Why did WWII happen ?

Discussion in 'History' started by Brian Foley, May 6, 2004.

  1. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    That is my opinion , occupying Britain and Ireland was not necessary as Britain had been pushed from the continent . The material losses Britain suffered in the Battle for France made any British attempt at intervening on the continent militarily impossible As Anthony Eden the British Foreign Secretary said in an interview on the BBC documentary series World At War , in relation to the state of British armaments “ The cupboard was bare ” .
    No doubt agreed , the Germans even designed and constructed concrete amphibious barges for the Operation . Complete plans were drawn up for the landing of Airborne troops and Amphibious landings .
    The real Battle for Britain was on the Atlantic Ocean , that is where Germany kept Britain in check . As for the Air campaign Adolf Galland said in an interview also seen in the BBC “World At War ” series , that after the Air battles in Aug and Sept of the Battle Of Britain had finished in Sept 1940 he staed very clearly that “ I was given my orders for the Russian campaign , I knew then that this war with Britain was a mask for the invasion of Russia ” .
    I believe these German preparations were really an intelligence ruse to convince the Russians that Germany’s intentions were fixiated on an invasion of the British Isles .
    Precisely and that is the whole point of my thread , that the German principal was an invasion of Russia simply to colonize Russia as an economic asset .
    No peace proposals were offered by Hitler , peace was mentioned by Hitler , but no offer of peace , not even a truce , neither offer of talks .
    If the Germans had of invaded on the heels of Dunkirque there was not much in the way Britain could of done to prevent an invasion . Even after 1941 when the Germans could no longer invade due to a British recovery , Britain still could not intervene on the continent . Even 1942 with the Dieppe raid was proof to the Americans that such a landing on the continent would be some 2 years away . What does you book say the reason for the Germans not carrying through with Operation Sealion ?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    What key issues , this would be interesting , seeing I have covered all points ?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. glenn239 Registered Senior Member


    I’ll hazard a guess on his behalf:

    1) Your interpretation deriding the importance of the Molotov mission in 1940 need some work. What you’re looking for is anything to throw on the scales to downplay he importance of these discussions and the draft treaty offered by Hitler. Preferably, direct quotes from Hitler himself, if they exist. As it stands now, the thesis is too harsh, too rigid on the point. If handy primary material isn’t available, then a “softening” in the thesis might work – something along the lines that Hitler always intended to attack Russia, but Ribbentrop influenced him temporarily in 1940.

    2) You need to develop a far more comprehensive body of evidence for German military planning in the 1930’s. My impression was that what you’d actually gathered to support your thesis were only a handful of quotes. Get more, way more – military studies, directives. You need pages and pages of references.

    3) Be careful when interpreting documents. Much of what you’ve used as evidence is not as definitive as you need it to be. Always account for the fact that two people can read the same quote, and unless it’s pretty airtight in meaning, they might not agree on the significance of it. Don’t try to “shoehorn” a meaning out of a quote when it may appear out of context to some viewers – this can backfire and make the thesis appear weak. For instance, you provided a couple of quotes on Poland in Hitler’s scheme of things in 1939, that I read and thought, “so what?”.

    4) Be flexible in your overall thesis. Don’t fall in love with it; treat it like a statue made of clay – always being reshaped and changed as your understanding of the issues deepen.

    5) Your thesis needs to be re-vamped with regard to the war in Russia (and Germany’s errors which cost her victory in that war), and its interpretation of Great Britain’s strategic prospects in 1940/41.

    6) (And most importantly): Spell check your posts! Many readers might have insufficient understanding to decide who’s right and who’s wrong on an issue. But if one guy is constantly making grammatical errors and the other is not, people do notice.

    Overall, I think you’ve got the passion to develop a good interpretation of the Second World War, IF you can overcome what I interpret to be a certain level of hubris. Understanding in depth is a humbling and sobering proposition. Expect to take not less than 5 years, and expect to change your attitudes on an almost daily basis.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    I didn't take notes while reading, I'm afraid.
    And, the only one that comes to mind clearly (without a re-readthrough which I'm not really into at the moment) is that you have constantly failed to accept that there were no war plans with Russia before 1940.

    The Germans are meticulous planners.
    If the plan was to go after Russia, then there would be tons of documents about it. There would be intelligence reports. There would be strategies. There would be this, that, and the other thing.

    Instead, you find nothing.
    Until 1940 (or whenever it was.)

