[Andropov]

In Mein Kampf, Hitler lays bare his expansionist ambitions. He talks about the need for Germany to expand eastwards, at the expense of Russia and the Slavic states. In Albert Speer's memoirs, and in other sources, it is testified that Hitler's long-term plans were for German world domination.

One gets the impression from his conduct in WWII and the events preceding it that he was simply provoking the rest of the world into attacking the Reich. This is certainly the mainstream line of discourse today. There are some problems with it, though:

WWII began on the German side with no troop transports, no surface fleet, and only 29 submarines. He had no strategic bombers either; one would assume someone planning for world conquest would be more prepared for the task. He also built the Siegfried Line on the German-French border; a waste of time if his policy was going to be oriented towards offense.

Was WWII ultimately caused by German expansionism or by British intervensionism? If Hitler had warred with Poland without British help, what would happen next? A strong, peaceful Germany with pre-WW1 borders, or more belligerence on Hitler's part? Was his imperialist rhetoric simply the waxings of a dreamy artist, or was it a concrete foreign policy goal?

[Decky]

WWII began on the German side with no troop transports, no surface fleet, and only 29 submarines.

I'm not sure if you are trolling or just very ignorant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ord ... ing_Forces

Conventionally people call those massive submarines with cannons that float on the water rather than under it "battleships."

While I'm not an expert like you obviously are, I believe they are considered surface ships.

At the outbreak of World War II, the German Kriegsmarine consisted of 11 Ships of the size of a CL or bigger, while 7 additional ships were under construction. This small fleet was supported by 21 destroyers and 57 U-boats, most of them only usable for small coastal operations.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/ships/index.html

What is it with right wing people and not even knowing their own history?

[Wolfman]

WWII began on the German side with no troop transports, no surface fleet, and only 29 submarines. He had no strategic bombers either; one would assume someone planning for world conquest would be more prepared for the task.

He didn't need a Navy. Had Hitler taken over Spain, France, Belgium, the UK, Portugal, Russia, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, Japan, and China. By occupying these countries, the Germans would have control over nearly the whole of Europe, Africa, Asia, Micronesia/Australia, and a decent foothold in South America and North America, and control of the British Imperial Navy, which would have made them a massive Naval power. And since Spain, Italy and a handful of minor states were allies, that made that all the easier. Same with Japan occupying China and most of East Asia. That would have meant that Germany only needed to take over 7 countries, with Portugal being an easy target for Spain, and France, Belgium, and the Netherlands didn't even have much of a domestic military force to oppose him. He really only needed to worry about the UK and Russia. And the German Army during WWII was considered man-for-man one of the best in the world.

He also built the Siegfried Line on the German-French border; a waste of time if his policy was going to be oriented towards offense.

Not really. He was also very obviously getting ready to launch a full attack on Britain, but still militarized the coast of Normandy.

Was WWII ultimately caused by German expansionism or by British intervensionism?

Well, since Hitler fucking said that Germany needed to take over the world, I think it was about German expansionism.

[danholo]

Baby steps, baby steps. It's quite obvious world conquest is done in stages. Amassing a World Invasion Army at once is a quite impossible.

[Smilin' Dave]

In his 'second book' Hitler basically forcast a wider conflict with the United States in the future
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Book
This conflict with the US was supposed to come after the war with the Soviet Union (mind you, in the same pipe dream, the British were supposedly going to be allies...). So the lack of Nazi capacity for a strategic war as of 1939 could be explained by the needs of the European continental conflict, and that there would have been a subsequent build up for a long range war with the US.

It should also be considered that later in the war certain weapon systems were pursued whose range appeared to show they were intended for use against the US, for example the proposals for the 'Amerika Bomber' and some variations on the V2 rocket.

Was WWII ultimately caused by German expansionism or by British intervensionism? If Hitler had warred with Poland without British help, what would happen next?

Nazi Germany was essentially given a 'free shot' as a result of the Munich Agreement (never mind the acquiecence to the Anschluss, remilitarisation of the Rhineland etc. prior). Rather than stopping, Germany destroyed the rest of Czechoslovakia and then Poland. Naturally this was a worry for the western allies and probably dried up what little 'good will' existed.

A strong, peaceful Germany with pre-WW1 borders, or more belligerence on Hitler's part?

Given Hitler had explicitly called for further expansion in the East, and seemed hostile to the original parties to the Treaty of Versailles, the western allies had no real reason to believe Hitler would stop.

Also, even if Germany had stopped at Poland, they would not have been strong either. Their economy was in a shambles by 1939, and expansion/seizure of assets proved to be their best chance at preventing a new economic crisis.