This quote in no way whatever constitutes proof of intent existed in 1939 to invade Russia. Rather, it demonstrates that Hitler could read a map. You're confusing Hitler's understanding that war with Russia was possible with that of it being inevitable. We've been over the point so often that there is no further reason to discuss it. The failure of Barbarossa in front of Moscow in the winter of 1941/1942 took away any realistic chance Hitler had of defeating Russia. From that point on, Hitler would fight in the east with no hope, ever, of defeating Stalin. This was a turning point - this December verdict had not been in play in June 1941. Your continued attempt to confuse the issue with an irrelevant argument (the precise date at which Germany reverted permanently to the defensive) does not in any way deflect the veracity of the observation. Brian, you're referring to the August 1939 non-aggression pact. I'm referring to the draft treaty Hitler had delivered to Stalin in Moscow on November 25th, 1940 - over a year later, after the fall of France. Please do recall that at that date Hitler offered Stalin a place in his alliance with Italy and Japan, and that a public signing ceremony was to take place in Moscow involving the four nations. Stalin rejected Hitler's terms and insisted upon attacking Finland, as well as other incredible demands to be secured against Bulgaria and Turkey. Had he not done so, had he turned around on November 26th and told Hitler, "yes, I accept your offer", then there would have been no Nazi-Soviet war. This single episode makes your theory impossible - a Hitler whose purpose was soley to destroy Russia would never have gone to such trouble to avoid war with Russia. Hitler falsified his intentions in his early works, exaggerating Russia (a safe target) and playing down his intentions against France (a very dangerous target). Had he been honest - that he planned to reinstate the pre-eminence of the Triple Alliance all along the Danube and into the Balkans, with an eye to crushing France, Germany risked being plowed under and partitioned in 1935 or 1936. Please consult a map of Europe from the period in question and note which of France or Russia shared a border with Germany during the 1930's, a point from which a hopelessly superior army could descend upon Berlin. Hitler was a pathological liar whose public statements can never be taken as evidence of intent. Only his secret directives and the actions he undertook after taking power are reliable indicators of his intentions - and these all point to France and England being the target. The Soviet Union was never mentioned as the objective by name in the 1930's, ever. If Russia was the target, why no evidence of it, with the Soviet Union identified by name, in the German archives? That being said, the "winging it" theory agrees that Hitler, a violent anti-Slavic racist, would be favorably inclined to destroying Russia if a low risk chance to do so presented itself. But this in no way, shape, or form corresponds to the idea that all his plans were shaped to achieve that eventuality.
I put that same quote to you before and asked the question which country was it intended for you said Russia . Im just reminding you of what you have previously wrote , you seem to be bending your points as the debate turns to match your stance . Below is the Soviet acceptance of Hitlers proposals . As I clearly stated with my theory . This Directive is from 1937 . Something I am waiting for you to prove .
And you cut the quote off before listing Stalin's conditions! You’ve been informed previously that the Russians attached ridiculous demands to Hitler’s offer of November 25th 1940, including alarming terms aimed at subjugating Turkey, forcing Bulgaria into an unwanted pact, and war with Finland. This constituted a rejection of Hitler’s offer – as Hitler had made it crystal clear that he would accept none of these demands. Again, had Stalin accepted Hitler’s offer, there would have been no Nazi-Soviet war in 1941. But Stalin did not accept that offer… You excel in providing quotes that fail to support your point….where’s Hitler’s directive telling his armed forces to start planning for the invasion of Russia before 1940? Directives that mention Lithuania (not a part of Russia, by the way) don’t cut it. The directive? It doesn’t exist. The 1940 chronology is fairly straightforward. Upon the defeat of France, Hitler expected the war to be finished, so he issued a directive to start de-mobilizing the army. At the point where it became obvious the war was not ending, Hitler gave his opinion on the matter – Churchill was being stubborn on the hope that Russia and the United States would come on board against Germany. During the summer and fall of 1940, Hitler’s attention turned to dealing with Russia. Given his opinion, he had two options so as to take away any hope that England could use her as a continental weapon against Germany: 1) Destroy Russia. 2) Bring Russia into an open alliance with Germany and her allies. The documentary evidence shows that Hitler examined and pursued both options open to him, selecting no. 1 above only after Stalin’s rejection of Hitler’s offer of November 25th, 1940. I think it can be persuasively argued that Hitler’s lunatic disposition and violent and impetuous nature made him inclined towards no. 1, but the fact of the matter is clear – he made Stalin an offer that Stalin rejected. Couldn’t have said it better myself. I don’t know how many times I can say this in slightly different ways, but Brian, there is no way of proving Hitler's motives one way or another. The facts of the case can be made to fit multiple solutions, therefore neither of the major theories we are describing can be determined to be “definitive”. That’s why, in the history books, you’ll see both mentioned and then weight assigned to one or the other depending on the author’s personal hunch. My beef with the thread isn't that your opinion is unsupported by heavyweight historians - it is - the problem is rather that you claim that your beliefs must be true. That is false. A second theory exists, that I've outlined, that may indeed be true.
No I didn’t I quite clearly left the in plain view , for you to see and read . What ridiculous demands ? The Russians received the offer and quite reasonably asked for some points to be addressed and agreed upon . This is quite normal , it is simply negotiations . No first up , this is what Russia wanted , very reasonable . "Likewise, the draft of the protocol or agreement between Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union with respect to Turkey should be amended so as to guarantee a base for light naval and land forces of the U.S.S.R. On [am] the Bosporus and the Dardanelles by means of a long-term lease, including-in case Turkey declares herself willing to join the Four Power Pact-a guarantee of the independence and of the territory of Turkey by the three countries named. And only here is where Turkey is threatened , is in accordance with German and Italian agreement and co-operation . "This protocol should provide that in case Turkey refuses to join the Four Powers, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union agree to work out and to carry through the required military and diplomatic measures, and a separate agreement to this effect should be concluded Absolutely not , Bulgaria and Russia had amicably relations and this was Russia clearly informing the Germans of their wishs . Again Bulgaria bordered Russia and was seen as in Russia’s sphere or orbit of influence . 2) Provided that within the next few months the security of the Soviet Union in the Straits is assured by the conclusion of a mutual assistance pact between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, which geographically is situated inside the security zone of the Black Sea boundaries of the Soviet Union, and by the establishment of a base for land and naval forces of the U.S.S.R. within range of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles by means of a long-term lease. No mention of any invasion , Finalnd being bordered on Russia was seen , reasonably , by Russia as in Russia’s sphere or orbit of influence . Russia here is exercising this request as a right guarateed under the Nazi Soviet pact of 1939 , completely reasonable . 1) Provided that the German troops are immediately withdrawn from Finland. which, under the compact of 1939, belongs to the Soviet Union's sphere of influence. At the same time the Soviet Union undertakes to ensure peaceful relations with Finland and to protect German economic interests in Finland (export of lumber and nickel). Could you show me the German response to this reasonable Russian reply . On what basis do you make this assertion , the Russian reply was a positive acceptance of Hitlers proposals . The conditions the Russians added amounted to no more than 4 conditions , each of which were completely reasonable , non belligerent points which were open for further negotiation . And once again , as I have told you and explained fully on several occasions that in order for Germany to invade Russia , first Germany must be in a position geographically to do so . Once this was accomplished with the fall of Poland and securing Germanys western approaches with France’s defeat then came the planning for Russia . And you asked the question ” show me one document that mentions Russia “ and that was one of many which were military directives mentioning Russia . As for Lithuania read it again , it says Russian bases in Lithuania , in fact read the entire directive . The directive for the invasion of Barbarossa came in 1940 when as I have already explained , Germany was in a position to invade Russia . Lets see the directive and see if it was implemented . This is complete supposition . Stalin did not reject the proposals , Stalin was completely open to negotiation in fact Stalin was very compliant . Hitler did not even follow up the Russian reply nor even consider further negotiations damning evidence the pact was nothing more than a time buying charade on the Germans behalf . “ Something I am waiting for you to prove . ” I have answered all your questions thouroughly and given credible and reliable sources as proof , I don’t see what the problem is . The thing here is you simply have not presented any evidence to actually counter any of what I have put forward as my theory . Why is that ? Western historians have a bias towards capitalism , and are taught in universities a biased view of history from a Westrn perspective . You just simply can not accept that this war was fought solely over the attainment of markets . As was WWI was fought over German economic aspirations in Eastern Europe so to was WWII just a part 2 to the original German East policy developed in 1871 . WWI and WWII were simply European powers squabbling over economic interests for supremacy . Japan went to war in 1933 for an imperial policy aptly named the “ co-prosperity sphere “ . America divided Europe keeping the affluent Western Europe under Americas control thereby removing Americas main economic competitors . Its as simple as that , wars are fought not over freedom , liberation but over money .
