Fascism and The Third Reich

Post Reply New Topic

Points in bold: Germany isn't "tiny". Its quite a large area, even larger when you reunify it and return the parts the French and the Poles had.

"World domination" is a bit of a stretch. Hitler's Reich, whilst relatively contiguous, was never as large as say, the British Empire, and regardless of tactics or military superiority, Germany lacked any real means of striking cross-atlantic.

Which brings me neatly to point 3. Hitler couldn't even operate cross-channel effectively. Without a serious and lasting investment in long-range bombers, the Luftwaffe could never single-handedly "defeat" the UK, and virtually all stories of the Battle of Britain almost completely ignore the fact that the Kriegsmarine was incapable of protecting a cross-channel invasion, and the Royal Navy was eminently capable, in some cases almost custom-built to stop one. A pack of destroyers set loose amongst a fleet of towed river-barges? Is the outcome even in doubt? Hitler never understood, nor even liked naval warfare or ships in general, and lacked the tactical acumen needed to organise a resisted beach assault. Look at the effort it took on D-Day with almost zero enemy air interdiction, and about the same level of naval interference, with a much larger assault force against often second or third rate troops in defended positions, planned by a man with an intricate and learned understanding of the art of warfare. Hitler was well prepared to attack with only one or two divisions, with no landing craft and no naval support to speak of, and had the military skill of a corporal...

They wouldn't be speaking German. They'd be speaking Russian.

The germans never had any realistic plans to invade the UK. They didn't have relatic plans for Operation Barbarossa really, but it all worked out in the end, 50 years later or so for Poland and company though

Yeah, that book is Indian and is mainly recommended to college and university students in India, as most of the syllabus is based on that book. Unlike in the west, our syllabus has a strong emphasis on Indian political philosophy along with Western political philosophy.



I guess you do have an important point.



MEFO bills. Hitler spent money on rearming therefore getting Germany into more debt. He knew he couldn't sustain his economic policies, and war was the only solution as far as he was concerned. The war was planned much before the Polish corridor dispute. Germany spent six years preparing for war. After conquest, Hitler forced businesses in the conquered territories to sell raw materials to German buyers at extremely cheap rates.

I see. My education has been extremely Euro-centric, especially if we count Russia in with Europe.

I see. Our university syllabuses are terribly outdated, and with a strong pro-socialist view.

[quote="Khan_Sama"

MEFO bills. Hitler spent money on rearming therefore getting Germany into more debt. He knew he couldn't sustain his economic policies, and war was the only solution as far as he was concerned. The war was planned much before the Polish corridor dispute. Germany spent six years preparing for war. After conquest, Hitler forced businesses in the conquered territories to sell raw materials to German buyers at extremely cheap rates.[/quote]

Hitler NEVER ran Germany into "debt".

Who could he borrow money from? The Rothschild Jewish bankers?

That was Hitler's biggest sin and why he had to be destroyed. He turned Germany from a broken country into a world power in a few years without having to go into debt to the international bankers

They say Hitler wanted to conquer the world.

How stupid do you think he was? The population and armies of France and Russia were much bigger than Germany.

Hitler had the entire British army trapped on the beach of Dunkirk but he allowed them to go because he did not want war with his English cousins.

Hitler hoped that his British cousins would help to put down the Russian communists.

But they didn't so at the end of the war when "we won". The communists had conquered more than half of Europe.

Think about it. Britain entered the war to save "poor little Poland" from the Nazis but ended up giving Poland and most of Eastern Europe.

We died by our hundreds of thousands so that Stalin could treat the people of Europe worse than than the Germans ever did.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/na ... conomy.htm

Also, you should thoroughly research the banking system before relying on dubious data from conspiracy theorists.

The British had absolutely no control over Stalin's actions. The Polish government-in-exile continued to be based in England following the war.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Are you unfamiliar with the concept of "lebensraum?" Hitler did conquer France, and he did invade the Soviet Union, unprovoked.


Oh, that explains the bombing campaign he waged against Britain. By that point, Britain and Nazi Germany were already at war. It's not like he was avoiding any conflict.

I say we ignore Wombat's points. They're too illogical to even be considered.

Btw, here's a blog post about Nazi economic policy:

http://calculatedexuberance.blogspot.co ... esian.html

Basically it is a reading of another work by a historian Adam Tooze. Basically, what is claimed is that the German economy was mostly driven by government spending, with private investment and consumption remaining relatively low during much of the period of time talked about with Fascism.

This seems to fit into a lot of the detractor's claims about the Nazi economic policies. It also goes in well with Khan_Sama's source, making many similar claims.

I don't think I know nearly enough about this subject to be making claims like I did after reading all this. There was an escalation in the war against Britain that Hitler had never intended to get into that ulimately left him in ruin. He had initially tried to subdue them, but it was Churchill that rallied a divided parlament to not giving into him...they had, had too much invested in liberal democracy but there certainly was support for capitulation. This kind of got away from the point that the empowered German government had the means to provide basic human needs for everyone, even during a military build up. Surely a modern economy that has sufficient military protection already could provide at the very least shelter for a small number of it's homeless citizens. The fact that homelessness is still existing is evidence that there are forces conspired against the masses, I don't think that the traditional idea of bankers in a secret room is sufficient at describing the corruption, but rather a phsycological deficiency in humans that has continuosly ensured an uneven/unfair distribuion of wealth for the entire history of human economy

This makes a lot of sense to me.

It's not really bankers so much as industrialists (which happen to include bankers)...the robber barons, essentially.

As far as the secret room goes....how about the Bilderberg meetings? It's a meeting of heads of state and heads of private industry and various military representatives all meeting together annually at a hotel and locks down the hotel (including fully armed guards). Pretty secret. The only thing that ever really gets out is who attended.

Educated consensus amongst German military leaders at the time, and historians since is that Hitler simply bottled it at the rapid and unexpected success of Blitzkrieg. Nobody realised that some nations would simply give up, or that the French would perform so miserably, and Hitler seems to have simply panicked at the belief that at any minute his panzer spearheads would get stepped on by a counter attack. It was perhaps this unexpected success that lead Hitler to believe that if the largest and most powerful nations in the west could not stop him, that Russia (surely a land of peasants and sod all else) would collapse as easily, if not faster. The slowness of any initial soviet response would surely reinforce that.

I'm quite skeptical that it has more to do with anything other than ensuring a stable market in the USA and Europe. Free market economies are prone to market fluctuations and recessions.

My father was a Freemason. My great-grandfather was a Grand Master. My dad left the Masons out of boredom - got sick of the endless charity, being a nice person (not really his thing - not 24/7 anyway), and the 'stale Chinese noodles' they served there. Nothing sinister apart from some potential food poisoning.

Conspiracy theories are based on dubious interpretations of international events, ideologies, business practices, and theology. They are the complete opposite of institutional analysis.