Why Was Hitler Not More Careful? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Inter-war period (1919-1938), Russian civil war (1917–1921) and other non World War topics (1914-1945).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#13960754
The game Hearts Of Iron II is very interesting for those interested in alternative history. In one scenario I was able to play as Germany and avoid the war by not invading Poland and creating a European alliance. This move ensured German hegemony in Europe. Why did Hitler instead of invading Poland instead try to create an anti-communist European alliance and instead of trying to force the Germanic countries into a single state seek greater cooperation? Then he could also have sided more with Europe against Japan and toned down his provocations and aggressive rhetoric.
#13960880
I think of the handful of playthroughs I tried with Hearts of Iron II, Nazi Germany invaded Italy in 1940 about 50% of the time (at least once they were supposed to be allies, so this wasn't some alternate history Stresa Front). In other words, HOI isn't a good political simulator.

Political Interest wrote:Why did Hitler instead of invading Poland instead try to create an anti-communist European alliance

Forgetting the ideological component for a moment... Poland and Germany would be unlikely allies (IIRC they managed a non-aggression pact but that was about it), given their mutual distrust and ongoing grievances, like Germany wanting Danzig back.

Political Interest wrote: Then he could also have sided more with Europe against Japan

Why would he do this? Japan was a prime candidate for an 'anti-communist' alliance as you suggested.
#13960911
The reason Hitler made terrible decisions was mild Down's Syndrome. The guy stopped bombing military targets in the UK and started bombing cities, then wondered why the British military wasn't weaker!


It could be.

Forgetting the ideological component for a moment... Poland and Germany would be unlikely allies (IIRC they managed a non-aggression pact but that was about it), given their mutual distrust and ongoing grievances, like Germany wanting Danzig back.


Yes but relations can be improved, they are not static. The Poles were also concerned about the Soviet threat and Hitler could have conceded Danzig for the sake of pragmatism.

Why would he do this? Japan was a prime candidate for an 'anti-communist' alliance as you suggested.


In order to consolidate his position with Britain, France and Holland.
#13960949
Political Interest wrote:The game Hearts Of Iron II is very interesting for those interested in alternative history. In one scenario I was able to play as Germany and avoid the war by not invading Poland and creating a European alliance. This move ensured German hegemony in Europe. Why did Hitler instead of invading Poland instead try to create an anti-communist European alliance and instead of trying to force the Germanic countries into a single state seek greater cooperation? Then he could also have sided more with Europe against Japan and toned down his provocations and aggressive rhetoric.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

Authoritarian neighbors are paranoid. Also, Stalin didn't have anywhere to go but west. Was he going to invade Central Asia or the Far East instead?

Hitler tried to get the edge on Stalin before Stalin got the edge on Hitler.

I'd also suggest playing Arsenal of Democracy before HoI2. It's far more fluid and accurate.
#13960974
Political Interest wrote:The game Hearts Of Iron II is very interesting for those interested in alternative history. In one scenario I was able to play as Germany and avoid the war by not invading Poland and creating a European alliance. This move ensured German hegemony in Europe. Why did Hitler instead of invading Poland instead try to create an anti-communist European alliance and instead of trying to force the Germanic countries into a single state seek greater cooperation? Then he could also have sided more with Europe against Japan and toned down his provocations and aggressive rhetoric.

Because Hitler was fundamentally expansionist. You can't change that. Pan-Germanism/Aryan supremacy and pan-Europeanism don't go together... unless the Strasser brothers somehow miraculously ended up in control of the Nazi Party.

I agree on the subject of Japan, though. Germany's betrayal of China is wholly reprehensible.
#13961114
I agree on the subject of Japan, though. Germany's betrayal of China is wholly reprehensible.


The Empire of Japan was a natural ally with the best land and naval forces in East Asia, a united population behind them, and a reigning ideological framework which was aligned with the Fascist revolution in Europe. China, by comparison, didn't have a remarkable military force capable of great power projection, even after extensive German training and supply, the country was fractured by a civil war, and its position was not such that it had either the desire or capability to assist Axis interests in Asia.

Many German officers who had the ability to assist in training Chinese troops during the period of Sino-German cooperation had a great admiration for Chiang Kai-Shek and maintained contacts in China throughout the war, but policy, as you know, can not be decided on sentimental feelings.