Welcome to the "winging it" theory, Brian. In this explanation, Hitler was a childish, murderous warlord who was inclined to violent solutions to problems, rather than negotiations. Hitler's offer was a "take it or leave it" affair. Had Stalin accepted, Ribbentrop was clear on the point - the leaders of Italy, Japan, Germany and the Soviet Union would have gathered for a massive, "In your face, FDR" signing cerimony that would have assured the Soviet Union of her borders and security for the duration of the war and beyond. Stalin did not accept, so he got what was behind door number 2 instead. Now, to answer your question - Hitler never replied to Stalin's counteroffer....now, can you show me where Stalin revoked his reply of Nov. 25th and accepted Hitler's original offer in it's stead??? To my knowledge, Brian, Stalin never did so... Dude, Hitler was a nutcase. Any sane, reasonable actor would have jumped on Stalin's offer, married it, and brought it home to meet the folks that night. Bulgaria, Finland and Turkey thrown to the wolves? A small price to pay, as we now know in hindsight. But, as I've been telling you for quite some time: Because Russia wasn't the focus of Hitler's intentions, he didn't really know that much about it, and was caught flat-footed, with very poor intelligence and little to go on for planning. This lead Hitler to drop the ball and gravely underestimate the threat posed by the Soviets. The Soviet reply constituted a rejection of Hitler's demands: "When the Fuhrer replied that he could only repeat that there must be no war with Finland because such a conflict might have far-reaching repercussions, Molotov stated that a new factor had introduced into the discussion by this position, which was not expressed in the treaty last year. ...Then the Fuhrer went on to explain that just as Russia at the time had pointed out that a partition of Poland might lead to a strain on German-Russian relations, he now declared with the same frankness that a war with Finland would represent such a strain on German-Russian relations..." This is diplomatese for - "Invade Finland and we will kill you" Stalin's reply on November 26th demanded the "immediate" withdrawal of German troops from Finland, while at the same time promising that the Russians would "ensure" peaceful relations with Finland (which isn't, surely you've noticed, the same thing as promising to "maintain" peaceful relations with Finland.) Hitler indicated that he would go no further with regards to Turkey than to revise the Montreux Straights Convention. Stalin demanded, "the establishment of a base for land and naval forces of the USSR within range of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles by means of a long-term lease." Stalin intended to force Turkey to this end by, "the required military and diplomatic measures." You've indicated in your post that you do understand "military measures" means somebody attacking Turkey. Hitler indicated that he'd have none of any pact between Bulgaria and Moscow until Sofia asked for it (which, of course, he'd arrange to never happen). Stalin demanded that Bulgaria be forced into Russia's embrace, and I don't see any mention of Bulgaria's desires in his demands. And as I've explained, the planning against Russia appeared at precisely the time Hitler began to express concern that Russia, England and the United States would eventually make an alliance against Germany. He recognized that England could not be knocked out of the war, and that the United States and Russia would take advantage of this to "pile onto" Germany. He percieved then, that the best bet was to neutralize Russia before the United States was ready for war. He then proceeded along the two paths to this neutralization - by getting Russia to join an alliance with Germany, or by destroying it. He pursued them at the same time, because he didn't have to make a final choice immediately. Your facts are correct, but your using them to reach a false conclusion: Germany did not require Poland as a bridgehead, or France to fall in order to study the invasion of the Soviet Union. Therefore, the fact Germany didn't take Poland until 1939 is irrelevant to explaining the absence in the German archives of material showing any interest at all in invading Russia. We should have found mounds of studies investigating all sorts of possibilities, being updated yearly or semi-annually as intelligence reports rolled in, or as rearmament moved on. We found nothing in the archives. Also, two things about France. First, the fall of France in 1940 was a fluke, and could not have been predicted beforehand. Most (including Stalin) thought the war in the west would be long and brutal. Second, Germany did not require the "fall" of France in order to undertake the invasion of the Soviet Union. Germany required the cooperation of France to do so. But Hitler's focus, from virtually the moment he took power, was exclusively upon smashing France's system of alliances surrounding Germany, and preparing to destroy France in a war. Hey, so there's a directive that mentions Russian bases in Lithuania. Brian, I would be shocked if the German archives were barren of the word, "Russia" in their secret discussions. I would have assumed the point obvious, but I guess not: Show me where Hitler directed his military to study and plan for the invasion of Russia. And as we agree, this only occurred in 1940 when Hitler began to become fearful that England might succeed in securing both the United States and Russia to an alliance against Germany, hence at the precise point a motive for attacking Russia would arise that had nothing to do with his silly pre-war writings. . The directive <to commence demobilization of the German army after the fall of France> was not implemented. But that's not relevant to his intent at the time of issue. At that precise point, Hitler expected England to end the war. If the purpose of the war was to invade Russia, Hitler would have never issued the directive in the first place... No, this is straight from the horse's ass - Hitler himself, as recorded in his secret directives and speeches to his military. No Brian, you've become too enamored with your analysis. Your aware of information that suggests Hitler might have wanted to invade Russia, etc., but there's nothing definitive there. The process by which distasteful information is discarded isn't helpful - for instance, whether or not you think Stalin's Nov 1940 counter-offer was "reasonable" matters not at all. Are you suggesting that the objectives I outline would not bring Germany control of great wealth and power? Seriously, is it to be supposed that the subjugation of the entirety of Western Europe from Norway to Spain, and bringing the mighty British Empire to it's knees would not open up quite a number of markets for Germany to control? And the rank poverty of Soviet Russia could mean anything in comparison to this? And yet Stalin never agreed to Hitler's offer. Obviously, Brian, Hitler thought Stalin was playing him false. Our emotional little murdercon didn't need to see Stalin's betrayal of the Western powers after the war to understand the man he was dealing with. The Soviet dictator's reply demanded an empire carved from Germany's sphere of influence, with only the barest of hints that an anti-British policy might, someday, be pursued. To Hitler, Stalin may as well have told him he would attack Germany the moment the Yanks landed in France.
