PDA

View Full Version : OT : Historical question about Nazi germany, their goals and such.



Liddabit
02-25-2007, 03:04 PM
I have learned so much about history of this war just from this forum so I figured I would ask! Especialy since so many of you seem to enjoy these historical topics, and I love reading them!

So what did Germany really hope to accomplish with the war? Did they really want to meet japan in india and split those hemispheres between them?

Also how did Germany believe that could pull it off? That is so much land to occupy! It does seem like madness, and Hitler was definatly mad.. but so many around him(generals and such!) and following him couldn't have all been mad too!
Perhaps the world was just so different then that I cannot understand how they would think it would work.

Liddabit
02-25-2007, 03:04 PM
I have learned so much about history of this war just from this forum so I figured I would ask! Especialy since so many of you seem to enjoy these historical topics, and I love reading them!

So what did Germany really hope to accomplish with the war? Did they really want to meet japan in india and split those hemispheres between them?

Also how did Germany believe that could pull it off? That is so much land to occupy! It does seem like madness, and Hitler was definatly mad.. but so many around him(generals and such!) and following him couldn't have all been mad too!
Perhaps the world was just so different then that I cannot understand how they would think it would work.

CaptainCox1
02-25-2007, 03:22 PM
Just been listening to a long lecture from "The Teaching Company" about the the complete WWII (all fronts) Its basically nothing new, but its put together fairly well and spans all theater of war before, during and the aftermath of the war.

The main objective for Hitler was to basically rot out the "Jewish Bolshevik" conspiracy in the east, meaning the Soviet Union. He never really wanted to fight England or the Americans. Though it was Hitler that declared war 3 days after Pearl, NOT! the US that declared it on Germany. Even Operation Sea-lion (invasion of England) or in German "See Löwe" was a haphazard undertaking. He gave the Wehrmacht ONE! month to basically come up with a plan to invade England ONE! MONTH!...this show's how improvised the whole idea was and that he never planned for it. He also never planned for a 2 front war or a 3 front war for that matter.

The basic belief was that the campaign in the east would be over before christmas 1941, and that then he could make truce with the Allies in the West.

There is a book called "Hitlers Table Talks" basically notes taken during hes many dinners etc. He was really worried that he wold die before he could accomplish hes main objective, to conquer the east. If there where plans to divide it with Japan...I am not 100%. But that he thought he could do it and then basically make peace with the rest of the world basically shows that he was...lets say "mad" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Carotio
02-25-2007, 03:30 PM
This is somehow the simple explaination:

History repeats itself!

It has always been the question of world domination, most of the times by simple conquest, or attempts to conquer:
Babylon, Egypt, Greece and Rome in the ancient history!
Arabs, Turks, Mongols and Huns in the dark ages!
France, England, Spain, Portugal and Holland in the middle age/renaissance!
Germany, Austria, France, Russia and England in the 19th/20th century!
USA and USSR 1945-1990

And this may be a little provocative:
USA and Al Quada today!

All nations are based on the idea that they possess the ultimate ideal way of life, and thus this must be imposed on all other people of the world, whether they want it or not!

Those who aim for world domination just forget one thing:

History repeats itself!

Whoever rises, always fall again! It's a natural law! Throw an apple up the air, and it will fall again! It's just a matter of time!

Only one solution remains:
the middle way! Not to aim for world domination, just to accept the differences of others and then just be friends!

Yes - No ?
Anyone ?

Messervy
02-25-2007, 03:30 PM
If you have all the time in the world you can take on William Shirer`s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH.

By the time you have finished reading this you`ll know preaty much everything there is to know about third reich and you can use the books to raise your phone table to get the phone out of reach of the children. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

klcarroll
02-25-2007, 03:31 PM
Wow! .........That's a tall order!

You will probably get several hundred different opinions, because "experts"¯ have been trying to figure out the same thing for 60 years!

My personal opinion is that Hitler hoped that the Soviet Union would sue for peace once it's western territories and Moscow were occupied.

Once that occurred, Germany would be in control of all of Europe and Western Russia, leaving Britain and the Allies facing a difficult situation, which would motivate them to seek some sort of negotiated end of hostilities.

It is a known fact that much of the Japanese planning was based on the premise of a German success in this area.

I think that both the Germans and the Japanese knew that they simply didn't have the manpower or resources to "take over the world"¯; .....but they would have been delighted with a negotiated peace that let them keep the territories they seized in the first couple of war years.

*

demigod151
02-25-2007, 03:37 PM
Hitler wanted to conquer Europe for Lebansraum. And despite its Neutrality, SPain was on Hitler's "to do" list.

What beat Hitler was two key things.

1) Japan attacking Pearl Harbour.
2) The onslaught of the Russian Winter and Stalingrad.

