Rich wrote:ArtAllm does provide a useful service. He gives us insight into how Hitler thought.
Well, any intelligent and honest investigator tries to guess how Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt or other invisible players in this game thought and the reasonable assumption is that they were doing what made sense, speak they were acting in the interests of the groups of people they represented.
Rich wrote:Like Hitler he just can't seem to understand why we might really object to him taking over Czech and treating it as a native colony.
As already many time repeated in this thread, there was no Czech republic before WWII, there was Czechoslovakia, and Slovakia was treated by the Czechs like their native colony.
That was the reason why the Slovacs got fed up with it and declared their independance from Czechs, and - as a consequence - Czechoslovakia disappeared before WWII... and again after the collapse of Communism in Europe.
If Czechoslovakia was a free liberal state, then this state would not have disappeared before WWII, because only due to the internal struggle between Slovaks and Czechs (and the desire of Poland and other neighbours to cut off chunks from this artificial creation), Hitler could achieve his own goals
And no, I do not understand why the British government cared more about Czechs than about the Slovaks (who were subjugated by the Czechs) and did not care at all about the people of their own colonies who were severely subjugated by the Brits.
Do you have any intelligent answer to this question?
Rich wrote: He could have made demands on Poland that would have appeased reasonable or at least moderate to most British and Americans, but that the Poles would have rejected.
Well, the politicians of the liberal and democratic Weimar Republic constantly made such proposals to Poland, and their follower Hitler had just to step in the footsteps of his democratic and liberal predecessors.
But all proposals were rejected not only by Poles, but but the ruling elite of western countries, too.
So your thesis does not seem to be very intelligent.
Rich wrote:Where I utterly reject the mainstream view is on blaming the Germans for the extremes of Hitler. Conservatives and Libertarians in Britain and America and others praised and supported both the fascists and the Nazis.
I agree with that, and even leading Zionists did not mind Hitler during the first years of his government.
They believed that Hitler is good for their plans in Palestine (Haavara agreement, the proposal of the Zionist Stern-Gang to fight Brits on the side of Hitler, the Judenraete etc).
Lenni Brenner has written a book about the cooperation between the Zionists and the NS-Regime.
It is obvious that capitalists were more afraid of Stalin and his predecessors who were eager (and capable!) to "free" the West from "rotten capitalists", than of Hitler, and it makes perfectly sense that capitalists supported extremists with an anti-Communist rhetoric.
They just acted in their own interests!
That makes perfectly sense!
And most Russian Historians agree that the West tried to use Hitler to destroy communism.
Rich wrote:After January 33 the average German had practically zero ability to influence the course of events. Far less than people in democracies.
I fully agree with this statement!
Rich wrote:So why do Germans get the blame? The alliance of Italian and Spanish Conservatives and Libertarians with fascists in Italy and Spain and the alliance of traditional German Conservatives and Libertarian with the Nazis was widely supported by Conservatives and Libertarians internationally.
Fully agree with this statement, too!
The Western powers were afraid of Communism (for a good reason), and this is the logical reason why they supported the extreme forms of anti-Communism, speak Fascism and national Socialism.
They hoped that these guys would protect them from the threat of Communism, speak they hoped that they would kill Communism with the hands of National Socialists and Fascists, and after that they would get rid of the "winners".
Hitler was just a "useful idiot" from the point of view of western powers.
But Hitler was a "useful idiot" from the point of view of Communists, too!
Stalin believed that Hitler is good for his plans of "liberating the Europe from rotten Capitalism".
There were REAL Soviet plans to invade western Europe after Hitler had weakened the "fat capitalists" (see the quotes by Meltyukhov).
And Stalin would have really launched the first strike and cut-off the Third Reich from the only oil reserves in Romania... if Stalin was not scared to death by the flight of Rudolf Hess to GB.
That is the only reason why the Soviets postponed their aggression, speak postponed their official plans about the first strike.
