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.
I agree, though, that Hitler decided to attack Russia as a response to his inability to win against Great Britain.
Again - that's not a case according to what I'm reading here...
"...Finally, only weeks before the outbreak of war, Hitler hosted Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner for the Free City of Danzig, at his private retreat on the Obersalzberg. Hitler expressed his aims to Burckhardt in no uncertain terms:
"We need grain and timber. For the grain I need space in the east; for the timber I need a colony, only one [colony] ... Our harvests in 1938 and in this year were excellent. We can survive, in spite of the triumphant cries of others that we will starve ... However, one day the soil will have had enough ... What then? ... I do not harbor any romantic aims. I have no wish to rule. Above all I want nothing from the West; nothing today and nothing tomorrow. I desire nothing from the thickly settled regions of the world ... All of the notions that are ascribed to me by other people are inventions. However, I must have a free hand in the east. To repeat: it is a question of grain and timber, which I can find only outside of Europe."
"Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with my collected strength. I need the Ukraine and with that no one can starve us out as they did in the last war." [SIZE=2][5][/SIZE]
The conquest of Russia's economic and agricultural assets would create a global superpower that could become the number one state in the world. This idea was not a fairy tale. Had Britain remained neutral (as Hitler hoped) a joint German and Japanese invasion of Russia would almost certainly have succeeded. A map of Hitler's long term goals of conquest can be seen here."
Hitler didn't attack Russia because of his inability to win against Great Britain. He attacked Russia because the Soviets were going to attack Germany. Even Russian WW2 generals say that.
Hello Angorlee, how are fine folks of Storm Front doing? I hope forum is running smoothly, no particular disagreements on WWII front and racial policies so far, and ya'll enjoy splendid early spring evening, that is unseasonably warm ( at least where I am.)
Just in case you get bored with old Storm Front propaganda, may I offer to your attention something new and refreshing, something like "Generalplan Ost" which ideas you might find interesting and entertaining. Never mind that they might contradict the core beliefs promoted by your fellow troopers, just read on and awe of unexpected discoveries.
Again - that's not a case according to what I'm reading here...
"...Finally, only weeks before the outbreak of war, Hitler hosted Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner for the Free City of Danzig, at his private retreat on the Obersalzberg. Hitler expressed his aims to Burckhardt in no uncertain terms:
"We need grain and timber. For the grain I need space in the east; for the timber I need a colony, only one [colony] ... Our harvests in 1938 and in this year were excellent. We can survive, in spite of the triumphant cries of others that we will starve ... However, one day the soil will have had enough ... What then? ... I do not harbor any romantic aims. I have no wish to rule. Above all I want nothing from the West; nothing today and nothing tomorrow. I desire nothing from the thickly settled regions of the world ... All of the notions that are ascribed to me by other people are inventions. However, I must have a free hand in the east. To repeat: it is a question of grain and timber, which I can find only outside of Europe."
"Everything I undertake is directed against Russia. If the West is too stupid and too blind to comprehend this I will be forced to reach an understanding with the Russians, turn and strike the West, and then after their defeat turn back against the Soviet Union with my collected strength. I need the Ukraine and with that no one can starve us out as they did in the last war." [SIZE=2][5][/SIZE]
The conquest of Russia's economic and agricultural assets would create a global superpower that could become the number one state in the world. This idea was not a fairy tale. Had Britain remained neutral (as Hitler hoped) a joint German and Japanese invasion of Russia would almost certainly have succeeded. A map of Hitler's long term goals of conquest can be seen here."
So it looks like Russia/Ukraine was Hitler's main goal and Great Britain didn't have much to do with it, other than interfering with Hitler's plans.
Russia/Ukraine were part of Hitler's long term plan, certainly, but in 1940-41 the Germans were not exactly starving. The most immediate goal was to defeat or force some kind of settlement with Great Britain. Usually it doesn't make much sense to start a new war when you haven't yet finished your first war. However Hitler hoped that by defeating the Soviet Union - the last remaining potential ally of Great Britain, he would force the latter to come to terms.
Hello Angorlee, how are fine folks of Storm Front doing? I hope forum is running smoothly, no particular disagreements on WWII front and racial policies so far, and ya'll enjoy splendid early spring evening, that is unseasonably warm ( at least where I am.)
Just in case you get bored with old Storm Front propaganda, may I offer to your attention something new and refreshing, something like "Generalplan Ost" which ideas you might find interesting and entertaining. Never mind that they might contradict the core beliefs promoted by your fellow troopers, just read on and awe of unexpected discoveries.
the only stormfront that I know of is the one I just heard on the weather report
I too would like to see some sources. In 1941 the Red Army was in the middle of a reorganisation and was not even close to ready for an attack on Germany. German leadership, however, had plans to attack the Soviet Union by as early as autumn 1940.
I am looking for the link. It might take some time to find but really it is almost common knowledge now that Hitlers attack on the Soviets was in response to Stalins planned invasion of Germany which would have been only 2 weeks after Germany attacked.
I am looking for the link. It might take some time to find but really it is almost common knowledge now that Hitlers attack on the Soviets was in response to Stalins planned invasion of Germany which would have been only 2 weeks after Germany attacked.
