create his version of greater Germany, complete with all the resources from different places he felt they needed. Hitler believed he could just take what he wanted, kind of like shopping in some sort of big European supermarket.. Other countries would grumble or put up a little fight, but afterwards all would be well and things would settle down. He viewed Germany as invincible and that it was her natural destiny to become great again; real hard fought war was not in the original plan; his military might was for deterring others and making sure his dream came true and was sustainable afterwards .....
Anyone who knows just the basics of history knows this is pure 100% BS. The German military under the Nazis was built for offence not defence. This offence ability was honed and practised in the Spanish civil war. The blitzkrieg tactic which the Wehrmacht was defined by was offensive and designed specifically to overwhelm and conquer other nations as quickly as possible.
You are totally mistaken about what Hitler's dreams were. It was the counterpart and opposite ideologically from the dream of international communism. Hitler's dream was to establish a "New world order". In this new world the German state would rule supreme and all other states would to varying degrees be vassal states to the "Fatherland". Of course there was also a racial component to this new world order where all people's not "Aryan" would be inferior and live to serve the "Master race". That fact is well illustrated in the way the Nazis behaved and treated the non Aryans in the territories they conquered. Like everything Nazi, the entire philosophy behind it was evil to the extreme and nonsense to boot. It could have never succeeded. It takes mental gymnastics to consider the Japanese as "Honorary Aryans. The entire Nazi dogma was like that. Just extreme evil STUPIDITY.
As I mentioned, INTERNATIONAL Communism had the same goal of world domination. The Comintern was an organization that was much more likely to achieve World domination than the Nazis ever were. It was international in it's nature, not racist and appealed to the poor and dispossessed the world over.
This fact about international Communism is central to all of the Nazi plans for war. Very few of the astute observers of the time doubted that the Nazis would attack the USSR. The defeat of the Soviet state and the demise of international communism was absolutely essential for all of the Nazi plans for the future. Hitler assumed and counted on to a large degree that he could live with and use to his own ends the Capitalistic nations of the world. He did not see them as too different from Nazis. He thought that the ruling classes of these countries would actually embrace Nazism. No strikes, no unions, near total stability of the nation due to near total "police state" control. The entire non Aryan world as virtual slaves of the "Master race", 100% employment in the Aryan nations because the rest of the world would be a captured market for finished goods and an inexhaustible source of raw materials. This did in fact make a lot of sense to big businessmen all over the world. Hitler could never get over the fact that the very same Englishmen who had run a world empire along these same lines for a couple of centuries totally rejected the Nazis doing it. His failure to understand the English was the beginning of his downfall.
In the most simple regard, Hitler did not want war, and he really didn't expect any sort of real war. What Hitler wanted was to create his version of greater Germany, complete with all the resources from different places he felt they needed. Hitler believed he could just take what he wanted, kind of like shopping in some sort of big European supermarket.. Other countries would grumble or put up a little fight, but afterwards all would be well and things would settle down. He viewed Germany as invincible and that it was her natural destiny to become great again; real hard fought war was not in the original plan; his military might was for deterring others and making sure his dream came true and was sustainable afterwards .....
You are right in one respect and wrong in another. Hitler always saw war with the east and the Soviet Union as an inevitability. His longterm plans included the conquest of large tracts of Eastern Europe that were to serve as colonies and breadbasket for the Reich aka the famous "Lebensraum". Hitler did not mince expectations of having to fight a war to gain this territory and use brutal methods to subjugate and eliminate its people to pave the way for German settlement. What Hitler underestimated was the ability and resolve of the Soviets to fight, while overestimating the ability of Germany to subjugate them.
The war that Hitler did not want was the war with the west. He expected to stomp his feet, give a speech and rattle his saber and be given what he wanted. It worked until Poland was placed in his crosshairs. I have already explained previously in this thread where Buchanans thesis derails over the issue of Poland. However, had Hitler been given control of Poland to become a vassal state of the Reich and Britain and France sat back, Hitler would have been very happy to not conquer France and Britain. He would have much preferred to defeat the Soviet Union, place virtually all of Europe under German control and then accept the capitulation/subservience of France and Britain to the new German "superpower".
Well, Prior to 1939 the Rome-Berlin Axis Conquered, Albania, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia, and the Rhineland, and they didn't want war?
Hitler build is army from less than 100k to over 3,000,000, and he didn't want war?
Hitler built an entire navy, and he didn't want war?
He attacked neutral Poland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, and Netherlands, and he didn't want war?
Yes, he didn't want the Greek war, because Greece was a dictatorship with friendly relations with Nazi Germany, and maybe could have been an ally, then Italy attacked.
He basically wanted to take over the world. He saw himself as a reincarnation of Napoleon. Anyone who would try to be an apologist for Hitler, well, that is just scary.
