..I am watching a program (to be serialised here next week)that says that Hitlers invasion of Britain was inevitable. Ok he put a whole lot of barges etc into ports in France and then we had a little shindig called the Battle of Britain where'The Few' made their place in history which is without a doubt the greatest conflict in history. Ok the The Battered Bastards of Bastogne and 1 Para at Arnhem may disagree, and all credit to them. Back to the point, had Hitler seriously wanted to invade Britain he could have done, but he got his ass kicked in the short term. But I am just wondering how much of his attention was directed on to the invasion of Russia in '41. The conquest of Britain would have been good strategically, but had he conqurered us (Not f**king likely, we English get a bit tetchy when invaded) would he have had the resources to invade Russia.
Ok now I am going to be a tad controversial. I am convinced that the holocaust was purely based on money. The Jewish community throughout history have been some of the richest people in commerce, banking etc. I am firmly convinced that Hitler et al, used the anti-semitism to gain control of the Jewish comunity's bank accounts, property etc to fund the invasions of Western Europe and Russia. By 'liquidating' the Jewish communities assets they had a supply of cash that did not involve taxing the German people. I may be wrong but it makes some kind of sense.
Also it is time the Swiss came open about all the Nazi money they have been 'protecting' for all these years. I have no patience with a country whose economy is based on dodgy banking for the crooks of this planet.
Friday, 30 May 2008
Thought for the evening...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Theo,
Best book I've read on this topic lately is The Wages of Destruction by Adam Tooze. Essentially, Hitler's war strategy was a series of high-risk gambles because the German economy was overstrained and was never capable of winning. But he would have got away with it with bluff if Britain hadn't "illogically" continued the fight in 1940 after France fell.
http://listeningblogger.blogspot.com/2008/02/wages-of-destruction-by-adam-tooze.html
The conquest of Britain would have been good strategically, but had he conqurered us... (break) ...would he have had the resources to invade Russia.
Good point!
I would have to say that he probably wouldn't. And since Hitler was convinced that Russia was going to invade Germany after the Wehrmacht was bled white, which was exactly what Stalin was planning, then Operation Barbarossa was a brilliant use-it-or-lose-it strategy.
I am convinced that the holocaust was purely based on money.
Although the seizing of Jewish held assets in order to fund the war is a very good one, let us not forget that Hitler's political success was due in no small part to his shrewdly playing the anti-Semitic card. It was hardly "purely based on money", instead being the most potent weapon that Hitler used to seize political power.
For example, I doubt Krystalnacht was planned so Germany could eventually invade Poland.
James
It may have been a battle resulting in a high percentage of the Navy being lost but I'm sure regardless of luftwaffe effort, no german ships would have reached our shores.
Someone should have shot him in the 1920's
Theo,
Your theory is spot on - the short, dark-haired b**ard from Austria managed to convince his people it was about the right for tall, blue-eyed blondes to run the world. I never worked that out, quite.
It's always about the money, and the control thereof.
If Herr Hitler's motivations were just money he could have confiscated it and had the brownshirts stamp on any protests.
Given the homosexuals, gypsies and disabled who met similar untimely ends you could argue eugenics was as much to blame.
He had also become convinced Jews had undermined Germany's Great War campaign so there's an element of vengeance.
I'm gonna weave you two into a post.
Theo, I think you're probably spot on. I'm sure there are lots of reasons for Jew Hatred, but I remain convinced that Envy is probably the most common culprit. I don't believe a word the Arabs say about Jewish whatever. I think the Arabs need to get their act together. It's demeaning to blame the Jews for anything. I'm embarrassed for any man or any culture that stoops to that level.
And . . . . I think the Germans will be paying for that crime, in other realms, for many a generation to come.
It is said that the SS made a 'profit' on the whole ethnic cleansing thing - they did not just murder jews.
I do not quite agree with your analysis. Look at it this way. When in crisis all ruling juntas (Galtieri, Hitler, Gordon Brown) will always seek to externalise the problem. To create an enemy within or without onto which the rulers can turn the ire of the proletariat. Creating a hate figure that is blamed for all the problems is standard dictator stuff. If at the same time you can rob this class of its wealth, that's just a double bubble. Hitler happend upon the jews. I think that he was maniacally anti semitic and just lucked into the extra benefit of money, but he understood the diversion tactic and blame tactic very well.
You can see these same tactics in play today. Bush's 'war on terror' is in this class, especially when it is identified as 'islamic terrorism'. Clearly not all those that follow the faith of islam are murdering distorted little shits, but enough are to be useful to some political leaders. In the UK we have a parallel situation arrising over the credit crunch, which although without dispute the outcome of Browns insane fiscal policy he now seeks to blame it on the US sub-prime lenders.
This tactic is tragic and illustrates the appalling lack or veracity and principles in many political leaders, especially it seems to me those that see politics as a 'profession' followed for life.
Be very clear, Hitler was a deluded maniac and murdered not only jews but his own people. Stalin was even worse.
Post a Comment