[lit-ideas] Re: Quote from Allan Bullock's book
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 13:30:16 -0500
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
Other related posts:
