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.
Hitler offered Poland an alliance, before settling with Russia. He wanted (and needed) Polands help to defeat Russia. Remember Poland defeated Russia only 18 years prior.
No place for Slavs (especially blonde haired/blue eyed ones) but yet he did for Japanese?
Your post recites the same agenda driven history taught in Western schools.
And you recite the same nonsense that Russian nazi came up with in recent times, defying facts and evidence and inventing their own agenda based on their own fantasy - yeah, Russian craziness at its best.
So yes, Hitler preferred Japanese ( *gasp*) over "blond haired/blue eyed" Slavs ( how dare! ) there was no place for Slavs in his world. Hitler had his own racial theories, so don't get confused and don't try to substitute his theories with your own, lol.
Or you could actually go by what happened
- Poland declined
- Japan accepted
This Western based notion that Hitler was trying to control the globe: hundreds of countries is laughable. Most of Europe was allies with Hitler. Some common sense would be nice.
Some common sense would be nice, indeed.
Hitler was, at first only slightly but more so as time went on, insane. Assuming he was rational all the time is laughable. He was a skilled politician with a sick vision, how can you even assume someone like that is rational ?
Some European countries allied with Hitler, some were bullied into allying - but claiming that most of Europe allied is just silly.
Hindsight being 20/20, an alliance of Poland and Germany would only last a short while and wouldn't prevent any atrocities. With Stalin and his red army next door, which of the 2 "allies" would Hitler choose ?
Generally the idea is absurd to begin with and supporting it only shows lacks in knowledge. Sure, if the Poles subdued they probably would have lost less people initially, but they'd be caught in the middle of the coming conflict between Russia and Germany and would suffer nonetheless.
Generally from the Polish perspective, an alliance like that was out of the question. Remember that before ww2 1 in 10 Polish citizens was a Jew, there was also a 1000 year long history of conflicts between the nations. While some actually discussed the idea, significantly more people discussed launching a preemptive strike on Germany when the Germany started arming up, ignoring the Versailles treaty - and as far as I know the plans were quite advanced but were abandoned when France said they would not take part in this.
Regardless of what would happen, war was inevitable with 2 warmongering nations in the neighborhood. I fear that if Poland allied with Germany, they would lose even more than they did. Which is hard to think of, with the country mostly destroyed, after losing roughly ~15% of its population and being left to uncle Joe to do as he pleased with it. The borders could look like they look today, Stalin needed a buffer state. The nation could be completely different as NKVD would be even less empathetic to the allies of Hitler and the scale of post war genocide on those the Stalin deemed unfit would be bigger than it was. But this is just speculation.
my 2c.
Yac.
Hitler offered Poland an alliance, before settling with Russia.
Well, if by "alliance" you mean a complete submission of their national sovereignty and their absorption into the Reich as a client state, then yeah, Hitler offered them an "alliance".
Quote:
He wanted (and needed) Polands help to defeat Russia.
He wanted Poland, period. Poland had territory that Hitler believed was traditionally German, contained some ethnic groups that he believed could be sufficiently "Germanized" and the rest would make for great "Lebensraum".
He didn't need Poland to defeat Russia other than to have a place to invade through. Hitler believed that all of Russia was "rotten" and would collapse when he "kicked in the front door".
Quote:
Remember Poland defeated Russia only 18 years prior.
The Soviet Union of the late 1930's was nothing like the Soviet Union in 1920.
Quote:
No place for Slavs (especially blonde haired/blue eyed ones) but yet he did for Japanese?
Without having to fully explain Hitler's unique racial theories, the general idea would have been that Slav's were an inferior off-shoot of the Aryan race created by Aryan's having relations with "lesser" races. Some Slavic groups retained sufficient "Aryanness" that they could be "Germanized", others were considered inferior "mutts" to be enslaved and/or destroyed.
As for the Japanses, when they signed the Anti-Comintern Pact Hitler granted them the title of "Honorary Aryan". This title was often given to individuals or groups that provided great service to the Reich. However, in the case of the Japanese Hitler's motivations weren't purely political, economy or military. He believed that the Japanese were a "pure and ancient" race, equal to the Aryans. In Hitler's own words...
"I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."
Hitler's support for Japan and the Japanese race goes back to at least 1904 per his writings in Mein Kampf where he gained admiration for the Japanese efforts to defeat his hated Russian Slav's.
Quote:
Your post recites the same agenda driven history taught in Western schools.
Your posts are starting to recite the same agenda driven history spewed out on Storm Front.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rain_jacket
Or you could actually go by what happened
- Poland declined
- Japan accepted
This Western based notion that Hitler was trying to control the globe: hundreds of countries is laughable.