Without the flight of Rudolf Hess to GB Stalin would have launched the first strike, cut off the Third Reich from the oil reserves in Romania, and then finished Germany in a couple of months (he had 4 times more tanks and 2 times more aeroplanes)... and after that the rest of Europe would be just a cake walk, and we would be living today in a totally different world.
I almost agree with everything you say, but you neglect that the plans of Stalin partially became true (the enslavement of half of Europe, the collapse of the colonial France and GB and the spread of Communism to the former colonies of the French and British empires).
On the other hand the plans of the Western powers totally failed.
They hoped to finish Communism with the hands of Hitler and they hoped to preserve their own colonial empires, and it was predictable that this will not work out, because they abandoned their "phony war" tactics and became active allies of Stalin", and that policy does not make any sense.
The Third Reich was not a threat to their interests (but Stalin was), but the Western powers suddenly decided (after the appointment of Churchill to the office of Prime Minister) to abandon the tactics of the "phony war" (and these tactics made perfectly sense and were in the interests of Western powers), and the Western powers actively support Stalin, a guy they were so afraid of only a couple of years ago.
Does that make any sense?
It is obvious that there is some invsible force that made this sudden change possible, so what is this force?
The question remains: How could they have stampeded the GB and France into a union with Stalin and into a real genocidal war with Hitler, if Hitler was not a threat to their interests, but Stalin was?
Well, I have already many times presented my arguments and explanations (and you have to see the forest behind the trees, speak you have to deal with the broader context to be able to see the forest) but my arguments seem to be unwanted in this discussion.
So the question is still not answered, but if you do your own research and read all the factual material, you will eventually agree with me, because you are an intelligent guy that dares to question the official version of the events.
ArtAllm wrote:You seem to contradict yourself. The books by Meltyukhov are only available in Russian, and you acknowledged that you do not speak this language. So how can you know what Meltyukhov's position is if you are unable to read his books?
Smilin' Dave wrote:None of the lame corrections you've made to the translations I've referenced from Meltyukhov have contradicted my basic assertions. Basically Meltyukhov's position isn't the same as Rezun's, but you insist it is in every way...
I have not said that Rezun and Meltyukhov agree on everything (see my posts from 18.10.2013; 13:28, 22.10.2013 07:38, the slight difference between the opinions of Rezun and Meltyukhov was clearly pointed out), but it is obvious that they agree on the main issue: USSR was preparing an aggression against Germany and against the entire Capitalist world.
You have claimed that Stalin was advocating the principle of co- existence with the Capitalists and that he did not have any intention to promote the World Revolution and to enlarge the sphere of Communism any more, and that was debunked in this thread with the quotes from the books by Meltyukhov.
There are declassified Soviet official documents that prove this. Besides that Stalin had the physical capability to do that (a huge number of tanks, aviation, manpower, the support of the Commintern and unlimited natural resources).
You claimed in your post dated 05.10.13 15:10 that the NS- Regime had plans to invade even the USA, but you failed to support your claims with any factual materials.
BTW, there is a big difference between the empty talk and "ardentia verba" of some budding political leaders who write books before they have real political power and REAL plans, supported by RAEAL capabilities.
Churchill talked about the necessity of destroying Communism ("strangle Bolshevism in its cradle"), but it is crazy to believe that GB had real plans to invade the SU and destroy Communism.
According to Russian historians, the Brits have tried to used Hitler to do this job for them.
I could paste here many quotes of Polish or Western leaders with the threats to invade Germany, destroy Germany etc. There was even a so-called "Kaufman Plan" that was published in the New-York-Times, and this plan was advertised in the Time Magazine.
But there is no evidence that this plan was the official policy of the USA, because there are no official documents that support this plan, like it was the case with the Morgentau Plan and the JCS 1067. That are official documents, signed by the empowered leaders, and that is the reason why we can talk about real plans and real intentions of the US government.
