War Guarantees

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Precisely.

This:

Not sure / No.

On some of the points: Hitler was always going to attack, sooner or later, all countries with Eastern European Jews and/or governing "Marxists" unless prevented from doing so.

===

The Holocaust as happened would not of course have happened without the war - duh. Most of its victims were not within Hitler's grasp without a war.

===

war situation (which in turn was inevitable)

Does not look much like your argument.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am not trying to place the blame on somewhere else.

Oh, really? These words not yours then?

The former led to WWII, the Holocaust, 6,000,000 Polish deaths and Soviet rule over Eastern Europe.

[JohnFKennedy]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Myth. The mass murder of the Jews of Europe started on the eastern front in the summer of 1941.

Almost two years after the war began.
[/quote]

Actually, historians have tended to trace the origins of the Final Solution back further. Gerald Fleming’s Hitler and the Final Solution, for instance, demonstrates that the ideas behind the Final Solution were first implemented in the euthanasia programme in 1939 which saw 90,000 aged and mentally ill people put to death in gas chambers in the space of a year. He also shows that key figures in the execution of the Final Solution were also those responsible for this earlier programme. Further to that, I believe this eugenics programme was backdated to 1 September 1939 – I can probably find a reference if you like – which is the day that the war with Poland began and before the British and French declared war on Germany.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Actually, historians have tended to trace the origins of the Final Solution back further.

Some have... yes... but not so much in recent decades. The trouble with intentionalism is that there's very little in the way of evidence for its main arguments; it always rested far too much on assumption, assertion and supposition.

Not that the alternative theories fit in with what SPC's spouting, of course. Quite the opposite actually...

[JohnFKennedy]

Actually, historians have tended to trace the origins of the Final Solution back further.

Some have... yes... but not so much in recent decades. The trouble with intentionalism is that there's very little in the way of evidence for its main arguments; it always rested far too much on assumption, assertion and supposition.

Not that the alternative theories fit in with what SPC's spouting, of course. Quite the opposite actually...

The Fleming book is from the late 1980s and the other one I glanced at a review for was from the 1990s by Henry Friedlander.

I suppose perhaps it would be best to say that the intellectual origins rather than the specific intention could be traced further back. Then again, I will freely confess to never having studied the Nazis; this is by no means my area of expertise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Fleming book is from the late 1980s

I know it's from the '80's because I've a copy of it in a box somewhere. It's still quite good in some areas; but things have moved on a lot since then, and not exactly in a direction that Fleming would have liked. Writing had been on wall since before Fleming's book was published actually (Der Staat Hitlers, by way of example, was published as far back as 1969) but you know what historical "debates" are like

[12th Doctor]

No/No, obviously. The former led to WWII, the Holocaust, 6,000,000 Polish deaths and Soviet rule over Eastern Europe. Who knows what consequences the latter would have.

Are you serious?  Do you really think offering a promise to Poland over German invasion is what caused WWII.  It was Hitler's dreams of conquest, megalomania, and his ability to bring a mass delusion on the German populace?  And do you really think Hitler wouldn't have killed the Jews without a war going on?  Nuts.

WWII started after the Polish guarantee. As I said earlier, without a war going on, Hitler's ability to kill that many Jews would hav ebeen seriously diminished. And you don't even mention how the British guarantee was completely counterproductive, since half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Polish, an additional 3 million Poles were killed, and Poland had to suffer 5 years of Nazi rule and 45 years of Communist rule.

There was always going to be a war.  That is my point.  Hitler's main goal was the war... the war and the destruction of the Jews.  You act as though Hitler just woke up one day and thought "gee, I don't like the defensive pact the Poles have with the French and Brits... lets fight em", he was building up to it for 7 years.  Munich?  I mean, seriously, where do you get your ideas from?

[minionofmidas]

Actually, historians have tended to trace the origins of the Final Solution back further.

Some have... yes... but not so much in recent decades. The trouble with intentionalism is that there's very little in the way of evidence for its main arguments; it always rested far too much on assumption, assertion and supposition.

Not that the alternative theories fit in with what SPC's spouting, of course. Quite the opposite actually...

The Fleming book is from the late 1980s and the other one I glanced at a review for was from the 1990s by Henry Friedlander.

I suppose perhaps it would be best to say that the intellectual origins rather than the specific intention could be traced further back.

Or better yet - to state merely that the idea of killing all the Jews didn't arise to Nazi leaders totally out of the blue.
The (comparatively) unorganized mass killings of 41, the successful (if that's the word) "euthanasia" campaign, the general brutalization caused by several years of war, the inability of disposing of such large numbers of Jews in any other way now that the outlet of immigration had been closed - and closed by the other side - and first and foremost, of course, antisemitism itself all contributed.

[SPC]

No/No, obviously. The former led to WWII, the Holocaust, 6,000,000 Polish deaths and Soviet rule over Eastern Europe. Who knows what consequences the latter would have.

Are you serious?  Do you really think offering a promise to Poland over German invasion is what caused WWII.  It was Hitler's dreams of conquest, megalomania, and his ability to bring a mass delusion on the German populace?  And do you really think Hitler wouldn't have killed the Jews without a war going on?  Nuts.

