Did Hitler want war? (Spain, origin, conquer, Germans)

[Organon]

Originally Posted by dragonborn

Of course he wanted war; he was prepared for it and the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact allowed him to do so without fear of Soviet interference. How else do you think that German forces managed to invade Poland so clinically and so decisively? How could Hitler have possibly achieved what were his goals peacefully?

What Hitler aimed for was the reunion of lost German peoples and lands and ultimately a confrontation with the Soviet Union that would result in using former European Soviet territory partly as a basis to accommodate Germany's future growing generations.

Americans should immediately recognize in this a primordial fact about their own nation's history, as it itself was an outgrowth of centuries of British colonialism and subjugation of foreign peoples.

A principle difference between the case of Germany and the USSR on the one hand, and that of Anglo-American history on the other, is that the territory that Germany sought for this particular aim was under the rule of a government whose domestic policy had resulted in the deaths of almost ten million people by the time Hitler was assuming power and whose foreign policy explicitly included as an objective the eventual ruin of the major European powers and the system they shared with America.

Hitler did not want war with Britain, and by proxy France or America. He remarks on this in Mein Kampf, and goes further in stating he desires an alliance with England. This is reiterated in later speeches, and came explicitly to the ears of British leaders from his Ambassador, Joachim von Ribbentrop, recounted by Churchill from a meeting in 1937. After Britain started war on Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler repeatedly tried ending it, just as Hitler's last will and testament states he never wanted that war.

[ovcatto]

So let me get this straight...

Originally Posted by Organon

Germany [land] sought for this particular aim was under the rule of a government whose domestic policy had resulted in the deaths of almost ten million people by the time Hitler was assuming power.

Poland, Hungry, and Czechoslovakia were under the murderous rule of Joe Stalin and the manner of which to liberate all of these slavic people (including the Ukraine, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia was extermination of most of its inhabitants. Gotcha. Very noble of Herr Hitler.

Hitler did not want war with Britain, and by proxy France or America. He remarks on this in Mein Kampf, and goes further in stating he desires an alliance with England.

Hitler rattles on about all sorts of alliances in Mein Kampf, alliances with France, Alliances with England even one with Russia, and another against Italy. Ultimately he recognized in Mein Kampf that an alliance with England wouldn't be impossible.

Did he "want" war with Great Britain or the U.S., no, did he do anything to actually avoid war with France or Great Britain and ultimately the U.S., no. Well not at least until he resolved his eastern european issues.

"Therefore the only possibility which Germany had of carrying a sound territorial policy into effect was that of acquiring new territory in Europe itself. Colonies cannot serve this purpose as long as they are not suited for settlement by Europeans on a large scale.

In the nineteenth century it was no longer possible to acquire such colonies by peaceful means. Therefore any attempt at such a colonial expansion would have meant an enormous military struggle. Consequently it would have been more practical to undertake that military struggle for new territory in Europe rather than to wage war for the acquisition of possessions abroad."

Hitler's last will and testament states he never wanted that war.

Oh, puleeze the last whining testament of a lunatic.

[Nolefan34]

Hitler wanted to take over all of Europe and Western Russia up to the Ural Mountains. He wanted to create "living room" for the German peoples to expand, while exterminating everyone else. This is pretty clear and simple. Taking over the whole world is a bit exaggerated and was not an immediate or important goal. Hitler probably thought between Germany, Japan, and Italy, they would control most of the world anyways. He was probably ok with the U.S. remaining isolated in the Western Hemisphere. Just as long as the Axis controlled Europe, Asia, and Africa.

I find this whole notion that England and France started the war, and not the other way around, as laughable. Yes, they declared war on Germany first. But Germany essentially declared war on England and France by invading Poland. Germany knew that once it invaded Poland, that was a de-facto declaration of war on England and France. They did so anyway without regard. The simple fact of the matter is that Hitler was going to take over every country in Europe, one by one, one way or another, whether England and France declared war or not. He was going to conquer them peacefully, diplomatically, or with war if necessary. Some countries rolled over and accepted German rule. Other countries did not roll over and got steamrolled.

Another laughable concept here is this idea that because there were other countries with German-speaking people, that makes it ok for Hitler to invade and annex them. That would be like saying the U.S. has a large Latin population, therefore the U.S. is justified in taking over South America because there are lots of Latin people there. Or because the U.S. has lots of Irish, that we can annex Ireland.

[ovcatto]

I might add to your excellent post that the majority of Germans didn't care too much for being annexed into Hitler's Reich.

[NJGOAT]

Though ovcatto and Nolefan gave you a solid beating, I figured I'd jump in as well...

Originally Posted by Organon

What Hitler aimed for was the reunion of lost German peoples and lands and ultimately a confrontation with the Soviet Union that would result in using former European Soviet territory partly as a basis to accommodate Germany's future growing generations.

There was certainly territory that was historically German and populated by Germands that desired to be a part of Hitler's Reich; Austria and the Sudetenland. However, Poland was not one of these territories and contrary to popular Nazi apologist thought was never really "German" to begin with.

Americans should immediately recognize in this a primordial fact about their own nation's history, as it itself was an outgrowth of centuries of British colonialism and subjugation of foreign peoples.

Clever twist. Do the actions of America, Britain, France, Russia, the Netherlands, the Belgians, etc. somehow justify Hitler's objectives? Is it OK for Hitler to exterminate entire populations he deemed as 'untermensch' and sieze whatever territory he wanted, because other nations have done it? The last I checked two wrongs do not make a right. If we want to discuss the crimes perpetrated upon native peoples and the siezing and exploitation of their territory by other nations, that would be another thread and a conversation that I would happily condemn the actions of the colonial powers for. Here, we are discussing Hitler and his objectives and crimes.

