|
On April 20 2013 02:34 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 02:19 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 01:30 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . Fascism's fervor burnt the candle on both ends my friend, 'twas was an economic loss as much as a military one. It would take some rather marvelous cherry-picking in order to understand the programs of Mussolini and Hitler as "brilliant"; the high standard of living in Germany circa 1938 was built on the back of an entirely overexploited minority. Please elaborate on that last point? Just want to clarify that you are indeed talking about the Jews, in which case I have a rebuttal. Nah, by "overexploited minority", I meant practically anyone that didn't fit under the Aryan and Nazi party label. Gypsies, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, pretty much any ethnic minority. Of those minorities you listed, the largest was the Jews, accounting for 2% of the population in 1933. The rest you mentioned are negligible. A large part of that 2% were Polish nationals. Most of those Jews kept their jobs until they were deported. Gyspies were largely ignored, and barely register on the demographic charts anyway. Germany was very much a monolothic nation. Austria was far more diverse, and Hitler still managed a 99% approval rating, leading to the Anschluss. Persecution is not the same as exploitation, so I'm just wondering how you come to the conclusion that the economic successes from 1933 to 1939 are due to some kind of "exploitation?"
Because when a society can point to a group of people, no matter how small, and say "you are negligible", it becomes incredibly easy to then take all of their things, use them for labor, and then kill them off in droves, which is precisely what happened.
|
Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote:
Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars...
|
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote:Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...) Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK. There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow Show nested quote +On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote:
Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars...
What do you mean by this?
|
On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote:
Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
Well at least you have Prince Charlie to look forward to when Lizzy bites the dust. Oh wait...
|
On April 20 2013 02:40 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote:Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...) Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK. There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote:
Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars... What do you mean by this?
Let impure blood water our furrows!
Is the translated English lyrics to La Marseillaise, the French National Anthem, which was written during the wars of revolution against monarchies across Europe.
I am postulating that Scotland, Europe and the World may have been better off had Napoleon actually emerged victorious against Tsarist Russia, The British Empire, Prussia, Austro-Hungary and 30 or so other European nations France was locked in war against.
It's a big if of course. Napoleon was a blatant megalomaniac but at least the man got to where he was on talent and merit and was largely responsible for shaping much of modern Europe's civil institutions. He was certainly no Hitler and no worst than that generation of rulers.
Hell the American's supported him from the sidelines and if there's one thing Hollywood has ever taught me it's that US = Good guys. And with that faultless logic I rest my case.
|
On April 20 2013 02:55 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:40 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote:Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...) Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK. There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow On April 19 2013 05:38 Kukaracha wrote:
Strong republican here.
Though the French approach to republicanism is too latin in my eyes. I'd very much appreciate some nordic rigour... as the Republic is a sacred, superhuman entity that transcends the individual will, and our only hope and goal is to serve it as we would serve mankind itself.
Let impure blood water our furrows!
I've always suspected we were on the wrong side of history in the Napoleonic wars... What do you mean by this? That Scotland, Europe and the World may have been better off had Napoleon actually emerged victorious against Tsarist Russia, The British Empire, Prussia, Austro-Hungary and 30 or so other European nations France was locked in war against. It's a big if of course. Napoleon was a blatant megalomaniac but at least the man got to where he was on talent and merit and was largely responsible for shaping much of modern Europe's civil institutions.. He was certainly no Hitler. Hell the American's supported him from the sidelines and if there's one thing Hollywood has ever taught me it's that US = Good guys.
Haha fair enough. Though I must say you've discounted the tragic storm that would have shredded Napoleon's fleet had he attempted to cross the English Channel! 
|
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On April 20 2013 02:45 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote:
Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
Well at least you have Prince Charlie to look forward to when Lizzy bites the dust. Oh wait...
Fancy pushing our monarchy under the bus saying as you're game to do it for yours?
Ideally a routemaster bus (see below). Two iconic but otherwise outdated British institutions coming together, almost poetic.