He basically wanted to take over the world. He saw himself as a reincarnation of Napoleon. Anyone who would try to be an apologist for Hitler, well, that is just scary.
And anyone that states that Hitler "wanted to take over the world" is simply regurgitating stale Allied propaganda slogans from the war. Hitler's "world" didn't extend beyond continental Europe. He didn't give two hoots in hell about Africa or Asia and viewed South America as little more than potential economic trade partners with Germany. As far as the United States, his view was shaped primarily by Roosevelt, who he saw as a meddlesome, pontificating fool who needed to stop insinuating himself and the United States into Europe's affairs. Once the U.S and Germany were at war, German talk of taking the war to U.S. soil was just that; talk. They did not possess the means to do it at the time and it would have taken years if ever for the Germans to reach a point where they could directly attack the U.S. mainland in any meaningful way.
So can we finally remove the "Hitler wanted to conquer/take over the world" and "We would all be speaking German today if Hitler hadn't lost" comments as serious, historical discussion points and place them where they actually belong, which is in the trash?
He didn't give two hoots in hell about Africa or Asia and viewed South America as little more than potential economic trade partners with Germany.
Is that why Hitler declared to the Reichstag in February of 1938 that, "The colonies are our lost property and the world will be obliged to return them?"
And, is it your argument that this 1000 year Reich was going to be content with remaining within its boarders and a few parcels in Eastern Europe?
Is that why Hitler declared to the Reichstag in February of 1938 that, "The colonies are our lost property and the world will be obliged to return them?"
Well, to start, the idea that Germany’s “lost property” should be returned was not something that originated with Hitler but with the Weimar Republic. The cornerstone of Weimar’s foreign policy throughout the 1920’s and early 1930’s was the restoration of what was taken from Germany by modifying the terms of the Treaty of Versailles. So in many respects, Hitler was simply continuing what the Weimar Republic started. And it was a theme he hit upon often when giving speeches related to Germany’s relationship with Britain.
Prior to the Munich Conference in September 1938, the British government was seeking ways to appease Germany and preserve the territorial integrity of Czechoslovakia. Because the perception had been given that the former African colonies were of extreme importance to Hitler, Chamberlain came up with an idea that he believed would both satisfy German demands and avert a crisis in Europe. To that end, he suggested the creation of a new “region of colonial administration in a given area of Africa” in which Germany could participate along with Britain and France. Hitler’s response was to reject the idea out of hand. He made it clear that if Britain wished to compensate Germany in some way, the simplest means would be to give back the original German colonies rather than restructure the current colonial order in Africa. But, to his mind, the time had not yet come for that issue to be settled. Germany, he said, “could wait quietly for 4, 6, 8, or even 10 years for a change of minds in Paris and London. Perhaps then Germany could have back its former colonies”.
It seems to me that if Hitler really cared about Africa, he would have taken Chamberlain up on his offer. Germany’s original African possessions had never been worth much of anything so joining this proposed “region of colonial administration” would likely have been of greater benefit to Germany in the long run. But he said no, and I think the reason for that is because the colonies symbolized the many “wrongs” inflicted upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles, which is why he mentioned them so often. It was what the former colonies represented that had value to Hitler, not the territory or the continent of Africa itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
And, is it your argument that this 1000 year Reich was going to be content with remaining within its boarders and a few parcels in Eastern Europe?
The reason I took issue with the statement made by the poster is fairly simple. It assumes that once Hitler had the whole of Europe in his hands, the free world was doomed. In no time at all, German troops would be parading in victory down the streets of New York City and a swastika flag would be flying over the White House. I’m sorry, but that’s utter nonsense and anyone living in the 1940’s that had access to a map would realize the sheer impossibility of Germany accomplishing that task, let alone "conquering" the world. Not only that, but it seems to be predicated on the belief that there would be absolutely nothing the United States could do to stop it or wouldn’t have tried really damn hard to prevent it from happening. Does anyone really think that’s true?
There has been and always will be an argument as to whether Hitler’s plans were global in nature or merely continental. My personal opinion is that they were continental. Now, had the Germans been victorious, would there have been global implications? Of course, and it would be foolish of me or anyone else to claim otherwise. Yet with that being said, beyond the plans Hitler gave voice to before and during the course of the war, it cannot be determined with any certainty what exactly Hitler would have done after he won the war. Nor can it be said what exactly the impact would have been on the rest of the world because there are simply too many variables to consider.
Whether global domination was really Hitler’s end game and what form that might have taken is a subject that can be debated until the cows come home. But when statements like “Hitler wanted to conquer the world” and “We’d all be speaking German” are treated as proven truths rather than what they are; slogans borne out of time of fear and uncertainty, then the ability to conduct a meaningful discussion I think pretty much flies out the window.
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.
Did Hitler want war?