A principle difference between the case of Germany and the USSR on the one hand, and that of Anglo-American history on the other, is that the territory that Germany sought for this particular aim was under the rule of a government whose domestic policy had resulted in the deaths of almost ten million people by the time Hitler was assuming power and whose foreign policy explicitly included as an objective the eventual ruin of the major European powers and the system they shared with America.

So, again we come to justifying Hitler because of what Stalin did and Soviet rhetoric about exporting a world communist revolution. Answer me this, what was one of the first things the Nazi administration in the Sudetenland do? Answer, they rounded up the Jews and other undesirables, 300,000 of them and marched them off to ghettos. You rail against Stalin for his crimes, but completely ignore the crimes committed by Hitler and the Nazi's. Unless of course you are going to tell us that those crimes never happened and were invented by others solely to disgrace the legacy of your 'Fuhrer'. One cannot justify crimes because others have committed them. If you want to discuss Stalin, make a thread about Stalin and I'll be more then happy to talk about the evil things he did.

Hitler did not want war with Britain, and by proxy France or America. He remarks on this in Mein Kampf, and goes further in stating he desires an alliance with England. This is reiterated in later speeches, and came explicitly to the ears of British leaders from his Ambassador, Joachim von Ribbentrop, recounted by Churchill from a meeting in 1937. After Britain started war on Sept. 1, 1939, Hitler repeatedly tried ending it, just as Hitler's last will and testament states he never wanted that war.

Of course Hitler did not want war with the west. He wanted to be given a free hand to take what he wanted in the east. Then secure in his power base and the glory of his Reich he believed that France, Britain and even the US would naturally fall into the fold and they may very well have as Germany would have been extremely powerful if it dominated virtually all of Europe.

Hitler knew the status of French and British relations with Poland. He knew that the western powers had risen Poland from the ashes and were guaranteeing it's sovereignty. He chose to go to war anyway to take what he wanted. Hitler may not have wanted war with the west, but he certainly had no issues fighting it if they "didn't see things his way".

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Organon

A principle difference between the case of Germany and the USSR on the one hand, and that of Anglo-American history on the other, is that the territory that Germany sought for this particular aim was under the rule of a government whose domestic policy had resulted in the deaths of almost ten million people by the time Hitler was assuming power and whose foreign policy explicitly included as an objective the eventual ruin of the major European powers and the system they shared with America.

There is some knowledge you are obviously missing about Stalin, when presenting him as just a man, "whose policy resulted in the deaths of almost ten million people."

" Stalin inherited Russia with a wooden plough, and left Russia in possession of an atomic bomb."

Winston Churchill.

Stalin is a far more controversial figure in Russian history than many of you would like to imagine. Far more controversial than Hitler in history of Germany.

[Organon]

Originally Posted by erasure

There is some knowledge you are obviously missing about Stalin, when presenting him as just a man, "whose policy resulted in the deaths of almost ten million people."

" Stalin inherited Russia with a wooden plough, and left Russia in possession of an atomic bomb."

Winston Churchill.

Stalin is a far more controversial figure in Russian history than many of you would like to imagine. Far more controversial than Hitler in history of Germany.

I mentioned the fact that Joseph Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Soviet subjects because it is incidental to the obsession I see, here and virtually every other place I visit, with Hitler as a "mass murderer". In other words, if you really wanted to be consistent in what you claim to be the basis of your loathing of Hitler, you would not spare Stalin, or else stoop so low as to quote Churchill, of all people, in his support. Do you think a Churchill quote is sufficient?

Russia does not interest me. If I read commentary on the great things that Stalin performed for Russia, am I supposed to be impressed? The simple fact is that Stalin was pivotal in your war against Hitler, which is why you are prepared to forgive his far greater excesses.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Organon

I mentioned the fact that Joseph Stalin was directly responsible for the deaths of millions of Soviet subjects because it is incidental to the obsession I see, here and virtually every other place I visit, with Hitler as a "mass murderer". In other words, if you really wanted to be consistent in what you claim to be the basis of your loathing of Hitler, you would not spare Stalin, or else stoop so low as to quote Churchill, of all people, in his support. Do you think a Churchill quote is sufficient?

Russia does not interest me. If I read commentary on the great things that Stalin performed for Russia, am I supposed to be impressed? The simple fact is that Stalin was pivotal in your war against Hitler, which is why you are prepared to forgive his far greater excesses.

If Russia doesn't interest you, neither should Stalin.
Stalin is Russian internal affair, so it's up to Russians to judge how good or bad he was, while Hitler made his affairs everyone's business. That's number one, and number two - I see more merits in Stalin from historic perspective than just his ability to win the war.

[ecaridad]

please forgive me for asking but then why did he invade russia? to "liberate" the germans immigrants from the 1660's? Or was it the bread growing regions and the oil fields that he wanted? I mean it couldn't have been the political reason --fighting communists since he made deals when he wanted their help in rearming. At what point does any group lose its identity with the "mother" nation? If Italy went to war with Romania -would Italian Americans and romanian Americans then attack each other in Cincinnati? -or go back to their respective nations and join the fighting?

[ecaridad]

I finally got my computer to link to the buchanan article. what a bunch of hog wash. where does this guy get his information.
What a fairy (not the sexual one the imaginary one) i can't believe he actually believes anything he wrote down. who would be such a dolt!