You place to much emphasis on Hitler’s supposed and unfounded warped personality from what I have read . It was not a take it or leave it affair , there were 3 meetings between Hitler , Ribbentrop and Molotov before this draft was put forward to the Soviets . The Soviets accepted the entire offer , the link I provided showed the actual Soviet communiqué of acceptance with a request of extra conditions ., Could you be more specific , I cant understand what question you are asking here ? No he was not a nutcase , Hitler whether we like to accept it or not was an intelligent leader who had a sound knowledge of political and military machinations . This is where you demonstrate to me that your historical knowledge of WWII is a product of 1950’s and 1970’s literature . Current literature is free of the emotional baggage of that period and Hitler is shown as what I have described above . Likewise Stalin was no nutcase either , simply put nutcases do not get into positions of power sociopaths do and that is what Hitler and Stalin were . This is where you come unstuck , the planning for Barbarossa began in August 1940 and when General Marcks had finished authoring the plan Hitler issued Directive 21 on November 1st 1940 . That was the finalization of the invasion , the offer was sent 4 weeks after that date the Germans had no intention of honouring any draft as the Germans had already determined invasion . As I said the draft and German/Soviet meetings were mere formalities of buying time . We have already crossed this hurdle , I provided source material from German and Russian economic ministries and source material from military historical sources of both German and Soviet origins , which clearly state that German intelligence of Soviet industrial/military capacity and strengths were accurate . How do you work such a concept ? The Russians made no threat of war with Finland in their answer , only German troop withdrawl . The Russians only invaded Finland because Germany did not reply to the Soviet acceptance of the German Draft . It became obvious that after Dec 1 st with no German reply and Germanys belligerence and continued troop build up in Romania of 680,000 troops that the German draft was a sham . Nowhere in those quotes is there any subliminal German threat of military action against Russia , this is just again supposition on your behalf . Then you should read about the Winter War with Finland , why did Germany have so many troops in Finland ? Wasn’t Finland under the 1st Nazi Soviet Pact agreed upon as within the Soviet sphere ? Russia had every right to demand such a withdrawl , Soviet advances to Finland were border changes which took Leningrad out of Artillery range . In return Finland received lucrative parcels of land to the North . Finalnd refused under German influence the Soviet Union invaded . Of course I understand what military measures means , you obviously have a problem reading proposals in text “"This protocol should provide that in case Turkey refuses to join the Four Powers, Germany, Italy, and the Soviet Union agree to work out and to carry through the required military and diplomatic measures, and a separate agreement to this effect should be concluded. ” any military action was to be concluded in agreement in conjunction with Italy and Germany . Could I see where Hitler made such a statement , Bulgaria would not be forced into Russia’s embrace . "2) Provided that within the next few months the security of the Soviet Union in the Straits is assured by the conclusion of a mutual assistance pact between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, which geographically is situated inside the security zone of the Black Sea boundaries of the Soviet Union, and by the establishment of a base for land and naval forces of the U.S.S.R. within range of the Bosporus and the Dardanelles by means of a long-term lease. And "c) a fifth secret protocol between Germany, the Soviet Union, and Italy, recognizing that Bulgaria is geographically located inside the security zone of the Black Sea boundaries of the Soviet Union and that it is therefore a political necessity that a mutual assistance pact be concluded between the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, which in no way shall affect the internal regime of Bulgaria, her sovereignty or independence." As for Bulgarias desires , neither was Finalnds , Lithuania , Latvias , Estonian and Turkeys desires were a concern to either nation . These nations fates were at the mercy of their more powerful neighbours ie: Germany , Italy and Russia . Britain was neutralized , America had not made any attempts at approaching the British for any alliance and was in the process of emptying out Britains coffers in the lean lease scam . Under no circumstances had Britain approached Russia for any alliance , in fact if you read my source on the 1st Nazi Soviet Pact the Russians had approached Britain and france in 1937 to form an alliance against Germany they were rebuked . And could I see where Hitler offered Russia a pact of military alliance , no such offer was made other than the Nazi Soviet pact which in itself was not a military alliance . I believe I have reached an accurate conclusion . Germany required Poland as a springboard to invade Russia , read Len Deightons Blitzkreig . France had to be eliminated to protect Germany’s Western approaches . The original date for the invasion of Poland was 1938 , it was decided it was to early as German preparations for a ceratin conflict with Britain and France as incomplete . And that was in The Rise Ans Fall Of The Third Reich . Why ? First things is first such as the building the German military up from 100,000 to something nearing 2 million men , an Airforce to match Brirtains or Frances . This industial militarisation programme must be completed first before any military plans could be formulated . If you notice it was only after 1937 that such miltary directives were being issued as to Germanys defence situation . That came as Germanys rearmament programme was strengthening in a position to actually make such directives feasible . First, the fall of France in 1940 was no fluke, the Germans planned this operation with great detail and launched the Blitzkreig fully equipped with modern weaponry . The Anglo/Franco alliance was defeated due to implementation of WWI tactics and military equipment which was unsuited for modern warfare the Germans had initiated . The Anglo/Franco alliance believed they could sit behind the Maginot lines fortifications believing the Germans would not risk such a frontal attack . The Germans launched the attack through the Ardennes , outflanking the Maginot Line , the Ardennes was belived by the military learders of the Anglo/Franco alliance to be unsuited for tank warfare . Oh yes they did , or why would Germany launch Case Yellow against the Low Countries and France in the first place ? The Germans believed such an invasion of Russia would require their full attention and having the Anglo/Franco alliance behind them was too risky . In other words the Germans learnt from WWI . And there are plenty more which refer to Russia as well . And again , I cant understand why you cannot accept that before Directive 21 could be issued Germany had to be geographically and strategically in place to launch said invasion . And again you offer supposition that Germany fearing a British , Soviet and American alliance was the sole cause for Barbarossa ! This fear Germany had of America entering the war , how does this explain Germany declaring war on the US ?. There was no directive calling for German demobilization , in fact German militarisation and build-up continued . That is evidenced of Germany pouring some 680,000 troops into Romania in late 1940 . You have yet to provide such directives and speeches so I can discern this claim , otherwise to me it is all your personal supposition ‘ My analysis is reasonable , I have backed it up with the proper sources . What I have done is simply brought it all together and present a plausible reason for embarking on WWII . The fact is you are the one having problems presenting source material backing your claims . “ Western historians have a bias towards capitalism , and are taught in universities a biased view of history from a Western perspective . You just simply can not accept that this war was fought solely over the attainment of markets. ” You don’t understand imperialism , subjugating the Economically advanced consumer societies of Western Europe meant Germany could not exploit it . Because they were advanced economies they would require that the Germany market to absorb their production , meaning Germany would have to implement a hgighy costly freetrade access to these economies . Exploiting weaker economically less sophisticated economies that are found in Eastern Europe German industry found a ready made market which would consume German manufactured products East European economies could not produce . German industry could control bountiful resources thereby securing access rather than importing at cost . And cheap labour to maximize profits and a market for financial investment . Stalin did accept the German proposals . No it is obvious with Hitlers draft given 4 weeks after Directive 21 had been issued and Hitlers non reply to Soviet acceptance was because in May as planned the Germans were going to invade Russia . It was a sham on the Germans behalf aimed at merely hoodwinking the Russians into a false sense of security . the Russians were not stupid they knew Russia was the object of Germanys war policy and accordingly used the Nazi Soviet pact and subsequent meetings and drafts simply as a time buying exercise .