    This says a lot about the possibility that Hitler never really planned to go after Russia. That it was, in fact, a smoke screen.

    Every time the point is brought up, you keep bringing up Poland. That Poland was needed as a springboard. And. This is true. But, that doesn't mean that the plans shouldn't exist. They should. But they don't.

    Also, another point is that Hitler, even in your quotes, is shown to be an impulsive sort at times. This doesn't mean that those plans I was just talking about wouldn't exist. Because they would. If he'd decided to attack Russia that early then the plans would be in the works even back then. But, Hitler is impulsive.

    In fact, the change of plans for the attack on the Ardennes is proof of this. Manstein, whose idea it was, had tried pushing the idea to Hitler but was transferred by Halder to get him away from Hitler's ear. (This jostling among his underlings was another thing about Hitler. He actively encouraged this so as to keep them concentrated on each other rather than ganging up to take him out...) But, Manstein managed to get Hitler's ear at a party and talked him into it.

    Hitler decided impulsively to attack through the Ardennes. The plans were made impulsively.

    This is both a strength and a weakness in Hitler's character. He's flexible, but also subject to impulsive mistakes. He was lucky in the early years of the war. Unlucky later. I think I was in the beginning of this thread making these points months ago...

    That's another point.
    About France.
    It was a fluke.
    There was no way that Hitler could have conceived the notion that France would fall so easily. No way that the quick fall could have played any significant part of his plans (other than possibly admitting the possibility for a contingency.)

    The way I see it is that he overestimated the west and underestimated Russia.

    And. Of course, we can blame Mussolini for the failure of that first assault on Moscow. Making Hitler delay his invasion for a month by cleaning up his mess. But, the failures of the next season were all Hitler's.

    I can't say for sure that the war was over after that first season. I can say that Russia was able to recuperate greatly during the winter and the fight would be much more difficult. But, there was not a possibility of winning with Hitler's strategy for the next year. Too many targets.

    Hitler should have concentrated on one or two key areas. Rather than foolishly thinking he could easily take everything he wanted with a wave of his hand.

    His egomania was beginning to get the better of him.
    (Yes. This last point on the turning point of the war is kinda in the middle. Giving victory to neither Brian nor Glenn. Whatever. Sue me.)

    There were other points as well. But they don't come to me as these did.
  8. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Right, we note that it was your opinion. Do you have any directives/ paperwork to back up this opinion? You admit that the Germans did start a build up to invade the UK, yet suggest that the tremendous use of material was just a ruse? Bear in mind that Galland was rationalising after the fact, you note he didnt say he recieved a piece of paper saying that it was a ruse.

    Yup, I generally agree there.

    Indeed, and it looks like it was because he expected the UK to capitulate, sue for mercy.