Yes it is. Hitler never intended to coquer the globe. Hitler wanted to dominate all of Europe and in particular clear Eastern Europe of it's Slav's via execution and enslavement to pave way for German colonization to ensure that his Reich had it's great "bread basket". Hitler was not interested in conquering the globe, but he certainly felt he would have had a large influence over it.
Quote:
Most of Europe was allies with Hitler.
That statement is only true if you want to count conquered territories that then had puppet governments installed. Hitler's actual European allies were as follows:
Italy
Austria
Hungary
Romania
Bulgaria
Finland can also be added to the list, but they never officially joined the Tripartite, merely joined in the fight against the Soviet Union.
Without having to fully explain Hitler's unique racial theories, the general idea would have been that Slav's were an inferior off-shoot of the Aryan race created by Aryan's having relations with "lesser" races. Some Slavic groups retained sufficient "Aryanness" that they could be "Germanized", others were considered inferior "mutts" to be enslaved and/or destroyed.
You know NJ, the way I see it his assessment was not all that wrong.
Russia is a place where on one hand you can clearly feel the Germanic presence ( be that Scandinavian or plain German presence) and see the ingenuity in science art and technology, on another hand you see undeniable presence of the East - a strong element of ethnic culture and everything that can be attributed to it - the good, the bad, and the ugly. And all of it - in one melting pot ( not "tossed salad" as it's a case with the US,) but thoroughly mixed melting pot.
I suspect that yet another nation that could claim that "mixed origin" used to be Iran; in some books I've read that local people there were pointing in direction of Russia's plains, from where the "Aryans," the new-comers came, who brought with them the new culture and new religion and who settled among the local inhabitants. This particular area they are pointing at, happened to be usual rout of migration and settlements of Scandinavian tribes in the earlier periods of history. That might explain the European look of some Iranians, although I imagine this look became not very prominent among them, once they were overrun by Arabs.
PS. What I wrote here about Russia might explain to you as well why Russians often accept the tyranny of one ruler ( as long as he is successful in accomplishing the goals of advancing the interests of state in general. They understand that Russia has way too many beginnings and controversial ideas promoted by different leaders; if given a chance, such plurality of opinions often brings nothing but chaos at the end.
Would Poland have taken (necessary) tactical steps like killing their own deserters, probably not. But we can't ignore that Poland had defeated Russia 15 years earlier. By vastly larger I meant number of men and resources not open space.
Poland could have (highly unlikely) handed over their Jewish population and joined the Nazis and Soviets like countless other European countries did. If they did so, Britain is surely occupied. Eventually racial and power issues would have dissolved a Nazi, Soviet, Japan, Poland, Italy Portugal, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Iraq, (Finland) pact but would have surely won the War
I know some people don't think much of Poland in WW2 because of many ignorant reasons but putting Russia aside, only England when it comes to the Allies made a bigger mark in Europe than the Poles in European theater. Them flipping sides, flips the War
How does Poland joining the Axis(virtually impossible) lead to Britain's defeat? Also, the Axis turning on each other wouldn't be for racial superiority reasons, it would be an imbalance of power.
I find that Poles arent overly enthusiastic about Jews as the same as pole-attitudes towards the west nowadays.I truely believe that poland was forced to fight for itself and also desired idependence of its own but once again russia took controll...
Read The Wages of Destruction - The Making andf Breaking of the NAZI Economy by Adam Tooze - 2006
Tooze: Preface 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"
Tooze emphasises how backward German agriculture was. Tooze describes Germany as a medium sized workshop economy dependent on imported food.
Hitler feared the rise of the USA, whose industrial and economical influence was felt in Germany. Hitler specifically mentioned the efficient US vehicle industry. He feared efficient US industry would wipe out European industry.To counter the USA, Hitler wanted Germany to control the Continent, the British the other parts of the world. He admired the British empire stating Germany could never have done it better than the British. He thought this was the only way to preserve European culture being self contained with no indirect economical control from the USA. Fighting the British was not a part of his view, hence wanting a Germany/UK/France alliance in the 1930s. He gave out many feelers for peace after September 1939.
Hitler did not want Germany being a sub-set economy. Hitler wanted to be alongside the USA and Britain as world economic powers. He also wanted Germany to be an influential power in the world. Hitler could see how the UK was influential because it possessed the largest empire ever seen, and he accepted that. However he could not accept the upstart USA being a world economic power spreading its culture too. Both the British Empire and the USA had access to large natural resources, while Germany did not.
The standard of living in the USA, Germany could not match. Even if Germans enjoyed a higher standard of living than the USA without stealing land in the east, that would still not be acceptable to Hitler as their economy was a sub-set and foreign industry was setup in Germany.
