Patrick Buchanan Comments on World War II

[AuH2O]

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't ed Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

[The Duke]

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't f**cked Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

You're a in' Nazi, dude.

[??????????]

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't f**cked Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

You're a ' Nazi, dude.

Not really. Though a little harsh he is close to being right.

[AuH2O]

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't f**cked Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

You're a ' Nazi, dude.

Study international relations a little then get back to me.

[J. J.]

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't f**cked Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

You're a ' Nazi, dude.

Study international relations a little then get back to me.

Hitler knew he was going to lose in the the Summer of 1941?  That's when the Einsatzgruppen began kill indigious Jewish populations.  Ah, maybe it January 1942, when the Wannsee Conference took place.

In reality, the Nazis would have been far better off had they not wasted the resources eliminated the Jews, and instead used them to fight the war.

Hilter had a pathological problem with the Jews.

[AuH2O]

That's the whole point. Hitler was very intelligent and very aware of the cost of diverting forces to operate camps. There was no incentive for him to do that so long as he thought he would win, because then he could do whatever he wanted.

It's actually a fairly widespread belief in the historical community that Hitler sensed he would lose early in the war. From the beginning, things didn't really go according to plan, and he knew how small his margin of error was (almost zero).

And the reality is that Jewish casualties were not significant until the Germans were quite plainly losing.... though certainly atrocities were being committed by various forces on all sides.

Clearly, Hitler was not a big fan of Jews (or blacks or other non-Aryans). But there is zero evidence prior to the war that he intended anything other than gradual deportation of Jews from Germany, presumably into conquered territory (Balkans) or perhaps to Africa or something.

Portraying millions of Jewish deaths (indeed, inflating the actual number killed by Germans, since other nationalities-- including the Soviets-- were to blame for various massacres) as inevitable is a way to justify a horrific and unnecessary war. Even if 6 million Jews were going to die, it wasn't worth 50 million MORE people, since we didn't even save the Jews according to the official casualty figures. Then of course add in some cold war deaths to the "victory" pile.

The horrors of war should make one hate war, not engage in it.

[dazzleman]

All Buchanan did was state blatantly obvious facts.

France and Britain needed an excuse to go to war with Germany. So they said they would "protect" Poland, who, by the way, was actually committing human rights violations against Germans stuck inside their country by Versailles.

Of course, they did sh**t for Poland. In fact, they didn't even attack Germany. And, actually, they violated their own treaty, because the Soviets also invaded Poland, which required them to declare war on the Soviets.

And the only reason Jews died in WW2, aside from the fairly large number that were serving as Soviet commisars and thus legally executed for crimes against humanity, is because Hitler knew he was going to lose.

Maybe if the US hadn't embargoed Japanese oil and the Allies hadn't f**cked Germany up the ass after a WWI Germany didn't start, 50 million people wouldn't have died. As it is, they did, and they did. And since the US and allies were a bunch of cowards, another 100 million died thanks to communism in Russia and Asia.

Your logic is unbelievable.

You think weak and cowardly France was looking for an excuse to go to war with Germany.  Had that been the case, they could have chosen far more propitious circumstances, like when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland.  Britain and France took their weak stand on Poland because they realized that they would eventually be the target of Hitler if they didn't stop him, and they had frittered away the many opportunities they had had to stop Hitler easily.

Hitler had full plans to attack Britain and France whether they declared war on him or not.  He preferred to lull them into a false peace, so they would be less prepared for his attack.  As it turned out, they could hardly have been less prepared than they were.

Hitler's plans to kill all the Jews were made when his war successes were at their height, and there seemed almost no way for him to lose.

As far as Germany's treatment under Versailles, it was far softer than the treatment that same Germany had meted out to the Soviet Union in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.  I don't claim Versailles was smart policy, but it doesn't justify the horrific and unprovoked atrocities of the Germans.  By the early 1930s, the European powers were ready to free Germany from the onerous provisions of Versailles, and this could have been accomplished peacefully if the Germans had wanted that.  Versailles was an excuse, not a reason.

You have swallowed the Nazi propaganda hook, line and sinker.  It's funny how World War II causes a reversal in the usual conservative/liberal foreign policy positions.  Your arguments are a variation on the "Blame America First" philosophy practiced with such gusto by today's liberals with respect to contemporary situations.