    Indeed, if the Germans had invaded on the heels of Dunkirk the Uk would have been in trouble. except that they couldnt. One of the reasons Dunkirk was so successful was that one of the German generals stopped to regroup and re-arm and re-supply his troops, thus giving the Uk time to get more men off. Also the Germans had run far enough ahead of themselves to need to regroup, as well as mop up resistance in France, take strategic ports etc etc.
    I dont understand why you are so obsessed with Britain intervening on the continent.
    As for them not carrying through with Operation Sealion, I need to finish the last couple of chapters. Failing to win air superiority was a factor. Stukas are easy prey to Hurricanes and spitfires.
  9. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    You yourself introduced this angle , I gave 2 Documented links , you chose not to accept them . These links clearly state what importance they had , and clearly say they were time buying exercises . Again and again no matter how much weight of historical evidence was put forward you stuck with your ridiculous assertion .
    On request from you , you asked me to provide a single Nazi archive military document/directive which mentioned Russia from the 1930’s . I did , in fact the site from which I got it from had other military documents/directives relating to military action against Russia . Those documents are there for you to see go back to the link . You upped the ante by requesting documents that clearly outlined my theory of military action against Russia . And here again you are furthering the ante by saying “You need pages and pages of references.” You keep raising the hurdle , and yet you yourself have offered nothing in the form of Archived Nazi documents which reinforces your argument .
    The documents I gave clearly knocked each and every argument you put forward . I gave several links which clearly stated that Moscow was not a turning point , you could not provide me one link which said Moscow was a turning point . I provided 3 links concerning the Nazi-Soviet discussions all 3 said these talks were a charade of buying time you gave me no credible links in reply to reinforce your argument . As for Poland those 2 quotes came from Nazi documents they were introduced by me to demonstrate that Poland was simply a springboard to launch an invasion from . You chose to ignore them and brushed them off .
    This is rich coming someone , who chose himself , to enter into this debate with me , and from the pages of debate that we have covered has simply failed to bring forward one source that actually gives any of your points validity . All you have offered in the form of debate is hand typed passages from books and diaries I have yet to see one credible historical archive document from you . I have given well over 20 valid sources and that’s excluding several archive Nazi documents in my debate with you .
    Neither points you could successfully defend , your ignorance on the Battle of Kursk clearly demonstrated to me your naivety on the Russian campaign . You made a startling claim that Britain was not finished but a potent enemy and all you offered were armaments production figures . That fact that Lend Lease had made this possible escaped your notice , the fact lend lease in effect bankrupted Britain and made Britain indebted to America was not considered in fact you ignored it .
    Here is a bit of advice , when you enter into a debate and when you put points across , have sources to back them up , not some typed out passage from a book . Don’t keep hanging on one point like Moscow and the Nazi Soviet Pact , the longer the time you spend on these points you only open yourself up to show how little you actually know about WWll .
    In short my last answer to your post was the king hit , you couldn’t answer it , could you , other than a curt 1 sentence . You copped out simple as that , I took my time with that answer . I showed from that site which is a complete reproduction of the book concerning the Nazi conspiracy to wage war . All points were verified by Nazi documents , Secret rearmament , charade treaties , Economic preparations for war . More importantly it showed very clearly the meticulous planning on a military level , an intelligence level and the economic exploitation of Russia . All documented , all sourced material clearly debunking your stupid theory that such a massive undertaking as the invasion of Russia was done on the fly . You , glenn , have run out of options in this debate .
  10. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    You simply cannot accept my plausible theory that this war was fought solely over Germany wishing to turn Russia into an economic colony . Ok , lets see what qualifies you to make a judgement on who has won this debate , its Put up or Shut Up time.
    Ok lets start here with my last answer to glenn , which he has chickened out of , you take up the mantle of this debate , answer these points , which are all documented .

    As I said a ways back that the Germans had been methodically planning this war from 1933 it was progressive as each phase was completed .
    And here .
    Could I see evidence of a Anglo/Russian alliance ?
    Now as for the Russian invasion being poorly planned , you had best read the passages I have given below , they are documented from Nazi archives . The invasion and exploitation of Russia was extensively planned and conceived .
    Plans for the Economic Exploitation and Spoilation of the USSR
    Not only was there detailed preparation for the invasion from a purely military standpoint, but equally elaborate and detailed planning was undertaken by the Nazi conspirators to insure that their aggression would prove economically profitable. The motives which led the conspirators to plan and launch attack were both political and economic. The economic basis may be simply summarized as the greed of the Nazi conspirators for the raw material, food, and other supplies which their neighbor possessed and which they conceived of themselves as needing for the maintenance of their war machine. To the Nazi conspirators a need was translated as a right, and they early began planning
  11. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Outline clearly what directives/ paperwork and in what relation to Sealion you want clarified or endorsed and I will search .
    That’s the only logical end I can arrive at , I did not say there was a tremendous amount of material was amassed . From what I have read on the invasion preparations some concrete amphibious barges were constructed and various other military applications were placed into French habours . Other than that , most of Sealion were German military estimates from the German OKW , on the obstacles and objectives faced in such an invasion . Invading Britain and occupying the British Isles were really of no value , if Germany was going to invade Russia , which plans for Barbarossa were by this time in development since June 1940 , such an undertaking as invading Britain would have been a mass exercise in wasting time .
    Of course it was hindsight on his behalf , but Galland did say when was handed his orders for Barbarossa he knew the Battle of Britain was just a mask . The fact was that in order for Germany to legitimise to the Soviets , German troop build up along Russias Romanian border there had to be a credible excuse . Germany’s excuse when Russia questiuoned why Germany felt it necessary to flood Romania with 680,000 troops the answer from Germany was to forestall any British attempts in the Balkans .

    “ Originally Posted by Brian FoleyI believe these German preparations were really an intelligence ruse to convince the Russians that Germany’s intentions were fixiated on an invasion of the British Isles . Precisely and that is the whole point of my thread , that the German principal was an invasion of Russia simply to colonize Russia as an economic asset . ”

    So we have a line of agreement Guthrie lets see where we can go with it .