Hitler was attempting to put Germany, a relatively new nation, in a world economic position without having built anything up as the British had over centuries, and without any significant natural resources, as the USA had. To do that he had to steal from others. The place that had resouces was to the east of Germany. It was populated with few resource surpluses. Expanding Germany into the east and removing the populations would give resource surplusses for Germany to make her compete on a world stage.
Germany had industrialised in the late 1800s/early 1900s, however was still largely an agricultural country with outdated agriculture which contrasted sharply with some of its top-line industries. It could not feed itself without importing food - animal and human. It had no control of the imported food production and not full control of the souce distribution of its imported food. The world was moving away from coal as the prime fuel and turning to the magic oil, which also contained many properties to extract for other valuable products. The USA had an abundance of oil extracted mainly from the stolen territory in the west, the UK had oil in its empire, Germany had none.
The UK became a world player over centuries building up an empire and world trade routes. The USA did it by expanding west taking land. The precedence of the USA in taking land and removing the populations was one way Germany could be a major economy, major power, self sufficient in most aspects and have influence.
1. The German mentality was one of being a world economic player longside the UK and USA.
2. 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.
Read The Wages of Destruction - The Making andf Breaking of the NAZI Economy by Adam Tooze - 2006
Tooze: Preface 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"
Tooze emphasises how backward German agriculture was. Tooze describes Germany as a medium sized workshop economy dependent on imported food.
Hitler feared the rise of the USA, whose industrial and economical influence was felt in Germany. Hitler specifically mentioned the efficient US vehicle industry. He feared efficient US industry would wipe out European industry.To counter the USA, Hitler wanted Germany to control the Continent, the British the other parts of the world. He admired the British empire stating Germany could never have done it better than the British. He thought this was the only way to preserve European culture being self contained with no indirect economical control from the USA. Fighting the British was not a part of his view, hence wanting a Germany/UK/France alliance in the 1930s. He gave out many feelers for peace after September 1939.
Hitler did not want Germany being a sub-set economy. Hitler wanted to be alongside the USA and Britain as world economic powers. He also wanted Germany to be an influential power in the world. Hitler could see how the UK was influential because it possessed the largest empire ever seen, and he accepted that. However he could not accept the upstart USA being a world economic power spreading its culture too. Both the British Empire and the USA had access to large natural resources, while Germany did not.
The standard of living in the USA, Germany could not match. Even if Germans enjoyed a higher standard of living than the USA without stealing land in the east, that would still not be acceptable to Hitler as their economy was a sub-set and foreign industry was setup in Germany.
Hitler was attempting to put Germany, a relatively new nation, in a world economic position without having built anything up as the British had over centuries, and without any significant natural resources, as the USA had. To do that he had to steal from others. The place that had resouces was to the east of Germany. It was populated with few resource surpluses. Expanding Germany into the east and removing the populations would give resource surplusses for Germany to make her compete on a world stage.
Germany had industrialised in the late 1800s/early 1900s, however was still largely an agricultural country with outdated agriculture which contrasted sharply with some of its top-line industries. It could not feed itself without importing food - animal and human. It had no control of the imported food production and not full control of the souce distribution of its imported food. The world was moving away from coal as the prime fuel and turning to the magic oil, which also contained many properties to extract for other valuable products. The USA had an abundance of oil extracted mainly from the stolen territory in the west, the UK had oil in its empire, Germany had none.
The UK became a world player over centuries building up an empire and world trade routes. The USA did it by expanding west taking land. The precedence of the USA in taking land and removing the populations was one way Germany could be a major economy, major power, self sufficient in most aspects and have influence.
1. The German mentality was one of being a world economic player longside the UK and USA.
2. 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.
It is quite simple.
This fuels the argument that 70 years later, Hitler prevailed with his goals
- Germany economically controls Europe
- Standard of living is higher than USA
This fuels the argument that 70 years later, Hitler prevailed with his goals
- Germany economically controls Europe
- Standard of living is higher than USA
No. Hitler wanted a German USA based on the European mainland - the eastern part. Post war Germany went into the role of the Weimar republic.
Wages of Destruction, Tooze: Preface xxvi: "Germany could not simply settle down to become an affluent satellite of the USA"
Even if Germans enjoyed a higher standard of living than the USA without stealing land in the east, that would still not be acceptable to Hitler as their economy was a sub-set and foreign industry was setup in Germany.
Germany today is an affluent satellite of the USA.
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.
) there was no place for Slavs in his world. Hitler had his own racial theories, so don't get confused and don't try to substitute his theories with your own, lol.
