On the character of Hitler

submitted by [deleted] from self.debatealtright

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

I know very well what the USN was up to. It was still insane to declare war on the US while knee deep in shit just outside Mosocw.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Those soldiers 'knee deep in shit' needed the supplies the US was helping to impede Germany from providing them. It's so easy to sit back decades later -- or be a German general and write memoirs that are self serving and flattering which blame others which they all do -- and be the perfect warlord but it always seems hollow to me.

[–]Richard_Parker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

Sigh. This is becoming annoying because the proof is in the pudding. Germany lost the war in disastrous fashion, despite being endowed with the very paragon of military discipline and prowess, a most lethal instrument.

Concerning the declaration of war against the United States, I do not submit it is entirely without reason, but strategically suicidal.

I will leave with you a tip from Abraham Lincoln. The United States seized the RMS Trent and arrested four confederate delegates., The British were outraged and began ratting sabres, in the context of dicey relations from the War of Independence and the War of 1812. Lincoln made the choice not to press, released the emissaries and issued a formal apology to Great Britian, because he understood the United States could not possibly beat both the Confederacy AND Britain. When Lincoln made this decision however reluctantly, he said to his cabinet "One war at at a time, gentleman."

It is somewhat inapposite as there was probably never a diplomatic solution with the United States, but this is espeially so once Germany was overextended with the war against Britain AND the Soviet Union. It was foolhardy to declare war on the Soviet Union, but I will grant part of that is hindsight when you consider the purge of officers, how they were trounced by the Finns, experience from World War I. On the other hand, German strategic theory had always fretted over the dangers of a two (or three) front war. Should have at least taken care to seize the Suez canal THEN take on the Soviet Union.

The bottom line is that it was mathematically impossible for Germany to win once they declared war on the United States, especially after the Wehrmacht failed to take Moscow.

Finally, I will mention again Hitler's own tyranny against the German people (and I do not mean communists etc). That Chapter by Manstein concerning the callus disregard for the lives of his own men cannot be refuted or gainsaid. Also watch Der Untergang if you need to be reminded he fucked up.

To make sure I am not misunderstood, i will paraphrase a comment attributed to Guderian while in allied captivity (one I am still looking to corraborate). The problem was never of ideology. As ideology, national socialism is sound. The problem was of leadership. I understand and agree with the reasons why the Germans followed Hitler. And they had no way of knowing what an imperfect leader he would be. But we do know that and, in trying to reclaim those tenets of national socialism that bear promise to save Europe and the West, we have to acknowledge what a disaster he was from a national socialist or dissident right perspective.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

USA could have been germany's ally. But they chose Japan. American Nazis chose Smedley Butler and he betrayed them. Imaigne if that didn't happen. Maybe USA and Japan could have come to an agreement on territories. Germany chose Hitler as their Smedley style figurehead. He didn't betray them but he was nuts and attacked a bunch of countries. It was mathematically impossible from the start. This all began after the first World War. It was also mathamatically impossible to pay back those reparations and that forced germany into a "fuck it let's go for broke" situation where you don't care about mathamatical odds because you're in fight or flight mode and your backs to the wall. Since then they took over Europe again through the European Union and I think another war is brewing.

[–]Richard_Parker 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

He didn't betray them but he was nuts and attacked a bunch of countries. It was mathematically impossible from the start.

I have to push back on this. It was not mathematically impossible from the start, and indeed even if you think Sea Lion was impossible even if Hitler and the Luftwaffe had not botched the Battle of Britain through a series of errors (letting up airfields and diverting resources on the London blitz, not focusing on radar stations on the coast), closing the deal at Dunkirk would have made defense of the home shores impossible. Even without that, focusing in on the suez canal, indeed even quickly pressing efforts with German forces in North Africa right after the capitulation of France would have captured the Suez canal and provided access to Iraqi oil. Perhaps hindsight is always 20 20 but given experiences in Ethiopia should have indicated that the Italians could not hold their own in North Africa or anywhere.

Concerning Hitler attacking all sorts of countries, not really. Germany had legitimate territorial claims on Poland. Certainly not advisable to have intiated Fall Weiss given French and British guarantees, but neither is it senseless war mongering. The occopuation of Belgium and Netherlands was necessary as it was the only way to overtake France. Denmark was necessary to secure the Denmark Strait. Norway was necessary to keep access to Swedish ore, as Britain was actually planning or at least considering invading Norway. Yugoslavia happened after a coup by a government that was anti axis and was going to join the Allies. Hitler had nothing to do with Greece and was actually Mussolini's doing. This vexed Hitler greatly and indeed was another factor delaying invasion of Soviet Union because the Germans had to bail out Italy yet again, as it also made Germany look bad internationally.

In spite of these spurious talking points from Allied propaganda, it is still the case that Hitler's military and moral leadership was severely wanting, to put it mildly.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

You can take land but can you keep it, always the question. Thru history you see empires falling. You need to have alliances but they fall apart. Alexander the Great, that didn't last long. Napoleon, I compare Hitler to them. Why'd he let British go at Dunkirk, he may have had hopes for Britain to eventually join back up as allies. He invaded Poland, but Poland had an alliance to come to their aid, took a while but it did eventually. The english royal family had german ties, Hitler may have hoped eventually the join him. King Edward was a nazi but he fell in love with a honeypot like a dumbass, that may have ruined some plans. Suez canal, now they could have put all efforts to that, but man talk about valuable real estate, would they be able to keep that long? Being a water port also means it gets attacked by ships and subs. I know this wasn't jus tsenseless warmongering and if it wasn't Hitler someone else would have been in that position and the arrow of history was leading to war. Maybe if Hitler never existed Himmler would have been chancellor for example. Doesn't matter. What was germany supposed to do, sit back, slowly pay WWI reparations, duriing the great depression, not accept the free money from American businessmen? Profits and land were gained by some from this war that supported both sides.

[–]Richard_Parker 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

Not sure how your response counters my rebuttal that Hitler attacked a lot of countries without justification. It was obviously unwise and brash to attack Poland the way he did. But had he dealt with the United Kingdom properly... Explain to me how invasion and occupation of these countries was not justifed or made necessary by the exigencies of war:

  • Denmark
  • Norway
  • Netherlands
  • Belgium
  • Yugoslavia

Greece as i said before was Italy's doing. France of course declared war on Germany, and had been an aggressor against Germany for centuries.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

not trying to counter you, you're right, this discussion is just me adding to it I guess, I'm posting more for lurkers than you. Brash and unwise, but then why do it, he was in a tough situation where you have to keep invading and attacking others to stay in power. Staying stagnant was not an option. It was all inevitable. Some say Hitler meant to take over the wntire world, no, and it was called World War one and two but it wasn't really the first world wars. All of history is one big war. American Revolutionary war was connected to the Napoleonic wars in Europe. Age of Pirates was a world war in the ocean. We have a world war going on right now thru the world.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

In many ways the biggest error was to go after the rest of Czecjoslovakia after the Sudetenland crisis. While Fall Weiss set the dominoes in motion, it was not at all without some justifcation....

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I think they wanted to have any land that had any german people in it, otherwise how could they call it the third reich, I do agree that was a mistake, difficult land to keep. Too many borders. After that they started thinking, let's take this other land adjacent to it so that can act as a buffer from our enemies, and it snowballed into wanting more and more worthless land.