    Or maybe Hitler’s remarks of peace were vague to deliberately put the British off any idea of any paece with Germany .
    Or why would the Germans want to invade Britain ? The fact is Germany only occupied half of France because that was all that was necessary for Germany’s defence . Occupying the rest of France made no sense , only until later in the war did this happen , but then that was because it was vital to forstall any Anglo/American landings .
    I don’t believe it was a success , the loss of material was immense , Dunkirque was a disaster . My Father was born in Kent and well remembers watching the Dunkirque evacuation in progress , they came across with nothing they were totally demoralized . The losses Britain suffered had to be replenished , enter the US bloodsucking lend lease policy which the people of Britain only paid back in 1990 .
    I don’t see it , if you read Rommels Diary/Biography and Guderians Biography much is made of the fact that they could of taken Dunkirque as they were racing through France . Those 2 say it was a missed opportunity that Hitler ordered no entry into Dunkirque . I say Hitler allowed the British to escape , knowing full weel the capture of 330,000 British troops would of made Britain sue for peace .
    That is what Britain was doing all along Guthrie Britain intervened in Norway which brought the German invasion , and Britain tried to form a foothold by getting into Greece when Italy invaded and again in 1942 Dieppe raid . No obsession just a fact of the timeline of British tactics employed against Germany .
  12. glenn239 Registered Senior Member


    Certainly so. One of the key, distinguishing features about Russia during this period was the fact that the logistical requirements for war in that theatre were off the scale in relation to Western Europe. This, and the size of the country meant an invader had to plan things a bit better they would elsewhere.

    Well put. Maybe another giveaway that the events of 1940 came as a bit of a shock to Germany was the invasion of Norway. By doing so, the Germans basically took their navy out of the equation for the rest of the year. Then, unexpectedly, France fell and the Germans were sitting on the coast looking across at Dover saying to themselves, "Was Nun?"

    The only possibility I've ever seen mentioned of a decisive German victory in 1942 was where they were to go after Moscow instead of pushing in the south. But the problem with any offensive strategy was that they had no reserves, while the Russians had built up massive forces (placed in the north to prevent a Moscow operation). This was the crux, really. That Hitler didn't have anything left in the piggy bank when Zhukov came calling in December 1941; everything he scraped up in the next 6 months was used just to replace wastage from the 1st season.

    Failure to establish air superiority. The German navy was far too weak (having been badly put about after Norway), much of the assembled transport were too slow to used safely in the channel, and Hitler feared the repercussions of a sharp defeat. Sealion could have gotten really ugly, really fast.

    This is another excellent point which deserves highlighting; the value of the internet vs. actually getting in a car and going to the university (or even better, to an archive). The former is getting better and better all the time, but, IMO, it doesn't yet have the depth of a well-stocked bookshelf. Before becoming an expert, it would probably be necessary to absorb somewhere in the order of 25-50+ works (I'm guessing) on the subject. The internet is spotty - what's there is what someone has chosen to put there. A good library, on the other hand, tends to have a greater depth to it (no two books are ever quite alike, and each presents its own subtle tapestry). Internet is quick and lazy, hardcopies are more work, but a more incisive coverage is available. Best of all is to mix the two - using each to optimal advantage.

    Your spelling is improving!

    One sidebar to the story of Kursk; there's a revisionist movement afoot these past years to the effect that Uncle Joe's version of the battle isn't what happened - that the Germans did better than previously admitted. For instance, it's alleged that the counterattack by the 5th Guards Tank Army was chopped to pieces.

    This also brings up a good point to the purpose of all of this. It's not try to get in the last word, it's to conduct an exercise by which everyone benefits - participants as well as onlookers. A good internet debate is just damn interesting.
  13. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Its not about getting the last word in glenn , you simply have come to a dead end with your line of debate , you could not back up your argument with credible sources against my theory .
    Thats how you walked out of it glenn , those last phases I gave you were all fresh material , all properly documented . That is , afterall , what you asked for glenn from me , I provided , and in my view , I stand that much more stronger in my theory . If you do decide to rejoin the debate glenn I expect proper source material from you . And we will see if invert_nexus who on this forum has a hard on for me can back his bullshit up , me i say he is chicken .
  14. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    The fuck?
    A hard on for you?
    You're delusional, guy.
    I've hardly interacted with you. It's true, that the times that I have I'm usually on opposite sides from you, but that's a far cry from 'having a hard on for you'.

