Groundhog Thread v. 2.0 - The most important battle of WW2

[buffnut453]

Autarky : this would only be needed if Germany was involved in a big war with the Wallies+ the Soviets (or without the Soviets ) and, it was Hitler who created this big war.

You make a big claim about the need for autarky but offer no sources.

I'd recommend reading RIchard Overy "Misjudging Hitler" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered" regarding the central role of autarky in Hitler's thinking. In August 1936, Hitler issued a memorandum tasking Goering with developing a series of plans, one of which was later known as the "Four Year Plan" which sought to mobilize the entire economy, within the next four years, and make it ready for war: maximizing autarchic policies, even at a cost for the German people, and having the armed forces fully operational and ready at the end of the four years period.

Also take a look at William Carr's "Arms, Autarky and Aggression" (Edward Arnold, 1972) which observes that Hitler's 1936 "Four-Year Plan Memorandum" predicated an imminent all-out, apocalyptic struggle between "Judeo-Bolshevism" and German National Socialism, which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs, much in alignment with Overy.

Yes, Hitler started the war...because he wanted lebensraum for the German people so they could become self-sufficient and demonstrate their "inherent superiority" over other races which, ultimately, would guarantee their emergence as the victors.

The shortage of food was not the cause of Barbarossa, but the result of Barbarossa .There was no food shortage in December 1940 when Hitler approved Barbarossa .
There was no two fronts war when Hitler attacked in the West on May 10 1940 .The Soviet Union was never a danger for Hitler .
Lebensraum : this had nothing to do with the outbreak of WWII . You make the mistake by assuming that Hitler's foreign policy was dictated by Mein Kampf (written in 1925 ! ).There was nothing special with Hitler's foreign policy and every knew this : it was the policy of the Weimar Republic with as aim to undo the Treaty of Versailles .
Hitler was convinced that in the FUTURE there would be a war with the Soviets, but when ? He didn't know.

Again, lots of big claims with no sources or data to back them up. As noted in my comments above in this post, Hitler initiated planning for a war against the Soviet Union (and other lower races, including Jews, Romany races etc) in 1936. Mein Kampf set up his vision of Germany as the supreme race which was entitled to land that was occupied by inferior races. That land was necessary to provide self-sufficiency so that there would be no repeat of the mistakes he perceived as causing Germany's downfall during the Great War.

We know very well the reasons for Barbarossa : it was not Lebensraum,Lebensraum would be the result of a successful Barbarossa, but not the cause .
The reason for Barbarossa was the failure to force Britain to give up .Hitler was convinced that Britain continued the war because it hoped on the aid of the US and the Soviets.As he could do nothing against the US, he decided to eliminate the Soviets,hoping that this would strengthen the position of Japan and prevent the US from interfering in the war with Britain .If Britain had given up , there would be no reason to attack the USSR.

Can we have some sources for this please? I'd love to see what you're basing these bold claims on when war studies historians all disagree with you.

What Hillgruber may say : Hitler had no grand plan . He reacted to the events .

Hitler had a vision and he leveraged events to achieve that vision. It was not a grand plan laid out on a timetable...but to suggest that he didn't want to crush Communism is laughable. The Nazi-Soviet pact was sheer opportunism to buy time so Hitler could keep pushing forward with his vision and get his forces to a sufficient level (again, started in 1936 remember!) so they could successfully invade Russia.

About the Soviets steamrolling Western Europe in 1945 : not only they had not the means to do it, but they had no reason to do it .WHY would they invade Western Europe ?The result would be only an additional burden for the SU.The occupation of Western Europe ( 150 million people ) would demand an occupation army of 1 million men. Stalin had not this additional 1 million men available .And, how long could he trust his occupation forces in Western Europe ,who would be contaminated by democracy and capitalism ?

I suggest you read up on the Comintern. Soviet Communists had dreams of world domination and, if there's nobody to stop them, they'd press ahead and take Western Europe with all its factories and farmland and resources that Communism could plunder. There were active communist groups in every country in Europe, and they would readily recruit more. With no local military to stop the Soviet Army, it would be a fait accompli before the Western nations could do anything about it.