You are not familiar with the works of Meltyukhov, because they are not translated into English, but even the short Wiki Article about Meltyukhov says that he agrees with Rezun on the main issue: USSR was an aggressive and dangerous state that believed in the final struggle between Communism and Capitalism and the Soviets were dreaming about the total victory of Communism in 1941, speak they were dreaming about the enslavement of the entire word (including Poland, France, GB and the USA).
Meltyukhov agrees that the Third Reich did not have any oil reserves, and Stalin could easily cut off the Third Reich from its only oil reserve in Romania after the Soviet occupation of Bessarabia. They even mention that in the English Wiki.
As we see, before the occupation of Rumania the Third Reich did not have any oil resources at all, and therefore it is idiotic to talk about ANY big scale aggressive plans of the Third Reich, because there were no physical possibilities for such plans.
But, on the other hand, USSR already had such possibilities before the invasion of Bessarabia, they had huge oil reserves on their huge territory, and they already had a huge amount of tanks and so on.
Anybody who can play chess or who is an military expert can realise who was in real danger, who had which plans and who had to launch a preventive strike.
Even if you read the English Wiki about the "Stalin's Missed Chance" you can find the following statement:
The Kremlin viewed Germany as a force capable of weakening the position of the United Kingdom and shaking the capitalist order. And "then at a suitable moment the Red Army could have destroyed Germany and would have freed Europe both from fascism and "rotten capitalism".
What else do you need?
The main thesis of Rezun was that Stalin's intention was to use Hitler as an Icebreaker, speak Hitler was only a strategic means to achieve the final goal: to free Europe from "rotten capitalism".
In a normal human language that means the instalment of Communism in the entire Europe, including France and GB, like it was with the enslavement of Poland and half of Europe after WWII.
So if everything evolved according to Stalin's plan, then the Soviets would not only have enslaved half of Europe, they would have enslaved GB and France, too, and after that the enslavement of the entire world would have been just a cake walk.
In a nutshell:
Stalin had REAL plans of the enslavement of the entire world, and he had REAL capabilities to do this, and Meltyukhov and Rezun agreed in this point, an even the reader of the English Wiki can find out that I am right.
What to Hitler, he did not have any REAL officially signed and approved plans of invading UK, France or the USA, and he did not have any REAL physical capabilities to do this. Any honest military expert can see that.
So I repeat my theory:
Hitler had just to continue the policy of the Weimar Republic, he did not have any other choice, because that was the demand of German people.
It is an obvious fact that the Weimar republic never accepted the dismemberment of Germany and always tried to solve the Danzig Problem and restore the territorial connection between what was left of Germany and the German Danzig and East Prussia... with peaceful means.
So the justice could have been restored before Hitler came to power, but the Western power ignored the proposal of the liberal Weimar Republic, they refused to pay attention to any proposals of mutual disarmaments even before Hitler came to power, they just used the Versailles' treaty to suck out the German taxpayers, but they ignored their own obligations that were signed in Versailles and they permitted the Poles to violate the Treaty of Versailles
That generated huge resentment in the Weimar Republic.
In the end, what western powers refused to grant to the democratic and liberal Weimar Republic, they were forced to concede to Hitler.
Germans were just tired of the inefficiency of the elected governments of the Weimar Republic, and they were so desperate with the hypocrisy of western powers, that they elected Hitler who continued the policy of the Weimar Republic with different means.
Any honest professional historian knows that Hitler did not push for any new policy regarding the East Borders of Germany, he just continued the the previous policy of democratic and liberal Germany.
But the policy of the Weimar Republic regarding Poland became just a blind spot, and and that is the reason why so many fools still believe that Hitler was demanding something new regarding the East Borders of Germany, because he allegedly wanted to invade the USA and conquer the entire world.
Hitler desperately tried to solve the problems that had not been solved by his democratic and liberal predecessors, who constantly promised to solve them but constantly failed.
That is all regarding the invasion of Poland.
After that that the western powers started their "phony war", and Hitler desperately believed that it would remain by this "phony war", because he knew that the western powers are aware that he is not a danger to them, and that Stalin is a REAL danger to Europe and to the entire world.
What to the strike against the USSR - well, it is a proven fact that Stalin REALLY planned a first strike against Germany and this strike was only the first step in his plans to conquer the entire Europe.
The USSR had the physical capability to do this, and that is the most important and crucial point.
And after that the old Bolshevik plans about the victory of Communism in the entire World would have become a REALISTIC plan, too.
So Hitler had two options:
1. Wait till Stalin cuts him off from the only oil reeves in Romania and invades Germany and then goes after the "fat capitalists" in France and GB.
2. Play "Va Banque", speak launch the first strike against Stalin, and hope that the Western powers will act according to the interests of their people.
Well, today it is obvious that the governments of France and UK did not act according to the best interests of their people and it even became obvious immediately after WWII (communist threat, cold war, etc).
The question remains:
Why did the western governments act against the best interests of their own people?
It seems to me that you are afraid to discuss this question, but if some attentive reader reads our discussion, then I will point his attention to the post by the user "OnPath", dated 23.Nov. 2013, 14:06.That is the most important remaining post in the entire thread.
Another interesting and virtually unknown "grey zone" of WWII is the biography of Rudolf Hess who desperately tried to prevent a large scale genocidal war between the European nations.
Here is a quote from from the Wiki:
American journalist H.R. Knickerbocker, who had met both Hitler and Hess, speculated that Hitler had sent Hess to deliver a message informing Winston Churchill of the forthcoming invasion of the Soviet Union, and offering a negotiated peace or even an anti-Bolshevik partnership .
Soviet leader Joseph Stalin believed that Hess' flight had been engineered by the British. Stalin persisted in his belief as late as 194, when he mentioned the matter to Churchill, who insisted that they had no advance knowledge of the flight.
The Soviets postponed their strike against the Third Reich because they were very scared by this event.
So why would Stalin believe that Brits were involved
in this affair?
Well, because it makes perfectly sense.
Russian historians agree that western powers wanted to destroy communism with the hands of Hitler, and they were interested in a war between the Third Reich and the SU.
But Hitler and his military advisers knew that they do not have any chance to win a war against the SU (who had a huge amount of tanks, planes, man power, steal and oil), so they needed the support of GB before starting their attack against Stalin.
If we assume that the NS-Regime was fooled by the British secret services into believing that UK would not mind the German attack against Stalin, then all the pieces fall into place and everything makes perfectly sense.
Rudolf Hess is the crucial figure in WWII, he wanted to prevent a large scale genocide of European people, but he was found guilty and kept in prison, speak his mouth was kept shut till the collapse of the Communism in East Europe.
The second man after Hitler (Albert Speer, the chief architect in the Third Reich and the minister of Armaments, who was very cooperative during the Nuremberg Trials) was released from prison already in 1966, but Hess was kept in prison till his death, and he constantly complained that his food was poisoned with some substances.
His health was gradually and intentionally deteriorated, but he had the chance to survive the DDR, which was not acceptable for some fores.
The official story is that he eventually committed suicide.
Why should he have done this when the time of the communist dictatorship in the GDR/DDR was already counted and Gorbachev made public many secret documents, including the documents about Katyn?
It is obvious that the official story is rotten, and there is no reason to believe the story, presented by the DDR officials.
The Spandau prison was a prison guarded by the Soviets and their DDR subordinates, and it is obvious that some forces in GB and the opponents of Gorbachev in the KGB could NOT accept that Hess comes out of the prison and tells the real story about the reason why Hitler launched the first strike against Stalin in 1941.
The publication of what is said to be a suicide note written “a few minutes before my death” by Hitler’s former deputy appears to add weight to claims that it had actually been penned nearly 20 years before when he was seriously ill. Photographs of the “summer house” in the ground of Spandau Prison where the 93-year-old died – and the electrical cord he was said to have used to take his own life – seem to deepen the mystery even further.
His son Wolf Hess has claimed that the UK, US and France - who had long said they were prepared to consent to his release were it not for a Soviet veto - feared a new mood of openness in Gorbachev’s Kremlin would call their bluff.
He also claimed that the contents of the “suicide” note actually refer to a period in 1969 when he had a perforated ulcer in the duodenum and feared he could die.
Formerly Hitler’s loyal deputy, he took it upon himself to fly a plane to Scotland in 1941, apparently in an attempt to secure peace – parachuting from his Messerschmitt and being arrested by a farmer with a pitchfork.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... icide.html
The reason for Hitler's deputy making his solo flight to Scotland in May 1941 has kept conspiracy theorists busy for decades.
He was arrested in Renfrewshire and spent the rest of his life in prison.
Author John Harris claims that Hess was lured to Britain in an MI6 plot led by Tancred Borenius, a Finnish art historian who was working as an agent for the British secret service.
Borenius travelled to Geneva in January 1941 and convinced Hess that members of the Royal Family were willing to broker a peace deal with Germany, according to Harris.
"Tancred was key in giving Hitler hope that Britain was interested in joining an alliance," he said.
Harris claims that Borenius's son, Lars, gave him the information shortly before he died.
The theory is expounded in a book, Rudolf Hess:
The British Illusion of Peace.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/worl ... -plot.html
Well, we deal with a witness account, not with a theory, because Harris claims that Borenius's son gave him the information shortly before he died.
I think that this witness account and the faked suicide of Hess make sense, you will call it "conspiracy theory", and the readers of our discussion can do their own research and come to their own conclusion.
BTW, I have never said that you ARE a Communist, I have said that you SOUND like a Communist functioner, and that is a huge difference.
There are a lot of users who sound like communists when they talk about the history of Europe, and they sound like Nazis, when they talk about what happens in Palestine today, but that does not mean that they are Nazis or Communists.
And no, I am neither a "Nazi" nor an "anti-Semite".
I have many times repeated in this forum that I am against totalitarianism and the suppression of the freedom of speech. I hate all totalitarian regimes that suppress the freedom of speech, be they communist, socialist or national-socialist regimes.
The NS would have put me into a concentration camp if I was born 90 years ago and grew up in the Third Reich. And the Communists would have put me into the Gulag, if I was born in the SU.
I do not see big differences between the NS-Regime and the Communist regime, both these regimes advocated collective punishment of groups of people whom they considered to be their enemies, and they suppressed the freedom of speech.
I am not an anti-Semite, because I know that most Zionists have nothing to do with Semites, and I do not hate anybody for the reason of his semitic origin.
In a nutshell: the terms "Nazi" and "anti-Semite", applied against me, is a total lie, libel and defamation.
So if you want to call names, please call me an anti-Zionist, I do not mind.
BTW, there was a cooperation between Zionists and the NS-Regime, you can read about this in the works by Lenni Brenner (he is a decent leftist Jew and I like him) or read the Wiki-Articles about the Lehi group and Avraham Stern.
Zionists were eager to expel the native semitic population from Palestine before and during WWII, and they were cooperating with Hitler and with Stalin in this regard.
There are many decent Jewish historians who mentioned that in their books, and I like these Jewish historians and other decent Jews who are telling the truth.
You cannot call me a "Jew-Hater", because Jew-Haters hate ALL Jews for the only reason that they are Jews, and that is not the case with me.
My only concern is historical truth and freedom of speech, I am not a member of any ideological or religious movement and do not have any ideological or religious agenda.
I hate hypocrisy and double standards and I do expose these things, that is all my agenda in this forum and I am sure that any decent and intelligent reader of our discussion can see that.
Everybody who reads this forum can check the facts, connect the dots and decide if I am wrong or not.
I will address the questions of the forum rules, my OP of this thread and the off-topic issues in the basement-subforum.
"I don't care if Americans think we're running the news media, Hollywood, Wall Street or the government. I just care that we get to keep running them".