    Who'd ever have thought that you'd be the type of person who'd have these delusions of persecution?
    Not me...
    Oh. Wait. Yeah. Doesn't surprise me a bit actually.

    So. I have to back up my 'bullshit'?
    What bullshit might that be?
    I merely stated that I feel that Glenn makes more convincing arguments in this thread especially seeing as how you've failed to respond properly to his comments on there not being any war plans with Russia prior to 1940.

    You might be interested to know that I had never considered that angle before. I'd always thought war with Russia to be a foregone conclusion, that the nonaggression pact was only meant to buy time for Hitler. I vaguely recall bumping heads with you on this issue way back when. Something about how I was saying that Stalin intended to keep the pact while Hitler didn't. How Stalin retreated to his country estate when he was finally convinced that a German offensive was underway. After days of refusing to believe and refusing to act. And how he actually expected to be removed from power because of his failures.

    Anyway. That's neither here nor there. Just saying that Glenn has introduced me to a new possibility in Hitler's motivations and I feel he explained himself well.

    I think you've brought interesting material to the debate as well, Brian. I even said so. No need for you to get so defensive or to accuse me of whatever.

    Ok. So I perused those links you posted.
    So what?
    The first page about phases was simply a way of categorizing the German aggression after the fact. It has nothing to do with German planning.

    And the other pages keep repeating several key phrases:

    "The Naval War Diary for 30 January 1941..."

    "This document indicates the detailed thinking and planning which was being carried out to implement Barbarossa almost six months before the operation actually got underway."

    "The entry for 19 February 1941 is typical:"

    "As early as August 1940..."


    Nothing on any of these pages indicates that any planning for an offensive against Russia was planned any earlier than 1940.

    This doesn't necessarily mean that Hitler didn't really mean it and didn't intend it for a smokescreen, but it does, to me, say a lot.

    Germans plan everything. Compulsively.
    When the Germans were conquered, the Allies found documents, documents, documents.
    But, apparently none indicating any concrete war plans for Russia prior to 1940.

    Let's see the size of your hard on.
    You a two fister?


    True. And then figure in that many of the holes were filled with Italian soldiers who were... not very brave or motivated (by all reports.)

    I just can't help but grin every time that I think about how Hitler was so... almost sycophantic with Mussolini, but Mussolini did nothing for the war effort. In fact, the odds are that Hitler would have had far more success if it wasn't for Mussolini's failures.

    If Mussolini hadn't needed the Germans to clean up his mess that spring of 1941, Moscow would have fallen. The world would be a very different place. Very different.

    All thanks to one egomaniacal fat man. A man who liked to talk but didn't really like to do.

    Say what you want about Hitler, but he walked the walk. Mussolini was a poser.

    I just gotta say.
    Picking on spelling isn't really... kosher.
    Perhaps you're not used to a forum environment, but typos happen. You don't really pick on him much in this regards, but you do bring it up a few times.
    Poor spelling is not an argument.
    Nobody cares about such things.
    Well. Within reason.
    (Grammar, too.)
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2005
  15. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member


    I've been going back over this thread (I didn't read several of the pages in the middle until now) and I came across this:
    "Of course there was a master plan the invasion of France ( case Yellow ) had been in the planning since 1937 . Nations just dont decide overnight to invade other nations on a whim."
    -[post=814758]Brian Foley[/post]​

    Yes, Brian.
    Nations just don't decide overnight to invade other nations on a whim (although, apparently Hitler did... But that's another topic.)
    So. If Case Yellow was in the works so many years in advance.... then why no plans for Russia until 1940?
  16. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    Good now that I have your attention , seeing you think glenn won this debate you can answer my last post to glenn , which he is avoiding like hell . Please answer , I am only curious to see what answer you come up with . You afterall stated this :
    And here was my reply .