This is well known material, Brian. Hitler himself placed the invasion of Russia within the framework of his fears of a two front war. Let's start with War in History, 2004, IV, pp103, "....in Hitler's view it was precisely because of <emphasis original> the potential danger of a future two-front war that Germany had to attack Russia in 1941 and defeat it quickly. Britain had to be made to sue for peace by destroying her last potential major continental ally ('ENGLAND PUTS HER HOPES IN THE US AND RUSSIA') and before American supplies could arrive in force. Stalin did not see that Hitler's perception of the international situation would lead Germany not to hold back, but to attack." Hitler's motive for attacking Russia appears at the point where Britain will not agree to peace. Hitler's planning to invade Russia appears at the precise moment that this motive comes into play. He must eliminate the threat of a Grand Alliance. Emphasis must be placed on it so that the point is not overlooked, or misunderstood. The personality traits I'm talking of reared up again and again in Hitler's political life. When challenged or rebuffed, Hitler often responded with violent escalation. For Slavic nations such as Russia, it appears that Hitler's willingness to deal with them was more upon the razor's edge than with countries that were more "Aryan". The chronology leading up to the invasion of Yugoslavia seems to me to well demonstrate Hitler's tendency to extremes when negotiating with "inferior" nations. Brian, the Soviet conditions as set out in Stalin's reply were not "requests", they were demands. Here's the Russian reply, "The Soviet Government is prepared to accept the draft of the Four Power Pact which the Reich Foreign Minister outlined in the conversation of November 13, regarding political collaboration and reciprocal economic support subject to the following conditions: (emphasis mine)" The term, "subject to the following conditions" does not mean " "we request"; they are conditions that the Germans must agree to. I'll reword it then. Show me where Stalin dropped his demands of November 26th, and instead informed Hitler that he accepted Hitler's offer of November 25th, 1940 without reservation or revision, or condition. Answer? He didn't. He never accepted Hitler's offer, "as is". No, they were not. Hoth records that in Hitler's March 30th, 1941 speech before his generals, Hitler indicated that it took him a long time before he finally decided to use force against the Soviet Union, "...It will be an unprecedented victory. Decision was not easily made, [he] wrestled with himself for a long time." Hoth's notes are of what Hitler told his generals. [he] is Hitler himself, and the decision in question was the invasion of Russia. From War in History, 2004, IV, pp77. It was routine for Hitler to pursue military and diplomatic options at the same time, Brian. Witness, for example, the 1938 crisis which culminated at Munich. They were not. I'm not sure what your talking of, Brian. The Soviet Union never invaded Finland between November 1940 and the commencement of the Nazi-Soviet War in 1941, at which point Finland invaded them. Let's repeat the quote, "....the Fuhrer went on to explain that just as Russia at the time had pointed out that a partition of Poland might lead to a strain on German-Russian relations, he now declared with the same frankness that a war in Finland would represent such a strain on German-Russian relations..." The "strain" Hitler mentions Russia had pointed out "at the time" with regards to Poland are clearly associated with the possibility that Russia may have attacked Germany for invading Poland without Russian "permission". Hitler then draws attention to his identical attitude concerning Finland. You are correct - Hitler's threat to Molotov wasn't "subliminal" - it was pretty much "in your face". Russia's "rights"? Yes, that and a nickel would get them a piece of gum. Obviously - Hitler was reneging on the 1939 deal, Brian. For all his lies and protests to the contrary, Finland was no longer going to be part of the Soviet sphere. Hitler was utterly uninterested in military action against Turkey, by anybody. Especially for the purpose of cramming Soviet bases down Istanbul's throat. Hitler was evasive on the matter. His maneuvers were obviously with an eye to a complete rejection of the Russian demand, "He was again addressing to the Fuhrer - as the one who was to decide on the entire German policy - the question as to what position Germany would take to this Russian Guarantee. The Fuhrer replied with a counter-question as to whether the Bulgarians had actually asked for a guarantee, and he again stated that he would have to ask the Duce for his opinion...." Now, what are the chances that Bulgaria would rush to ask the Russians for a guarantee they didn't want, and the Duce would think it a wonderful idea? Hitler's offer of November 25th, 1940 was the vehicle by which Russia was to be brought into harmony with the Axis Powers, and thereby neutralized as a potential ally of Great Britain. The articles of this convention have already been posted. While not a military alliance, it was framed in a fashion to obviate the possibility that Russia would attack Germany in conjunction with the west, and was certainly a political alliance of greater weight than say, the pre-war Entente Powers, "...agreed to oppose the extension of the war into a world conflict with all possible means..." i.e. - they were to cooperate against the United States. So your position is that Germany undertook a massive rearmaments program, at great sacrifice to the nation, without ever once bothering to examine the military dynamics of the campaign for which she was rearming? How many seasons will be required to finish the job? Do we require allies? If so, who? How many tanks are needed? How much oil? What stockpiles of all raw materials do we need? What level of militarization of the economy? What is the proper number of mechanized vs. infantry divisions? How many trucks are needed? How many horses? What's the predictions on logistic projection? What are the routes of advance? What is the role of airpower? How many aircraft do we need? Should airpower be tactical or strategic? What is the ratio of combat to logistic aircraft? What is the role of seapower? How many and what types of ships do we need? Should the advances be along the coasts (port supply) or inland (rail / road supply)? Should there be seaborne invasions? These are the types of questions Germany needed answers to years before an invasion. The Fall of France was completely unpredictable. Your treating an event that shocked the world as if it were to be counted upon by Hitler in his plans as he suckled a tea in his garden in 1936. France falling in one season was a stroke of pure luck. What German military studies are you referring to here? Can you cite them please? Hitler's initial reaction to the fall of France was to look to start demobilizing the German army. IIRC, the initial dismissal was to be about 25 divisions. Um, no. Germany would not be "required" to absorb their production. On the contrary, Germany would set the rules of the game so that their products and services would enjoy competitive advantages, and thereby dominate the market.
