I will say this, I am not so sure that Udet is "defending Hitler", more just looking at things in the big picture without bias
I think he's trying to rehabilitate Hitler, by arguing he was no worse than any other leader. In other words, he's arguing there was nothing particulary evil about the Nazis, they were just another government.
Politicians are all dirty people. Politics is a not a matter of chivalry and honor. To believe such a thing would be flat wishful -naive- thinking.
Ah but there's dirt and there's dirt. Just like there's crime and there's crime. Nothing bad about
Ian Brady, I mean, who hasn't broken the law now and again?
(1) Germany was not the sole aggressor in the continent from the offset.
Hard to see who else was. When Germany sought to reunite the Berman speaking people, there was some sympathy for them, and they were not prevented from doing so. Taking over other, non German countries was pure aggression, and afer Germany had done so with the rump of Czechoslovakia, a line was drawn with Poland.
(2) Germany, although conscious war in the west could happen, did not intend to wage war against England much less invade it.
No, of course not. Much easier, richer pickings elsewhere. I doubt I'm high on the list for local thugs to victimise either, as I'm a relatively fit man, not an old woman who can't defend herself.
(3) The western powers made a selective -and very bizarre- choice of enemies in September 1939.
From your perspective, that sees the Nazis as just another government, perhaps. But from the perspective of the time, no.
You see, they understood what the Nazis were, they understood what a Nazi victory would mean.
They also saw Germany move from the (sort-of) legitimate reintegration of German speaking countries to taking over non-German neighbours, and knew that sooner or later, they would be a target.
(4) Unlike the official history that rolled across the earth after the war -still being taught in classrooms in the same fashion today-, the events in Europe in 1939 were the consequences of world powers trying to preserve and/or expand their interests. Period here.
If by "preserve their interests" you mean "preserve their independence from Nazi domination" then yes.
(5) Hitler was not necessarily worse than Churchill.
Rubbish. Hitler came up with the idea that his particular rae was superior to all others, and that the solution wasn't to try to raise other races up to his level (which was to some extent the colonial concept) but to keep other races inferior, and to exterminate them. And to that end his death squads murdered several million people a year, once he had power over those other "races".
Churchill proved he could in fact surpass Hitler, and contest smiley Dzugashvili for the Gold Medal in the "filthy politician" department.
I bring the Mers-el-Kebir incident forward to the table in order to substantiate this claim.
Giving a neutral (formerly allied) fleet notice that if they didn't surrender, or move to a safer location, he would attack them, and then carrying out the attack, is worse than murdering 6 million Jews?
In fact, if we were to make a case just like the one experienced by the German créme de la créme at Nurenberg, then Churchill and Eisenhower go straight to death by hanging.
Go ahead. Quote the crimes you think they committed, and we'll see.
So the British deemed the promises made to the Poles paramount?
Why do you think they made promises to the Poles? When they hadn;t to the Austrians, Czechs etc?
The reason is, until Germany anexed the rump of Czechoslovakia, they thought Hitler would be content with traditional German territory. After Czechoslovakia, they realised he wouldn't, and Poland was the line in the sand to prevent Hitler picking off the rest of Europe one country at a time.
This is from Chamberlain's speech a few days after Germany had annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia: (for those who don't know, the Munich agreement ceeded the German speaking areas of Czechoslovakia to Germany. In March 1939, in defiance of that agreement, Hitler took over the non German areas as well)
"One thing is certain. Public opinion in the world has received a sharper shock than has ever yet been administered to it, even by the present regime in Germany."
"When I came back after my second visit I told the House of Commons of a conversation I had had with Herr Hitler, of which I said that, speaking with great earnestness, he repeated what he had already said at Berchtesgaden-namely, that this was the last of his territorial ambitions in Europe, and that he had no wish to include in the Reich people of other races than German. Herr Hitler himself confirmed this account of the conversation in the speech which he made at the Sportpalast in Berlin, when he said: "This is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe." And a little later in the same speech he said: "I have assured Mr. Chamberlain, and I emphasise it now, that when this problem is solved Germany has no more territorial problems in Europe." And he added: "I shall not be interested in the Czech State any more, and I can guarantee it. We don't want any Czechs any more."
"How can these events this week be reconciled with those assurances which I have read out to you? Surely, as a joint signatory of the Munich Agreement, I was entitled, if Herr Hitler thought it ought to be undone, to that consultation which is provided for in the Munich declaration. Instead of that he has taken the law into his own hands. Before even the Czech President was received, and confronted with demands which he had no power to resist, the German troops were on the move, and within a few hours they were in the Czech capital.