![[image loading]](http://blogs.reuters.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/routemaster_s.jpg)
|
On April 20 2013 03:03 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:45 McBengt wrote:On April 20 2013 02:39 Asymmetric wrote:
Scot stuck in the UK (atleast for the time being...)
Elizabeth and the rest of her family of parasites are depressingly popular the further south you head in the UK.
There's something about putting a golden hat on someone with an ancestry of murderous dictators that makes certain people go weak at the knees, compelling them to bow
Well at least you have Prince Charlie to look forward to when Lizzy bites the dust. Oh wait... Fancy pushing our monarchy under the bus saying as you're game to do it for yours? Ideally a routemaster bus (see below). Two iconic but otherwise outdated British institutions coming together, almost poetic.
Can I hide out at your place until the heat dies off? I don't eat much and my bodily odour issues are quite managable.
|
On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up.
True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that).
The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
|
On April 20 2013 02:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:34 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:21 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 02:19 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 01:30 farvacola wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . Fascism's fervor burnt the candle on both ends my friend, 'twas was an economic loss as much as a military one. It would take some rather marvelous cherry-picking in order to understand the programs of Mussolini and Hitler as "brilliant"; the high standard of living in Germany circa 1938 was built on the back of an entirely overexploited minority. Please elaborate on that last point? Just want to clarify that you are indeed talking about the Jews, in which case I have a rebuttal. Nah, by "overexploited minority", I meant practically anyone that didn't fit under the Aryan and Nazi party label. Gypsies, Catholics, Jews, Atheists, pretty much any ethnic minority. Of those minorities you listed, the largest was the Jews, accounting for 2% of the population in 1933. The rest you mentioned are negligible. A large part of that 2% were Polish nationals. Most of those Jews kept their jobs until they were deported. Gyspies were largely ignored, and barely register on the demographic charts anyway. Germany was very much a monolothic nation. Austria was far more diverse, and Hitler still managed a 99% approval rating, leading to the Anschluss. Persecution is not the same as exploitation, so I'm just wondering how you come to the conclusion that the economic successes from 1933 to 1939 are due to some kind of "exploitation?" Because when a society can point to a group of people, no matter how small, and say "you are negligible", it becomes incredibly easy to then take all of their things, use them for labor, and then kill them off in droves, which is precisely what happened.
Well, what period of time are we talking about here? You seem to be locked into 1941-1943, and I'm talking about 1933-1939. There are HUGE differences in policy, made possible thanks to the intervention of England and France.
|
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw?
|
On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops.
That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance.
When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of Lebensraum
Never ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
|
On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw?
I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why?
|
On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it.
Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
|
On April 20 2013 04:35 eeniebear wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it. Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally.
And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
|
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
On April 20 2013 04:12 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 03:27 Wombat_NI wrote:
Sure McBengt, how are you with kids btw? I generally prefer them with some garlic and a touch of basil, why?