CaptainCox1
02-25-2007, 03:39 PM
I guess the Book/Film "Das Vaterland" plays with the idea that there is a truce with the Allies in the West and the war in the East countinues in to the late 50's early 60's...not a bad thought experiment actually. I guess its sort a plausible.

Capt.LoneRanger
02-25-2007, 03:52 PM
What beat Hitler was Hitler.

Hitler himself was nothing more than a pop-star. He knew how to use the media, how to manipulate people and he had the right people with him.
The people were suffering from repressions by the Allies from WW2 and even to the normal peoples life, this had an effect and people wanted somebody to actively do something against these regulations from outside.

Hitler had his personal hate-list and he took the chance and manipulated the people to his needs. The whole regime was building on war and conquest from 1933 on. Hitler managed to get the high unemployment-rates to zero and he made up some rules, that even now are in effect in many countries (like the new regulations for building houses, etc.) In the end, however, this was completely financed by the state and earlier or later, the regime would have ruined itself.

War was unavoidable and it was planned like the "Endlösung" for the Jewish people, long before he actually got the Führer.

The whole strategy, however, was complete nonsense. Hitler completely disregarded any of his Generals and those who resisted were shot like his political or social opponents.

The problem however was, that after the famous Blitz, there was simply a vaccuum. Germany did not have enough forces to hold the land and it did of course not have enough to rule the world. His strategies were momentarily, guided by anger and pride and a sick brain behind it.

Liddabit
02-25-2007, 04:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Messervy:
If you have all the time in the world you can take on William Shirer`s THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH.

By the time you have finished reading this you`ll know preaty much everything there is to know about third reich and you can use the books to raise your phone table to get the phone out of reach of the children. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow good tip! It actualy rang a bell with me and I went and checked my hubby's bookcase and sure enough there it is! Printed in 1959 :O he must have got it at a garage sale! Thats a big book :P

Thanks for the replies all, fascinating stuff http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CaptainCox1
02-25-2007, 04:12 PM
I would also recomend "History of Hitler's Empire, 2nd Edition" from The Teaching Company. http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=80...History%20-%20Modern (http://www.teach12.com/ttcx/coursedesclong2.aspx?cid=805&id=805&pc=History%20-%20Modern)
Its on the net...if you look http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Blood_Splat
02-25-2007, 05:25 PM
Well there was no way Germany could keep up with Manufacturing of tanks and planes like the allies were producing.

UncleRoger
02-25-2007, 05:34 PM
Liddabit old chap, This question of yours is a real ball-tearer, in that an objective appraisal of the man's intentions is rendered difficult by the immense amount of anti-Hitler propaganda in circulation. I am no right-wing Hitler fanatic, but i now see this saturation has, in effect, predudiced nearly every examination of the question for any student of history.

It is important to understand that Hitler had no plan for world domination. Redressing the effects on Germany of the Versailles treaty, nay, dictat was one of his aims. Defending Germany against the threat of international bolshevism (a very real threat, and the true world-domination movement) was another related aim. So Hitler worked to reunite a shattered and bankrupt nation, and effect the return of former Reich territories to it.

War with England was never intended. Hitler did not declare war on Britain. Peace overtures from Germany (regardless of political rhetoric for popular consumption) went on throughout the war, and were rejected (and manipulated) by the Allies. Rudolf Hess was involved in but one such scheme.

Which leads to another point. Labelling someone a 'nutter' or 'madman' to explain their actions, when they appear irrational in the light of history as written by the victors. Hitler has duly been painted thus.

Huge topic. Could go on for many pages.

One more thing. Table Talk needs discrediting at once. Large chunks of 'Hitler's' dialogue was lifted verbatim from Guy de Maupassant's later works, ("The Horla," "Diary of a Madman," etc.) Other bits were pinched from the 'unknown' author Fyodor Dostoyevsky, and some moodily Gothic hunks of mise en scene were hammered together out of bits and pieces left from Zarathustra' first Paris Opera run.

It's bollocks, in other words.

Voltaire: History is a lie commonly agreed upon.

Hitler was not the spawn of Satan. They were not even distant cousins. He was a man, and a political and military leader, who was defeated utterly by the allies. The constant invocation of his evil nature to this day fascinates me, however.

Liddabit
02-25-2007, 05:53 PM
Where does the holocaust and the fascist tactics employed fit into your judgement of the man Roger? Your thesis seems to paint him as a widely misunderstood anti-hero. I don't see how you can reach that conclusion though with the holocaust in the way.

Fascinating brief insight into the times though!

klcarroll
02-25-2007, 06:41 PM
UncleRoger does raise a valid point: .....All through history, it has been politically essential to "demonize"¯ the enemy. It is absolutely essential that the average "Joe"¯ that your government has drafted NOT consider the possibility that the guy you're asking him to kill just might be some other poor "Joe"¯ who got drafted by the other "¯team"¯.

So, when history is written by the winning team, the looser generally gets to keep his "Spawn of Satan"¯ image.

