Victory, Defeat, Armistice, Taxes, Depression

[arado234]

Let us not forget the opportuities presented to hitler BEFORE he blew it:Refering to atomic science as jewish science(forcing some of the best scientists to leave),not wiping out the B.E.F.when he had the chance(which may very well caused england to surrender)Attacking russia with mindset of a madman bent on destuction.He had a a very GOOD chance of at least forcing another revolt or at best getting alot of russia to join his side.But then hitler wouldnt have been hitler.HE WAS NUTS.I dont think you can factor this or alot of the other major happenings(ultra,etc)into this game.Blashy england was out producing germany ONLY because germany didnt see a need to go on a total war production.Hitler thought he had the war won.Germany only went on a total war output from 1943 onwards(when it was to late).Remember germanys production WENT UP in 1944 with the allies pounding them from the air.If germany had planned for a long war which her economy may or may not have sustained(look what happened to russia and look at america today in debt over 4trillion dollars)germany may have had such a well equiped prepared force that no one would wanted to attack it because of the huge human sacrifice.We all could go on and on but thats the FUN of these forums.

[JerseyJohn]

arado234

I don't think destroying the BEF would have caused the UK to surrender and I'm pretty sure that isn't what you meant. But I do believe a couple of months later, with the fall of France, Britain would have signed a peace treaty along with France -- which the French historically felt they should have done anyway, the condition being that Germany pull out of the occupied French territory.

Fully agreed on all the points you've made. Hitler's absurd and tragic mass murderings and treatment of tens of millions as though they were sub-human slaves, in my opinion, virtually assured that Germany could not have won the war.

-- What I still can't understand is how he realized the Russian people would welcome being liberated from Soviet rule, expected them to welcome Germany as liberators, which they did, and in return becomes a far worse oppressor than what they were being liberated from. It made no sense. In Lost Victories von Manstein discusses this at length. He didn't understand it either.

Blashy,

Appreciated my friend (sorry for the delayed response) very glad you enjoyed those two mods of mine. The WWI scenario must have been by von Mannerheim, I play-tested it with Comrade Trapp and the three of us felt the SC1 editor couldn't do the job and it would only work if both players agreed to fairly strict house rules.

In the Brest-Litovsk Aftermath a made an irreversible mistake, placing the Montgomery HQ on the map and then deleting it, which meant it was no longer available. I didn't realize that till Iron Ranger pointed it out to me. A few people wrote later on and told me it was a good idea for play balance. If it was then the outcome was pure luck on my part.

Looking forward to using the new tools Hubert is creating, but it will be a long time till I'll be able to work on these things. If, before then, anyone wants to create their own versions I'd be more than glad to offer my thoughts on what the altered historical situations would have been.

Minty,

Exactly. Germany would have had a much greater problem in occupying and controling the conquered territory than it had in the actual conquests.

Germany's only chance to hold such a huge empire was to administer it with the cooperation of the subject people. Instead Hitler said they were swine and subhuman and reduced them slaves whose food was freely plundered placing them on a permanent starvation level. Absurd, of course they rose up against their new masters.

Alexander the Great understood these things. So did Caesar and Napoleon. Fortunately for humanity, Hitler had little in common with any of those three.

[ June 28, 2007, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Blashy]

And even if he did, I will always come back to UK NEVER accepting Germany become this ONE big power in mainland Europe.

Throughout Britain's history you can clearly see that they always went against the biggest power in Europe. They always wanted a balance of power on the mainland where THEY could be the country that tips the balance.

Remove all of Hitlers massive errors and I still see Germany not keeping all that land. Russia with its abundant manpower and USA's huge convoys would have simply been too draining.

Best outcome is a peace treaty and UK accepting they keep the Rhineland, Poland, Czech and Austria. Anything bigger and it would have meant too much power.

The "good guys" in WW2 where just as greedy for power (see post WW2 US meddling all over the world), no way they let Germany be much bigger.

That is how I view it.