WWII started after the Polish guarantee. As I said earlier, without a war going on, Hitler's ability to kill that many Jews would hav ebeen seriously diminished. And you don't even mention how the British guarantee was completely counterproductive, since half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Polish, an additional 3 million Poles were killed, and Poland had to suffer 5 years of Nazi rule and 45 years of Communist rule.

There was always going to be a war.  That is my point.  Hitler's main goal was the war... the war and the destruction of the Jews.  You act as though Hitler just woke up one day and thought "gee, I don't like the defensive pact the Poles have with the French and Brits... lets fight em", he was building up to it for 7 years.  Munich?  I mean, seriously, where do you get your ideas from?

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecesary War by Patrick Buchanan, on the New York Times Bestseller list.

[minionofmidas]

No/No, obviously. The former led to WWII, the Holocaust, 6,000,000 Polish deaths and Soviet rule over Eastern Europe. Who knows what consequences the latter would have.

Are you serious?  Do you really think offering a promise to Poland over German invasion is what caused WWII.  It was Hitler's dreams of conquest, megalomania, and his ability to bring a mass delusion on the German populace?  And do you really think Hitler wouldn't have killed the Jews without a war going on?  Nuts.

WWII started after the Polish guarantee. As I said earlier, without a war going on, Hitler's ability to kill that many Jews would hav ebeen seriously diminished. And you don't even mention how the British guarantee was completely counterproductive, since half of the Jews killed in the Holocaust were Polish, an additional 3 million Poles were killed, and Poland had to suffer 5 years of Nazi rule and 45 years of Communist rule.

There was always going to be a war.  That is my point.  Hitler's main goal was the war... the war and the destruction of the Jews.  You act as though Hitler just woke up one day and thought "gee, I don't like the defensive pact the Poles have with the French and Brits... lets fight em", he was building up to it for 7 years.  Munich?  I mean, seriously, where do you get your ideas from?

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecesary War by Patrick Buchanan, on the New York Times Bestseller list.

If you want history, read historians.

Amazon:
Product Description
Were World Wars I and II—which can now be seen as a thirty-year paroxysm of slaughter and destruction—inevitable? Were they necessary wars? Were the bloodiest and most devastating conflicts ever suffered by mankind fated by forces beyond men’s control? Or were they products of calamitous failures of judgment? In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations.

Among the British and Churchillian blunders were:

• The secret decision of a tiny cabal in the inner Cabinet in 1906 to take Britain straight to war against Germany, should she invade France
• The vengeful Treaty of Versailles that muti- lated Germany, leaving her bitter, betrayed, and receptive to the appeal of Adolf Hitler
• Britain’s capitulation, at Churchill’s urging, to American pressure to sever the Anglo- Japanese alliance, insulting and isolating Japan, pushing her onto the path of militarism and conquest
• The 1935 sanctions that drove Italy straight into the Axis with Hitler
• The greatest blunder in British history: the unsolicited war guarantee to Poland of March 1939—that guaranteed the Second World War
• Churchill’s astonishing blindness to Stalin’s true ambitions.

Certain to create controversy and spirited argument, Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War” is a grand and bold insight into the historic failures of judgment that ended centuries of European rule and guaranteed a future no one who lived in that vanished world could ever have envisioned."

Getting back to this...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, the founder myth of neonazism (as opposed to Nazism), in a non-Germanocentric clothing. Amazing. It's been forty years since people last could print that line without disqualifying themselves.
(The idea I'm talking about is, of course, the notion of 1914-45 as one long war of attritrition against the German people. Sometimes, in the 50s, referred to as "the Second Thirty Years' War")

You must be logged in to read this quote.

*Dies laughing*
This is the father of anticommunism we're talking about. This is the brain (if that's the word) behind the illfated interventions during the Russian Civil War. This is also the man who, from the onset of Operation Barbarossa, exasperated his American allies by his steadfast refusal to do anything that might enable Soviet survival. (Somebody once commented that the only circumstances in which Churchill would okay an invasion in France was if he could lead it in person, with a band of bagpipes behind him, and safe in the knowledge that all members of the Nazi and Red Armies were dead. It is not unreasonable to say that Churchill postponed D-Day by a year.) If there's anything Churchill was blind to, it's that the Communists were Stalin's first victims.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The real decision was taken in 1914, not 1906. And the real error lay in not making the decision of 1906 public. Which was indeed an error of judgement, by the way - France was a democracy, Germany was not (not a moral statement here - democracies are simply less likely to go to war except in far off areas where it can't hurt them), and Russia had just had its butt kicked by a developing nation. Should have been obvious who needed to be intimidated a little. As it was, Germany and Austria hoped to be able to avoid war with Britain. It's enlightening to read German war propaganda from WWI - while there's a lot of disgusting contempt, belittlement etc for Russians, Serbs, Rumanians, Japanese, even French, anything approaching ire is reserved for Britain. They really felt betrayed by the British declaration of War.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Lmao. That silly early 20s misapprehension about how all the arch-nationalists couldn't possibly be working together due to their conflicting claims. Missing rather close to 100% of the point of fascism...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah, so that's the point isn't it? If only we White folks had stuck together that would have allowed us to plunder everybody else a little longer.