I am in no way ignoring the horrific crimes committed: .....but I will point out that these were crimes committed by specific people; not an entire nation. To understand the history of war, you must be able to sift through the propaganda and political expediencies.

*

UncleRoger
02-25-2007, 07:42 PM
Liddabit,

O no! I knew you'd go there!! That's why it's a ball-tearer of a question! You are right, the 'holocaust' as promulgated today is at odds with Hitler the man. It needs Hitler the demon. This lies at the heart of the matter.

Like Hitler, objective historical examination of the 'holocaust' is, shall be say, somewhat problematic in these times.

This was my meaning. History as belief, as religion. Stridently and aggressively pushed, endlessly invoked and re-introduced.

Know this: I report only. I play no games within structured patterns of belief. I make no judgement the man in black/white, good/bad, hero/anti-hero terms as the times demand. The realm of belief is not that of objectivity. The world runs on perception, not fact.

Young men need fears and beliefs in order to go out into the mid-atlantic, in steel tubes, to kill other young men, in industrial-mercantile 'modern' warfare.

And the leading edge of history is always tainted by political bias. Atrocity stories are standard fare. We need stories, threats, histories presented as morality plays.

Roman republic: wars fought without exception for the 'defense of our allies' Ha! German militarism? Bayonetted babies (or nuns?) in Belgium. The crucified Canadian soldier. German corpse rendering factories. Six Million Jews crucified in a 1920's holocaust. Katyn forest (this one happened, but not as advertised). Liberation of Belsen. Then Nuremberg.

Gulf of Tonkin. Babies thrown out of incubators onto the floor. WMD's.

Hollywood-educated populations.

The truth of Hitler the man is hard for us to get at.

I saw a 'documentary' on the SS recently, here on SBS in Australia. It was shocking in it's partiality. An excellent classic textbook example of the propagandists art? No, the best propaganda uses truth to advantage. This was crude in the extreme, but one must unplug, as it were, to even be aware of the artifice.

Am I ranting? Making any sense? I need to go out and sink something perhaps.

Regards, Rog.

mariuszj1939
02-26-2007, 03:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CaptainCox1:

The main objective for Hitler was to basically rot out the "Jewish Bolshevik" conspiracy in the east, meaning the Soviet Union. He never really wanted to fight England or the Americans.

But that he thought he could do it and then basically make peace with the rest of the world basically shows that he was...lets say "mad" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif
So why he attacked Czech Republic, Poland, France, Benelux , Norway and Denmark !
Hitler noticed pact Poland-UK-France therefore he expected war against UK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish-British_Common_Defence_Pact

"make peace with the rest of the world" - with USA or who could left ???

Celeon999
02-26-2007, 03:58 AM
The whole problem was caused by his assumption that Britain would never declare war on Germany to save Poland.

He considered it unlikely that Britain would let the situation escalate into another world war.

France would never declare war first and would wait until Britain does it first.

Britain would only protest to keep its face but then withdraw any further measures.

That was his idea of what the situation would be like.


Japan was another thing.

He expected and tried to convince Japan to attack the Soviet Union to create a two fronts war which the SU would propably loose.

The attack on Pearl Harbour was a total surprise even for Germany and caused some confusion.

Everybody expected (hoped for) an massive attack on the SU by Japan from the territory of occupied China.

Celeon999
02-26-2007, 04:06 AM
There is also the famous story of the russian spy in Tokyo who found out that Japan did not plan to attack the SU.

He informed Stalin who moved all guarding troops from the Chinese border to the front and was so able to start the soviet counter offensive. Without these additional troops the red army would not had been able to stop the german offensive before it would had occupied Moscow.

And if the soviet state would had survived the loss of its ideological basis in moscow for long.....

mariuszj1939
02-26-2007, 04:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Celeon999:
There is also the famous story of the russian spy in Tokyo who found out that Japan did not plan to attack the SU.

He informed Stalin who moved all guarding troops from the Chinese border to the front and was so able to start the soviet counter offensive. Without these additional troops the red army would not had been able to stop the german offensive before it would had occupied Moscow.

And if the soviet state would had survived the loss of its ideological basis in moscow for long..... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Sorge

joeap
02-26-2007, 04:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by UncleRoger:


Am I ranting? Making any sense? I need to go out and sink something perhaps.

Regards, Rog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go and sink something.

klcarroll
02-26-2007, 07:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Japan was another thing.

He expected and tried to convince Japan to attack the Soviet Union to create a two fronts war which the SU would propably loose. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...... An interesting scenario to speculate on!

If Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. would have certainly remained neutral for at least another year.

If the Japanese had dedicated their resources to an attack on the Soviet Union in the East, the Soviet Union would have been in serious trouble!

Wow! ......Talk about your "Alternative History"¯!!! (Sounds like: "Axis – 1, Allies – 0"¯ to me!)