[arado234]

Balshy we may disagree on some points but you hit the nail right on the head with The ''good guys''being just as greedy for power(politicans).JerseyJohn as far as the destrution of the B.E.F.goes and england surrendering your right i did mean sue for peace.Ive read where the british govt was debating sueing for peace AFTER the B.E.F.returned to england.If they had destroyed the B.E.F. the brits would have been in alot of trouble(as far as their empire abroad goes)They could ill afford to loose those 300,000 plus troops.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

Not too many years before the start of the First World War a biplane took off from one side of the English Channel and landed on the other. Most people on both sides whooped and celebrated except for one British MP. He told a newspaperman, "This changes everything." Few people understood what he really meant at the time but a few years later it would become obvious.

I think that's the situation here, if the UK had been forced to agree to peace terms with a victorious Germany. It would have been the Germans dictating the terms, not the British -- the British Isles would never again have had the secure isolation they enjoyed against Napoleon and those who came before him. They would have been a target now, same as any other nation and having a powerful navy would no longer be enough to ensure immunity from invasion.

With the 300,000 or so men lost in Belgium and France no longer a continental shield against the victorious Germans I believe the overwhelming cry would have been peace regardless of the terms, short of actual surrender. If Churchill, under those circumstances, would have made a fight them on the beeches speach he'd have been booted out of office. I think it would have been that simple.

Britain wants France restored as nation. The existence of that country would have been seen as vital to Britain's security.

-- I'm sure Germany would have agreed, no doubt demanding that Alsace and Loraine be given back to them and, of course, the French would have consented. This would also have placed most of the Maginot Line in German territory.

The UK and France both want Germany to withdraw from Belgium, Holland, Denmark and Norway.

-- I doubt Germany would have gone along with all of that.

I think it would have withdrawn from Belgium, but it would have claimed the Congo as a German colony for it's natural resources, including uranium. -- I'm pretty sure all involved would have agreed to that; the main thing was to not have German troops and air units stationed where they could turn south and take Paris or turn the other way and bomb London.

UK and France wants Germany to leave Holland, Denmark and Norway.

Here I think Nazi racism would have called the shots. It would have been claimed that those populations were German and had to absorbed into the Reich.

-- This puts German air bases in Holland within easy striking distance of Britain.

-- It would give Germany the Dutch East Indies and it's own supply of oil.

-- The addition of Denmark would give Germany a lock on the Baltic Sea, and Norway, in addition to it's value as an ore and mineral source, would have provided invaluable naval bases along the North Sea.

Germany refuses to withdraw from any of those three countries. Do the French, conquered outright by the Reich make withdrawal an absolute condition? I'm sure they wouldn't. Does Britain, with it's population demanding an immediate cessation of hostilities make this issue an absolute condition? I really don't think so. I think the feeling would have been have peace now with the return of 300,000 POWs and put things back together afterwards.

So, to me anyway, the post 1940 situation would have been:

Germany gains* Western Poland, Denmark, Norway, Holland and Alsace-Loraine on the continent. It further gaines the Belgian Congo and Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) as overseas colonies.

France regains it's sovereignty.

Britain gains an exit from a disasterous war that would have cost it's Empire to continue -- Chamberlain understood this when he went to Munich, that Britain was holding it's colonies, particularly India, by the barest of margins and even a victorious major war would have resulted in their (inevitable) independence.

Aftermath:

Germany would have needed to adjust it's thinking, particularly regarding the USSR. It would now have had the prospect of the UK and France preparing for a future war, this one aimed at dislodging Germany's colonies and new territories. The United States would have lost some of it's isolationism. And Japan would have been eyeing the East Indies and reconsidering it's pact with the Reich. A prolonged war in Russia, probably leading to a two front war with the west ultimately joining in, would have been an obvious disaster for Germany.

All speculation, of course, but that's my view of what a 1940 pro-Axis peace settlement would have looked like.

-- Of course I agree about the western nations being just as greed driven as the Axis, though a bit more subtle in their approach. This would have been coming back to haunt them in the Middle East, where, with the war over and Germany coming out on top, there would have been a lot of agitation against both France and Britain in Iraq and Syria.

