12
   

If Hitler had been smart, would Germany have won?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 12:03 pm
Setanta wrote:
Joe, i would disagree with you only to point out that the German-American Bund kept itself before the public by playing the isolationist card for all it was worth . . .

Certainly, the Bundists knew how to get media attention. But that just made them a vocal lunatic fringe movement. Of far more importance were the isolationist groups like the America Firsters or the philo-fascists like Father Coughlin. In comparison to them, the Bund was a pathetic joke.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 12:18 pm
Coughlin was certainly both a crypto-facist and a crypto-racist.

I should clarify that i am much influenced by anectdotal information. In the small town in which i grew up with my grandpartents, Hitler was much admired by some, although certainly not all the residents. It is significant, however, that the admirers expressed their admiration publicly, without noticeable consequence. One of those was my middle- and high-school history teacher--she was always on about how Hitler was misunderstood, and the superiority of the German race.

John Birchers were common, but more closed-mouthed. Old timers who were willing to talk spoke of their regret that Hitler and the Nazis had "forced our hand," and spoke of their admiration for and agreement with Lindberg. I had the experience of confirming this anectdotal experience with the similar experience of other small town boys and girls such as myself.

Although i was born in New York and have a distinct affinity for the city, I've spent a great deal of my life in small towns, and have a stronger affinity for them. Many small town people with whom i've spoken, or of whom i have heard, have or had very racist attitudes towards the Japanese, and expressed regret for the necessity of "putting the Germans in their place."
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:35 pm
cavfancier wrote:
Nor tall, for that matter. I also understand he only had one testicle.

"Among conspiracy buffs, this is what is known as (ahem) the lone-nut theory."

The Straight Dope
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:43 pm
Well, for however much truth there may be in the fascinating discursus provided in Joe's link, i remain convinced that the old paperhanger was truly a weenie . . .
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:49 pm
Question presupposes Hitler was dumb. He wasn't.
And he still lost.

If Bush was smart would he have won in Iraq?
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:49 pm
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400042305.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  0  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:51 pm
Cheers, Bill, that's exactly the book of which i wrote . . . Teri Gross' interview of him was fascinating . . .
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:52 pm
If Bush were smart, he would never had been President - there would be no Rove, Card, Dick, Rumps, Wolf or Amitage.........

No smart person would listen to these idiots.
0 Replies
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:52 pm
Setanta wrote:
Cheers, Bill, that's exactly the book of which i wrote . . . Teri Gross' interview of him was fascinating . . .


and, you forgot the main title but remembered the subtitle Cool
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:55 pm
But that title was so hard to remember . . .
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2004 03:55 pm
My father always told me that he saw St. Peterburg and Moscow .... luckily only from the distance.
0 Replies
 
BlackWatch
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jul, 2004 12:06 pm
Hitler was a Politcal Genius
Hitler was a Political Genius.

However, that did NOT translate into being a Military Genius (although some of this big strategic moves had huge military successes).

.........................................
Could Hitler have won? Yes.

Hitler gave England a wonderful gift: He let the BEF escape from Dunkirk. If, instead, he lets the panzers roll, the BEF ceases to exist.

No BEF, No North Afrika.

(1) No North Afrika (second front to appease Stalin)....then perhaps Hitler sues for Peace with Russia.

-or-

(2) Or he throws EVERYTHING into Russia and lets the Staff fight the war the way they want to (which includes the option of pulling back). The All At Russia option is a bit sketchier, though.

For Hitler, the turning point and loss of the war was Dunkirk. Knock-out the BEF and then sue for peace.

//BW
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 05:28 am
I don't think Hitler was a genius, political or otherwise. I think he was a complete sh1t. He led Germany to war, prolonged it unnecessarily and finally lost it through his own stupidity.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:36 am
Hilter was a charismatic political genius. In the realm of Svengali.
What is interesting is that it was an age where charismatic dictators were in power - Hitler, Mussolini, Churchill, FDR, Tojo, Stalin, etc.
However, there is no reason Germany could not have won and kept Europe, if that had been their goal.
It was the insanity of Hilter; the personal cruelties of the Nazis; the meglomanical thirst for conquest of the Third Reich; that defeated Germany.
There is no way that any power can attack the entire world and win.
(Oh stop it, you anti-American dunderheads Rolling Eyes We did not.)
But there would have been no reason for England not to have eventually caved in to a German conquest of Europe. It would not have been out of the ordinary, for the time.
But the Nasty Nazis, just like the Islamo Fascists (sorry, can't resist) ruin it for all "legitimate" border wars everywhere...
0 Replies
 
kitchenpete
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 06:53 am
Bookmark
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:20 am
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

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

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.

Quote:
It was the insanity of Hilter;


No one except lay pundits ever suggests that Hitler was clinically insane.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:32 am
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:
Thats your opinion. There is no objective measurement

This is a forum Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
Steve 41oo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:40 am
Yes I know its a forum Rick

But it would be nice if people remembered occasionally to use the expression imo or "I think" before they restate opinion as if it were fact.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:41 am
True.
0 Replies
 
Moishe3rd
 
  1  
Reply Fri 9 Jul, 2004 07:53 am
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.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/01/2022 at 01:28:33