Oy. I should know better.
Okay. It was admittedly throwaway opinions.
I will take five minutes to try and back them up.
Quote:Sorry Moishe but I have to take issue with quite a bit in your last post
Quote:
Hilter was a charismatic political genius. In the realm of Svengali.
Thats your opinion. There is no objective measurement
Yes, it's my opinion. However, looking at the films and reading his words and seeing the power of persuasion that he wrought, it seems a valid opinion.
I have no other particular theory for his rise to the position of Fuehrer.
Quote:Quote:
What is interesting is that it was an age where charismatic dictators were in power - Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, FDR, Tojo, Stalin, etc.
Churchill and FDR dictators like Mussolini and Stalin? Come on man get a grip
No, only in terms of charismatic power. They were not (imo) cruel megolmanical monsters as were Stalin and Hilter. The power these various men wielded was dictatorial. And that's what makes it interesting to me. As England and the U.S. were democracies. I believe that there it was a "time of power."
Quote:
Quote:However, there is no reason Germany could not have won and kept Europe, if that had been their goal.
Well I would suggest it was their goal. And there were quite a few reasons whey they did not succeed, including the intervention of the United States and the determination of countries like Britain and Russia.
I was thinking of the initial conquest - France to Poland; Italy to Denmark.
The U.S. would not have been involved; Hilter already had a treaty with the Soviets; and if Germany would have then been peaceful towards England, it appears that England would have given up the fight...
I am positing that this would have been a "normal" European war scenario and had, in fact happened before (Napolean; Hapsburgs; Holy Roman Empire). It usually went smash when they continued to attack in a larger and larger sphere without already co-opting their conquered countries - as did Germany.
With History as evidence, Hilter, had he been sane, could have easily stopped and consolidated and ruled.
Quote:Quote:
It was the insanity of Hilter;
No one except lay pundits ever suggests that Hitler was clinically insane.
Fine. He was still a nutburger who killed and attacked simply because he felt like it. It felt good to him. Had he been a rational student of history, he would have stopped with the conquest of France.
Quote:Quote:
the personal cruelties of the Nazis; the meglomanical thirst for conquest of the Third Reich; that defeated Germany.
This all came out of Hitler's character and the philosophy of national socialism. It wasn't necessarily self destructing.
Actually, this is the crux. As far as I can discern, wanton destruction and cruelty has always been self defeating.
Quote:Quote:
There is no way that any power can attack the entire world and win.
(Oh stop it, you anti-American dunderheads We did not.)
Germany did not attack the entire world.
Okay, but North America; Asia; Europe; Australia and North Africa certainly qualify as a metaphorical "entire world."
Quote:Quote:
But there would have been no reason for England not to have eventually caved in to a German conquest of Europe.
If Germany had defeated USSR in 1941/2 then things might have been different, but they didn't. There were some people in Britain calling for peace with Hitler, but the vast majority thoroughly detested nazism and all it represented. We stood our ground against Hitler, he could never have invaded this country without meeting resolute opposition and incurring considerable loss. (The RAF and the Navy were never defeated...something to think about when launching those invasion barges from Calais). Churchill's speeches about fighting on the beaches the towns the hills etc etc may have been rhetoric but it was inspiring rhetoric. Its easy now to say oh yes Britain would have "caved in". Well counterfactual arguments were never my favourite and the reality is that we did not cave in.
Again, I was theorizing that a rational conqueror would have desisted with the conquest of France. I realize that that was not in my original post.
Quote:Quote:
It would not have been out of the ordinary, for the time.
Perhaps Britain was not like France Holland Denmark Norway. I'm not an isolationist "little Englander", we are all part of the EU now, but there are events in our history that give cause for pride, and standing firm against national socialism is one of them.
Absolutely. But with a theoretical "peaceful" Germany making overtures and no United States military backing up England, it would seem the wind would have been taken out of the sails.
Quote:Quote:
But the Nasty Nazis, just like the Islamo Fascists (sorry, can't resist) ruin it for all "legitimate" border wars everywhere...
This last statement is incomprehensible to me.
That's because I didn't explain that I believe Hilter's meglomanical desire for conquest and cruelty is what defeated Germany.
If he would have stopped by conquering most of Europe, history would have been very different.
If Saddam had not tried to invade Iran (horribly cruel) and Kuwait (viciously cruel), we would not be in Iraq today.
It is the mad desire for more power that creates the scenario for utter defeat regarding aggressive nations.
We did not.)