*Czechoslovakia, Austria and the Rhineland (unless you mean the French side of it) would not have been on the table, Germany already absorbed them before the invasion of Poland with both the UK and Britain having accepted all of it.

Arado,

Agreed with what you're saying. I can't see any way the UK would have continued after such a catastrophe as losing the BEF -- coupled with the collapse of France.

[Retributar]

JerseyJohn!!!...

"""Great Absorbing Write-Up"""!!! on WW2 Theory! [Great Start For a Possible Movie???...as the Great-Writer in YOU rises here to the surface!].

But!!!...Since im also a 'Spelling-Freak' i noticed that the correct spelling for 'Alsace-Loraine' should be...'Alsace-Lorraine'...?Minor Infraction?, however,...since my Ancestor's came from there,...your rendering stood out like a 'Sore-Thumb'...to me-at-least!.

[JerseyJohn]

Retributar,

Appreciated, you've got me walking on air.

Spelling has always been my Achilles heel. I hope I've spelled that correctly.

Deepest apologies to all Alsacians and Lorranians and their descendants.

-- A movie? Hmmm, now there's an idea. I've been doing a lot of research for two future alternate history projects, both of which we've been discussing in this thread.

One is a novel that begins after the UK and France signing a joint peace treaty with Germany in 1940. The BEF was captured in Belgium and Paris falls shortly afterward. The story would be seen through various characters living in Germany, the United States, UK, France and the USSR.

The second begins with World War One ending in early 1918 with Imperial Germany pulling out of France and Belgium in exchange for recognition of it's gains in the east (Treaty of Brest-Litovsk recognized). Again, there would be characters in several major countries.

This thread has been extremely helpful with both of them. I'm always amazed at the depth and insight of this forum's members. :cool:

[Blashy]

I see all that, but I see war breaking out (WW2) within 10 years. Simply by reading European history.

They have all fought to have more land (UK, France, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, Turkey, Italy and Spain) but in the end look where they are today, no one has gained.

This shows that no one "people" will accept being conquered and no country will accept another being able to expand. They end up in revolution or war.

No one was coming out the "better" , in short my point is you can have all the what if scenarios but somewhere down the line WW2 was inevitable the instant one country wanted to expand.

It is quite ridiculous how much humanity is guided by greed, European history is one war after another for land grab and resources and they always end up with the same borders...

NOTE: I personally do not see any countries outside of Europe (like Indonesia) bending to Germany's will if their had been a peace treaty, the UK or any other country with satellites would simply have worked behind the scenes to provoke independence or civil war.

[arado234]

Whats scary blashy is that if what JerseyJohn said did happen i wonder who and how many countries would have had the atomic bomb by then.Having not been used yet(we all know human nature in that seeing is believing)there may have been a ''mini''nuclear war just to try them out.YAHOO

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy,

Agree all the way through. I didn't say Germany would be able to rule it's new-found empire indefinitely or even that there'd be a long lasting peace. In fact, as I said, even before the ink was dry the UK and France would have needed to be planning for the next round.

Regarding the colonies. Germany could have sent much larger occupation forces to both the Indies and the Congo than Holland and Belgium had managed. I'm sure there would have been a transition period, probably the same ships that brought German troops to the new colonial holdings would have been returning with the Belgium and Dutch garrisons that had been replaced.

The Indonesians were known prior to WWII to be the most cooperative of all colonial people. That was an illusion, of course. When the Japanese invaded the resident Dutch sought out the Japanese troops as saviors because their former subjects were butchering them! And we all know about the viciousness on both sides in places like the Congo, Algeria and Vietnam as they rebelled against their European landlords. So there's a lot of truth in what you're saying, but at least temporarily it would have been possible for Germany to hold the Congo and East Indies against internal rebellion; neither Holland or Belgium found it difficult prior to WWII.

The only way a large empire can exist for any period of time is if it's entire population feels it is a part of it. Winston Churchill opened his History of the English Speaking Peoples by saying the happiest time known to the British Isles would have during the last two centuries of Roman rule! The reason for that incredible statement is they regarded themselves as Roman citizens. During those two centuries they were treated fairly and, has often been pointed out by historians, whether standing on British soil or in the middle of Turkey, it was all Rome.