About the Battle of Britain,there is no proof at all for the assumption that Britain would give up if Group 11 was forced to withdrawn to the north .Hoare would never have a majority in the Commons : the Tories followed Chamberlain (till his death Britain was directed by the duo Chamberlain/Churchill and Chamberlain was a supporter of war to the end .) ,neither are there proofs that Hoare was still an appeaser in the Summer of 1940 .

Not sure how anyone can prove a hypothetical. However, I strongly recommend Lukacs' book "Five Days in May in London 1940" which makes it clear that there was a significant proportion of the establishment, both in Government and in other positions of power, that didn't want another world war. A subset of the powerful wanted Edward VIII to return because they felt George VI wasn't up to the job of being the Monarch. The traditional story of plucky Britain standing, united but alone, to face the onslaught of Nazi Germany is, I'm afraid, something of a post-BoB myth. In May/June 1940 things were much less clear-cut. The Army had lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk. Another retreat by 11 Group, exposing the seat of power for the UK, could well have tipped the balance in favour of appeasers like Halifax. He was far from alone.

 

[ljadw]

You make a big claim about the need for autarky but offer no sources.

I'd recommend reading RIchard Overy "Misjudging Hitler" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered" regarding the central role of autarky in Hitler's thinking. In August 1936, Hitler issued a memorandum tasking Goering with developing a series of plans, one of which was later known as the "Four Year Plan" which sought to mobilize the entire economy, within the next four years, and make it ready for war: maximizing autarchic policies, even at a cost for the German people, and having the armed forces fully operational and ready at the end of the four years period.

Also take a look at William Carr's "Arms, Autarky and Aggression" (Edward Arnold, 1972) which observes that Hitler's 1936 "Four-Year Plan Memorandum" predicated an imminent all-out, apocalyptic struggle between "Judeo-Bolshevism" and German National Socialism, which necessitated a total effort at rearmament regardless of the economic costs, much in alignment with Overy.

Yes, Hitler started the war...because he wanted lebensraum for the German people so they could become self-sufficient and demonstrate their "inherent superiority" over other races which, ultimately, would guarantee their emergence as the victors.





Again, lots of big claims with no sources or data to back them up. As noted in my comments above in this post, Hitler initiated planning for a war against the Soviet Union (and other lower races, including Jews, Romany races etc) in 1936. Mein Kampf set up his vision of Germany as the supreme race which was entitled to land that was occupied by inferior races. That land was necessary to provide self-sufficiency so that there would be no repeat of the mistakes he perceived as causing Germany's downfall during the Great War.





Can we have some sources for this please? I'd love to see what you're basing these bold claims on when war studies historians all disagree with you.




Hitler had a vision and he leveraged events to achieve that vision. It was not a grand plan laid out on a timetable...but to suggest that he didn't want to crush Communism is laughable. The Nazi-Soviet pact was sheer opportunism to buy time so Hitler could keep pushing forward with his vision and get his forces to a sufficient level (again, started in 1936 remember!) so they could successfully invade Russia.




I suggest you read up on the Comintern. Soviet Communists had dreams of world domination and, if there's nobody to stop them, they'd press ahead and take Western Europe with all its factories and farmland and resources that Communism could plunder. There were active communist groups in every country in Europe, and they would readily recruit more. With no local military to stop the Soviet Army, it would be a fait accompli before the Western nations could do anything about it.




Not sure how anyone can prove a hypothetical. However, I strongly recommend Lukacs' book "Five Days in May in London 1940" which makes it clear that there was a significant proportion of the establishment, both in Government and in other positions of power, that didn't want another world war. A subset of the powerful wanted Edward VIII to return because they felt George VI wasn't up to the job of being the Monarch. The traditional story of plucky Britain standing, united but alone, to face the onslaught of Nazi Germany is, I'm afraid, something of a post-BoB myth. In May/June 1940 things were much less clear-cut. The Army had lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk. Another retreat by 11 Group, exposing the seat of power for the UK, could well have tipped the balance in favour of appeasers like Halifax. He was far from alone.

