This isn't to suggest that this is the only answer. Like with all of history, it depends on which historian you ask. This is Bullock's explanation. > [Original Message] > From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Date: 12/24/2005 1:30:18 PM > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Quote from Allan Bullock's book > > According to Bullock's book (Bill tells me) Hitler's plan was to expand > Germany eastward, into Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Soviet Union, > conquer them, settle them with Germans and enslave the native populations, > as well as take their resources, becaause that was the logical direction in > which to expand. It's apparently all set out in Mein Kampf, his blueprint > written in the 1920's. An analogy might be, say, Thomas Jefferson's buying > the Louisiana Purchase, making a greater United States. Hitler was > expanding into a greater Germany. Britain did it by creating colonies. > Hitler was essentially doing 19th century empire building coupled with 19th > century social Darwinism. He moved eastward because there were already > more Germans there than, say, in France. There's a very sane logic to > annexing, as it were, Austria, Czechoslovakia (the Sudetenland), Poland, > the countries that already had a lot of Germans. The countries Hitler was > targeting called for help from the Allies and the rest is WWII. Mixed in > there of course, is ethnic hatred of Slavs, Jews, Gypsies, etc. Not much > love in wanting to enslave populations. > > Interestingly, both Hitler and Stalin had clear, precise visions from the > very beginning of their careers. They could have written today's > management books on how to set and achieve goals. Stalin apparently knew > or suspected Hitler's plans (one maniac knows another) and said Hitler will > invade us. That he killed his generals will not appear in the management > books. One might argue (my opinion) that by forcibly democratizing Iraq > Bush is acting on 19th century values, but unlike Hitler and Stalin, with > no planning aforethought. > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: david ritchie <ritchierd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: 12/24/2005 12:28:40 PM > > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Quote from Allan Bullock's book > > > > > > On Dec 24, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Andy Amago wrote: > > > > > > > > Page 571 from Allan Bullock's, Hitler and Stalin, a quote. Bill > > > read it to me. > > > > > > "On one occasion, July 2, [1938, during the planning of the > > > invasion of Czechoslovakia] when Ribbentrop was lunching with > > > Hitler in Munich, the arrival of a British emissary was announced. > > > Hitler started up and said: 'Gott im Himmel! Don't let him in > > > yet. I am still in a good humor.' He then proceeded, in front of > > > his staff, to work himself up until his face darkened, he was > > > breathing heavily, and his eyes were glazed. His reception of the > > > Englishman was so stormy that it was clearly audible through the > > > door to those still sitting at the lunch table. When he had > > > finished, Hitler returned, wiping his brow. 'Gentlemen,' he said > > > with a chuckle, 'I need tea. He thinks I'm furious.'" > > > > I'm dipping into a book of essays by military historians. Last > > night's reading was an essay by John Keegan on how Hitler might have > > won. I learned something--that Hitler, at one point in the summer of > > 1941, decided to demobilize thirty five infantry divisions. Alas > > there are no footnotes, but if Keegan says it, I'll trust that he's > > right. > > > > Now I'm chewing over Keegan's suggested strategy, which rises from > > the standard analysis of why Hitler launched operation Barbarossa: to > > get oil and to get Stalin. Keegan argues that a more rational > > leader--and there's the rub--might have seen that he could eventually > > achieve both objections by seizing middle eastern oil fields. How? > > > > Route one would be to send Rommel from North Africa, through Egypt > > and Transjordan towards Kuwait and Basra and Baghdad. As we know, > > the British would prove a stubborn obstacle here. > > > > Route two is more interesting--skipping the invasion of Crete and > > sending the 7th Airborn Division instead to Cyprus and thence through > > Lebanon and Syria to Mosul and Baghdad. Keegan concludes that this > > was impossible because the Axis had insufficient shipping in the > > Mediterranean. > > > > The route he thinks might have won the war is an invasion from > > Bulgaria, through Istanbul to Baku, Tehran and Mosul, with Abadan as > > a final target. He concedes that the Turks would have fought hard in > > response to this violation of their neutrality, but, he argues, their > > equipment was all First World War era stuff. And his point is that > > there was no way for the Allies to respond to such a move. If Hitler > > had used the twenty divisions he sent to invade Russia, it is > > Keegan's view that a) he would have succeeded and b) he would have > > secured oil that would have made possible a subsequent campaign to > > seize Russian oil fields and hence to paralyze Stalin's army. > > > > It's all "would haves" and "ifs," but since everyone is looking at > > these maps nowadays, it's not impossible to try the notion out. > > > > I remember "Six Characters" quite well, but I can't think of anything > > interesting to say about it. > > > > David Ritchie > > not grinding lamb or cleaning house in > > Portland, Oregon > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html