The British Empire was, in many ways, modelled after the Roman system. Hitler had no clue as to any of this, his simplistic answer to why so few Britains could rule so many times their number worldwide was that they were Aryans and vastly superior to their subjects. Which is nonsense, of course. The British, like the Romans, found the key, which was to have the parts of their empire ruling themselves as part of Great Britain. Yet, even this began falling apart by the 20th Century. After a while it becomes difficult to convince people on the other side of the world that they're actually British of a different color (and of course there was always a great deal of racial prejudice).

Anyway, sure there would have been a next part to the Second World War exactly as in many ways that war itself was a second part to the First World War.

-- My feelind is it would have begun with either Britain or the United States, or both, encouraging Japan to oust Germany from the East Indies. They'd have worried about dealing with the expanded Japanese Empire afterwards but the immediate benefit would have been the destruction of the Berlin-Tokyo Axis and the reduction of Germany's colonial influences.

BTW -- in the late 1930s Germany began resurrecting the defunct Imperial Colonial Office -- renamed Reich Colonial Office, of course. It never actually became functional, of course.

-- Another issue would be Iceland, but I don't think Germany would have been allowed to occupy it; both the UK and USA would have blocked such a move. If Denmark were kept as part of the Reich, Iceland would simply have become independant.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by arado234:

Whats scary blashy is that if what JerseyJohn said did happen i wonder who and how many countries would have had the atomic bomb by then.Having not been used yet(we all know human nature in that seeing is believing)there may have been a ''mini''nuclear war just to try them out.YAHOO

:eek:

Blashy predicted WWII would have resumed within a decade or so -- ~1950. I agree with your reasoning, the A-bomb might well have been developed by one or more nations in the interim, along with functional delivery systems.

-- Of course we have to remember that both The Manhattan Project and the development of the B-29 were mammoth operations that would have been hard to conduct with peacetime budgets. But if the will were present the results surely would have followed.

[Liam]

Jersey John!

Long time no see. I have been away too a little bit...

I like your subject, This is at the basis of World War 2 strategy gaming... Historical Simulations and SSI did some good ones, I find that these Strategic Maps are a little more difficult and the Game Engines though more detailed are still really tricky to match to WW2 standards that a lot of folks have.

Understandably, Hitler was a superb Politican, Speaker, Gambler he was even a visionary but no Military Tactician, he made the rank of Corporal in WW1. That is below the level that one of you are likely achieved in your own Military Careers or if you were to enlist with the amount of College you have

Men that were Military Geniuses are what got Nazi Germany to it's Dominance in 1941. Hitler is the ambitious mind behind those men, and he did not meddle in affairs on the operational level as much as far as I'm concerned until after he started losing. OCD or obsessive personality disorder. I have this and I can relate to the Man himself when I speak and say that when I am successful with something I will not micromanage, but I may attempt to micromanage when I'm doing poorly. This is the case with Adolf Hitler and a big reason why he was losing much after a certian timeframe. He REALLY needed to heed his Generals warnings!

Realistically, Great Britian alone could not defeat Hitler, Stalin would likely have dealt with Hitler on the understanding that great concessions were made. I do not think Stalin the megolmaniac some think him. He was a man who was a Megolmaniac in Russia and the Soviet States and what he believed was rightfully in his sphere of influence. He knew not to bite off more than he could chew. Hitler had no concept of this and that is why he was doomed to failure. Consolidation of His gains after France, which was a very Gifted Campaign for the Germans as the French were unprepared, and WHERE was the RAF?

The best that Germany could do was probably a armistice with Britian and possibly a return of France... That MAY have appeased Churchill... If not Churchill would've played the Americano card, and perhaps Hitler could've played the Tojo Card... I'm not sure

Regardless, Germany couldn't swallow every Minor and expect to Keep all of His Gains, just doesn't work that way. Great Conquorors never last, Ghengis, Napoleon, shortlived really... everlasting impacts, Even the British Empire, one of the longest Lived most Dominant and intelligent Empires in History. a 5th of the world!!! Very Roman!!