About the strength of the Army : the Home Forces were strong enough to eliminate the few Germans that could land in Britain : few Germans, because on the first day only a few thousand could land without heavy weapons,and these would be faced by the Canadian division .
And the number of Germans that could land on the following days would even be lower than on the first days .
About the reasons for Barbarossa : the Anglo-Saxon media and historians have a low reliability . I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction .German historians are better : see Christian Gerlach "Operative Planungen der Wehrmacht für den Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion .
And Gerlach writes the following :
''Auf lange Sicht hielt man einen Krieg imOsten für unvermeidlich. Doch nicht deswegen fiel 1940 der Entschluss zum Angriff . Stattdessen geriet das Deutsche Reich in eine Sackgasse,als England nicht zum politischen Einlenken zu bewegen warund der Angriff auf die britischen Inseln scheiterte . ''
Translation :
Berlin was convinced that in the long run,war with the SU was inevitable .But this was not the reason for the decision in 1940 to execute Barbarossa .Germany was in a dead end, as Britain refused a peace of compromise and as the attacks on the UK had failed .
Hitler said several times that Russia was Britain's continental sword ( it was so in 1812 and 1914 ) .If there was a coalition of US,UK and SU. Germany was doomed . The only thing he could do was to try to prevent the USSR from joining the coalition . He could do nothing against the US .In August 1940,after the GOP convention,war with Germany was inevitable and nearing very fast.
About the SU : there was nothing in the SU that Germany needed or could use .Germany did not need Lebens raum . To colonize the USSR, Germany would need at least 50 million colonists, and there were even not 500000 Germans willing to live in the East .
There was no famine in Germany in June 1941 ,and during the war the occupied parts of the USSR delivered only 10 % of Germany's food imports .

 

[ljadw]

Hitler had a vision and he leveraged events to achieve that vision. It was not a grand plan laid out on a timetable...but to suggest that he didn't want to crush Communism is laughable. The Nazi-Soviet pact was sheer opportunism to buy time so Hitler could keep pushing forward with his vision and get his forces to a sufficient level (again, started in 1936 remember!) so they could successfully invade Russia.









.

The question is not what Hitler wanted, but what he could do : to attack the SU,he needed
a the agreement of Poland and Romania, which they would refuse and if he attacked them ,this would mean war with the Wallies .
b the agreement of the Wallies : if they refused,Barbarossa was impossible .
If the Wallies, Romania and Poland said yes and he could defeat the SU , he would be in a weaker position against the Wallies
If he defeated the Wallies, he would be to weak to defeat the Soviets .
And, Hitler knew it : before the war he paraded as the defender of the Christian civilization against the communists to prevent the Wallies to unite with the SU . Stalin, on the other hand, paraded as the defender of the Western civilisation against ''fascism '' (we know that there was a big difference between nazism and fascism ) to prevent the Wallies to ally with Hitler against the SU .

 

[buffnut453]

About the strength of the Army : the Home Forces were strong enough to eliminate the few Germans that could land in Britain : few Germans, because on the first day only a few thousand could land without heavy weapons,and these would be faced by the Canadian division .
And the number of Germans that could land on the following days would even be lower than on the first days .
About the reasons for Barbarossa : the Anglo-Saxon media and historians have a low reliability . I have not much faith in Lucacs .He writes fiction .German historians are better : see Christian Gerlach "Operative Planungen der Wehrmacht für den Krieg gegen die Sowjetunion .
And Gerlach writes the following :
''Auf lange Sicht hielt man einen Krieg imOsten für unvermeidlich. Doch nicht deswegen fiel 1940 der Entschluss zum Angriff . Stattdessen geriet das Deutsche Reich in eine Sackgasse,als England nicht zum politischen Einlenken zu bewegen warund der Angriff auf die britischen Inseln scheiterte . ''
Translation :
Berlin was convinced that in the long run,war with the SU was inevitable .But this was not the reason for the decision in 1940 to execute Barbarossa .Germany was in a dead end, as Britain refused a peace of compromise and as the attacks on the UK had failed .
Hitler said several times that Russia was Britain's continental sword ( it was so in 1812 and 1914 ) .If there was a coalition of US,UK and SU. Germany was doomed . The only thing he could do was to try to prevent the USSR from joining the coalition . He could do nothing against the US .In August 1940,after the GOP convention,war with Germany was inevitable and nearing very fast.
About the SU : there was nothing in the SU that Germany needed or could use .Germany did not need Lebens raum . To colonize the USSR, Germany would need at least 50 million colonists, and there were even not 500000 Germans willing to live in the East .
There was no famine in Germany in June 1941 ,and during the war the occupied parts of the USSR delivered only 10 % of Germany's food imports .

