U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-23-2020, 08:02 PM
 
Location: Somewhere on this 3rd rock from the sun
544 posts, read 757,744 times
Reputation: 750

Advertisements

I am reading a great book on the rise and fall of the Nazis. Mein Kampf was released in 1925 and did shoddy business in the immediate following years(7k, 9k copies sold only in some years), then around 1933 it started selling in the millions.

My question is- Did nobody read and realize this lunatic's ambitions which he so clearly laid out in the book? His desire for more space(Lebensraum), unified Germany which could only be achieved by annexation of the neighbors, the jew problem- all of it is written there pretty much step by step.

How come nobody, even after 1940 or so, after seeing Hitler live upto his words and march over his neighbors, put two and two together and plan out a strategy to destroy this lunatic?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-23-2020, 09:13 PM
 
943 posts, read 1,509,716 times
Reputation: 2066
How many books do you think most people today have read by Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders?

Closer would be asking how many people in the U.S. have read books by Vladimir Putin or Kim Jong Il. I'm sure millions of copies of their books have been sold in their own countries. Why doesn't anyone plan out a strategy to destroy Kim Jong Un?

One of the core tenets of Islam is that eventually the whole world will be ruled by Islamic governments, yet we are doing nothing to stop this either. How many have read Ayatollah Khomeini's book "Islamic Government"? I'm sure millions of copies have been sold in Iran.

I'm not sure which army could have immediately stopped Hitler in 1940, especially without the aid of Russia. Thinking that everyone should have been laboriously devouring Mein Kampf is looking at it in hindsight. Sure, more copies were sold, but many were not read and certainly not thoroughly read and analyzed.

In the midst of the Great Depression most countries were dealing with abject poverty and trying to avoid war at all cost. This included making deals with Hitler in the hopes of avoiding war and the deaths of millions. It's easy to see the rationale behind these countries' actions when you take everything into context. It's very hard to see it when you look in hindsight.

Maybe North Korea will start a war and, in 50 years, people will wonder why we didn't stop them when we could have.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2020, 10:13 PM
 
3,156 posts, read 1,204,816 times
Reputation: 2214
You also have to remember that at the end of WW1, Germany was humiliated and forced to pay reparations to the winners of the war. As you can probably imagine, this doesn't sit too well with Germans. Now, here comes a guy who promises to undo the damage of The Treaty of Versailles.
At the time, Hitler appeared as a savior. Obviously, after 1933, he tailored propaganda in such a manner in order to come off as the good guy. The Reichstag fire was blamed on the communists.

As far as Jews are concerned, they were quite unpopular throughout Europe over the years. There's a reason why many countries collaborated with the Nazi's in outing them out like Poland, the Vichy regime in France...

The Allies were trying to avoid another war on their part, so they appeased Hitler where possible. He was allowed to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, without much fanfare. Stalin on his end saw an opportunity to expand into Europe as well, so he signed a pact with him. In reality, both the West and the Soviet Union were secretly hoping that Hitler take out their opponent for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2020, 10:58 PM
 
15,990 posts, read 14,338,089 times
Reputation: 7250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
You also have to remember that at the end of WW1, Germany was humiliated and forced to pay reparations to the winners of the war. As you can probably imagine, this doesn't sit too well with Germans. Now, here comes a guy who promises to undo the damage of The Treaty of Versailles.
At the time, Hitler appeared as a savior. Obviously, after 1933, he tailored propaganda in such a manner in order to come off as the good guy. The Reichstag fire was blamed on the communists.

As far as Jews are concerned, they were quite unpopular throughout Europe over the years. There's a reason why many countries collaborated with the Nazi's in outing them out like Poland, the Vichy regime in France...

The Allies were trying to avoid another war on their part, so they appeased Hitler where possible. He was allowed to annex Austria and Czechoslovakia, without much fanfare. Stalin on his end saw an opportunity to expand into Europe as well, so he signed a pact with him. In reality, both the West and the Soviet Union were secretly hoping that Hitler take out their opponent for them.

Oh phleeease already MWR..