[JerseyJohn]

Liam!

Great to see you too. I haven't played the game very much, no reflection on the system just that I've been swamped with other things and haven't had any game time. So my posts haven't been in the game play threads, which is where I think you've been putting most of yours. Glad we finally found a place to exchange ideas -- I still think that mamoth History in SC thread you started a few years back was the best we've ever had.

Agreed about Stalin. I think he was incredibly paranoid and cynical, never a real communist only the ultimate opportunist. He never thought in terms of military conquests. Even when he occupied nearly all of Eastern Europe it was mainly as a buffer zone.

Considering Hitler served in the front lines for virtually the enitre First World War, was wounded and twice decorated with the Iron Cross, it's more than a little curious he was never promoted past corporal. There was definitely something wrong there, it has to mean his superior officers and noncoms felt he not only had no leadership ability, but was actually a trouble maker.

It's interesting that only a person with the abilities you mentioned could have made the early gains, such as dropping the Versailles Treaty, ending reparations and reoccupying the Rhineland. His generals and fellow politicians didn't think any of that would work, and it shouldn't have, but it did and he became stronger with each of his successful unsound moves. I've seen that in chess games, where a player is so wild that other players assume his moves are sound when, in reality, it's all smoke and no fire.

His interference with the generals actually started fairly early. He made Denmark and Norway his personal projects and, while Norway was pulled off in plain sight of the Royal Navy, his meddling with ordering destroyers to remain in the fjords after they'd landed infantry led to pointless losses when the Brits arrived with cruisers and battleships and the German destroyers had no room to either escape or maneuver and were forced into an unfair slugging match.

From there he interferred exactly enough in Fall Weiss to allow the B. E. F. to be evacuated. In fairness, the older generals, especially von Rundstedt, kept advising him that the panzers and pzgrenediers were too far ahead of the walking infantry and heavy artillery so his halt orders were really just acting on advice. And then there was Goering telling him the Luftwaffe, acting at the edge of their effective range, could handle it all on their own. So, of all his catastrophic blunders I think Dunkirk is the most understandable.

As you said, he was a gambler. It's a popular belief that all hardcore gamblers want to lose ultimately and I think that was the case with Hitler. Originally he wanted limited successes in the west, when he had it all he increasingly lost sight of reality.

Blashy,

That was an interesting point in an earlier post, about where Germany keeps Holland in that hypothetical peace treaty and the Dutch East Indies declares independence rather than become part of the Reich.

I think it's unlikely because the colonial governors would have had to accept the native population as equals instead of subjects. But assuming they did:

-- The Dutch occupied the territories with small army garrisons, obsolete aircraft and a flotilla of destroyers. Historically it was sunk in the Battle of the Java Sea, 1942. The Dutch Admiral Dorman commanded an ill-fated combined fleet that was destroyed by the Japanese.

Even Germany had a more than adequate fleet in 1940 to deal with the Dutch East Indies squadron -- Scharnhorst and Gneisenau along with the two remaining pocket battleships and some heavy cruisers. The problem would have been air cover. Britain would have had to cooperate in allowing the German expeditionary force and fleet pass through both Gibraltar and the Suez Canal. Considering the circumstances I doubt they'd have refused.

-- So the German force of two battle cruisers, several assorted cruisers and transports with a small infantry force is passing through the Red Sea on it's way to the Indian Ocean. I wonder how that scenario plays out. Does Japan suddenly declare itself the guarantor of Indonesian autonomy as part of a deal for it's oil and rubber trade?!

I don't think the Congo would have similarly struck for self-rule, partly for the same reason of the unequal racial strata and partly because Belgium would have been returned to self rule, surrendering it's colony as one of the conditions.

All the way around those are interesting situations to think about.