Since you're clearly not bothering to read anything that I write, I'll just leave you with a suggested reading list and let you either (a) get the books, read them, and learn, or (b) give them a stiff ignoring (as you're doing to me) and remain in your blissful echo-chamber. You keep talking about German "need" but it wasn't "need" that was driving Germany's war aims; it was outright racism, a twisted version of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and an unshakeable belief in German superiority.

One of the defining traits of the Axis powers in WW2 is that every time they had an option to de-escalate and consolidate, they declined that opportunity and charged on with further expansion of the war. However, invading Russia just because the German military didn't have anything else it could do is a pretty poor justification for anything. Hitler's rabid hatred of Communism and eastern European races and, yes, the desire for lebensraum were the driving factors. Hitler wanted a "super race", hence the intense interest the Nazi party put into breeding programmes. Evacuating eastern lands would provide the room for that extra population and provide a buffer against any attack against the Fatherland itself.

Anyhoo...here's the list of books, in case you're interested:

P.M.H. Bell "The Origins of the Second World War in Europe"
Richard Overy "Misjudging Hitler: AJP Taylor and the Third Reich" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered", edited by Gordon Martel
Richard Overy "The Road to War"
Richard Overy "Hitler's War Plans and the German Economy" and Esmonde M. Robertson "German Mobilization Preparations and the Treaties Between Germany and the Soviet Union of August and September 1939", both in "Paths of War: New Essays on the Origins of the Second World War" edited by Robert Boyce and Esmonde M. Robertson
Christian Lentz "Nazi Germany" and Alan Cassels "Ideology", both in "The Origins of World War Two: The Debate Continues", edited by Robert Boyce and Joseph A. Maiolo
Ian Kershaw "Nazi Foreign Policy: Hitler's 'Programme' or Expansion Without Object'" in "The Origins of the Second World War", edited by Patrick Finney

 

[GrauGeist]

Wouldn't the Soviet Union by the Eallies?

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, Drang Nach Ost and Lebensraum were laid out in Mein Kampf. Germany didn't need either, but under Der Fuhrer they certainly pursued both. It should have been no surprise to anyone, except folks didn't take the corporal at his word.

 

[ljadw]

Since you're clearly not bothering to read anything that I write, I'll just leave you with a suggested reading list and let you either (a) get the books, read them, and learn, or (b) give them a stiff ignoring (as you're doing to me) and remain in your blissful echo-chamber. You keep talking about German "need" but it wasn't "need" that was driving Germany's war aims; it was outright racism, a twisted version of Darwin's theory of natural selection, and an unshakeable belief in German superiority.

One of the defining traits of the Axis powers in WW2 is that every time they had an option to de-escalate and consolidate, they declined that opportunity and charged on with further expansion of the war. However, invading Russia just because the German military didn't have anything else it could do is a pretty poor justification for anything. Hitler's rabid hatred of Communism and eastern European races and, yes, the desire for lebensraum were the driving factors. Hitler wanted a "super race", hence the intense interest the Nazi party put into breeding programmes. Evacuating eastern lands would provide the room for that extra population and provide a buffer against any attack against the Fatherland itself.

Anyhoo...here's the list of books, in case you're interested:

P.M.H. Bell "The Origins of the Second World War in Europe"
Richard Overy "Misjudging Hitler: AJP Taylor and the Third Reich" in "The Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered", edited by Gordon Martel
Richard Overy "The Road to War"
Richard Overy "Hitler's War Plans and the German Economy" and Esmonde M. Robertson "German Mobilization Preparations and the Treaties Between Germany and the Soviet Union of August and September 1939", both in "Paths of War: New Essays on the Origins of the Second World War" edited by Robert Boyce and Esmonde M. Robertson
Christian Lentz "Nazi Germany" and Alan Cassels "Ideology", both in "The Origins of World War Two: The Debate Continues", edited by Robert Boyce and Joseph A. Maiolo
Ian Kershaw "Nazi Foreign Policy: Hitler's 'Programme' or Expansion Without Object'" in "The Origins of the Second World War", edited by Patrick Finney

