You should really read "Meine Kamph". The invasion of Russia was
"planned" before Hitler's crew took the German State. Historians who
don't read primary sources where the author lays out his agenda are
pretty much Idiots.
It is a bit like reading Das Kapital, (dense because it's full of
Ricardian economic theory and Hegelian philosophy, not easy), a highly
bought book. Every Marxist has a copy, but most have only read Engels
Cliff Notes.
I'm not sure if it's the translation of if Hitler was just that terrible
as an author, but it lays out everything the Germans did during WWII.
Unfortunately, I don't think Hitler had an Engels...
While there isn't enough time in the world, to read every crappy book
written by would be messiahs, if you claim to be an Historian of WWII,
and certainly the Nazis, how can you possibly ignore the very words of
the dictator of Germany?
Besides at the time Russia and Germany were "Allies". Churchill tried
to warn Stalin of Hitler's duplicity, but Stalin didn't believe him.
There was no reason for Hitler to attack Russia as a method of getting
England out of the War, (confirmed by KGB files released after the fall
of the Soviet Union, before Russia started keeping secrets again),
Russia wasn't going to be coming to the aid of Great Britain.
Hitler had a time table, the fact that the English failed to capitulate
was getting in the way. His intelligence people knew that the Russian
Army would recover from Stalin's purges, eventually, and he wanted to
strike before they were ready. England was contained in it's island
redoubt, and while they could be annoying to a land power like Germany
there was no way they were returning to Continental Europe without
massive help.
Sometimes the conventional wisdom is true, and revisionism, is just as
stupid as it sounds.
On 11/15/2015 9:11 PM, Mark Roberts wrote:
knarf wrote:
Wow, Mark! I was totally making that shit up as I went along. Who knew it was
actually accurate?
;-)
By the way, there *is* disagreement among historians about whether the
goal of Hitler's invasion of Russia was the destruction of the
communist Soviet Union itself or to convince Britain to surrender by
removing the USSR as a potential ally. There are good cases made on
both sides.
On November 15, 2015 8:42:04 PM EST, Mark Roberts <postmas...@robertstech.com>
wrote:
Paul Stenquist wrote:
Thanks. It certainly makes more sense than your attempt to rationalize
Hitler's goals. That's laughable.
??? He wasn't rationalizing Hitler's goals! He was *describing* them.
Quite accurately, too. Check out Ian Kershaw's superb biography of
Hitler. It's a big two volumes but well worth the effort. Generally
considered the best historical biography of Hitler. John Lukacs'
various books on the war may be better for a casual read ? try The
"Lase European War" or "The Duel". Great stuff and they, like most
historians, agree with Kershaw on Hitler's goals.
--
I don't want to achieve immortality through my work; I want to achieve
immortality through not dying.
-- Woody Allen
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