Let me see if I can help. What you are saying seems very similar to a hypothesis that was advanced by a former GRU agent Vladimir Resun who defected to the United Kingdom during the Cold War. He published several books, notable one being "Icebreaker", all under a pen name Victor Suvorov. His theory was almost exactly as you said - that Stalin was about to invade Germany about 2 week after Germany attacked the Soviet Union.
Resun's/Suvorov's theory gained a following for a time in Russia but recently it has been thoroughly debunked and is no longer credible. No one serious believes that Stalin was about to attack Germany in 1941. In 1943, maybe. The animosity between Germany and the Soviet Union was hardly a secret.
23453691[/color] (tel:23453691 - broken link)]I am looking for the link. It might take some time to find but really it is almost common knowledge now that Hitlers attack on the Soviets was in response to Stalins planned invasion of Germany which would have been only 2 weeks after Germany attacked.
I like "common knowledge" without any soures, almost as much as I like "everybody knows that" Its the most powerful argument in any kindergarten discussion.
Russian army was totally unprepared to defend the empire, not to mention attacking Germans. There was no real resistance from the Red Army long into the war.
Buchanan raises some interesting questions, although the answers to many of them are not difficult to find. It just struck me as a tad naive, discounting the well known fact that Hitler's goal was always expansionism. While his intent was not to attack Britain or France, his intention was to annex surrounding countries, including the former Czechoslovakia and Austria, which both Britain and France allowed him to do peacefully to try to appease him and AVOID another war with Germany, despite the fact that doing so effectively nullified the Treaty Of Versailles, which Germany was in violation of anyway at that stage. Buchanan seems to conveniently overlook this, almost making it out as if the war was somehow Britain and France's fault as much as Germany's and that Germany didn't in fact close the diplomatic door on Poland and engage in mass aggression against that entire country (blitzkrieg).
Another thing Buchanan overlooks is that the pact with the Soviet Union was nothing more than opportunist Hitler ensuring that the Soviets would not get involved should Germany be attacked by a third party (so clearly Hitler was planning to secure most, if not all of Poland all along to subdue that country to the point that it would bow to Germany). Danzig may have been a small city, but it was an important port. I cannot find any article supporting Buchanan's claim that Danzigers were "clamouring to return to Germany".
As for Dunkirk, well Buchanan should have mentioned that Hitler himself openly admitted that he did not want a war with Britain, even after Britain had become involved. I think he just wanted Britain out of the picture as unlike France, an actual invasion of Britain would have been much more difficult considering the size and strength of the Royal Navy and the treacherous English Channel. At the very least, it would have been too much of a distraction from Hitler's eastward plans.
Lastly, why does Buchanan not mention the genocide committed against the Jews? He paints an almost "normal" picture of a leader than engaged in mass genocide, which was one of Hitler's agendas all along due to his belief in the Aryan race and racial superiority over Jewish and Slavic people, Jews specifically use as scapegoats and made out to be enemies.
I don't believe that Hitler literally wanted to take over the world, but he did want to annex and control surrounding Slavic nations, making them subservient parts of the greater German empire, while hoping that the world would turn a blind eye to the annihilation of millions of Jews, with the intention to eventually catch the Soviets off guard and launch a full scale attack and invasion of the Soviet Union itself, only much later on, once Germany had successfully annexed much of Eastern Europe.
Hitler did not want peace. You only have to read snippets of Mein Kampf to figure out what his intentions were all along and how he viewed Jewish and Slavic people and how he even admired the British. The book was published in 1925, 9 years before he became Fuhrer of Germany. It should have been obvious as to what Hitler's intentions were and that such things could not have been achieved peacefully.
Last edited by dragonborn; 03-18-2012 at 08:19 AM..
really it is almost common knowledge now that Hitlers attack on the Soviets was in response to Stalins planned invasion of Germany which would have been only 2 weeks after Germany attacked.
It's not common knowledge, it's a controversial hypothesis very much in the minority. The Red Army was not in that sort of fighting trim in 1941. Hell, the first signals about German offensive moves were brusquely turned down as erroneous.
Of course, Hitler always defended his wars as basically defensive in nature, so you can find any number of German-friendly contemporary material explaining how Hitler simply had to act.
Lastly, why does Buchanan not mention the genocide committed against the Jews? He paints an almost "normal" picture of a leader than engaged in mass genocide, which was one of Hitler's agendas all along due to his belief in the Aryan race and racial superiority over Jewish and Slavic people, Jews specifically use as scapegoats and made out to be enemies.
Buchanan has more than a passing acquaintance with Holocaust denial - he did compare condemned SS-guard Demjanjuk with Christ (yes, really) and while he's managed to never cross the line into flat-out denial, he's certainly downplayed it. The forums at his official website were quite the hang-out for out-and-out Holocaust deniers up until recently.
Looks to me like Buchanan is beginning to share the views of David Irving - that the Allies should have joined the Nazis to fight Communism. If you're going to espouse that, the fact that the Nazis were - well, evil genocidal a-holes - needs to be downplayed.
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.
I hope forum is running smoothly, no particular disagreements on WWII front and racial policies so far, and ya'll enjoy splendid early spring evening, that is unseasonably warm ( at least where I am.) 