You forget
Rhodes James who wrote in 1986 a book about Eden and said on P 126-127 the following about Eden :
On March 23 1933 , Eden said : French disarmament is needed to secure for Europe that period of appeasement which is needed .
You also forget
Hartmut Schustereit who writes the following in VABANQUE P12 :
Am 20.Juni 1940 Fromm befahl : Das Ersatzheer wird baldmöglichst aufgelöst .
Translation : The Reserve Army will be disbanded as soon as is possible .
Why would the commander of the Reserve Army (Fromm ) order to disband the Reserve Army ?
Very simple : because Hitler ordered it .
And why did Hitler order it ?
Because on that day Hitler was convinced that war was over and that there would be no war with the Soviets, thus that there was no longer any need for a Reserve Army .
This debunks your claim that Hitler wanted war with the USSR after the fall of France .
And, about Autarky , you forget that Autarky was only needed IF there was war ,but that the aim of autarky was not to make war possible .
You also forget that autarky implies imports ,but that imports are only possible if there are exports .
In 1938, Hitler imported from Poland ( a country of hostile Slaves ) for 140 million RM and exported for 155 million .And the same year he exported for 350 RM from Britain and imported 282 million .
Source : A low dishonest decade by Paul N. Hehn .
The aim of autarky was to make Germany stronger if there was a war, not to make war possible .
And at the start of the war Germany imported still 20 % of its food and 33 % of its raw materials .Autarky implies international trade ,it is not a substitute for international trade .
About the Anglo-Saxon media/ historians : they still propagate 80 years after the events,the old Churchillian myths of the hero Churchill and the villain Chamberlain .
But they ignore or hide unpleasant facts as
Eden being an appeaser
Churchill promoting disarmament of Britain ( 10 year rule )
Austin Chamberlain saying that Dantzig was not worth the bones of a British grenadier
Neville Chamberlain starting British rearmament in 1932
that being an appeaser does not mean that one wanted to become a British Quisling : in 1938 Neville Chamberlain would have declared war if Hitler had attacked the Czechs .Austin Chamberlain (appeaser ) wanted to accelerate British rearmament, Lloyd George (appeaser ) wanted in 1939 an alliance with the USSR .Thus ,mentioning and insinuating that this was the reason,that Halifax was an appeaser and wanted to capitulate to Hitler in May 19440 , is not only wrong from Lucacs but also totally unfair .
All British PMs and Foreign Secretaries between 1919 and 1939 were appeasers .
Appeasement was to prevent a new war (general or local ) in Europe,because Britain would be involved in such a war,would win him,but at the cost of the end of the Empire .
There was such a war in May 1940 and thus appeasement had failed and had disappeared .

 

[ljadw]

Yeah, Drang Nach Ost and Lebesraum were laid out in Mein Kampf. Germany didn't need either, but under Der Fuhrer they certainly pursued both. It should have been no surprise to anyone, except folks didn't take the corporal at his word.

Mein Kampf did not dictate Hitler's Foreign Policy .It was not even a book : it was a written collection of Hitler's speeches (and he spoke about everything ,from Drang nach Osten to the danger of Syphilis ) :Hitler was an orator, not a writer .
Besides : Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum were subjects about which people talked a lot already before 1914 . They were not invented by Hitler .
Hitler did not attack the SU to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .He used the opportunity to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .
The reason for Barbarossa was to destroy Britain's continental sword( =the Soviets ) before the US were ready .
He said it openly several times during his meetings with his military advisers .

 

[buffnut453]

You forget...You also forget

I'm glad you know so well what I remember and what I forget....and it's particularly nice of you to remind me of things I've forgotten. Being a mind-reader must be a useful skill to possess!

I'll deal with your comments about Hitler's plans for Russia first, then move onto your statements about autarky, and then delve into the tangled topic of appeasement.

Hartmut Schustereit who writes the following in VABANQUE P12 :
Am 20.Juni 1940 Fromm befahl : Das Ersatzheer wird baldmöglichst aufgelöst .
Translation : The Reserve Army will be disbanded as soon as is possible .
Why would the commander of the Reserve Army (Fromm ) order to disband the Reserve Army ?
Very simple : because Hitler ordered it .
And why did Hitler order it ?
Because on that day Hitler was convinced that war was over and that there would be no war with the Soviets, thus that there was no longer any need for a Reserve Army .
This debunks your claim that Hitler wanted war with the USSR after the fall of France .

Firstly, the Replacement Army (Ersatzheer) was NOT disbanded. Fromm remained in charge from 1 September 1939 thru 20 July 1944. "As soon as possible" is not a timeline. A phrase familiar to military planners that has the same meaning is "as soon as conditions permit." The simple fact is that the Replacement Army remained intact. You can't take an event that did NOT happen (the disbandment of the "Reserve Army") and use it as proof of anything regarding Hitler's intent towards Russia.

Your statements are also highly selective and ignoring all the evidence that contradicts your view. For example, Plan Otto, which started as the annexation of Austria, had a second component dealing with how to invade Russia. Planning for that second part of Plan Otto commenced in July 1940. In December 1940 Plan Otto was renamed Operation Barbarossa. In short, straight after the conquest of France, Hitler orders planning to commence for the invasion of Russia....and yet you're trying to convince me that he had no intention of invading Russia? Sorry, I call BS on that.

Also, let's go back to my previous post about Hitler's early planning for invading Russia. Back in August 1936, he tasked Goering to develop the "Four Year Plan" for the invasion of Russia. Fast forward 4 years EXACTLY and, surprise of surprises, Hitler orders planning for the invasion of Russia. There's no point doing operational planning if you don't have sufficient forces for the task. Hitler recognized that in 1936. The Four Year Plan was designed to expand the German military so that it had the resources to invade Russia. With that plan successfully executed, and with what were perceived as sufficient forces, Hitler embarked on the operational planning (Plan Otto) to invade.

Interestingly, Plan Otto called for the annihilation of 240 Soviet divisions with a planning assumption that the USSR could only generate 60 new divisions in the timeframe. During Operation Barbarossa, the German Army actually destroyed 248 Soviet divisions...but the USSR regenerated 220 new divisions. This highlights Hitler's key flaw....he failed to adapt his plans to changing circumstances. Fall Gelb sought to knock the Western Allies out of the war so that Germany could focus on the Communist threat to the east. When Britain unsportingly refused to be cowed, Hitler had the option of doubling down to remove Britain from the war or proceeding with his plan to turn east. He chose the latter. As I noted previously, whenever Hitler had the chance to consolidate, he instead chose escalation. It was that key attribute that most led to the downfall of the Third Reich by May 1945.

And, about Autarky , you forget that Autarky was only needed IF there was war ,but that the aim of autarky was not to make war possible .
You also forget that autarky implies imports ,but that imports are only possible if there are exports .
In 1938, Hitler imported from Poland ( a country of hostile Slaves ) for 140 million RM and exported for 155 million .And the same year he exported for 350 RM from Britain and imported 282 million .
Source : A low dishonest decade by Paul N. Hehn .
The aim of autarky was to make Germany stronger if there was a war, not to make war possible .
And at the start of the war Germany imported still 20 % of its food and 33 % of its raw materials .Autarky implies international trade ,it is not a substitute for international trade .

Autarky is the establishment of economic independence and self-sufficiency and hence it is the exact opposite of international trade. Yes, Germany participated in international trade in 1938 because it had not yet achieved autarky. Again, let's go back to the Four Year Plan which started in 1936 with a goal of achieving autarky in 1940. Hitler was more than ready to use whatever tools were available to achieve his goals, which is why other world leaders came to so mistrust him. He would say one thing and then weeks or months later would do the exact opposite. Just look at the treaty signed with the USSR in 1939, accomplished to give Germany some additional breathing room. Hitler had no love of the USSR but he leveraged that treaty to buy space and time so he could finish his "grand plan." Hitler traded with the outside world in 1938 because he had to in order to keep his Four Year Plan moving forward.

The problem is Germany lacked the resources to be self-sufficient. A key shortfall was oil but there were also needs for additional arable land, raw materials, and even extra factory-based production capacity. You can't magically create those things inside a nation with finite geographic and resource limitations without fundamentally altering the make-up of the country...and, even then, you can't magically generate oil if your nation doesn't have that resource. The entire scope of Hitler's offensives can be traced back to the need for autarky. In other words, he didn't want to trade with the international community. He wanted to occupy those lands that had useful resources and pillage them for Germany's benefit. Hence the drive for autarky was the propelling idea that resulted in the war.

