Did Hitler do anything right?

[Guest Big Time Software]

Simon, good point about the chicken and egg. The only thing I will say is that there were plenty of enlightened minds within the Nazi home and occupation governements that understood this. Hell, even some of the SS leaders understood that if you aren't capable of killing everybody at once those that survived are going to be pissed. So for humanitarian or practical reasons, there was a movement to at least treat the occupied peoples with some degree of respect (even if for self serving reasons). The fact is that the Soviet peoples were so beat up by Stalin that it really wouldn't have taken much, and therefore while my extreme point about an EU arrangement was not even remotely a possibility, things could have been much different. As you say, Hitler made a very poor Leader.

Josh, you made my point a little sharper. I said that *if* the Nazis had given the masses in Western Europe hope, prosperity, etc. that there really wouldn't have been anything to liberate and therefore they would have been resisted to some degree. However, remember one very important trait in human nature... nobody likes to be on the losing side What I mean by that is that the US, UK, and refugees would have tried to fight to Berlin with or without local support IMHO. So in effect they very well might have been resisted because, especially in France, they would have been seen as part of the problem not of the solution. As the case REALLY was, the opposite in fact happened because my hypothetical example is really off in left field because the entire concept of Nazism would have to had changed from the ground up. And that simply couldn't happen.

Steve

[JoshK]

Speedy,

My post was referring to Western Europe, and I tried not to imply that the same case could be applied to the complex colonial situation. However, one of my primary points was that the powerful idea of self-determination would always cause resistance to foreign occupation. This desire applied equally to those that were under colonial domination, as events following the war demonstrated. However, to French soldiers stationed in Syria, this equation did not apply.

Steve,

I think we are agreement then. It is possible to construct a hypothetical alternative reality that may have lead to support of Germany. But that such a reality would change the nature of the Nazi regime to such a degree that the invasion of Western Europe would not have taken place in the first place.

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JoshK:

My god, look at the poor Ukrainians. They actually did, to a large degree, welcome Nazi liberation in June, 1941. After Stalin starved 3 million Kulaks, Hitler could have very conceivably had armed Ukrainian support. However, to adopt the necessary policies would have meant that he wouldn't have been Hitler, and therefore would not have invaded the USSR in the first place. The internal justification for the invasion was to eradicate the Jews, and for living space free of Slavic sub-humans. It is hard to accomplish those two tasks without devastating the occupied population. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It should be remembered that the Ukrainian populace was not all that "devastated" by the implementation of the Final Solution in the Ukraine. On the contrary, there were many enthusiastic supporters of it, e.g., Ivan the Terrible. Ukrainians also volunteered in fairly large numbers to fight in Wehrmacht/SS units. Analagous events happened throughout the Pale of Settlement after 1941 and in France.

Ethan

------------------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 03-15-2000).]