This is a passage from a book neither a directive nor a speech . England after Dunkirque was "Fucked" , England posed no threat to Germany and Germany made no peace offers either . So I would be interested if you could lead me to where your claim to a peace offer lies . I used to believe this was the case regariding Hitlers temper and outrages but seriously , yeah sure he engaged in arguments , but reading Speer , Guderians and Hitlers secretary biographies he is presented as a level headed individual . And this is now becoming accepted standard , especially with the new Hitler movie the Final days . Have you raed the German proposal ? Go back to my link its there . The German draft made no mention of Finalnd , so the Russians legally under the original Pact asked the Germans to evacuate forces . All the other conditions were related to the German draft such as Turkey and Bulgaria . How are these unreasonable demands is beyond me , afterall it is simply an answer to a German draft . The plain fact is Stalin answered the German Draft , you said Stalin never answered it . The offer was answered and there was no German follow up , as for the conditions Germany could of least repliaed they would agree to conditions 2/3/4 but not the 1st regarding Finalnd . There was no communication from the Germans so why should stalin folllow it up . Yes it was a time buying ploy , that is exactly what this pact was , your attempting to explain all of the Germans inactivity from not answering the Soviets to late invasions all down to Hitlers personality . Its garbage German planning against Russia was methodical beginning with the invasion of Poland through to the build of of 3 million man in nations bodering Russia Oh yes they were of German and Russian origin check again , as well as English and American sources . It was a long post , I got a little off kilter , I was referring to the Nov 1939 invasion and the Nov 1940 Draft and got the timelines mixed . How does strain interpret into war I have no idea . This was your quote: Yes Rights , Finalnd , Estonia , Latvia , Lithuania were all agreed to be in the Soviets sphere of influence under the Nazi-Soviet pact of 1939 . That was the agreement that Germany gave to the Soviets in 1939 Russia was exercising her rights . Precisely , anything to make the Soviets think elsewhere than on Eastern Europe . Evidence this Pact was a sham . No you just cannot find any source to embellish your claim . Bulgaria simply was not that important . What Bulgaria wanted made no difference to Germany or Russia Bulgaria was simply a minor pawn whose fate would be sealed by these 2 nations . You said Germany offered Russia a military alliance , I have not been able to find any such offer . America at this stage only concerned Japan , America had no influence on European matters in 1940. I never said any such thing , I said Germany's preparation for war was over a 6 year period , starting with rearmament . According to The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Germany planned for a war that would end early 1942 . Yes whence why Germany entered into negotiations with those nations bordering Russia . Finland , Romania , Bulgaria Poland was offered an alliance but rejected it which led to the German invasion . Read Guderians Biography for a complete plan of Panzer requirements outlays in the 1930s for war . Germany developed technology in the 1930's to convert Coal into synthetic oil . But also controlloing Romanian oilfeilds . Refer to The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich chapter The Road To war . Read Albert Speers Auto-Biography . See Rommels and Guderians biographies , as the Germans spearheaded this development . Im sure that minor detail was taken into account . In Russia some 20% of German transport was horse power refer to Halders diary . Germany planned for a war that would end early 1942 Thats what the OKW was set up for . In support of the Blitzkreig advance . German tactics were worked out in the Spanish civil war in 1936 . Refer the Condor legion . see The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich index Luftwaffe: war preparations Tactical as was decided in the 1930,s buildup in support of the Blitzkreig . Im sure that was worked out . Surface Seapower was cancelled in favour of U-Boat power in 1939 . Z-Plan All 3 were utilized , but the system of autobahns constructed in the 1930's were for military use . No that was discarded . Which they fully did , and for some reason your historical knowledge of 1930's Germany leads you to belive everything happened in late 1940 . It may of been a shock but , the plan was for a quick victory some 2 months pleaes read The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Victory in the West , The Rival Plans page 717 . The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Victory in the West , The Rival Plans page 717 You asked me to explain that is Germmany was going to invade Russia why did Hitler order the demobilization of its army after France . There was no such directive for demobilization . Im afraid that is what Germany would of done , and did do during the occupation of Western Europe to Germanys expense .
" The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie " Joseph Goebbels
Brian, your right in that money motivates, and can cause wars. But many conflicts are about power. Who will wear the daddy pants. Hitler's war was about this. Market share is very important in such wars, but it is only one facet of a larger mosaic. Since when do historians only count if they support your position? War in History is a prestigious periodical devoted to the study of conflict throughout the ages, and the contributors are the elite - scholars and experts all. Hoth's shorthand notes are not a scholar's opinion - they record what Hitler said on that date. He said that the decision to attack Russia wasn't an easy one for him and that he struggled with it for a long time. Here, let's repeat the process, but use a different author - Hiter himself, "I am writing this letter to you at a moment when months of anxious deliberation and continuous nerve-wracking waiting are ending in the hardest decision of my life.... The situation: England has lost this war....she grasps at every straw...Nevertheless some of her hopes are naturally not without a certain logic...The destruction of France - in fact the elimination of all west-European positions - is directing the glances of the British warmongers continually to the place from which they tried to start the war: to Soviet Russia... The situation in England is bad; the provision of food and raw materials is growing steadily more difficult. The martial spirit to make war, after all, lives only on hopes. These hopes are based solely on two assumptions: Russia and America. We have no chance of eliminating America. But it does lie in our power to exclude Russia. The elimination of Russia means, at the same time, a tremendous relief for Japan in East Asia... I have decided under these circumstances to put an end to the hypocritical performance in the Kremlin... Adolf Hitler, excerpts from his letter to Mussolini, June 21, 1941. Now, are you still going to resist the idea Hitler didn't make calculations along the line that I've outlined? That there is a strong possibility that motive for eliminating Russia arose because France was taken, and England didn't make peace? Hitler himself described this line of thinking unswervingly from the summer of 1940 through till June of 1941. The "winging it" theory calls for a pre-disposition against Slavic countries which would tend to allow our maniacal dictator to gravitate towards violence in resolving conflict with "inferior" nations. Again, as per Hitler, "In conclusion, let me say one more thing, Duce. Since I struggled through to this decision, I again feel spiritually free. The partnership with the Soviet Union, in spite of the complete sincerity of the efforts to bring about a final conciliation, was nevertheless often very irksome to me, for in some way or other it seemed to me to be a break with my whole origin, my concepts, and my former obligations. I am happy now to be relieved of these mental agonies." I grow weary of having to repeat basic facts. Again, here's the production figures of the United Kingdom, Soviet Russia, and Germany for 1941. Your claim that England was <finished> just doesn't have any justification. By the numbers: 1941 UK /Russia vs Germany: Tank production: 4841/6590 (11431) vs 5200 (2.2 to 1 against Germany overall, .93 to 1 if UK only) Aircraft Production: 20094/15735 (35829) vs 11776 (3.04 to 1 against Germany, 1.70 to 1 if UK only) Artillery Production: 5300/42300 (47600) vs 7000 (6.8 to 1 against Germany, .76 to 1 if UK only). The UK was "finished"? What part of a 1.7:1 production ratio in aircraft is difficult to grasp? In no category does Germany have a decisive lead upon the UK alone, and with Russian figures attached, Germany is outproduced by a range of 200% to almost 700%. And this doesn't even include the United States of America. A murky subject, to be sure, since numerous British records that pertain to the issue remain classified to this day. Is your position that Hitler did not want peace with Great Britain in the summer of 1940? Did not, as a random example, Ciano write in his diary that, "Hitler's desire to conclude peace as quickly as possible is obvious from everything he says." Is the historian Henri Michel on drugs when he wrote, "...at the same time as he was giving orders to reduce the number of army divisions...the Fuhrer made advances to the British government through the King of Sweden....Churchill's reply was an emphatic no..." The Second World War Um, no, Hitler being "level headed" is not becoming a commonplace interpretation, and Downfall (is that the movie you mean?) does not portray him in this light. Downfall, in fact, highlights the personality faults I've patiently been trying to teach you for months now. In that movie, you'll see Hitler react to all sorts of situations with unbelievable, storming tantrums. He responds to challenges and problems with orders for people's executions. Got a problem with Hitler? Get ready to take a bullet. It is precisely this characteristic - the tendency to meet resistance with a lunatic escalation in violence - which is the inane, psychopathic defect that history acknowledges. You seem of the rather strange opinion that, because Hitler could seem reasonable or approachable when he chose to, therefore he was. Whether you or I think Stalin's demands "reasonable" is completely irrelevant. The answer to the question of Finland remains painstakingly obvious: Hitler's intent was to double-deal Stalin and renege upon the terms of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact. Hitler had no intention, whatever, of allowing the Finns (for