Rhodes James who wrote in 1986 a book about Eden and said on P 126-127 the following about Eden :
On March 23 1933 , Eden said : French disarmament is needed to secure for Europe that period of appeasement which is needed .

About the Anglo-Saxon media/ historians : they still propagate 80 years after the events,the old Churchillian myths of the hero Churchill and the villain Chamberlain .
But they ignore or hide unpleasant facts as
Eden being an appeaser
Churchill promoting disarmament of Britain ( 10 year rule )
Austin Chamberlain saying that Dantzig was not worth the bones of a British grenadier
Neville Chamberlain starting British rearmament in 1932
that being an appeaser does not mean that one wanted to become a British Quisling : in 1938 Neville Chamberlain would have declared war if Hitler had attacked the Czechs .Austin Chamberlain (appeaser ) wanted to accelerate British rearmament, Lloyd George (appeaser ) wanted in 1939 an alliance with the USSR .Thus ,mentioning and insinuating that this was the reason,that Halifax was an appeaser and wanted to capitulate to Hitler in May 19440 , is not only wrong from Lucacs but also totally unfair .
All British PMs and Foreign Secretaries between 1919 and 1939 were appeasers .
Appeasement was to prevent a new war (general or local ) in Europe,because Britain would be involved in such a war,would win him,but at the cost of the end of the Empire .
There was such a war in May 1940 and thus appeasement had failed and had disappeared .

I will agree that appeasement is the effort to avoid a war and that once war starts, appeasement is indeed dead. HOWEVER...once that war has commenced, if a country feels it can no longer prevail in the conflict, then it will sue for peace. It is the suing for peace in 1940 that is possible if the Battle of Britain had been lost. The arch-appeasers prior to 1939 would have been among the most vocal in trying to secure peace terms if that's what Parliament decided.

You should note that I don't see appeasement prior to 1939 as a negative thing. Britain needed time to rearm. In 1938, Britain was in no position to do ANYTHING about the German invasion of Czechoslovakia. Likewise, it could do nothing to prevent the invasion of Poland a year later. However, by then, the British Government felt it had sufficient forces on-hand, and rearmament was progressing at sufficient pace, to allow the country to prevail IF war broke out.

Losing most of the Army's heavy equipment in France was a major operational blow. Losing France as a key ally was a major strategic blow. It's entirely conceivable that further operational setbacks during the Battle of Britain could have resulted in the British Government suing for peace. There WERE calls within Parliament in May 1940 for Britain to negotiate terms with Hitler. Those calls would have been amplified if 11 Group had withdrawn, thus denuding London of up-threat defences.

Again, if you read what I wrote previously, I freely admitted the fallacy of the idea that Churchill led a plucky Britain that was united in standing alone against Germany. There were many contrary voices, hence why continued British involvement in the war was anything but a foregone conclusion.

As to rearmament, yes the "10-Year Rule" was abandoned in 1932 but that did not mean that Britain immediately started building up its armed forces. The economy in the early 1930s simply wasn't up to the task of sustaining a massive rearmament programme. The following lists the size of the British Army during the 1930s (the numbers are in thousands)

1930: 317.30
1931: 319.10
1932: 316.80
1933: 316.40
1934: 317.40
1935: 320.80
1936: 339.30
1937: 352.40
1938: 384.80
1939: 1,068.85

It's abundantly clear that, through most of the 1930s, the size of the British Army flat-lined, with only slight increases starting in 1936 and the really big jump only coming after the Munich Crisis. Again, appeasement was necessary because Britain simply wasn't ready for another major war in the 1930s.

 

[buffnut453]

Mein Kampf did not dictate Hitler's Foreign Policy .It was not even a book : it was a written collection of Hitler's speeches (and he spoke about everything ,from Drang nach Osten to the danger of Syphilis ) :Hitler was an orator, not a writer .
Besides : Drang nach Osten and Lebensraum were subjects about which people talked a lot already before 1914 . They were not invented by Hitler .
Hitler did not attack the SU to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .He used the opportunity to kill Slaves, Jews and Communists and make place for German colonists .
The reason for Barbarossa was to destroy Britain's continental sword( =the Soviets ) before the US were ready .
He said it openly several times during his meetings with his military advisers .