"In 1937, for example, Winston Churchill held an extended conversation with Joachim vom Ribbentrop, who was Germany's ambassador to Britain at the time. Ribbentrop was remarkably frank during the discussion, explaining to Churchill that
"Germany sought the friendship of England ... Germany would stand guard for the British Empire in all its greatness and extent ... What was required was that Britain give Germany a free hand in the East of Europe. She must have her Lebensraum, or living-space, for her increasing population. Therefore, Poland and the Danzig Corridor must be absorbed. White Russia and the Ukraine were indispensable to the future life of the German Reich of more than seventy million souls. Nothing less would suffice. All that he asked of the British Commonwealth and Empire was not to interfere. There was a large map on the wall, and the Ambassador several times led me to it to illustrate his projects."

[SIZE=2]Hitler expressed his aims to Burckhardt in no uncertain terms: [/SIZE]
"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."
Generalplan Ost - General Plan East


How naive do you think Stalin was?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2020, 11:02 PM
 
10,087 posts, read 7,705,690 times
Reputation: 10404
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner View Post
How many books do you think most people today have read by Elizabeth Warren, Joe Biden, or Bernie Sanders?


I don't understand your point. None of these people have particularly famous books, and none of these people have particularly controversial, scandalous or unpopular worldviews.

And more important Mein Kampf (My Struggle) is essentially a primer on Hitler's specific plans. I don't know any prominent person, in modern history, with an analogous book. Most politician books are just moneymaking/publicity vehicles, not world-altering creeds.

And the Islam comment is even weirder. Bizarre.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-23-2020, 11:51 PM
 
Location: Somewhere on this 3rd rock from the sun
544 posts, read 757,744 times
Reputation: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by erasure View Post
Oh phleeease already MWR..

"In 1937, for example, Winston Churchill held an extended conversation with Joachim vom Ribbentrop, who was Germany's ambassador to Britain at the time. Ribbentrop was remarkably frank during the discussion, explaining to Churchill that
"Germany sought the friendship of England ... Germany would stand guard for the British Empire in all its greatness and extent ... What was required was that Britain give Germany a free hand in the East of Europe. She must have her Lebensraum, or living-space, for her increasing population. Therefore, Poland and the Danzig Corridor must be absorbed. White Russia and the Ukraine were indispensable to the future life of the German Reich of more than seventy million souls. Nothing less would suffice. All that he asked of the British Commonwealth and Empire was not to interfere. There was a large map on the wall, and the Ambassador several times led me to it to illustrate his projects."

[SIZE=2]Hitler expressed his aims to Burckhardt in no uncertain terms: [/SIZE]
"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."
Generalplan Ost - General Plan East


How naive do you think Stalin was?

LMAO- I remember you from my other thread(who is worse-Stalin/Hitler) and the scintillating debate with WestPrussian. I'll get the popcorn
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2020, 12:06 AM
 
Location: Somewhere on this 3rd rock from the sun
544 posts, read 757,744 times
Reputation: 750
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post


I don't understand your point. None of these people have particularly famous books, and none of these people have particularly controversial, scandalous or unpopular worldviews.

And more important Mein Kampf (My Struggle) is essentially a primer on Hitler's specific plans. I don't know any prominent person, in modern history, with an analogous book. Most politician books are just moneymaking/publicity vehicles, not world-altering creeds.

And the Islam comment is even weirder. Bizarre.
Thank You. I was going to write something similar. English isn't my first language, and you put it far more eloquently than I could. I will try now:

Aside from all that NOLA mentions how are Sanders, Biden or Bernie in anyway comparable to the man Hitler was in the late 1920s- and I mean personality wise. These appear so "coy", warm and non- scandalous whereas Hitler had already made a name for him after the Beer Halll Putsch. I think personality matters a lot in these regards.

Both Putin or Kim Jung aren't considered land grubbing power hungry dictators, and even if they were I would assume geography would be a major factor. America is safe by a long shot just from the Oceans which Europe wasn't. I kinda agree about the Islamic sentiment, but again- its just too much of a shot to even loose sleep over something that has been an ongoing discussion since antiquity. Hitler wrote his book, devised the plans and executed it- all within 15 years.