which he had affection and sympathy) to be swallowed and murdered in their masses by Stalin's thugs. The motivation for this about-face was, of course, the fall of France and the shift in the balance of power that arose from it, "As late as May 20, 1940, in any case, the German government still held to its prior policy; Hitler rejected arms deliveries to Finland...In the following weeks, however, policy began to change, and in the July 31 conference Hitler assumed Finland would fight the Soviet Union alongside Germany..." "In any case, the Germans made it clear that they would not stand for the Soviet Union to carry out its intention of annexing Finland and that they would block any further Soviet advances in Southeast Europe." I'm running out of theories as to why we are failing to communicate. I did not indicate Stalin didn't answer Hitler's Nov. 25th offer, I said Stalin never accepted it - an entirely different concept, and not easily confused in the manner in which you've done so. For all your protests and filibusters, the fact remains that Stalin attached conditions to Hitler's offer that were absolutely unacceptable to our German genocidiac. And Stalin, even apparently with the Barbarossa Directive sitting on his desk, did noty away from these demands at any point up to the outbreak of the war, "The Soviet Government had repeatedly called the attention of the Government of the German Reich to the fact that it considered the territory of Bulgaria and the Straights as a security zone of the USSR, and it could therefore not remain indifferent in the face of events which menaced the security interests of the USSR. Consequently the Soviet Government regarded it as its duty to call attention to the fact that it would consider the appearance of any foreign armed forces on the territory of Bulgaria and the Straights as a violation of the security interests of the USSR." Molotov to Ribbentrop, January 17th 1941. A ploy, was it? This is a common interpretation, and therefore represents a possibility, "There was, in other words, no German expectation of a new long-term agreement with Russia; war was intended, and only the details of relations in the intervening months would be explored." There is evidence that this opinion is not correct. First, it was the Germans, not the Russians, that extended the invitation to negotiations. Second, Hitler himself was involved in discussions with Molotov. Third, Hitler did allow matters to proceed to a formal draft offer on November 25th. Had Stalin accepted without reservation this offer, there would have been no war. That's a mighty strange "sham". There are therefore serious flaws in the notion of a complete lack of intent on the German side. If buying time were of import, then Hitler would not have participated in the discussions, and rather have left it to lower level officials. If war were a certainty, then Hitler would not have presented a formal treaty, to be signed by Russia and the Axis Powers. As I've said before (but doesn't seem to be getting through) - a good explanation is that Hitler was pursuing all roads to his objective - the neutralization of the USSR. The evidence that military preparations were to continue isn't bullet-proof evidence he had no intention of dealing, it's proof that he was skeptical of Stalin. He didn't expect Stalin to accept his offer, and he was right. Hitler's lack of response stemmed from his rejection of the demands Stalin made on November 26th, Perhaps I would have succeeded in the end had there not been that resistance on ideological grounds which always made the conduct of a foreign policy impossible. It was these ideological considerations, coupled with Russia's political actions, her military preparations, and lastly, her demands, which painted in Hitler's mind a picture of a monstrous danger threatening Germany. In view of this, my arguments counted less and less." Ribbentrop, reflecting from the gallows, 1946. Hitler grossly underestimated the fighting power of the Soviet Union and elected his "shave and a haircut, two bits" ill-advised invasion in its stead. Many of Hitler's miscalculations in 1940 and 1941 stemmed from his enduring fantasy that Germany was stronger than either the Soviet Union or the United States. Then I take it this quote also doesn't count, this historian also isn't an entity, because it doesn't promote your opinion?, "The perception of a weak Soviet Union could not be remedied by accurate intelligence. The Germans had very little, and they would not be dissuaded by those whose estimates of Soviet strength were more perceptive, primarily because the prejudices against Slavic peoples were reinforced by victory in the West. Having practically no agents inside the Soviet Union, except for those actually working for Moscow and feeding them disinformation, the Germans could add to their knowledge only by two other methods: signal intelligence and overflight. Their signal intelligence never penetrated higher-level Soviet codes....never provided any major insights..." To repeat Brian - the Germans underestimated the Soviet June 1941 OOB by about the size of the entire French army of 1940. This, to say nothing of the fantastical rate at which the Red Army commissioned new formations over and above the 303 divisions and 136 independent brigades already present as active or reserve formations. Yes, and the evidence appears to support the suspicion that with regard to Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, Hitler was content to allow the 1939 treaty to stand. But with Finland, the answer was clearly and emphatically no. Hitler regarded the Finns as natural German allies, racially superior to Slavs, and refused to allow them to be "doomed" to a fate inside Stalin's murderous regime. You might wish to pay more attention to details. Let us review the problems associated with Stalin's demands. First, far from being a "minor pawn", Bulgaria was a critical link in Germany's security chain in the Balkans. Or is it forgotten, the important fact that Bulgaria's cooperation was decisive in the German war with Greece? Do you really think it would have been within Germany's interests to allow an Anglo-Greek force to crush Italian forces in Albania? To act as a magnet for a wider anti-German coalition with Turkey and Yugoslavia? Stalin's demands in Bulgaria were both meddlesome and occurred with a timing that can only be described as interesting. Second, the attitude of Turkey towards Germany was of great importance as well, and Stalin's crude attempt to cause German-Turkish friction could have caused Germany tremendous difficulties if Turkey slipped into the English camp, The Fuhrer went on...England had hoped for a Yugoslav-Greek-Turko-Russian front in the southeast and had striven for this broad grouping of powers in memory of the Salonika front in the World War.....Greece had always been sympathetic to England and had, above all, placed its shipping and its submarine bases at the disposal of England. Turkey too had nearly taken the same road. ...Russian determination to approach closer to Finland and the Dardanelles was unchanged, as Molotov had allowed clearly to be seen on his visit. That Moscow's motives and intentions must have been fair or honourable is virtually laughable; there is no evidence of the sort! The Russian demands were all at the expense of the German sphere (not England's), and (in Bulgaria and Turkey) they were destined to cause trouble for Germany. Molotov was also highly evasive about further commitments to Japan, and rightly so, Stalin intended to destroy the Japanese in Manchuria and Korea. (Please, don't invoke the Japanese-Soviet neutrality agreement as proof of Stalin's intentions - we are all aware of who violated that treaty and backstabbed who in that matter.) In summary, while with the benefit of hindsight Hitler should have accepted Stalin's offer, at the time Hitler feared Stalin's intentions, and overestimated his ability to use force to resolve the matter. I said Germany wished to "neutralize" Russia by way of either eliminating her, or drawing her into alliance with Germany. The Nov. 25th offer was the alliance I am referring to. It contains no military protocols, but to repeat again, it's terms and conditions were more war-like towards the West than Great Britain's Ententes were towards Germany before the Great War. You've never said any such thing? Your position seems clear: Germany re-armed during the 1930's with the objective of invading the Soviet Union. Since you've been unable to provide the military studies for such an invasion before 1940, your attitude cannot be other than what I've described in the quote above: that Germany feverishly rearmed at great expense without once bothering to examine the military dynamics of the campaign for which she was rearming. And again - Hitler could not possibly have foreseen or planned for France's easy fall while sipping tea in his garden during 1934 or 1936. You've mentioned plans from 1940. Hitler wasn't Nostradamus, and could not draw upon future experience while making his plans at an earlier date. The French Army was considered the best in the world. I'd have to hunt for the originals. This is a typical reference, "...and the furloughing of soldiers from divisions to be demobilized in the summer of 1940 was arranged so as to enable those units to be reactivated on short notice." The contention that a victorious Germany "must" treat French (or anyone's) industry equally isn't worthy of serious discussion. By whose army is, say, Renault to protest contracts unfairly awarded to German companies? The German army? The German plan in Western Europe was massive, and not "friendly" to Western Europe. A few policy points: 1) The Jews of Europe were to be expelled to Madagascar (this plan was abandoned because the war continued, and the Holocaust began instead). 2) Numerous countries were to vanish from the map: Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg. Denmark as well. 3) Switzerland was to be conquered and annexed (Operation Green/ Christmas Tree). This plan was shelved as matters with Russia grew more serious. 4) Germany would impose her will on all these countries without negotiation. She would replace numerous international organizations with German equivalents. Hitler appears to have wished to make Germany as to Europe as Prussia was to Germany. 5) Planning was re-focused upon war with the United States. The navy was again made the priority instrument of power. These plans too were shelved in 1940, when Russia drew to the forefront. None of this implies, in the slightest, that Germany would be "reasonable" in resolving trade matters with western countries. Rather, Hitler intended to shape Europe into a Superpower aimed as a global rival to the United States. The poverty and weakness of Russia did not and could not compare.