Again, you're being selective in offering punchlines as evidence to support your theory. The only reason the USSR became Britain's "continental sword" is because Britain refused to sue for peace in 1940. As explained previously, Hitler had been planning to invade Russia for at least 4 years by that point in time.

 

[SaparotRob]

I am really enjoying this thread.

 

[Akuma]

what was the most important battle of ww2 ?
1.Stalingrad
2.Normandy
3.El alamain
4.BOB
5.kursk

I would argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor was the most important battle of WWII since it brought America's economic might into the war on the side of those nations fighting against Germany and it's allies. American logistical support was an important factor in all of the above battles. True, the BoB happened before that, but the U.S. was already providing support to England surreptitiously before lend lease became official in March 1941. Such support allowed England to allot more industrial resources towards aircraft production along with other areas of defense that were of important advantage during the BoB. While such support throughout the war might not have been decisive, it was helpful to a degree that allowed Britain, Russia et al. to pursue their aims more advantageously.

 

[buffnut453]

I would argue that the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor was the most important battle of WWII since it brought America's economic might into the war on the side of those nations fighting against Germany and it's allies. American logistical support was an important factor in all of the above battles. True, the BoB happened before that, but the U.S. was already providing support to England surreptitiously before lend lease became official in March 1941. Such support allowed England to allot more industrial resources towards aircraft production along with other areas of defense that were of important advantage during the BoB. While such support throughout the war might not have been decisive, it was helpful to a degree that allowed Britain, Russia et al. to pursue their aims more advantageously.

Not sure what point you're making here. Yes, Lend Lease did help the other Allies to pursue their war aims but it wasn't a decisive factor in and of itself. The only substantive support offered by the U.S. prior to 1941 was the, somewhat misleadingly titled, Neutrality Patrol which greatly favoured the British. That said, I'm not sure it freed up much in the way of British resources to prosecute the war. Certainly all the materiel procured by Britain from the U.S. prior to March 1941 was paid for in cash, resulting in the massive depletion of Britain's gold reserves.

 

[pbehn]

Its always important to remember that Hitler was a barking mad rabble rouser with no experience of doing anything, most of the people around him were the same.

 

[Akuma]

Not sure what point you're making here. Yes, Lend Lease did help the other Allies to pursue their war aims but it wasn't a decisive factor in and of itself. The only substantive support offered by the U.S. prior to 1941 was the, somewhat misleadingly titled, Neutrality Patrol which greatly favoured the British. That said, I'm not sure it freed up much in the way of British resources to prosecute the war. Certainly all the materiel procured by Britain from the U.S. prior to March 1941 was paid for in cash, resulting in the massive depletion of Britain's gold reserves.

Along with the patrol the U.S. was quietly overhauling and otherwise servicing RN ships which freed up industrial sources in the UK.

 

[buffnut453]

Along with the patrol the U.S. was quietly overhauling and otherwise servicing RN ships which freed up industrial sources in the UK.

Again, not a massive benefit to Britain's war effort given the number of bases available to the RN across the British Empire. Certainly Stateside refits would be beneficial for Atlantic operations...but, again, I doubt the overhauls/servicing were provided free of charge (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'd imagine the Neutrality Patrol would free up quite a few ASW assets for the RN.

 

[Akuma]

Again, not a massive benefit to Britain's war effort given the number of bases available to the RN across the British Empire. Certainly Stateside refits would be beneficial for Atlantic operations...but, again, I doubt the overhauls/servicing were provided free of charge (although I'm happy to be proved wrong).

I do not know how important this might be as to the help that was 'free of charge'. I've read some histories that occasionally included private comments by U.S. military personnel where they all said that the degree of assistance was far in excess to that which was officially declared (or paid for).

 

[Glider]

Its always important to remember that Hitler was a barking mad rabble rouser with no experience of doing anything, most of the people around him were the same.

Not quite. He had mad ideas but he also had the personal charisma, ruthlessness and plain cunning to carry them through. He was surrounded by sycophants who were happy to hang on to his coat tails and do his bidding for personal power and gain irrespective of what was the best for the people of the country.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Not quite. He had mad ideas but he also had the personal charisma, ruthlessness and plain cunning to carry them through. He was surrounded by sycophants who were happy to hang on to his coat tails and do his bidding for personal power and gain irrespective of what was the best for the people of the country.

Does this ring any bells regarding global current events??