[AuH2O]

I'm not "blaming" anyone, merely stating facts. As it is, FDR is a rather despicable figure, as was pretty much every leader during the war.

Actually, France and Britain could have hit Germany with everything they had in 1939 and possibly experienced some success. France in particular had a fairly strong armored force and a multipronged attack on several fronts would have put Germany on the defensive, at least temporarily. They would have needed a lot of help from the RAF to protect their forces from German air attack.

That they failed to do so was primarily because they thought the defense still held the advantage, whereas the German army had recognized that the offense held the advantage. In terms of equipment, France and Britain were not totally unprepared, though often that is claimed to excuse their pitiful performance.

Regardless, you show an obvious lack of basic strategy (and logic) comprehension. If you aren't ready for war, you don't declare war. Very simple. And it is false to say a Nazi attack was inevitable-- indeed, a number of countries were neutral and left alone by Germany. Hitler had little interest to the West, as he was intellectually influenced in part by 19th century expansionist policies that stressed expansion to the east.

Just to note: there is no document showing Hitler instructing the killing of Jews. This is common knowledge... the traditional explanation is that even Hitler did not want people to know what was happening.

Thus, there is no known "date" where Hitler "planned" to kill all Jews. There is only theory. So to present a date as fact is to blatantly misrepresent the historical record. But don't let the facts interrupt your dream land.

[The Duke]

You declare war when you feel you have to.  Prepared or not, there was little choice after the Nazi invasion of Poland.  Hitler had broken enough deals and promises that no one could trust Hitler after that point.

[J. J.]

That's the whole point. Hitler was very intelligent and very aware of the cost of diverting forces to operate camps. There was no incentive for him to do that so long as he thought he would win, because then he could do whatever he wanted.

It's actually a fairly widespread belief in the historical community that Hitler sensed he would lose early in the war. From the beginning, things didn't really go according to plan, and he knew how small his margin of error was (almost zero).

And the reality is that Jewish casualties were not significant until the Germans were quite plainly losing.... though certainly atrocities were being committed by various forces on all sides.

You have the wrong chronology.  Fairly large genocidic actions occured in the summer of 1941.  These were not isolated incidents but were carried out by the SS.  Not, at that point, there was not an overall plan to eliminate the Jewish population, but there were genocidic actions, especially in the Baltic.  You basically had the SS, rounding up Jews and shooting them en masse by the hundreds and thousands.  Now Hitler would have to believe that, within a month of invading the Soviet Union, he had lost.  At that time, the German Army was racing toward Moscow.

The Wansee Conference, which was the planning for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem," occured on Jan. 20, 1942.  At the time, there was no offensive action against Germany, on the ground, west of Egypt.  In the east, the Soviets had launched a counter attack at Moscow, but it was not massive; the Germans retreated and held a defensive line; that summer, the Nazis took the offensive in the east again.

Hitler would have had to have been psycic to think he was losing until the winter of 1942.

You "facts" don't match the historic record.  Hitler would have had to believe that Germanly had lost within six weeks of invading the Soviet Union.

[AuH2O]

You declare war when you feel you have to.  Prepared or not, there was little choice after the Nazi invasion of Poland.  Hitler had broken enough deals and promises that no one could trust Hitler after that point.

As opposed to Stalin?

You really are dancing around the issue. "Trust" is meaningless. There is no such thing as "little choice" in this case. The French and British didn't have to do ANYTHING in 1939. In fact, their waffling between "appeasement" and then delivering an ultimatum made matters worse.

Hitler never really thought he could take Britain, Operation Sea Lion plans or no, especially after Cyprus and Crete. His main hope was to keep Britain out of the war and, once Britain declared war, to force them out.

In any case, there is no moral justification for Britain and France declaring war on Germany, especially since at the time they had no knowledge (obviously) of future events-- which seems to elude Ford and others. You have to evaluate their decision in the terms facing them.

Germany actually had legitimate grievances against Poland, which decided to be obstinate for two reasons: 1) the British and French promise of protection and 2) the mistaken notion of the defense having the advantage. The idea was to hold the Germans long enough for Britain and France to reinforce them.

So, in fact, Britain and France CAUSED the outbreak of war by making Poland think they could stand up to Hitler. Oops.