I read all your quotes thoroughly , they are open for interpretaion , I am asking for evidence here you made this clear statement of a directive being issued , I asked to see the directive . And here below another claim you made , I simply asked for verification . And there are the other unfounded claims you have made , a supposed peace deal offered by the Germans to the British etc . You produced anything to back up any claim you have put forward . This quote from Hitlers letter to Ciano verifies one of my conclusions as I wrote here . Personal correspondence between 2 individuals , diary entries from Halder , etc , that’s all you offer .Yes , of course I will , until I see proper arguments from you formulated on fact of documentation or credible historian sources which offer facts based on official source material I will continue to question it . These figures are from 1941 , I will give you a fill in over the previous year of 1940 . Britain had to pay for American war materials with cash , straight up , a cash and carry policy .When the cash/currency reserves were exhausted Britain exhausted all her Gold holdings to pay for all US shipments of war materials . Then came Lend-Lease , under Lend-Lease Britain signed away its economic sovereignty , all US war materials were provided on loaned moneyt from the US , all British war production with the figures you provided were on US credit . British interest servicing on the loan was 6% , Britain only finished paying for Lend-Lease loans in the early 1990’s . Britain only survived on US credit , Britain was finished . As the theory I put forward , I stated . Didn’t Answer or Didn’t Accept ! Its still the same . And as for failing to communicate , that’s rich especially after the Battle Of Moscow 2 pages of debate and you still could not produce one author that could validate your claim that Moscow was a turning point . Lets end this Draft proposal here . At the German invitation Molotov went to Berlin and in 3 meetings , one with Hitler , Russia and Germany discussed various points of geopolitical views . Then on the 25th Germany forwarded to the Soviets a DRAFT PROPOSAL , Got it A PROPOSAL , nothing more . That means the draft was open for further modification and diplomatic talks . The Germans did NOT forward to the Soviets a final diplomatic pact , military alliance , concordat or political agreement . The Soviets read the German Draft Proposal , and forwarded it to the Germans with conditions of Acceptance . Meaning this is what the Soviets would like added to a final agreement/pact/alliance . The Soviets did not disagree with any points the Germans put forward , but agreed . The Germans did NOT answer or follow up the Soviet answer . The Germans were at this time some 5 months from the launch of Barbarossa , they had no intention of following it up . It was a SHAM . For the last time , in order for Germany to invade Russia , Germany had to be in a position to actually launch an invasion ! And when Germany in 1940 was in a position to invade Russia the Germans began military plans for the invasion of Russia ! And when those plans were formulated the Germans issued Directive 21 ! Between Germany and Russia lay Poland , Lithuania , Estonia , Latvia , Czechoslovakia , Hungary and Romania . First Germany had to rearm and build its military up to a level where such a belligerent policy could be implemented . Then once Poland had been occupied , and France dealt with , Germany began flooding troops and equipment into Romania . I mean what comes first with you the chicken or the egg ? Supposition again , what has this to do with reality of the situation . The plan I mentioned from The Rise And Fall Of The Third Reich , Victory in the West , The Rival Plans page 717 , this plan had been a modification of the Schifflein plan , the plan had been around with the German staff since the 30’s . Well show me or lead me to where the Germans ruthlessly exploited economically advanced West Europe on the scale of exploitation the Germans employed on economically backward Eastern Europe . Explain to me why the nations of Western Europe profited from supplying Germany during the war , namely France , Denmark , Holland and Norway , the German War economy was very lucrative for them .
Brian, I provided clear, concise quotes which outlined a basic fact about World War Two - that a strategic turning point occurred with both the failure of Typhoon in front of Moscow and the American entry into the war in 1941. That you did do not choose to accept this widely held opinion in no way negates the fact that it exists, "The German Army managed to re-establish a firm defense line east of Smolensk, but its eventual destruction had become virtually certain. We now see, with the benefit of hindsight, that the balance of power - geopolitical, industrial, economic and demographic - swung decisively against the Axis in December 1941, with the Wehrmact's failure to capture Moscow and the American entry into the war. The psychological turning point of the war, however, would only come the following winter..." Anthony Beevor, Stalingrad, The Fateful Siege, 1942-1943. pp 47-48. "its eventual destruction" (sentence one) is in reference to the "eventual destruction" of the Wehrmact. i.e. - Germany had lost the war. Which is also the point of "swung decisively against the Axis" in sentence two - Germany had lost the war. The date provided is December 1941. Any further questions? There was no formal offer from Germany to England during 1940 that I'm aware of. None the less, both during the fall of Poland and the fall of France, Hitler was looking to end the war, and made efforts to do so. You've got Shirer - starting on page 843, entitled "Hitler Proposes Peace". This covers the German feelers/offers at the conclusion of the Polish campaign. Starting on page 982 is the episode after the fall of France, entitled, "Hitler Plays for Peace". You've been provided with excerpts from Hitler's own writings, other first person accounts of events at that time, and the fact that currently publishing historians/scholars assign weight to what I've outlined. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that Hitler's motive in attacking Russia stemmed from the fear that Russia and the Anglo-Americans would eventually ally against Germany. You choose to dismiss it in favor of another theory - which is fine, the evidence supports differing conclusions - dismiss away. But does that obviate or negate the school of thought I outline? Not in the slightest. We've already covered this ground. It seems you are criss-crossing two basic, not easily confused concepts: the ability of Britain to mobilize its own economy for war, and the ability of Britain to pay cash on the barrel head for war materials in neutral countries. Do you understand the difference? The figures I posted for British war production are not inclusive of Lend-Lease material, or charity: they are numbers of tanks, aircraft and guns of major caliber produced in British factories during 1941. In the face of such statistics measuring the British war effort, your contention that Britain was "finished" as of 1940 is worthless. "Stalin didn't Accept" is not the same as "Stalin didn't Answer". Either you don't understand the basics of the English language, or you attempted to twist the meaning. Neither possibility draws appeal to your cause. . Hitler met with Molotov twice, not once. Neither meeting was pretty. And yes, you are correct - Hitler's offer of a closer political alliance of November 1940 was open to a certain degree of back-and-forth banter. If it were not, it would be called an ultimatum instead. Stalin's demands were so far beyond what Hitler considered reasonable, that the Germans subsequently discarded the diplomatic approach to solving the problem. Hitler did so because his understanding of the power of the Soviet military industry and the strength of the Red Army were faulty, leading to his inevitable loss of the war within 6 months of commencing the invasion. You often cite Shirer and Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. Review his coverage of the Molotov visit, "<Stalin's> proposals constituted a price higher than Hitler was willing even to consider. He had tried to keep Russia out of Europe, but now Stalin was demanding Finland, Bulgaria, control of the Straights and, in effect, the Arabian and Persian oil fields, which normally supplied Europe with most of its oil. The Russians did not even mention the Indian Ocean, which the Fuehrer had tried to fob off as the center of "aspirations" for the USSR. "Stalin is clever and cunning", Hitler told his top military chiefs. "He demands more and more. He's a cold-blooded blackmailer. A German victory has become unbearable for Russia. Therefore, she must be brought to her knees as soon as possible." The great cold-blooded calculator had met his match, and the realization infuriated him. At the beginning of December he told Halder to bring him the Army General Staff plan for the onslaught on the Soviet Union." Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, pp1061 and 1062 (unabridged version) Stop talking about the occupation of Poland - it is redundant to the issue of planning war against Russia. German generals do not need to be in Poland to study making war on Russia. Your position is therefore as follows: Germany feverishly rearmed at great expense during the 1930's without once bothering to examine the military dynamics of the campaign for which she was rearming. This would be something like the idea of Japan building a huge navy for war in the Pacific, and never once actually studying what such a war might be like. Your criteria are false. All that needs to be demonstrated is that planning was underway to this end, planning which was cut short by the increasing concern of and focus upon, Russia, "German plans for a newly ordered Europe were being discussed in Berlin in the summer of 1940, and were accompanied by the squabbling of government and party agencies....Whatever the details, Germany would control everything. There would certainly be no general peace conference - Germany would impose her will in bilateral negotiations. What international organizations remained were to be replaced by new ones of German devising; the International Labor Organization, for example, by an International Central Labor Office with headquarters in Berlin...much smaller satellites like the puppet state of Slovakia would have to march in lockstep with Berlin now that it was no longer necessary to treat them leniently as models of how nicely Germany could behave." The victory of 1940 brought on a whole wave of planning - a new enemy - the United States, a massive restructuring of Europe, the elimination/annexation of numerous countries including as yet untouched Switzerland, the ethnic cleansing (at best) of the Jews. All of these plans were shelved when the war continued and Hitler's attention turned to the prospect of an Anglo-Russian alliance.
Yes , explain this . Germany knew there was no such alliance possible against them , Russia also knew it as they attempted to feild a said alliance against Germany and were sternly rebuked by their economicc ideological foes Britain and France . Below Stalin trys to form a deal with the West against Hitler only to be rebuffed . Note the highliht where my thery about the Anglo/Franco plan to set Germany against Russia . And here Stalin uses it as an instrument to buy time . Britain existed soley on US credit and as for being finished , Dieppe was a good example of British impotence. There are plenty of military documents from the 1930’s showing Russia and military defence/action against Russia , I provided such a document and several more if you wish . But if you are going to invade Russia you are going to have to be in a place from which to invade , namely Poland . As I said a ways back that the Germans had been methodically planning this war from 1933 it was progressive as each phase was completed . And here . Could I see evidence of a Anglo/Russian alliance ? Now as for the Russian invasion being poorly planned , you had best read the passages I have given below , they are documented from Nazi archives . The invasion and exploitation of Russia was extensively planned and conceived .
Thats not "England". thats the United Kingdom. Or Great Britain. Please dont call it "England", or I shall call up a parachute drop of bekilted glaswegians who will drink all your alcohol, molest your wives and then put you in hospital. That aside, in the book "invasion 1940" by Rupert Hart-Davis, he says that in July 1940, hitler was so confident that the UK would surrender and come to an agreement that he was content not to offer peace. The UK after Dunkirk was militarily on the retreat, it is true, but even had Hitler wanted to invade as soon as possible, it would have taken weeks to get his forces ready for such an event.
As long as they aint Welsh ! Once Britain had been pushed off the continent , it was obvious Britain could never establish a foothold again . Such an undertaking was beyond its ability militarily or industrially , thats why Britain proceeded with an air campaign . There was no need for a German invasion , Operation sealion was just a charade .
An interesting debate so far. All your quotes (it appears) are repeats, so I'll await fresh material from your end.
Mr foley, the book I referenced up above shows that Operation Sealion wasnt a charade. It was quite serious, they were assembling barges for it, had printed guidebooks to England, phrasebooks, and began the Battle of Britain with the idea of gaining air superiority. The fact it was then cancelled is another matter entirely. Hitler was obsessed with Russia, but also thought that the UK would surrender when it was pushed off the continent, and so he dithered. You may well argue that there was no need for Operation Sealion, but that is with the benefit of hindsight.
I just want to pop in here to congratulate Glenn on being an excellent WWII buff. The conversation has been very interesting. Very informative. Brian has also brought excellent material to the table as well, but I feel that he fails to see the point on several key issues and therefore, if there is a winner to this debate, it would be Glenn. I'd like to ask though... It's obvious from your placement of Hitler's giving up on a diplomatic solution with the Soviet Union on pp 1061 and 1062 that my version of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich is the abridged version, because it's on 810 in my copy. But, it doesn't say abridged anywhere. What's the deal? I feel ripped off now. (I didn't buy the book though, that's one good thing. I inherited it from my father.) I've never understood this abridged/unabridged thing. If it's abridged, it should clearly state that it is. Or is it the opposite? That it only states if it's unabridged? If that's the case then you'd never know if you have an abridged version or the normal version of a book that has no abridged copies....
It's generally considered that, had the Germans pressed ahead, Sealion would have failed. Hitler's lukewarm commitment to the project appears to have been reflective of his assessment of the risks involved. But one only has to go over Hitler's instructions for the occupation to discern that the matter was being treated in a deadly serious fashion. All males between the ages of 18 and 45 to be detained in concentration camps, for instance. Thanks. Brian's thesis draws upon a great deal of material that carries weight in the debate, and I'd be the first to state that portions (or even the bulk) of what he's claiming might actually be true. I jumped in to provide a sketch of another theory (and also because I enjoy having to crack the books again and do some "homework"). But at the same time, certain facets of the argument require more research and development, and overall I can't help shake the feeling that matters are being addressed in too rigid a fashion. No one really knows what was going on in Hitler's noggin', so much of the debate is speculative on all sides. The only thing most of us would agree that was the best thing to pass through it would be that bullet in 1945... Incidentally, I remember seeing on a program once that before the end in Berlin, Hitler had a flight of 10 Junkers transports move his stuff to the south. One crashed on the way - the one that happened to be carrying all of Hitler's personal papers from his years in power. Had this plane survived, I'm sure alot of these questions may have been provided far better answers. My copy has it right on the cover, Complete and Unabridged. Maybe the book companies advertised unabridged to promote the idea of it being a better version, and don't advertise the edited version as such for the same reason.
All the links I gave you showed and clearly demonstrated that the Germans meticulously planned WWII and in particular the Russian campaign . Fact is you have run out of debate , all your angles have been debunked as completely unfounded . Your theory this war waged by Germany was completely done on “ the fly ” has been proven a fallacy. Thanks for playing game over .