    As I said a ways back that the Germans had been methodically planning this war from 1933 it was progressive as each phase was completed .
    And here .
    Now as for the Russian invasion being poorly planned , you had best read the passages I have given below , they are documented from Nazi archives . The invasion and exploitation of Russia was extensively planned and conceived .
    Plans for the Economic Exploitation and Spoilation of the USSR
    Not only was there detailed preparation for the invasion from a purely military standpoint, but equally elaborate and detailed planning was undertaken by the Nazi conspirators to insure that their aggression would prove economically profitable. The motives which led the conspirators to plan and launch attack were both political and economic. The economic basis may be simply summarized as the greed of the Nazi conspirators for the raw material, food, and other supplies which their neighbor possessed and which they conceived of themselves as needing for the maintenance of their war machine. To the Nazi conspirators a need was translated as a right, and they early began planning
  17. Hapsburg Hellenistic polytheist Valued Senior Member

    Why did WW2 happen?
    An angry Austrian boy got pissed off because he didn't get accepted into the school he wanted to go to, then took his amped-up frustration on the jews, blacks, gypsies, and pretty much everything else, in a format known as "war".
    There, in a nutshell, is "Why ww2 happened".
  18. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member


    You keep repeating yourself.
    I've already responded to your post.
    No mention of any plans. No concrete plans. No documents. No intelligence reports. Nothing. Is made in any of those links you gave.
    The thing about phases is a categorization applied to the German aggression after the fact. It was not referred to as Phase I, Phase II, etc... to the Germans during the times they were taking place. It was a way of referring to them after the war was over.

    And the other links constantly mention 1940 being the first time that concrete plans for a war against Russia being formulated.

    I've also gone back over the thread, by the way, and you constantly miss the point. Just like you just did with me.

    I've clearly stated that I find it highly suspicious that no battle plans, no analyses, no studies, no nothing exists prior to 1940 about an attack on Russia. Nothing except for pipe dreams and fantasy.

    Germans are meticulous planners. If Russia had been the target all along, then the plans would have been in the works years prior to the attack. Certainly before the attack on Poland.

    You, yourself, even state that Case Yellow had been planned since 1937 and made comments about how they wouldn't just attack willy-nilly. But, if the plans for Barbarossa were thrown together over just a few months time... then that is exactly what they did. With their main target.

    This is the issue here.

    As I've said, I've never heard this theory about the enmity with Russia being just a smokescreen, but it makes absolute sense considering the documentation.

    Plus, consider the Z plan that you keep discounting. You seem to think that because it was cancelled that this indicates that Hitler never planned on building a navy at all and that this proves that it was Russia under the crosshairs the whole time.

    The point on this is that the plan was made. Yes. It was scrapped later, but when made it was fully intended to be carried out. The war was intended to be fought later. Hitler thought he'd get away with Poland just like he got away with the rest. Getting called on attacking Poland came as a surprise to him. And because of it he had to scrap his plans for building a navy...

    There were other things back there too that you never got the point with. But... there were too many and they were explained too clearly. I don't see how I could explain them any better than Glenn did at the time and none of them phased you a bit then so they won't now either.

    So. Suffice it to say that this post you've reposted three or four times now does not address the issue of plans for an assault on Russia being made prior to 1940.
  19. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    Brian, at some point the debate has to end. It’s your thread, so you get the courtesy of the last post as far as I’m concerned. As far as your final response, I didn’t see anything new, or fresh, or for that matter - anything that really addressed my just prior posting (only a repetition of previous arguments). Don’t get me wrong, these have a great deal of weight in the overall scheme of this debate, but we were long past where these points required anything further in the way of basic expression.

    Anyone following might have noticed that you are very selective in what you chose to believe or disbelieve from Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. You quoted that book on a number of occasions as gospel to your thesis, but as soon as Shirer’s “gospel” (his interpretation of the importance of the Molotov visit) was at counterpoint to your beliefs, Rise and Fall of the Third Reich became an “unaccredited” source. This brings up an odd dilemma; how is it that Rise is “credible” in certain passages (the ones you like), and is unworthy on other pages, where the message he brings annoys you? This implies that you, and only you, are to be the only judge of what is admissible or inadmissible in the entire body of work on the subject. To suggest that Anthony Beevor isn’t a “credible” source of opinion on the Nazi-Soviet war is, to put it mildly, remarkably uninformed.

    In general: the Internet remains a secondary source of information in historical debates. Find good stuff on it, but for citations and root sources you must hit the books. Why? Because there’s no criteria for authorship on the Internet – you can post on a website anything you want. But to get published, the author has to have some serious credentials in his back pocket – the screening process is better.

    I’ve wondered before whether the Germans could have used the Italians (lots of them) in the logistical part of the army (and guarding communications), and thereby freed up a goodly 500,000 Germans troops for combat formations.

