Really is a bit mind blowing given you only ever hear him shouting and ranting. Thanks for posting.
75 Years Since Hitler's Death
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
I definitely agree that this is interesting. It's important to remember that we're not seeing any kind of unfiltered pure analysis, even though this is unique as far as Hitler sources go. He's talking to an ally, so it's in his interest to make the same kind of justifications we've heard before, such as when he says he knew the Soviets were going to attack and try to conquer Europe, so his attack was a pre-emptive one.
If the Soviet Union had invaded Romania, that would probably have brought them into war with the Allies. That was already very close to happening a few times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-British_plans_for_intervention_in_the_Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pike
For me, it's ruined the historical credibility of all those 'Hitler reacts' videos.
I don't know what I am doing with my life any more.
https://www.captiongenerator.com/1829832/Elvis-makes-a-new-thread
Battle Cry of Freedom is the best place to start because it doesn't get bogged down in the tedium of troop movements during individual battles.
But that would have been crazy. The clip shows Hitler saying that if the Soviets had captured the oil fields of Romania Germany was finished in 1941.
Cheers, I like the sound of that
Hitler was not a rational or impartial observer, nor was he any kind of strategic genius. In any case, just because Hitler says something to an ally doesn't mean he actually thinks it's true.
And it might have been crazy, but even so it did almost happen. If the Soviet Union had actually invaded Romania, it probably would happen.
Without oil from Romania they definitely would’ve been finished. It’s why they needed to secure the Balkans before going east, direct resources towards the Caucasus, and also why Japan felt the need to bomb Pearl Harbor.
Whether or not it was a strong possibility I couldn’t speak to with any certainty.
What may be a factor: from what I know, the Red Army was in a rather poor shape in 1940/41. A 1995 article on a combined international research project over the "preemptive war thesis" (a version of which made a brief cameo here recently) summarizes its results like this:
Doesn't seem a good basis for handling the potential backlash of such an aggressive move, one year earlier even.
(Edit) Besides: Wasn't it so that Stalin was convinced of the stability of his pact with Hitler practically right up until the invasion?
Last edited:
Going by that clip Hitler and his Generals seemed the rather surprised by what equipment the Soviets had and if they had invaded Romania he is saying Germany could not fight but as others have said it may not have been possible for the Soviets to invade. But it's one of those moments if they had been able to do so, the horrors of Nazi Germany may have been stopped. At least for the Jews it may have been a good moment. The question is since the Soviets were rather unprepared militarily, the Romanian invasion may be the better option for the Allies as the Soviets would not have been able to do anything more than that.
Yes, pretty much. He ignored some fairly drastic signs because he wanted to avoid giving the Germans any opportunity to break the pact.
Which begs the additional question: why should Stalin have made such a move - certainly a total affront against the Germans - in 1940 at all, when he did not expect war with Germany, at least not any time soon? (Afaik, all Soviet gains in Eastern Europe thus far were in accordance with Hitler.)
But what I can well imagine from that Hitler recording is that in 1940 the German leadership feared the Soviets could do that.
They definitely seemed to have underestimated the Soviet’s production capabilities... granted, you’d have been hard pressed to find anyone who would have thought them capable of moving their factory production to beyond the Urals and then pumping out as many tanks as they did, much less one as good as the T-34.
The Soviet army in 1941 had just had trouble with Finland, was unimpressive in Poland, was about to be decimated by the Germans, and was in the middle of a massive leadership and inventory change. Not a good time probably.
Indeed. Their capability for offensive operations was nonexistent. Soviet logistics and leadership was a shambles at the time. The fact that they were able to fight a defensive war, identify better leadership, and shorten supply lines as Germany lengthened theirs, seems to have played to their advantage, although at the cost of millions of lives.
Two monsters vs each other. Yes I agree that without the brutality and the unifying factor of Stalin the Soviets most probably may have folded. Stalin was the one who kept the Generals in check. Otherwise there would have been infighting and most probably the same in Germany too.
Without the racial element, how would Hitler turn out to be? To me the horrors he created with his persecution of Jews and other ethnicities is what makes him such a monster.
Without the racial element, how would Hitler turn out to be? To me the horrors he created with his persecution of Jews and other ethnicities is what makes him such a monster.
This is probably impossible to answer, because you can't separate Nazis from racism. It's a bit like asking what communism would look like without class theory. Ultranationalism was very much integral to what made the Nazis, Nazis, and it played an essential role in their decision-making (and in how they came to power in the first place).
Though if you are to discuss Hitler outside of the context of racism, then it's worth mentioning that Nazi Germany was on the verge of economic collapse before the war. The only way they avoided it was by invading countries and plundering them to stay afloat. This process began more or less as soon as Hitler came to power, and practically defined Nazi Germany.
Maybe I should rephrase it. Did Nazism and Hitler come about because of the economic devastation? What if there was no such a huge devastation? Would Hitler still be such a horrible person?
Kinda. Maybe. Yes.
"I just wanted eboue to like me"In the end, isn't that why we're all here?
I suppose, but he'll never admit to it.
Eboue fecking loves me.
This is the warning from history isn't it. He got into power legitimately by trading heavily on the classic "i'll make this country great" rhetoric, then it developed into the classic blame the foreigners element.
Then it moved into the really sinister areas.
That's why we have to be wary when you hear the early parts of that progression being peddled by people these days, as who knows where it can take you.
Hitler's views were formed long before the crash of 1929 and the subsequent collapse of the German economy. His hatred for the Jews largely stemmed out of Germany's defeat in the First World War, so the hatred was certainly there long before Hitler ever rose to power. Whether or not Hitler could have ever become Chancellor and then Fuhrer without the economic crash is subject to debate.
I’d say not a chance in hell. The Treaty of Versaille was humiliating (and stupid) but you probably wouldn’t have had the same violent chaos without the economic depression.
Yes it's happening in the US right now isn't it.
The real problem with the Versailles Treaty is that it wasn't enforced, but that's probably a topic for another thread.
Sorry, I meant to say whether it was the most important factor in him coming to power.
The French were still demanding reparations and marching troops across the border to seize them. It really fed into Germany’s national humiliation and the desire for strong governance.
Which parts?
I mean you can only do what you can do at the time.The more I learn about it the more I think this idea is trite ignorant post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. ( Puts on Brodie)
I just saw someone delete a post which was horribly disfigured, which reminded me of this masterpiece. I just get happy looking at it.
Just posted accidentally while still putting pieces together. Nothing like that carefully crafted post, let alone the piece of art on which it's based.