According to the proclamation which was read out in Prague yesterday, Bohemia and Moravia have been annexed to the German Reich. Non-German inhabitants, who, of course, include the Czechs, are placed under the German Protector in the German Protectorate. They are to be subject to the political, military and economic needs of the Reich. They are called self-governing States, but the Reich is to take charge of their foreign policy, their customs and their excise, their bank reserves, and the equipment of the disarmed Czech forces. Perhaps most sinister of all, we hear again of the appearance of the Gestapo, the secret police, followed by the usual tale of wholesale arrests of prominent individuals, with consequences with which we are all familiar.
Every man and woman in this country who remembers the fate of the Jews and the political prisoners in Austria must be filled to-day with distress and foreboding. Who can fail to feel his heart go out in sympathy to the proud and brave people who have so suddenly been subjected to this invasion, whose liberties are curtailed, whose national independence has gone? What has become of this declaration of "No further territorial ambition"? What has become of the assurance "We don't want Czechs in the Reich"? What regard had been paid here to that principle of self-determination on which Herr Hitler argued so vehemently with me at Berchtesgaden when he was asking for the severance of Sudetenland from Czecho-Slovakia and its inclusion in the German Reich?
Now we are told that this seizure of territory has been necessitated by disturbances in Czecho-Slovakia. We are told that the proclamation of this new German Protectorate against the will of its inhabitants has been rendered inevitable by disorders which threatened the peace and security of her mighty neighbour. If there were disorders, were they not fomented from without? And can anybody outside Germany take seriously the idea that they could be a danger to that great country, that they could provide any justification for what has happened?
Does not the question inevitably arise in our minds, if it is so easy to discover good reasons for ignoring assurances so solemnly and so repeatedly given, what reliance can be placed upon any other assurances that come from the same source?
There is another set of questions which almost inevitably must occur in our minds and to the minds of others, perhaps even in Germany herself. Germany, under her present regime, has sprung a series of unpleasant surprises upon the world. The Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, the severance of Sudetenland-all these things shocked and affronted public opinion throughout the world. Yet, however much we might take exception to the methods which were adopted in each of those cases, there was something to be said, whether on account of racial affinity or of just claims too long resisted-there was something to be said for the necessity of a change in the existing situation.
But the events which have taken place this week in complete disregard of the principles laid down by the German Government itself seem to fall into a different category, and they must cause us all to be asking ourselves: "Is this the end of an old adventure, or is it the beginning of a new?"
"Is this the last attack upon a small State, or is it to be followed by others? Is this, in fact, a step in the direction of an attempt to dominate the world by force?"
Those are grave and serious questions. I am not going to answer them to-night. But I am sure they will require the grave and serious consideration not only of Germany's neighbours, but of others, perhaps even beyond the confines of Europe. Already there are indications that the process has begun, and it is obvious that it is likely now to be speeded up. "
"I do not believe there is anyone who will question my sincerity when I say there is hardly anything I would not sacrifice for peace. But there is one thing that I must except, and that is the liberty that we have enjoyed for hundreds of years, and which we will never surrender. That I, of all men, should feel called upon to make such a declaration-that is the measure of the extent to which these events have shattered the confidence which was just beginning to show its head and which, if it had been allowed to grow, might have made this year memorable for the return of all Europe to sanity and stability.
It is only six weeks ago that I was speaking in this city, and that I alluded to rumours and suspicions which I said ought to be swept away. I pointed out that any demand to dominate the world by force was one which the democracies must resist, and I added that I could not believe that such a challenge was intended, because no Government with the interests of its own people at heart could expose them for such a claim to the horrors of world war.
And, indeed, with the lessons of history for all to read, it seems incredible that we should see such a challenge. I feel bound to repeat that, while I am not prepared to engage this country by new unspecified commitments operating under conditions which cannot now be foreseen, yet no greater mistake could be made than to suppose that, because it believes war to be a senseless and cruel thing, this nation has so lost its fibre that it will not take part to the utmost of its power in resisting such a challenge if it ever were made. For that declaration I am convinced that I have not merely the support, the sympathy, the confidence of my fellow-countrymen and countrywomen, but I shall have also the approval of the whole British Empire and of all other nations who value peace, indeed, but who value freedom even more. "
That's Chamberlain, who had been sympathetic to the reunification of the German people, realising he'd been had, that Hitler had no intention of stopping with Czechoslovakia.[/url]