    Avoiding typos is crucial to the purpose of projecting an argument to a wider audience. Brian’s posts have improved remarkably in this regard, and I hope he keeps it up in the future. If chiding him on the matter has resulted in him making a better presentation, then it’s well worth it. Never forget that there is a segment of the audience that instantly dismisses the opinions of those that don’t spell properly. The argument runs as follows: if someone is too lazy to even spell-check their work, then they were almost certainly too lazy when developing their opinions. Ergo, their work is dismissed. It’s an easily avoided error on the part of the presenter, and it is a basic prerequisite in influencing a wider audience.

    For the record, I wouldn’t bet a plug nickel, on any theory of what Hitler intended. His ability to shift, like an oral chameleon, his presentation leaves me cold as to taking a final leap of faith and saying, “this is what Hitler was all about”. There’s almost a Hiesenburg Uncertainty Principal at work.
  20. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    If you went to the link , it is a complete book with the source index bibliography at the end of each chapter . The sources are from Nazi archives and books .
    Precisely , and within that book clearly demonstrates from the inception of the arms build-up , the economy , the military neighbouring countries right through to the ultimate goal the invasion of Russia . I have clearly explained that the attack on Russia was the goal and it was a methodical build up . Germany did not border Russia and you can only devise military invasion plans when Germany would be in a position to strike .
    France bordered Germany , Russia did not , the Plans for Barbarossa were not thrown over in just a few months . Once Germany was in a situation geographically to strike Russia you had 12 months of intense German planning .
    The Z-Plan was initiated in Jan 1939 and would not of been completed until 1947 ! It was cancelled with the outbreak of war 10 months later it was superfluous by that time that is obvious . Afterall the cancellation was just common-sense .
    What ever glenn intiated into this debate from the Battle Of Moscow , the Nazi Soviet Pact to the Nazi Germany planners doing everything haphazard on the fly , Glenn could not substantiate it . It is as simple as that invert , what ever I was asked of by glenn , I could not only give my opinion but also back it with sources . The fact is what people have a hard time coping with is this war was simply prosecuted over the attainment of lucrative markets . I have been arguing long before glenn arrived , go back to the beginning and see how many have cut and run .
  21. Brian Foley REFUSE - RESIST Valued Senior Member

    It was entirely fresh , you only cut with the Moscow question , the rest of the post was all fresh material in relation to your argument this war was prosecuted on the fly For the Russian invasion being poorly planned . The invasion and exploitation of Russia was extensively planned and conceived and that is within that book which is where you decided to cut and run .
    Absolutely not , you asked for sources I gave you a sources because you had that book Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, what you selected from that book in no way came to a conclusion . For example when you gave me a quote from the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich about the nazi-soviet proposals I show you another quote from the same book which said it was time buying , you ignore it .

    You ask for Hitlers design on Russia I give you Mein Kampf’s lebensraum obsession with Russia , you rubbish it and claim Hitlers secret unpublished book was the more authorative source , and that this book gave Hitlers true intentions which did not include Russia . I find Hitlers secret unpublished book in its entirety on the net and provide an entire chapter entitled Germany and Russia , outlining Hitlers aims against that nation in more depth than the crude Mein Kampf . And what do you do ignore it and pick up on another point the Battle of Moscow . Your argument was one of , Brian has no idea what he is talking about , and regardless of what he proof he puts before me , even though it rubbish’s my claims and arguments , it makes no difference because Im right , as his slant on history is skewered , so I will just ignore it .
    Bullshit , there is nothing wrong with the internet , I gave you as sources completely all electronic books which were previously in paperback publish . That final post of mine its source was an entire book , about the Nazi conspiracy to wage war from its inception to its ultimate goal the economic colonization of Russia . That book includes a comprehensive source index bibliography at the end of each chapter as YOU asked for ! That book source clearly contradicts your un-founded claims that Germany prosecuted this war on haphazard intelligence , half assed military planning , ill equipped armies , insufficient militarisation of the German economy and no plans of exploitation of Russia . And below is the post which clearly demonstrates the meticulous Nazi planning for launching WWII .
    And here .
    Your debate has foundered in mud glenn .
  22. glenn239 Registered Senior Member

    There was nothing new in your response to my final posting:

    You repeated your assertion that Kursk was the decisive turning point (about the 10th time you'd done so). You did not refute, in any way, the veracity of the quote I'd just produced from Anthony Beevor indicating that a turning point I've repeatedly described did indeed occur in December 1941. That another author might believe something different - who cares? MY author, a leading expert on the subject, says a turning point occurred in December 1941.