[AuH2O]

That's the whole point. Hitler was very intelligent and very aware of the cost of diverting forces to operate camps. There was no incentive for him to do that so long as he thought he would win, because then he could do whatever he wanted.

It's actually a fairly widespread belief in the historical community that Hitler sensed he would lose early in the war. From the beginning, things didn't really go according to plan, and he knew how small his margin of error was (almost zero).

And the reality is that Jewish casualties were not significant until the Germans were quite plainly losing.... though certainly atrocities were being committed by various forces on all sides.

You have the wrong chronology.  Fairly large genocidic actions occured in the summer of 1941.  These were not isolated incidents but were carried out by the SS.  Not, at that point, there was not an overall plan to eliminate the Jewish population, but there were genocidic actions, especially in the Baltic.  You basically had the SS, rounding up Jews and shooting them en masse by the hundreds and thousands.  Now Hitler would have to believe that, within a month of invading the Soviet Union, he had lost.  At that time, the German Army was racing toward Moscow.

The Wansee Conference, which was the planning for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem," occured on Jan. 20, 1942.  At the time, there was no offensive action against Germany, on the ground, west of Egypt.  In the east, the Soviets had launched a counter attack at Moscow, but it was not massive; the Germans retreated and held a defensive line; that summer, the Nazis took the offensive in the east again.

Hitler would have had to have been psycic to think he was losing until the winter of 1942.

You "facts" don't match the historic record.  Hitler would have had to believe that Germanly had lost within six weeks of invading the Soviet Union.

Firstly, your "facts" are inaccurate. There were no large-scale genocidal actions, certainly not in the "hundreds of thousands." I don't think even Jewish historians claim such numbers.

Secondly, Hitler knew the invasion of the USSR was in trouble before it began due to delays that would eventually place the German army at the mercy of the Russian winter.

Thirdly, the Wansee meeting did not establish a record of any order to exterminate Jews. After the war various Nazi officials were told to confess such an order occured, but there was no actual evidence aside from the words "Final Solution" in communique.

So to say Hitler planned to exterminate Jews as quickly as possible when he thought he was winning is plainly false. It's not at all certain he EVER thought he could win a full scale war on two fronts... his hope was to confront the Soviets and leave everyone else on the sidelines.

[J. J.]

That's the whole point. Hitler was very intelligent and very aware of the cost of diverting forces to operate camps. There was no incentive for him to do that so long as he thought he would win, because then he could do whatever he wanted.

It's actually a fairly widespread belief in the historical community that Hitler sensed he would lose early in the war. From the beginning, things didn't really go according to plan, and he knew how small his margin of error was (almost zero).

And the reality is that Jewish casualties were not significant until the Germans were quite plainly losing.... though certainly atrocities were being committed by various forces on all sides.

You have the wrong chronology.  Fairly large genocidic actions occured in the summer of 1941.  These were not isolated incidents but were carried out by the SS.  Not, at that point, there was not an overall plan to eliminate the Jewish population, but there were genocidic actions, especially in the Baltic.  You basically had the SS, rounding up Jews and shooting them en masse by the hundreds and thousands.  Now Hitler would have to believe that, within a month of invading the Soviet Union, he had lost.  At that time, the German Army was racing toward Moscow.

The Wansee Conference, which was the planning for the "Final Solution to the Jewish Problem," occured on Jan. 20, 1942.  At the time, there was no offensive action against Germany, on the ground, west of Egypt.  In the east, the Soviets had launched a counter attack at Moscow, but it was not massive; the Germans retreated and held a defensive line; that summer, the Nazis took the offensive in the east again.

Hitler would have had to have been psycic to think he was losing until the winter of 1942.

You "facts" don't match the historic record.  Hitler would have had to believe that Germanly had lost within six weeks of invading the Soviet Union.

Firstly, your "facts" are inaccurate. There were no large-scale genocidal actions, certainly not in the "hundreds of thousands." I don't think even Jewish historians claim such numbers.

Secondly, Hitler knew the invasion of the USSR was in trouble before it began due to delays that would eventually place the German army at the mercy of the Russian winter.

Thirdly, the Wansee meeting did not establish a record of any order to exterminate Jews. After the war various Nazi officials were told to confess such an order occured, but there was no actual evidence aside from the words "Final Solution" in communique.