Hm, I approve of your Monarch-pushing policy, but on the other hand don't really like the possibility of Mini-wombat devouring
|
I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
|
On April 20 2013 04:47 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2013 04:35 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 03:36 Asymmetric wrote:On April 20 2013 03:15 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 02:35 jello_biafra wrote:On April 20 2013 01:16 eeniebear wrote:On April 20 2013 00:48 Aeroplaneoverthesea wrote:On April 20 2013 00:41 eeniebear wrote:
I wish Fascism had been in existence long enough before the communists finally got their way for it to be an option in this poll. You like Fascism? Yes. Hitler and Mussolini had brilliant programs that very quickly raised the standard of living, as well as the economies of their nations, to heights not thought possible, all during a worldwide depression. Talk about men who could make decisions, they were the best at it. Although once 1939 rolled around Mussolini showed how incompetent he was as a military commander. If only Oswald Mosley had managed to get it done in the UK . . . . I don't know so much about Italy but Nazi Germany's economic plans were a total shambles (also, Hitler had nothing to do with them, he appointed others to take care of the economy), it was very short term and short sighted planning that required the country to be constantly expanding to continue growth and led directly to WW2, they got involved in the Spanish civil war because they needed more resources, it's a big part of the reason why they annexed Austria then the Sudetenland etc. The house building and highway building programs had to be stopped in 1937-8 because the workers were needed to build the Westwall because they knew some serious consequences would come from their actions. Not to mention the fact that their constant pogroms in the mid 1930s hurt the economy pretty badly (1935 was the worst year, they stopped it for the 1936 Berlin Olympics) because instead of working people were out smashing up shops and beating people up. True, Goering was the man really in charge of the Four Year Plan. Hitler really was not a fan of the pogroms as well. They were costing German insurance companies a lot of money in claims. He was angry with Goebbels about that. As far as the short-sighted nature of National Socialist economics, I'm sincerely interested in some sources if you wouldn't mind listing them. I have read a great deal about Goering, but unfortunately it rarely goes into great detail regarding his economic policies, except for his acquisition of several industrial concerns (something which I think Hitler absolutely should not have allowed, and should have stripped him of the rank of Reichsmarshall for that). The Anschluss was not even on Hitler's radar for a long time. It was something of an afterthought at the time, but he did it due to the enormous enthusiasm there for National Socialism. And taking Sudetenland was largely motivated by oppression of the German majority-minority there. Same reason he took back West Prussia from the poles. Women in Danzig and all along the Polish corridor were being raped and murdered by the Polish military. This mostly per David Irving. Especially with regard to the German territory the Poles had occupied post-1918, Hitler was extremely interested in a joint war using the German and Austrian militaries in a short war against Poland to help the military commands, as well as the national sentiments of the two nations, to fuse together. Which he accomplished, although things got out of hand when Churchill started landing troops. That is some impressive revisionism of history. Hitler was not a victim of circumstance. When Bavarian beer halls rang with his speeches long before he ever tasted power he spoke of LebensraumNever ending expansion for the Aryan Race was his goal from the beginning and he never hid it. Of course, but only as the population would support the territory gains. His only major territorial ambition was Czechoslovakia and western Poland. That would have given the German population enough territory for a couple of centuries. All other territorial concerns would be for future generations, as far as Hitler was concerned. The circumstances of the war once it got out of hand made it so that Hitler had to secure a lot of strategic positions, so he ended up taking over a lot of territory that he never initially planned for. There are a few speeches and conversations where Hitler explicity says that what became World War II was far beyond anything he had imagined, as he had hoped to spend most of his time not as a war leader, but as a peacetime leader working to build up Germany domestically. All through Mein Kampf and especially his "Secret Book" England is seen as Germany's natural ally. And the Greater German Reich was just an afterthought? I'm enthralled by your revisionism.
It's often overlooked that Hitler was not just a political leader. He was also a philosopher. He had a vision for the next 1000 years. And never in his writing did he target western Europe, except for reclaiming the Rhineland, the Ruhr, and Alsace-Lorraine. South Tyrol he was willing to let the Italians keep. His immediate territorial goal for his lifetime was western Poland and German Czechoslovakia ("Hitler's Secret Book"). In the decades and centuries to come, he would have liked to see a German empire expand to the east, while in the process eliminating Bolshevism. Stalin short-circuited this vision by massing troops and tank divisions in eastern Poland, prompting Hitler to respond. (closed-door meeting in 1944 I think with Carl Mannerheim, president of Finland, of which an audio tape exists)
Guys, I'm not making this stuff up, it comes from Hitler's own mouth in private conversations, as well as war documents, and his own writings on the Third Reich.
|
On April 20 2013 04:51 Quincel wrote:
I'm more impressed by the idea that conquering 'only' Czechslovakia and half of Poland would have been somehow 'OK'.
The territory he wanted back was German anyway up until Versailles gave it to the Poles. It used to be West Prussia. Just taking back stolen land.
|
Northern Ireland26411 Posts
Be that as it may, I don't really see what Hitler's foreign policy has to do with the remit of this thread
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