My main point was this- how today, there are so many think tanks, secret spies and organizations trying to figure out the next move of an opponent, I read somewhere that the roots of so much secret intelligent organzations began in WW2 and yet, here it was all laid out in writing for the world to read.

Maybe in 1928 or 1936 nobody would have thought of Hitler going about things but surely even by the time 1939 battles commenced they'd have an idea- Okay, this is what he wants, he is passionate about it, and this will be step #2. Lets get on it and kick his ass.

History is very fascinating and my firm belief is that Churchill, Roosevelt, Chamberlain etc etc probably rued not analyzing that book. This surely must have been mentioned later.

Anyway, thank you for your comments TXRunner
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2020, 12:26 AM
 
15,990 posts, read 14,338,089 times
Reputation: 7250
Quote:
Originally Posted by rishi85 View Post
Thank You. I was going to write something similar. English isn't my first language, and you put it far more eloquently than I could. I will try now:

Aside from all that NOLA mentions how are Sanders, Biden or Bernie in anyway comparable to the man Hitler was in the late 1920s- and I mean personality wise. These appear so "coy", warm and non- scandalous whereas Hitler had already made a name for him after the Beer Halll Putsch. I think personality matters a lot in these regards.

Both Putin or Kim Jung aren't considered land grubbing power hungry dictators, and even if they were I would assume geography would be a major factor. America is safe by a long shot just from the Oceans which Europe wasn't. I kinda agree about the Islamic sentiment, but again- its just too much of a shot to even loose sleep over something that has been an ongoing discussion since antiquity. Hitler wrote his book, devised the plans and executed it- all within 15 years.

My main point was this- how today, there are so many think tanks, secret spies and organizations trying to figure out the next move of an opponent, I read somewhere that the roots of so much secret intelligent organzations began in WW2 and yet, here it was all laid out in writing for the world to read.

Maybe in 1928 or 1936 nobody would have thought of Hitler going about things but surely even by the time 1939 battles commenced they'd have an idea- Okay, this is what he wants, he is passionate about it, and this will be step #2. Lets get on it and kick his ass.

History is very fascinating and my firm belief is that Churchill, Roosevelt, Chamberlain etc etc probably rued not analyzing that book. This surely must have been mentioned later.

Anyway, thank you for your comments TXRunner

Oh but he did ( Churchill that is.)
This is what he said in his book "The Gathering Storm"



"All was thereā€”the programme of German resurrection, the technique of party propaganda; the plan for combating Marxism; the concept of a National-Socialist State; the rightful position of Germany at the summit of the world. Here was the new Koran of faith and war: turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2020, 04:55 AM
 
Location: Roaring '20s
1,898 posts, read 493,809 times
Reputation: 7416
A few points...

One, politicians producing rambling screeds as they claw their way into power is a thing. Politicians who suddenly find that they enjoy power and don't want to rock the boat by pissing off the neighbors is also a thing. Further, it is rarely clear who even has this ability. Before the American Civil War, there was this simmering fantasy in the South of creating a vast slave empire that would encompass the whole of the Caribbean: the Golden Circle. Remember Mussolini? He was going to recreate the Roman Empire. During the chaos of the nineties there was a rabble-rousing Russian politician demanding the return of Alaska. In the first and last of those examples, there just was no actual ability to accomplish those goals. In the case of Il Duce, there was only some limited capacity to do so, and the threatened regions - while places the West didn't want Italy overrunning - weren't lands they were going to war to protect, nor was fascist Italy ever seen as some sort of existential threat. (In the end, Il Duce's downfall was not conquest itself but hitching his star to Hitler) Is every politician spouting dreams of nationalist destiny to be considered a mortal threat? If not, how to we discern those few who might really metastasize into such from the table-pounders just looking to climb their local authoritarian ladders?

Two, along these lines it is not true that Hitler went about following Mein Kampf to the letter. Once in power he indeed do some things he had promised to do. He also did things such as sign a nonaggression pact with Poland and covertly work with the USSR. And in 1939 he signed a treaty with Stalin himself. While Hitler was simply playing for time, it wasn't clear at the time that he wasn't just some dude who had surfed his way to power on a wave of - among other things - fantasies of conquest, but now wasn't going to bite off more than he could chew lest he endanger his position.