So to say Hitler planned to exterminate Jews as quickly as possible when he thought he was winning is plainly false. It's not at all certain he EVER thought he could win a full scale war on two fronts... his hope was to confront the Soviets and leave everyone else on the sidelines.

First, go back and re-read my post, which I've copied; I said "hundred and thousands."  I'm referring to the einsaztgrupppen activities where hundred and thousands were rounded up an shot, beginning in the Summer of 1941.  And my source is the German publication, Anchor Atlas of World History.

Second, where is your evidence that Hitler knew, when the rest of the world didn't, that the invasion of the Soviet Union was doomed from the state.  It was so successful, in it's early stages that the government was evacuated from Moscow.  That's hardly an indication of failure.

Third, here is a quote from the  minutes of the conference:

http://www.prorev.com/wannsee.htm

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Fourth, when the invasion of the USSR began  There wasn't a two from war in Europe.  England was locked behind the Channel; the allied landings in North Africa wouldn't begin for nearly 18 months.  El Alamein didn't occur until October 1942.  The first six months of 1942 gave no indication of an Alied victory.  Certainly 1940-2 were not bad years for Germany.

[??????????]

AuH2O nails it again.

[J. J.]

AuH2O nails it again.

His coffin shut?  :-)

I'm not big on historical revisionists who ignore the facts.

Anybody who looks at the period of June 1940 to December 1942 couldn't seriously make Moldie's claims.

[??????????]

AuH2O nails it again.

His coffin shut?  :-)

I'm not big on historical revisionists who ignore the facts.

Anybody who looks at the period of June 1940 to December 1942 couldn't seriously make Moldie's claims.

Most modern people who "know" WW2 simply blame Germany for all the things that went bad and deny the horrible brutalities that the French & partially the English committed in the Rhine area. German civilians were often robbed by French soldiers of jewelry, money, etc and some were even raped. The treaty of Versailles was one of the worst treaties in world history, especially when Germany was right in WW1 for defending itself from foreign attacks.

[J. J.]

AuH2O nails it again.

His coffin shut?  :-)

I'm not big on historical revisionists who ignore the facts.

Anybody who looks at the period of June 1940 to December 1942 couldn't seriously make Moldie's claims.

Most modern people who "know" WW2 simply blame Germany for all the things that went bad and deny the horrible brutalities that the French & partially the English committed in the Rhine area. German civilians were often robbed by French soldiers of jewelry, money, etc and some were even raped. The treaty of Versailles was one of the worst treaties in world history, especially when Germany was right in WW1 for defending itself from foreign attacks.

I'm not arguing as to the justice of Versailles.  Nor am I suggesting that some of the German claims (especially with regard to the German minorities) were not justifed.  I am suggesting that any reasonable person would not claim that in the first six months of 1942 that the Nazis were losing.


I'll add that the Jews had very little to do with the treaty or the occupation of the Rhineland.

[??????????]

AuH2O nails it again.

His coffin shut?  :-)

I'm not big on historical revisionists who ignore the facts.

Anybody who looks at the period of June 1940 to December 1942 couldn't seriously make Moldie's claims.

Most modern people who "know" WW2 simply blame Germany for all the things that went bad and deny the horrible brutalities that the French & partially the English committed in the Rhine area. German civilians were often robbed by French soldiers of jewelry, money, etc and some were even raped. The treaty of Versailles was one of the worst treaties in world history, especially when Germany was right in WW1 for defending itself from foreign attacks.

I'm not arguing as to the justice of Versailles.  Nor am I suggesting that some of the German claims (especially with regard to the German minorities) were not justifed.  I am suggesting that any reasonable person would not claim that in the first six months of 1942 that the Nazis were losing.

Well I don't know what the mood was in early '42 but Goldie does have a good point that Hitler was very defeatist in nature. He was a terrible tactician and probably knew he was going to lose out in the end.

[J. J.]

Well I don't know what the mood was in early '42 but Goldie does have a good point that Hitler was very defeatist in nature. He was a terrible tactician and probably knew he was going to lose out in the end.

He wasn't a defeatist by nature, and certainly not until late 1942.  Up to that point, he was wildly successful.  He had pushed the English off of Europe, occupied France, and had pushed to the gates of Moscow.  Up to that point, everything was going the Nazis way.

It's a contradiction to claim, at one point, that Hitler was "very intelligent" and was stupid enough to start a war that he knew he couldn't win.

[The Duke]

Hitler was not a defeatist.  He in fact stubornly believed many times against all the available evidence that his forces could win battles where they had no chance.  For this reason, he refused to authorize many retreats that could have preserved some of his forces to fight another day (Stalingrad, for example, where Hitler refused to allow withdrawal and then actually lied to Germans and said the city was in Nazi hands weeks after it had fallen).

[minionofmidas]

Hitler was not a defeatist.  He in fact stubornly believed many times against all the available evidence that his forces could win battles where they had no chance.  For this reason, he refused to authorize many retreats that could have preserved some of his forces to fight another day (Stalingrad, for example, where Hitler refused to allow withdrawal and then actually lied to Germans and said the city was in Nazi hands weeks after it had fallen).

You mean, weeks after it was becoming clear it was not going to fall.
Hitler made a large no. of tactical mistakes...but then who doesn't in the scope of six years. Dunkirk, for one. His grasp of strategy and of the new possibliities due to tanks was obviously a million times better than that of his opponents in 1939...and otherwise, this war would have looked very very different.
You know that, in order to overwhelm Poland in a couple of weeks, Hitler totally bared the Western border, counting on French and British incompetence and defeatism? If they'd attacked, they'd have been in Berlin by christmas.

[J. J.]

If you wish to claim Hitler was a defeatist in 1945, or even late 1944, yes, I could buy that.  1940 to mid 1942, there was no reason for him to think that his string of victories was not going to continue.

The argument that Hitler started the "Final Solution" because he thought he would lose is without merit.

[minionofmidas]

If you wish to claim Hitler was a defeatist in 1945, or even late 1944, yes, I could buy that.  1940 to mid 1942, there was no reason for him to think that his string of victories was not going to continue.

The argument that Hitler started the "Final Solution" because he thought he would lose is without merit.

Yeah, it was more a sort of "anything goes" hubris.

[AuH2O]

Really all you need here is basic logic and historical knowledge.

- Just because you are winning battles does not mean you are winning the war. The Japanese were never "beating" the US despite, post Pearl, having significant tactical and material advantages.

For instance, if you are driving in a race, and you only have enough gas to finish 80% of it, it's not really accurate to say you were "winning" early on, even if your car was first. "Winning" suggests victory as a possible outcome by connotation.

- Actually, it is fairly common for countries to start wars they know they can't win, though less so now than it used to be. Anyone with even a basic education in international relations would know that. Japan in WW2 is an example. Germany could have won depending on who entered the war and when, but by 1941 Hitler knew he was probably out of luck. Hence the focus on militarily-useless Vengeance weapons and anti-Jewish actions.

- Hitler often didn't OK retreats because he didn't think defeated soldiers were worthy of him (or living). In fact, towards the end of war he didn't think Germany was worthy of him, which is why he didn't surrender.

- There was no reason to kill Jews so long as Hitler thought he was going to win. Period. There's just no incentive... uses resources for no real gain.

[J. J.]

Really all you need here is basic logic and historical knowledge.

- Just because you are winning battles does not mean you are winning the war. The Japanese were never "beating" the US despite, post Pearl, having significant tactical and material advantages.

For instance, if you are driving in a race, and you only have enough gas to finish 80% of it, it's not really accurate to say you were "winning" early on, even if your car was first. "Winning" suggests victory as a possible outcome by connotation.

The point is, until late 1942, Hitler had every reason to believe he was winning, Certainly, when the einsatzgruppens were active, July 1941 to mid 1942, there was every reason for Hitler to believe he was winning.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Virtually no country started a war, invaded another country, that it thought it could not defeat.  Even going back to Napoleon, there was always the premise that the aggressor country would win; the goal was not always to destroy the other country.  The idea of a "preventative war" was not known until after World War II.  Anybody with an understanding of history would realize that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hitler (and quite frankly many of his generals) thought that they could win; Hitler, from what I've read, was the one who order the retreat at Kursk.  Hitler wanted the line established so he could divert resources to Italy (Sicily had just been invaded).

There was no reason to kill the Jews, period, from a military viewpoint.  It was ideologically based and took manpower and supplies away from the war effort.  There was no "We're losing so we'll kill the Jews" mentality with Hitler.