I think that if you look at German foreign policy before and during the war, it’s not clear to me that they had a coherent foreign policy. They had general revanchist tendencies and a desire for eastern conquest, but it looks to me that a lot of German foreign policy was accidental and pretty much consisted of “Sponsor a German nationalist movement in the neighboring and then put pressure on the country until it gives up land.” It’s what it did in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and Lithuania, and what they tried to do in Italy and Poland, until the Italians and Poles showed they wouldn’t be bullied.
But look at Germany’s foreign policy shifts during the war. They’re pro-Nationalist Chinese, then they’re pro-Japanese. They’re antagonistic to Italy, then they ally with Italy. They’re hostile to the Soviet Union, then they ally with the Soviet Union, then they invade the Soviet Union.
I remember reading somewhere an anecdote about the last days of the war - the Nazi foreign office was packing up its papers to dispose of secrets before the Russian advance, when they came across a box containing all of the treaties the Nazis had signed during their rule - allegedly, the functionaries had a laugh (no doubt all too rare at that time) when they realized that the Nazi state had violated each and every one of those treaties, without exception!
I think you’re overrating them. The German war effort was not particularly well-run. You often had managers with overlapping responsibilities fighting for influence, parallel projects with none getting the resources needed to be completed, and a general lack of focus. It’s a telling fact the Germans never even took a step as simple and obvious as going on round-the-clock shifts. Even late in the war, factories building tanks and aircraft were shutting down each day at five o’clock.
Call me cynical, but I find it odd that you bring up this bullshit here after the thread you were using in a pathetic attempt to deny that the holocaust occurred was finally closed. First, the idea is patently absurd. Why would Hitler be interested in any sort of peace with the west that the west would find acceptable in order to pursue war in the east with the USSR? Britain would not be interested in a peace leaving Germany dominant and occupying the majority of Europe. Germany wasn’t going to be interested in ending the occupation of France, re-opening the door to having to fight a two-front war on land again. Much more importantly, if Hitler wanted to open negotiations with the British with this as the basis, why in the name of god wouldn’t he just do so through normal, traditional channels but instead choose to send Hess to fly alone in a Me-110, bail out and parachute into Britain to deliver such a proposal? Let’s compare the approaches: Germany sends official word of said proposal and its desire to open direct negotiations with the British government via the government of a neutral third party nation which sends it directly to the British government. If the British are interested in discussing the idea, direct governmental contact between the Germans and British begin. Alternatively, Hitler sends Hess alone in an Me-110 to fly to England where he is hopefully not shot down and killed before he bails out, parachutes to the ground and is hopefully not killed by a trigger happy member of the Home Guard and instead taken prisoner where he can deliver this secret peace plan, and while British authorities try to make heads or tails of what the hell is going on, Hitler decides to publically declare that Hess has gone mad. Which approach makes just slightly more sense to use?
Finally, as I’m sure you are aware; this absurd idea was not first brought up by Peter Padfield. It was brought up by David Irving, known liar and holocaust denier in Hess: The Missing Years, 1941-45.
You do realize that Gack is a Holocaust Denier himself.
I’m not mentioning that to impugn him, but merely to point out that referring to David Irving as a “Holocaust Denier” isn’t going to trouble someone who’s a fan of the IHR.
I think the belief is partly because it teaches a kind of moral lesson: the idea that racism alone is enough to destroy your country. You can have the best-run country anywhere, but when you add racism you have set it on a path to inevitable collapse. Acknowledging that there might have been problems other than racism weakens the moral lesson.
It’s essentially a form of the Achilles Heel myth. The problem is that it doesn’t really seem to be true in the case of Germany.
Well, I’m a big fan of Irving’s, but wasn’t aware that he had floated this idea.
In any case, it seems anything but absurd. And here is the thing, if Padfield is telling the truth, then his version is correct, and it seems like it should be easy to check. From the article …
*The existence of such a document was revealed to him by an informant who claims that he and other German speakers were called in by MI6 to translate the treaty for Churchill.
The figure, who is not named by Mr Padfield, was an academic who later worked at a leading university. He has since died. Before his death, he passed on an account of how the group were assembled at the BBC headquarters, in Portland Place, London, to carry out the task.*
Now, if Padfield has not revealed the name of this informant to anyone and refuses to do so in the future, I’d say the article is just hogwash. However, if the name of the informant is revealed, then it should be easy to verify whether there was such a group as described, and so on. So, I’ll withhold judgement for now, if nothing more comes of it I’d discount it, however, if it checks out, well, then it’s the true account.
What an absolute shocker. I wouldn’t have thought you had much in common with a racist, anti-Semitic, holocaust denying liar.
And yes, the idea is thoroughly absurd. Unless you can come up with a reason Hitler wouldn’t float the idea to the British the traditional way but instead chose to send Hess alone with a high risk of being killed* before he could even deliver said proposal and then decided to publicly call Hess a madman, it will remain thoroughly absurd.
*The Me-110 was a horrible failure as a fighter (but later adapted to a fairly successful night fighter). Hess’s 110 was detected by the Chain Home, spotted by the ROC, was only able to avoid a number of Spitfires vectored in on him which would have made short work of the 110 by virtue of his flying at very low altitude and high speed and the arrival of darkness. Mind you, flying at 50 feet in darkness wasn’t exactly safe. It also didn’t protect him from the RAF; when he finally climbed to altitude to bail out he was being pursued by an RAF Defiant night fighter.
Gack, I will not tolerate - even in a thread entitled ‘Hitler’s Alternate Universe’ God help me - you returning as a dog returneth to its vomit to your holocaust denying ways.
If that’s truly your joy, there are plenty of other places to discuss that. But you’ve shown in the past that you simply are not interested in debate, but rather obfuscation, on this issue.
You will not bring up Irving - nor any other holocaust denial site or author - in Great Debates again.
I have no interest in debating whether you can find locations to deny the holocaust. Nor who brought what up. Dissonance and such sites are not a subject of discussion. You and such things? They are.
Warning issued. Any more and your posting privileges may be temporarily or permanently revoked.
