Traditional Guy 20
Reputation: 998
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,954
|
| roscoe said: |
It wasn't a mistake-- Dunkirk is evidence that Hitler is really a crypto- Communist. This is shown again at Stalingrad when he falls for Gehlen's phoney intell re: Russian troop strength. Peter Hoffman's book Hitlers Personal Security says that his strategy invariably played into the hands of the Allies.
The rhetoric Hitler used towards England is similar to that which he used towards the Church-- only to betray later. He signs the Concordat and proceeds immediately to violation of same--- among other things. This is what drives Pius XII into an alliance of sorts with the Allies. I don't believe that his rhetoric towards England was any more sincere.
This is not a defense of the Allies as the Pope later worries that he may have erred. At this point, most should comprende that Hitler is just another Hegelian. I don't believe that he Hari--Karied in the bunker either. |
What the...Hitler was not a crypto-Communist. National Socialism is not Communism! National Socialism is more of a 'fascist' movement if you were. Hitler always talks very badly about Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism, etc. even in Mein Kampf. In fact in his own ideology he was moving towards the East to crush Judeo-Bolshevism in Russia. Hitler's strategy in dealing with the British was that he admired the British Empire and the British rule of Asia and Africa. In fact one of his favorite films was a film that dealt with British troops subjugating 'Indian coolies.' He was 'easy' on Britian if you were because he wanted them as an ally and thought he could get them to surrender and negotiate. As for the Vatican you are correct that Pius XII did fight Hitler but also the Vatican did carry to England Hitler's peace offers during the war as well. In fact Hitler saw the British Empire and the Catholic Church as forces of stablility in the world. Britain's biggest blunder of the war was not only the Polish war guarentee but allying with a nation, the United States, that wanted to destroy the British Empire, while being against a nation that wanted to actually preserve it, Germany.
|
|
| Posted Jun 10, 2012, 9:12 am |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
alaric
Reputation: 998
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,111
|
| Traditional Guy 20 said: | | roscoe said: |
It wasn't a mistake-- Dunkirk is evidence that Hitler is really a crypto- Communist. This is shown again at Stalingrad when he falls for Gehlen's phoney intell re: Russian troop strength. Peter Hoffman's book Hitlers Personal Security says that his strategy invariably played into the hands of the Allies.
The rhetoric Hitler used towards England is similar to that which he used towards the Church-- only to betray later. He signs the Concordat and proceeds immediately to violation of same--- among other things. This is what drives Pius XII into an alliance of sorts with the Allies. I don't believe that his rhetoric towards England was any more sincere.
This is not a defense of the Allies as the Pope later worries that he may have erred. At this point, most should comprende that Hitler is just another Hegelian. I don't believe that he Hari--Karied in the bunker either. |
What the...Hitler was not a crypto-Communist. National Socialism is not Communism! National Socialism is more of a 'fascist' movement if you were. Hitler always talks very badly about Marxism, Communism, Bolshevism, etc. even in Mein Kampf. In fact in his own ideology he was moving towards the East to crush Judeo-Bolshevism in Russia. Hitler's strategy in dealing with the British was that he admired the British Empire and the British rule of Asia and Africa. In fact one of his favorite films was a film that dealt with British troops subjugating 'Indian coolies.' He was 'easy' on Britian if you were because he wanted them as an ally and thought he could get them to surrender and negotiate. As for the Vatican you are correct that Pius XII did fight Hitler but also the Vatican did carry to England Hitler's peace offers during the war as well. In fact Hitler saw the British Empire and the Catholic Church as forces of stablility in the world. Britain's biggest blunder of the war was not only the Polish war guarentee but allying with a nation, the United States, that wanted to destroy the British Empire, while being against a nation that wanted to actually preserve it, Germany. |
Which is why I said not decimating Britain into submission early in the war was his worst mistake outside of invading the USSR when he was already in a bind on the Western and north African fronts.
Squashing the U.K. was the key to victory and stabilizing the European continent so then they could prepare for the eventual assault from the U.S. democracy from the West and their "allies" the commies from mother Russia from the east.
Hitler was a fool to ever believe that the Judeo-friendly Protestant Masons in England were ever his friend or sympathizer. Actually he would've had a better ally in the snake Stalin to be honest. Germany ironically broke their pack with the Soviets and attacked Russia out of nowhere while Hitler tried to swoon the Brits who had no intention of negotiating with that "antisemite" in Berlin.
He should've crushed them "gentlemen" when he had the chance.
|
|
| Posted Jun 10, 2012, 5:46 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
Traditional Guy 20
Reputation: 998
(Likers: 0 / Critics: 0)
Posts: 1,954
|
| alaric said: | Which is why I said not decimating Britain into submission early in the war was his worst mistake outside of invading the USSR when he was already in a bind on the Western and north African fronts.
Squashing the U.K. was the key to victory and stabilizing the European continent so then they could prepare for the eventual assault from the U.S. democracy from the West and their "allies" the commies from mother Russia from the east.
Hitler was a fool to ever believe that the Judeo-friendly Protestant Masons in England were ever his friend or sympathizer. Actually he would've had a better ally in the snake Stalin to be honest. Germany ironically broke their pack with the Soviets and attacked Russia out of nowhere while Hitler tried to swoon the Brits who had no intention of negotiating with that "antisemite" in Berlin.
He should've crushed them "gentlemen" when he had the chance. |
Well if you read Hitler's private writings he thought the 400,000 dead of the British were enough to get them to stop the war. He obviously was very naive and thought he was indeed dealing with "gentlemen" here if you were of, in his own words, "traditional British diplomacy." As was shown by the bombing of German civilian centers, the firebombing of Dresden, the testing of anthrax cakes, Churchill's agreement with Stalin to use Germans as slave laborers, and the British turning the other way after the Soviets pretty much decimated Germany, Hitler was dealing with far more ruthless men than he believed. Interestingly enough though Hitler was proven right in how the war would turn out as he saw his own demise. He said the Soviets would go deep inside Eastern Europe, Germany would be decimated, Britain would collapse and lose her greatness, and America would be the true beneficiary of World War II, all of which was proven correct. In truth though the attack on Russia didn't exactly come out of nowhere though because Stalin knew sooner or later that Hitler would turn against him. He just didn't know the exact time. The British were fools to give out the war guarentee. It made a tiny territorial dispute of a town the size of Ocean City, Maryland, in summer, turn into a catastrophic world war, all because Hitler was an "anti-semite" and out to "conquer the world," which he was not of course. He had no plans to conquer anything except trying to reclaim the lost lands of the old German Empire, and used force only after diplomacy failed. Hitler did know the Brits were Jew-friendly if you were, but he still thought that eventually the Brits would turn against the Jewish pressure in London. It didn't happen though.
|
|
| Posted Jun 10, 2012, 6:56 pm |
|
Ignored by: 0
|
|
|
|
|