While the military had experience with certain Chinese diplomats and officers they enjoyed, much of the NSDAP upper crust, including Hitler himself, were quite pro-Japanese in their outlook from the onset.
#13961166
So, you were able to build a massive modern army capable of conquering Europe - you were able to have them then just sit around collecting paychecks? I don't think Hitler was fundamentally expansionist, it wasn't hatred either - he re-armed because that's what the German people needed, and then saw that he was sitting on a huge bill and a way of profiting. You do the math that he had before him and I guarantee the next thing you'll say is, "Poland.. Maybe even France." - He built a war economy, that's an effort you either use or lose.
#13961290
Hitler was inept during the latter years of his leadership. For one, his physician Theodor Morell, was administering a toxic concoction of drugs (25+ pills per day and several injections), including amphetamine and cocaine, which probably comprised his decision making. Then there's the whole Aryan race doesn't retreat; honour and shame. It was a myriad of contributing factors.
#13961324
Political Interest wrote:The game Hearts Of Iron II is very interesting for those interested in alternative history. In one scenario I was able to play as Germany and avoid the war by not invading Poland and creating a European alliance. This move ensured German hegemony in Europe. Why did Hitler instead of invading Poland instead try to create an anti-communist European alliance and instead of trying to force the Germanic countries into a single state seek greater cooperation? Then he could also have sided more with Europe against Japan and toned down his provocations and aggressive rhetoric.


Because Hitler was a moron, the reason why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did was because people like me had influence in roman society, the Nazi's on the other hand hated intelligent people and books and because of this their empire only lasted for a short time.
#13961330
the reason why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did was because people like me had influence in roman society

:lol:

Ah, Kman, Kman, Kman.... :lol:
#13961922
Political Interest wrote:Yes but relations can be improved, they are not static.

How exactly do Poland and Germany "improve" their relations over where both sides figure the border should be? If you move it in either direction the other will feel cheated. And moving that border was a big deal, not only for the Nazis but also for the old guard nationalists who were supporting them as a means to their own ends.

Political Interest wrote:The Poles were also concerned about the Soviet threat and Hitler could have conceded Danzig for the sake of pragmatism.

If he can't have Danzig etc. why exactly does he still care about the east? Also consider what kind of signal it sends if Hitler 'caves in' over Danzig. His domestic competitors for leadership might see him as weak and throw him out (or displace him through other means).

Political Interest wrote:In order to consolidate his position with Britain, France and Holland.

Which is contrary to any other objective Nazi Germany might have.

Basically what you're saying is that Nazi Germany would have been far more successful if it had abandoned all its ambitions. I'm sure this might appear true in hindsight but I think in context the leaders of Nazi Germany would have thought it a pretty lame deal.


Suska wrote:he re-armed because that's what the German people needed

Re-armament/expansion of the military sector was actually bad for the German economy. It moved personnel out of the general workforce into the army. It diverted production capability from capital goods etc. to making weapons (which only pays off if the objective is to use said weapons to acquire wealth...). It deprived investment from other sectors of the economy. From memory it also impacted on their foreign trade balance, as early in the piece a number of key inputs for the rearmament program had to be imported.


Now, Potemkin has already covered this next point but I think it bears repeating:
Kman wrote:Roman empire lasted as long as it did was because people like me had influence in roman society

:lol:
#13962371
Re-armament/expansion of the military sector was actually bad for the German economy. It moved personnel out of the general workforce into the army. It diverted production capability from capital goods etc. to making weapons (which only pays off if the objective is to use said weapons to acquire wealth...). It deprived investment from other sectors of the economy. From memory it also impacted on their foreign trade balance, as early in the piece a number of key inputs for the rearmament program had to be imported.
It seems to me that the principle militarization was a political way of rejecting the treaty of Versailles. But sure there must have been a moment early on in which expansion looked feasible. I agree that it diverted productivity, that's what I meant by 'you either use it or lose it' - as an investment it might be profitable, but it was a massive militarization.
#13970660
Because his rabid hatred and contempt of both Commies'n'Slavs led'im to underestimate the Soviets big time?


Not just that, he kept pusing France and Britain and testing the limits of their patience.

Authoritarian neighbors are paranoid. Also, Stalin didn't have anywhere to go but west. Was he going to invade Central Asia or the Far East instead?


Stalin did not need to invade anywhere. Why not maintain the status quo? In any case the Soviets were trying to make inroads into Asia in the 1930s.

Hitler tried to get the edge on Stalin before Stalin got the edge on Hitler.


Stalin seems to have had the same plan.

I'd also suggest playing Arsenal of Democracy before HoI2. It's far more fluid and accurate.


Maybe.

Because Hitler was fundamentally expansionist. You can't change that. Pan-Germanism/Aryan supremacy and pan-Europeanism don't go together... unless the Strasser brothers somehow miraculously ended up in control of the Nazi Party.


I see. But there were some such as Goering who opposed the invasion of Poland.

I agree on the subject of Japan, though. Germany's betrayal of China is wholly reprehensible.


It also increased tensions with Britain which was contrary to Hitler's overall strategic aim of an alliance with the British. The Germans could have sided with the UK and gained diplomatic points on the issue of Manchuria and other areas.

The Empire of Japan was a natural ally with the best land and naval forces in East Asia, a united population behind them, and a reigning ideological framework which was aligned with the Fascist revolution in Europe. China, by comparison, didn't have a remarkable military force capable of great power projection, even after extensive German training and supply, the country was fractured by a civil war, and its position was not such that it had either the desire or capability to assist Axis interests in Asia.


True but China was the side supported by the Western powers. To support China would be to act in concert with the West and allow for an improvement in relations.

While the military had experience with certain Chinese diplomats and officers they enjoyed, much of the NSDAP upper crust, including Hitler himself, were quite pro-Japanese in their outlook from the onset.


It is true, Hitler was a Japanophile since the 1900s.

So, you were able to build a massive modern army capable of conquering Europe - you were able to have them then just sit around collecting paychecks? I don't think Hitler was fundamentally expansionist, it wasn't hatred either - he re-armed because that's what the German people needed, and then saw that he was sitting on a huge bill and a way of profiting.


During the Cold War the powers built up massive military forces. US military spending was very big. Similarly Hitler could have built up a military force just equal enough to counter-balance the threat of neighboring powers.

Hitler was inept during the latter years of his leadership. For one, his physician Theodor Morell, was administering a toxic concoction of drugs (25+ pills per day and several injections), including amphetamine and cocaine, which probably comprised his decision making. Then there's the whole Aryan race doesn't retreat; honour and shame. It was a myriad of contributing factors.


So the Nazi leadership were less than pragmatic.

Because Hitler was a moron, the reason why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did was because people like me had influence in roman society, the Nazi's on the other hand hated intelligent people and books and because of this their empire only lasted for a short time.


Understood.

How exactly do Poland and Germany "improve" their relations over where both sides figure the border should be? If you move it in either direction the other will feel cheated. And moving that border was a big deal, not only for the Nazis but also for the old guard nationalists who were supporting them as a means to their own ends.


There are ways of resolving border disputes without resorting to war. Furthermore border disputes can condinue for years without a full scale manifestation of hostilities, the Sino-Soviet split is an example of this.

If he can't have Danzig etc. why exactly does he still care about the east? Also consider what kind of signal it sends if Hitler 'caves in' over Danzig. His domestic competitors for leadership might see him as weak and throw him out (or displace him through other means).


Danzig could have been considered an eventual objective and taking it could be relegated to an extremely long term project. It would be possible to maintain domestic legitimacy without having to go to war.

Which is contrary to any other objective Nazi Germany might have.

Basically what you're saying is that Nazi Germany would have been far more successful if it had abandoned all its ambitions. I'm sure this might appear true in hindsight but I think in context the leaders of Nazi Germany would have thought it a pretty lame deal.


No, I am saying they should have been more careful and instead of trying to achieve all of their objectives through a war should have instead placed them into the extreme long term and geared a pragmatic foreign policy towards their realisation. Why did the Soviet Union not just invade Western Europe or use outright military force in the Cold War? It was because it was dangerous to do so. Similarly war for the Germans put too much at stake.
#13971361
Political Interest wrote:There are ways of resolving border disputes without resorting to war. Furthermore border disputes can condinue for years without a full scale manifestation of hostilities, the Sino-Soviet split is an example of this.

- There wouldn't be a short term solution.
- It would still be a struggle when there are two sides are unwilling to compromise.
- It's especially difficult if both sides have already fought over said border within living memory.
- And at least one of the political leaders came to power promising to restore all that was lost, national pride etc.

I might point out the Sino-Soviet split was not simply a border dispute, but that armed conflict on that border did take place. Your example actually suggests conflict might have been inevitable between ideologically incompatible parties involved in a border dispute...

Political Interest wrote:Danzig could have been considered an eventual objective and taking it could be relegated to an extremely long term project. It would be possible to maintain domestic legitimacy without having to go to war.

On the contrary it would have been very hard for Hitler to justify shelving the restoration of Danzig to:
- More radical Nazis.
- The old guard who represent a powerful bloc in the military (many even had aristocratic ties in the East...).
- The more nationalist segments of the population, especially those who lost their homes when the border changed in the 1920s.
The Nazi party came to power because it promised a lot to key interest groups. You seem to think they could just wave this off at the drop of a hat without consequences.

Especially when the pay off is a possible alliance with the West, which might not even eventuate. Even with the benefit of hindsight it's hard to imagine a full alliance between Nazi Germany, Britain and France. The Stresa Front didn't get much support for comparison.

Political Interest wrote:No, I am saying they should have been more careful and instead of trying to achieve all of their objectives through a war should have instead placed them into the extreme long term and geared a pragmatic foreign policy towards their realisation.

Nothing you've suggested provides a concrete means of achieving any Nazi goals, long term or not. Your argument is still "Nazis shouldn't go to war because war is bad", rather than any actual analysis. How exactly does becoming an ally of the West gain Danzig? Poland is a Western ally too, all joining the alliance does is set Germany inside a framework where expansion is out of the question. Does it really need to be pointed out that it was the Western powers in the first place that supported the formation of Poland, and would probably have supported Poland in any future dispute for purely pratical reasons?

Political Interest wrote:Why did the Soviet Union not just invade Western Europe or use outright military force in the Cold War? It was because it was dangerous to do so. Similarly war for the Germans put too much at stake.

What nonsense:
1. It's not clear that annexation of Western Europe was a goal of the Soviet Union.
2. Even if it was a goal, inheriting a bombed out wasteland wasn't a desireable outcome. In this way even if the Soviets could convince themselves war could be successful, it clearly wasn't the best means to achieve the objective.
3. The balance of forces during the Cold War was quite different than for Nazi Germany and its neighbours in 1939. The Soviets and their allies were matched against an equally large and fairly well equipped opposing alliance. Nazi Germany on the other hand had successfully rearmed by 1939 and everyone else was scrambling to catch up. So indeed, the Soviets may have thought an attack a poor choice since it carried a great risk, in the same situation Nazi Germany could be forgiven for believing that their goals were easily achievable in the face of weak opposition. And historically, they were completely right up until about 1941, two years later.
#13980900
Kman wrote:the reason why the Roman empire lasted as long as it did was because people like me had influence in roman society

:lol:

How so? Did Augustus or any other emperors hold the same worldviews as you?
#13986273
Quantum wrote::lol:

How so? Did Augustus or any other emperors hold the same worldviews as you?


No but the great roman orator Cicero did I am sure, some of the stuff he wrote sounded exactly like the kind of stuff I would have written. Like for example:

"The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and assistance to foreign hands should be curtailed, lest Rome fall."

That sounds like something me or Ron Paul could have said (end all foreign aid!).

Marcus Tullius Cicero ( /ˈsɪsɨroʊ/; Classical Latin: [ˈkɪkɛroː]; January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC; sometimes anglicized as Tully[1]) was a Roman philosopher, statesman, lawyer, orator, political theorist, Roman consul and constitutionalist. He came from a wealthy municipal family of the equestrian order, and is widely considered one of Rome's greatest orators and prose stylists.


Now I am a very good orator also myself, I used to often get compliments on my ability to communicate and argue for my positions when I was younger and debated others a lot. I consider myself a good prose stylist (aka writer) also. So yeah I do think that intelligent thinkers like me had a certain degree of influence in Roman society, if we hadnt there would have been no way it would have lasted as long as it did.

Edit: Wow I am reading about Cicero atm and apparently he was proclaimed an enemy of the state (what a glorious title to achieve) and murdered by the government in 43 B.C, this was done by Augustus and the second Triumvirate and the second Triumvirate is viewed as the thing that marked the end of the Roman Republic!
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Not really. If you have a dictator on one side in[…]

A long war with a lot of mistakes. Listen to thi[…]

Hitler lost WW2 because he had no oil... except R[…]