    Next, you state that Germany, "knew" that no possibility existed of an Anglo-American-Russian alliance against Germany in the future. Since you've been quoted Hitler's own writings and statements on the subject from 1940 and 1941 (which contradict you), I take it to mean that you are determined to adhere to a belief that is in opposition to a large body of evidence. Fine, but further discussion becomes pointless.

    Next, you describe a theory on Stalin's motives in the pre-war period.

    Then, you restated that Britain was "finished" and existed "solely" on American credit - assertions so clearly in error as to also warrant no further discussion of the matter.

    Next, you claimed that there are German documents showing, and I quote, "Russia and military defense/action against Russia". Great! Then publish the invasion studies - Case Red, (or Case Commie, or whatever) from 1935 and win the debate!

    Next, you claimed that Germany needed to occupy Poland before invading Russia. This, despite the clearly the worded challenge in the previous post - you know as well as everyone else that Germany didn't need Poland to study the invasion of Russia. I don't care about Poland - produce the studies of the invasion of Russia from the 1930's or concede the point.

    Then you repeated a group of links/citations you've posted at least 10 times so far, to the effect that Germany planned an aggressive war. Informative the first time, never since. Nothing in this information met my basic challenge for the requested pre-war military studies against Russia.

    Then, you asked for "evidence" of an Anglo-Russian alliance. Which was wonderful, but had nothing at all to do with Hitler's perceptions of that possibility.

    Finally, you repeated your assertion that the invasion of Russia wasn't poorly planned - also a heavily repeated argument.

    As I stated - all old stuff.

    No. It was made crystal clear from the very beginning that the general outline of what you presented is a leading theory on Hitler's motive. It was also made painstakingly clear that this wasn't the ONLY presentation made by heavy-weight historians that fit the facts. The debate isn't whether there's evidence that Hitler invaded Russia for living space. The debate is about whether the evidence is conclusive that this was the case. You continue to violently resist the any point which suggests alternative motives. Literally, all I want is for you to state that there is a chance that you're interpretation may be wrong, because the evidence doesn't allow for certainty.
  23. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    I did. I didn't read the whole 'book' but I did read the whole page you linked me to and as I said, it mentions no plans made prior to 1940 for an invasion of Russia.

    You continually fail to see the importance of this. Despite the fact that you've actually made a statement regarding Case Yellow where they'd been planning it for years and that it would be foolish to not plan such an operation in such a way.

    But. You fail to realize that the missing plans for the attack of Russia are highly... suspicious.

    For the last time. If Russia had been the intended target of an eventual attack by Germany then the plans would have been in the works for all the time that it had been an intended target.

    You keep showing these pages that show mid 1940 as the first time that plans were made for the attack.

    Glenn and I don't disagree with you on this.

    It's our point.

    And. Then you just go on repeating posts over and over again as if nobody read them...
    How annoying.
    Glenn has the patience of a saint to have dealt with you as long and as peacefully as he has. I'm starting to wonder if he isn't the reincarnation of Chamberlain himself... Muaha! Kidding.

    Anyway. You reposted again all that shit about Phase I and Phase II and blah blah blah.
    Again. I repeat. These labels mean nothing. They were created after the war by the Allies for the purpose of evaluating and prosecuting war crimes.

    They mean nothing to the discussion at hand.

    You can divide the various aspects of the Nazi era in any way you like and you'd be doing the same thing as has been done with these 'phases'. It means nothing.

    Yes. But what does it show? It shows that a huge expenditure of time, money, and energy was to be placed into a several year effort to build up the German navy. Shirer uses the Z-plan to show that the original plan for war was to begin after the Navy had been built up. It was cancelled only after Hitler erred by attacking Poland. By sparking a war that he didn't intend to start.

    That's the point.
    The Z-plan shows that the real war plan was to take place years later than it actually happened. This would have had many effects and who knows the outcome if such had come to pass? Germany would have been better armed, but so would all the other participants.

    I suspect that the situation would have been far more of a quagmire if such had come to pass. A repeat of WWI.

    I also think the old school officers of the German Army probably would have maintained more power and Hitler's personal power would have been lessened. This would result in a more conservative style war rather than Hitler's impulsiveness.

Share This Page