[arado234]

You guys make some valid rational points about an armistice but hitler WASNT rational.I doubt if he would agree to anything the brits would accept.Also if britain was open to peace talks hitler may have taken that as sign of weakness and asked for so much knowing the brits wouldnt accept(this way he could try and blame britain for the continuation of the war).Ive read mein kampf three times to try and figure out what made him so looney and from what i read i dont think he would ever stick to any agreemnet with anyone.Under winston the british were prepared to continue the fight from canada(even though it would have been pretty hopless)so i really cant see any type of deal reached if churchill was in power.He knew that hitlers guarantees guaranteed nothing.

[JerseyJohn]

arado234,

True. Even Hitler realized he was loony. At one point, during the siege of Stalingrad, Goering passed along an offer for the Swedes to act as hosts for a Russo/German peace conference and Stalin was willing to make broad consessions to stop the fighting. Hitler considered it, then laughed and said, "You know me, in no time at all we'd be right back at it. Better to see it through." So even with Stalingrad surrounded he passed on ending the fighting, as he would again before the Battle of Kursk.

The only difference of course is he didn't really want to fight the British and right to the end felt they should have been allies with the UK being the naval and colonial Aryan power and Germany running things in Eurasia. That might well have made the difference.

You're one up on me. I read Mein Kampf when I was 13, bought it in a 2 volume set for $2.00 from a used bookstore run by an elderly Jewish couple who immediately banned me when I bought the books! :eek:

I'm pretty sure they actually lived through all or part of Hitler's controling Germany, their daughter must have bought those books as part of a batch and priced them. Anyway, they became convinced I was a Nazi for buying it. Which I wasn't. So I went home and read them, bitter about the way they'd treated me, and within a week I became a storm trooper. That ended not long afterwards when I was trading comic books with my best friend, a blond haired boy whose mother was Jewish and I decided he wasn't really Jewish. From there I began deciding who had what % in them, exactly as the Nazis had done (which I didn't know about at the time) and, thankfully, after a while I came to really hate racism, particularly the virulent Nazi kind.

That was 1962. I read it again twenty years later because in my memory it was a scholarly work. The second time around I kept wondering how I'd managed to read it in the first place, really a terrible piece of writing.

Also, that second time, I could see what parts were written by Rudolf Hess and not Hitler, all that dreck about the Japanese being distant Aryans and how they'd solved their "Jewish Problem" -- huh? when did Japan ever have a Jewish population?!! -- that had to all have been written by Hess and not Hitler. Also, I think the section on the Protocals of the Wise Men of Zion was also Hess. I wonder if they ever realized that whole thing was a concocted by the agents working for Czar Nicholas II?

Anyone interested in modern history should suffer through reading that tome at least once.

[arado234]

I knew he admired the brits and that was one of the reasons he didnt plan for an attack on england.I had the opportunity to talk with german pilots who fought in the battle of britain and hitlers mindset was that he really didnt want to fight england.As far as mein kampf(i call it my kamping trip)goes yes when i read it the third time i was wondering what planet is this guy on.I thought no wonder he did what he did.It all made sense to him.You are right in that it is very hard to read.

[Kuniworth]

Ive read it also and it's not particulary good in writing. Interesting point Jersey, about Hess writing some parts. That makes sense.

[Liam]

I was never aware of peacetalks in 1942 with USSR and Germany. Though I'm certian that a delay of the war there would have been possible. I'm not sure which side this may have favored. The Axis were in a better position before the offensive in 1942 that had too many goals than the Russians were on the defensive.

By late 1942 and early 1943 of course all this had changed and I'm sure that the whole world could forsee the inevitable.

Hitler is a strange character, I've never read his book but from what few words I have seen from it he seems to have been a driven but narrow minded individual. His vision was narrow in that it doesn't take into consideration what the rest of the world is like. All over German ideas of inferiority of Russians is a idiotic point. Napoleon lost his Grand Armee there about a century previously. The British as a passive people that would throw their lot in with a Continental Agressor is highly unlikely. Who would that favor? About the best that Hitler could have expected is an armistice in that is if Stalin was the aggressor...

Hitler's ambition stood well when localized but when it overstretched realistic goals it was doomed to failure. A new homeland in the USSR was not was Germany needed, nor was Wheat... The German people had acquired enough by 1939, the Corridor would have been an achievable goal. Denmark, Norway and Poland are not that great of a gain. No real natural resources...

in 1941 Germany was fighting in North Africa for Dust. Was holding Norway a rocky, icy outcrop for some nickle. Not only that but trying to assualt Mother Russia at the same time. Plus the countless occuppied Minors throughout Europe. Germany gained most of it's early power from exploitation and rape of minors...

[JerseyJohn]

Kuni,

Thanks Kuni. -- Hess typed and edited the manuscript. A lot of the thoughts on geopolitics came from one of his professors, Karl Haushofer, further reinforced by his friend, the professor's son, Albrecht.

I found an interesting Wickopedia article on him:

< Albrecht Haushofer >

Excerpt from the article:

Born in 1903, he was the son of Karl Haushofer, a famous German geopolitician. Albrecht studied at Munich University under his father and alongside Rudolf Hess, who would later become Hitler's deputy. After Hess's imprisonment following the failed Beer Hall Putsch of 1923 Albrecht was a frequent visitor to Landsberg Prison. Following graduation, Albrecht became Secretary General of Germany's Society for Geography, and later editor of the Periodical of the Society of Geography. In his official capacity he would travel the world, lecturing and gaining a wide experience of international affairs.

Liam,

I think the only way for us to understand Hitler's reasoning is to look at the world through the eyes of post WWI Germans. There country was less than a century old when it was already a world power. After 1871, having defeated Austria, Denmark and France in a quick series of wars, they began seeing themselves in what would later become the supreme Aryan view. Germany seemed invincible and destined to dominate the world. It was exactly the same as America's Manifest Destiny reasoning. Except Germany's delusions crumbled in 1918. The Nazis didn't point the way, they only said what a lot of other Germans were taking for common knowledge, that they'd been conspired against from within etc & etc -- we all know the rest.

I think, by the time of the attack on Poland, Hitler and Germany were dealing with the greatest national inferiority complex in history. It wasn't just a matter of re-establishing their place as a great powere, by then they had to also prove themselves superior to everyone else and, of course, they needed to retake what they felt was rightfully theirs: Poland and European Russia.

Denmark, Norway and Holland all had tremendous strategic significance far beyond their natural wealth. But I think a further motivation to having them was the prewar theme of having all Aryans within the Reich's borders. Whether those same people wanted to be included was immaterial.

There seems to have been a turning point in Hitler's reasoning that occurred after the absorption of Slovakia in the spring of 1939. Up to that point planned in a fairly logical progression, taking a single political geographical objective and setting the stage for the next objective. With each goal accomplished his contempt for the British leadership, and especially the French, became more pronounced. By the attack on Poland I don't think he was even considering actions by those countries.

He wanted what he felt would be a showpiece war to demonstrate Germany's newfound might. It was supposed to have been Czechoslovakia but when that failed Poland would serve the purpose even better, it was bigger, had a larger (but less modern army) and the terrain was ideal for blitzkrieg tactics.

His first assumption was the British and french would back down once more, probably have another Munich Conference in which he'd be able to grab his half of the country and claim he was helping to butress Europe against the Soviets. In that scenario I think he reasoned the move to be a later attack on the USSR with Britain and France actually supporting him.

When the British and French actually honored their committment with Poland the new assumption was that they were just saving face and the peace treaty would be drawn up in the spring or summer of 1940, exactly enough time to grab Denmark and Norway before bloodying the two enemies in the Low Countries. He didn't anticipate taking France, the plan was to inflict large casualties on the allies and negotiate a treaty that would leave Germany with western Poland, Denmark and Norwary.

But things happened differently and when France fell the plan had to be revised. Etc & etc. It's as though each of the early successes helped work against Germany because at the heart of all Hitler's actions was the great war to fought in the east. Everything else was only a distraction.

-- With North Africa, neither Hitler nor his generals ever wanted to be drawn into it. They didn't even want to get involved in Iraq and Syria, considering the whole Mediteranean to be the Italian Sphere. Of course, no one on either side realized either how unprepared for war that country was or how out of touch with reality Mussolini's ambitions had become.

Anyway, even as late as the winter of 1939-40, I think Hitler was dreaming in terms of a sort of crusade in Russia that would have the full support of all the western nations.

-- It's interesting that Japan, after it's pair of fiascos in Mongolia, saw the future as a Berlin-Tokyo-Moscow Axis. No doubt Stalin also saw that as the smartest continuation and he must have been sure that Hitler would see it too.

[arado234]

You have to wonder what would have happened if germany and japan actually tried to work together instead of just having a common enemy and doing their own thing.I guess the big problem with that was the two countries had differnt goals with the same enemy blocking them(plus being seperated by thousands of kilometers didnt help).We had ultra and would have known what was up.

[jon_j_rambo]

We (Manifest Destiny) was not like Nazi Germany. Rather a land grant from Above. Imagine this...if we took off the gloves & didn't rebuild Germany & Japan.

It's an intersting concept that we (USA) destroy countries in order to rebuild them. I guess it helps our economy (and certainly theirs) for the effort.

Germany is #2 economy in world.

Japan is #3.

We know who #1 is, California alone is #5. Our Big Blue Chip corporations dwarf Russia, LOL

It's good to be #1,

-Legend

[arado234]

Thats true rambo,in a round about way germany and japan "won"ww2.We rebuilt them after the war.

[JerseyJohn]

arado234

True. None of the Axis powers ever cooperated the way the Allies cooperated with one another. Italy didn't tell Germany about its attack on Greece till after it was launched (fiasco that it was). Germany didn't tell either Italy or Japan about its attack on the USSR till after it was launched and Japan didn't tell Germany or Italy about its attack on the United States till after they did it. Not much in the way of working together.

I don't think Ultra was used for diplomatic communications. And the allies didn't always have the code broken, a lot of it depended on carelessness by German operators and the arrogance of assuming it was unbreakable.

Brother Rambo,

Manifest Destiny is the same self-serving garbage in a different bag. The United States in sprawling from coast to coast crushed anything and anyone that got in it's way. Cite the Indian Wars and the Mexican War. Later we wanted what Spain had so we created the Spanish American War. Exactly the same reasoning -- "God is OUR side" -- BS that Germany and Briton (The White Man's Burden), France, Italy, Czarist Russia and all the others used.

As you said, "A land grant from above." You'd have a different view if someone came along and said your property was theirs because God gave it to them. Or that they should rule you because they have better weapons and are therefore superior. It's been a variation of one or the other since the start of recorded history and no doubt it was that way from the beginning.

Nobody's version of that nonsense is any more justified than anyone else's, regardless of what they're calling it or which God they're saying empowered them.

[Retributar]

All in the Choir say...Amen!!!...

Unfortunately that belligerant-nonsense has not yet ended so far!,...and may yet ultimately be the cause of WWIII!.

[JerseyJohn]

Thanks Retributar, :cool:

I keep thinking of the opening words of the song, Exodus:

This land is mind,

-- God gave this land to me.

Sorry, no, it wasn't. It was the British who gave the land to them as part of a secret deal in WWI even while they agreeing to give it to the Arabs!

What folly. Life someplace, go off for a couple of thousand years and come back to rule over the people who moved in during the interim (or, really, were always there!) and claim you're empowered by God.

-- The British, for their part, did everything in their power to insure that Israel would be overrun within a year or two. Playing both hands all the way and, in the end, the close-Israeli victory of 1948 screwed Britain's plans in the region.

I'll be called a fascist for saying this, but I don't care for idea that WWIII will be triggered by the twisted logic that resulted in this situation. Those who say it's in the bible ought and they're okay because they believe and will go straight to whatever heaven they happen to believe in are really gone. A lot of us don't choose to plan our future according to what was said in somebody's prayer book.

The same with catastrophic climate change, it's in the bible (everything seems to be in there depending upon who you're talking to) so don't worry, just scream Praise Jesus! or Alla is Great or whatever the specific deity is, and all will be well.

How unfortunate that, as a species, we can't just do things because they make sense and will help our survival.