Three, some things are only clear in retrospect. Sure, Mein Kamp is full of raving anti-Semitism. But there are only a few passages which obliquely suggest something along the lines of the Holocaust. Hitler's scape-goating of Jews hardly stood out as all that unusual in Germany, especially during the dire postwar economic times (also, no country was going to declare war to save Germany's Jews - that simply was never going to be the spur to action). Other examples abound. Among his sharp critiques of Germany's leadership in the first world war is the decision to fight a two-front war. So Hitler would never do such a thing, right? Yet he did. Also, in Mein Kampf Hitler goes on and on about Britain as a fellow Germanic nation and a natural ally of Germany. Thus he would never attack the UK, right? Yet he did.

Four, Hitler clearly telegraphed his anti-Bolshevism in Mein Kampf. So what? Why would the UK or France care about that? And as for the USSR, for most of the pre-war time it simply had no means to do squat about it, and by the time it began to acquire the means, Stalin was more preoccupied with internal security than external threats (unreasonably so, but still).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-24-2020, 06:49 AM
 
12,356 posts, read 17,920,250 times
Reputation: 6365
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41 View Post
A few points...

One, politicians producing rambling screeds as they claw their way into power is a thing. Politicians who suddenly find that they enjoy power and don't want to rock the boat by pissing off the neighbors is also a thing. Further, it is rarely clear who even has this ability. Before the American Civil War, there was this simmering fantasy in the South of creating a vast slave empire that would encompass the whole of the Caribbean: the Golden Circle. Remember Mussolini? He was going to recreate the Roman Empire. During the chaos of the nineties there was a rabble-rousing Russian politician demanding the return of Alaska. In the first and last of those examples, there just was no actual ability to accomplish those goals. In the case of Il Duce, there was only some limited capacity to do so, and the threatened regions - while places the West didn't want Italy overrunning - weren't lands they were going to war to protect, nor was fascist Italy ever seen as some sort of existential threat. (In the end, Il Duce's downfall was not conquest itself but hitching his star to Hitler) Is every politician spouting dreams of nationalist destiny to be considered a mortal threat? If not, how to we discern those few who might really metastasize into such from the table-pounders just looking to climb their local authoritarian ladders?

Two, along these lines it is not true that Hitler went about following Mein Kampf to the letter. Once in power he indeed do some things he had promised to do. He also did things such as sign a nonaggression pact with Poland and covertly work with the USSR. And in 1939 he signed a treaty with Stalin himself. While Hitler was simply playing for time, it wasn't clear at the time that he wasn't just some dude who had surfed his way to power on a wave of - among other things - fantasies of conquest, but now wasn't going to bite off more than he could chew lest he endanger his position.

Three, some things are only clear in retrospect. Sure, Mein Kamp is full of raving anti-Semitism. But there are only a few passages which obliquely suggest something along the lines of the Holocaust. Hitler's scape-goating of Jews hardly stood out as all that unusual in Germany, especially during the dire postwar economic times (also, no country was going to declare war to save Germany's Jews - that simply was never going to be the spur to action). Other examples abound. Among his sharp critiques of Germany's leadership in the first world war is the decision to fight a two-front war. So Hitler would never do such a thing, right? Yet he did. Also, in Mein Kampf Hitler goes on and on about Britain as a fellow Germanic nation and a natural ally of Germany. Thus he would never attack the UK, right? Yet he did.

Four, Hitler clearly telegraphed his anti-Bolshevism in Mein Kampf. So what? Why would the UK or France care about that? And as for the USSR, for most of the pre-war time it simply had no means to do squat about it, and by the time it began to acquire the means, Stalin was more preoccupied with internal security than external threats (unreasonably so, but still).
Good post.

The only problem is the bold. I would never defend Hitler, so please do not misunderstand. But he attacked the UK only after the UK and France declared war on Germany after she invaded Poland. Otherwise he would probably would have alternated between ignoring them or trying to cultivate them as a any ally of sorts. He really just wanted them out of the way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

Ā© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top