Neville Chamberlain’s first guarantee was for Poland’s independence, it was aimed at Russia. Only after the Nazi Soviet pact was the guarantee extended to Polands territory. Being on the far side of an enemy Russia became a friend, mass murder or not. Hitler could never have invaded England with Russia at his back, but invading England was the last thing on his mind
Russia positioned herself to take advantage; the pact with Hitler was clearly aimed at freeing him to strike in the west. Hitlers surprise attack caught the Soviet army sitting too far forward, if he had gone with the plan (instead of stopping for two months at Smolensk) Moscow would have been captured and the remaining north and south soviet forces would have been fighting on reversed fronts while still being pressured from the germans in front of them

Both of these are detailed and documented. Both extremely well written. Even your above quote can be found in his books, as well as all the relevant quotes from Mein Kampf.

Modern revisionism seems to project the idea that it was only legitimate grievances which motivated Hitler; that crazy as he was he had a point. That in some strange manner, he could have been harnassed by the West.

That the Leader had his own agenda, and perceptions of the Western allies is simply ignored. Indeed, he enjoyed and profited by the assumption, that he could be used - As they stood by and watched him create a military stronger then their own.

Dave

Hitler was played off against Stalin, only the US in the 30’s thought Stalin was ignorable.

Same question for Chiang kaiShek on Mao.

The CCP were help against the wralords and the Japanese.

So much for chess……………

“If France had then marched into the Rhineland, we would have had to withdraw with our tails between our legs.” - Hitler

By this I don’t mean he stuck to it point for point - But in general he did indeed write this to attract “intellectuals” of the extreme racist Right.

“Living Space” could only be gained in the East. The inferior Slavs (That’s me, an inferior Slav) were “ripe” for the picking, being led by the “Jew” created Marxists… :)

But first, France had to be smashed.

Why? Because France would always fear a powerful Germany.

England? Try to buy off England, make her an ally, but what the hell, if that failed, so be it.

Since he laid this all down, and since in fact, that is more or less what occured, why this sudden doubt that he meant what he said, since he in fact did what he said he would?

And that’s what’s wrong with all this modern day revisionism. The mystery here is not that Hitler did what he said he would, but that so many refused to take him at his word. France had the power to crush Hitler when he rearmed, when he took over the demilitarised zone, etc, etc. So the question is, why didn’t the French crush him?

And the answer, and here I am voicing my opinion, as oppsed to the above which is objective fact, the French had tied themselves to British policy, and British policy saw Germany as the natural foe of the Russians. They encouraged him, signed military agreements with him, did not in fact wake up until the collapse of Munich.

But yes, I agree, Mein Kampf is Hitlers revenge against people like me who actually try to read the damn thing.

The chapter I linked to is Volume two, chapter two. If you search the net, you can find Mein Kampf all over the place. Just keep doing a word search for “France,” and you’ll by pass some of his ramblings.

There are of course other relevant chapters, dealing with why I am so inferior, and how he planned to deal with us - But the above is about France and England.

Dave

[CR: I would hope that DNI would be high on the list to publish said review.]

“Really? Where in Mein Kampf is the part that says, “invade Poland, have France and England declare war against us, then conquer France?”

Hitler, as well as everyone else on the German RIght, regarded Polands existance as incompatible with Germany. But this is besides the point.

If you read Mein Kampf, Hitlers plans were based on simple, if twisted logic. German aspirations would only be met in the East, that the Sovciet Union was ripe for the picking, and France would act to stop these aspirations. He stated a number of times, that France HAD to be crushed. Simple necessity dictated this.

He also criticised the previous regime for not allying with England. He dimly grasped that England would not ditch France, even for such an alliance, nevertheless, he tried.

And it worked out pretty much as he did plan, short of the alliance with England, and short of underestimating the Soviets.

May I suggest a rereading of Mein Kampf? I admit, no easy task, because the Great Leader was a horrible writer…

However, I am ready to help - Here is the relevant chapter…
http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch13.html

Dave

Keep in mind that Hitler regarded the destruction of France as a Prerequisite for a war against the Russians. His strategic plan, which he meticulously followed, was laid out in detail in Mein Kampf

Really? Where in Mein Kampf is the part that says, “invade Poland, have France and England declare war against us, then conquer France? There’s really very little evidence of this “meticulous plan”—like everyone who has to deal with the real world, Hitler tended to improvise. As I’ve said before, his key miscalculation was the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia (a.k.a. “the Czechoslovak rump state”); by doing this, he broke the Munich Treaty, discredited the British “doves”, and drove the British to giving their guarantee to the Poles.
And as you note, the key British miscalculation was not Munich—it was their failure to make an alliance with Stalin. Had they done so, Hitler would have been checked: if there had been a joint guarantee provided by Britain and the Soviet Union, attacking Poland would have been out of the question.

Their hatred of Stalin was so intense, that during the Finno/Soviet War they almost brought themselves to declare war on Russia, even though they were fighting Germany at the same time (Shirier). Only Churchill was prepared to bite the bullitt and deal with the Russians, and he didn’t take over until a few days before the battle of France. He was extremely critical of the failure to make a deal with the Russians.

Keep in mind that Hitler regarded the destruction of France as a Prerequisite for a war against the Russians. His strategic plan, which he meticulously followed, was laid out in detail in Mein Kampf, and if he didn’t succeed in allying with Britain, it’s not as if he didn’t try. It could not be done, because any such alliance would have to include Britain dumping France as an ally; something the British would not consider at that time.

Besides, a Germany with the resources of a conquered Russia, would have gone on to smash everyone else. That alone makes this revisionism so simplistically Wrong. Hitler and his Mastert Race philosophy would have been satisfied with nothing less than world rule.

Dave

A reappraisal of WWII is welcome, and it is true that in total the net effect of the two wars was to kill the British empire, hasten the end of Western dominance (the slow decline continues to this day). But I hope we aren’t saying that Germany didn’t really want to invade Britain. It did, and I think the end of British power would have been much quicker and uglier had the Germans made it ashore; the Battle of Britain was one reason why the invasion didn’t happen, and in fairness this was more a German failure than a British success. Another reason, in my opinion, was Hitler’s true lack of self-discipline…German armies succeeded in spite of his direction, not because of. Stalin may have been the true target, but if so, then Hitler should have sued for peace with the Brits rather than enraging them and leaving them on his six as he headed east, but Hitler had no patience for even a pretense of negotiating as equals. (Reminds me of American diplomacy today.)

In a much bigger picture critique, I question whether the wars were the deciding factor in the end of the British empire. I have been reading Wealth and Democracy by Kevin Philips, in which he exhaustively studies the arc of economic-military empires (including Spain, Holland, Britain, and the current U.S.) Certainly the wars didn’t help, but history would seem to show that they were only the visible markers of an economic decay that is inevitable in a society where individuals have the freedom of action to control government policy to enrich themselves.