Tars, my comment that you object to was in response to Rexdart’s assertion that Hitler started attacking the Jews only in the 30s, and then only because he needed a scapegoat for economic distress. A scapegoat for economic distress wasn’t Hitler’s motivation, as he was attacking the Jews in good economic times and bad.
Sua
Bryan Ekers wrote:
Why not? We all know Dewey defeated Truman. 
I don’t think he was saying that Hitler only started attacking them in the 30’s while campaigning, he was just explaining the motivations for blaming them for the finacial crisis to foster power. But i think i can see where you were led astray. Thanks for the clarification.
Of you’re interested I’m trying to address that in the othet thread I opened during the simulpost confussion that ensued from the damm opening when the site came back up.
As a preview I might tell you that Haffner’s argument, which I plan to pretty much lean on re the Battle of the Bulge is not only that it bought him time to continue the Holocaust, but gave him a chance to finalize the ultimate destruction of Germany.
As for the rest, Hitler didn’t just blame the ailing economy on the Jews. He blamed everything on the Jews. To him Jewry=Bolshevism=Internationalism=the antithesis of the ‘Aryan race’. Hence they were the enemy and they had to die. Simple and horrific as it is, no scapegoat, no rational, just blind irrational hatred.
Sparc
One side point: There was absolutely no way Germany could win the war. None. He could have avoided a two-front war, done everything right, and he still would have lost an all-out conflict.
Many people have this idea that Germany was a collossus on par with the United States. It wasn’t. Germany was simply the benefactor of U.S. isolationism, pacifism, and distance. Once the United States entered the war, Germany was finished. It was just a matter of how long it took.
America was still ramping up for war in 1944, when it realized that Germany was almost finished and started slowing wartime production. Even so, the U.S. was cranking out an absolutely astounding amount of weaponry. For instance, in 1943 alone, the United States produced more tanks than the entire world inventory of all tanks created since WWI. And even then, the U.S. had so much resources that it never even went into a recession once during the war - the only combatant to pull that feat off. And the U.S. was still investing in new factories and production lines, meaning production could have increased for years and years.
In comparison, Germany was having to devote all of its industrial effort to building weapons - there were few resources left over for new factory construction. So Germany was pretty much at its peak of production. The U.S. wasn’t even close.
In addition, U.S. troops were virtually unscathed. Combat losses were a fraction of what the other nations were enduring. As a result, the U.S. still had the vast majority of its manpower intact, while Germany and Japan were drafting children and untrained persons.
My guess is that if Hitler had made all the best, strategically sound moves, the war might have lasted until maybe 1946 or 1947. But it still would have ended in victory for the allies.
Given all that, it seems clear to me that Hitler’s biggest blunder was in having the U.S. get involved against it. He should have started calling for a peace treaty very early on. If he had attacked Russia only, and appeased Britain and western Europe and the United States, he might have had a chance to grab territory and then bargain a truce.
Yes but the saying goes ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’
And your point is…?
He thought that he could win the war even thought he developed it into a two front war, 3 if you count Italy. His power over Europe made him think that he was in some sense invincible and power corrupted him and made him arrogant of the situation he was in.
I suspected that this was your point. As far as your first point: yes he did think so regarding the two front war, but Italy was not ‘his’ front until the Italian fascists were defeated and Italy changed sides. Hence, The Little Guy had no choice but to defend his southern border himself. In other words he didn’t think that he could win three fronts in Europe. OTOH, if you count North Africa he was indeed on three fronts anyway, then again Hitler himself was never very fond of the North African campaign.
Regarding your last point… well that’s that whole other discussion we’re having. In Europe his Eastern offensive grinds to a halt in a blizzard NW of Moscow at 3 AM on December 5 1941. In North Africa the first Allied success comes at about the same time when the British 8th army under Wavell lifts the siege of Tobruk on December 8, however it is a petty success and it will be almost a year from then until the Germans really suffer in North Africa. Under Rommel this remains the only successful endeavor they entertain for the rest of the war, and again this on a front H never really cared for. In the West there isn’t much he can do except continue the battle of Britain, yet another front he does not want to fight on. So to say that he feels like he controls Europe is a little hasty. He might have been euphoric in early 41, but by the end of that year the grapes are turning pretty sour for the little man from Braunau.
It’s too simple to say that he thought he was invincible. His madness was of a far more twisted and strange nature. It might be that we will never understand him, actually it is most probably so that we never will. He combines delusions of grandeur with suicidal tendencies, mass homicidal tendencies and a defeatism that rhymes badly with his delusions of grandeur. One way of looking at it would be to say that he was the most moral and ethical man in history, with the most twisted and disgusting moral and ethical philosophy ever invented. One thing is for certain, he held true to his oft repeated words; “I never stop until it is five minutes past twelve.” I wish the world would have been so fortunate that it would not have been so.
Sparc
Actually, I blame the whole thing on the fact that Hitler only had one testicle. But that’s just me…
It’s strange that these sort of Dictators never seem to produce any offspring, either they do and they are either incompetents, or are lowlives. Why does this happen? Does anyone know if any dictators children lead sucessful lives.
Castro’s daughter Alina Fernandez Dolores is a tireless worker for Democracy in her homeland. Whether there are oedipal overtones to her quest or not, her dad had evidently ignored her, she is a pretty successful person in the exile community has her own TV show & isn’t a loser.
Stalin’s Daughter (Svetlana Alliluyeva) defected to the West (with the CIA’s help). Published 2 successful books was a well known B or C List celebrity for much of the 60’s-early 70’s. And if I could leave it there she’d be the best example … but she does re-defect in ’84, & now lives in the West (again) kind of loopy … but if Joe were your dad you would be too… Don’t think she’s BAD, I think she’s flakey.
Mussolini’s grand-daughter is a (neo-facist) politician in Italy. Apparently a fairly successful one. She is also the niece of Sophia Loren – pretty successful (for a fascist)
You could be a member of Neoquasitoadlicker party and get some votes in Italy, so it’s not exactly a sign of success.