Did Hitler Want War?

[XIX]

I'm not saying I agree wit the article--in fact, I'm pretty sure I disagree.

But to call the article drivel is extremely unfair.

[Nihil Obstat]

Well obviously Hitler preferred appeasement to war. It worked at first, after all, and it was a lot less expensive.

I don't know or care whether or not he 'wanted' war, but the fact is that it was going to happen to matter what. He was going to keep pushing and pushing until someone pushed back... or until he had everything.

[Saint Therese]

I don't see how anyone could make the statement that Hitler didn't want war.

[Nihil Obstat]

See my above post. Technically one could say he didn't want war if by that they meant he wanted other options first, namely appeasement. War is expensive (though it does stimulate the economy) and considering that he almost certainly knew he'd be facing an enormous amount of conflict, I think it's safe to say that war, while he certainly wasn't against it, was not his number one goal.

[Saint Therese]

I made my comment after reading your post. He had no desire for appeasement.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Saint Therese' date='04 September 2009 - 01:07 AM' timestamp='1252048035' post='1960689']
I made my comment after reading your post. He had no desire for appeasement.
[/quote]
Appeasement had already worked for him. If he could have got what he wanted without spending the money for a war, he probably would have done it.
After all, who wouldn't? This isn't even about Hitler. Why pay when you could get it for free? Well he ended up not getting any more for free, so he paid... indirectly. Except in war everybody pays.

[Saint Therese]

What was it that you think he wanted? His ultimate goal may have been peace, but it would have been a peace achieved through the total domination of Europe, and if he had his way, the world.

Their sword will become our plow, and from the tears of war the daily bread of future generations will grow.

-Adolf Hitler (Mein Kampf)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!"

"Strength lies not in defense but in attack."

And lastly, my favorite,
"Who says I am not under the special protection of God?"

[VeniteAdoremus]

Well, my country claimed neutrality (as we did [b]with success[/b] in the first World War), and he stomped all over us.

The annexation of Danzig/invasion of Poland was not the first such act. The plan for a "Greater Germany" was already in full swing. The gobbling up of Austria was in direct violation of the Versailles treaty, and there was absolutely no reason to assume the nazis weren't going to take the lands that were given to France. It was also pretty clear they were planning to save us poor Dutchies from our democratically elected government. So to state that the involvement of Britain and France created the Western front is gobbledygook. Hitler wasn't going to pull a Napoleon and kill himself in Russia if the Western European countries left him alone, he was going to strengthen his borders in Poland and [i]then[/i] come for us.

[Nihil Obstat]

Maybe I should have been more specific.
I think he would have kept on taking stuff over. I just think that, if it had been up to him, Britain and France and the League of Nations would have kept up the appeasement and let him do it. He would have preferred having nothing more than individual, isolated countries falling under his war machine.

[Saint Therese]

I just found the most disturbing passage from Mein Kampf:

[quote]As for humanitarianism, Moltke said years ago that in war it lies in the brevity of the operation, and that means that the most aggressive fighting technique is the most humane.
But when people try to approach these questions with drivel about aesthetics, etc., really only one answer is possible: where the destiny and existence of a people are at stake, all obligation toward beauty ceases. The most unbeautiful thing there can be in human life is and remains the yoke of slavery. Or do these Schwabing 2 decadents view the present lot of the German people as 'aesthetic'? Certainly we don't have to discuss these matters with the Jews, the most modern inventors of this cultural perfume. Their whole existence is an embodied protest against the aesthetics of the Lord's image.
And since these criteria of humanitarianism and beauty must be eliminated from the struggle, they are also inapplicable to propaganda.
Propaganda in the War was a means to an end, and the end wvas the struggle for the existence of the German people; consequently, propaganda could only be considered in accordance with the principles that were valid for this struggle. In this case the most cruel weapons were humane if they brought about a quicker victory; and only those methods were beautiful which helped the nation to safeguard the dignity of its freedom.
This was the only possible attitude toward war propaganda in a life-and-death struggle like ours.[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

We can certainly agree on that. He was a disgusting man with some of the most horrific opinions to be seen in modern history.

Remember how we were talking about how justifying negative marks would be a cool way to keep the system accountable and the way it was meant to be? Well I'm just saying, I'd like to hear reasoning.

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 September 2009 - 10:33 AM' timestamp='1252049586' post='1960699']
Maybe I should have been more specific.
I think he would have kept on taking stuff over. I just think that, if it had been up to him, Britain and France and the League of Nations would have kept up the appeasement and let him do it. He would have preferred having nothing more than individual, isolated countries falling under his war machine.
[/quote]

Oh, I do agree, he didn't want an all-out war with everybody teaming up against the nazis and having an actual fighting chance. But he didn't give many reasons not to do that. There was an outcry after the Anschluss (ironically, also from Italy, which later became an ally), which died down eventually... but he totally knew he had it comin'. Maybe Danzig doesn't seem the most logical points for the Brits to get fed up and do something, it [i]was[/i] going to happen and everybody involved knew this.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='04 September 2009 - 11:00 AM' timestamp='1252051241' post='1960705']
We can certainly agree on that. He was a disgusting man with some of the most horrific opinions to be seen in modern history.

Remember how we were talking about how justifying negative marks would be a cool way to keep the system accountable and the way it was meant to be? Well I'm just saying, I'd like to hear reasoning.
[/quote]

iawtc I thought it was a good post...

[Didacus]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='03 September 2009 - 11:33 AM' timestamp='1251992002' post='1960348']
Pat Buchanan didn't say Hitler didn't want war per se, but he wanted to halt the war he was involved with after invading Poland, probably to reinforce his troops. Its very probable, at that point in time, Hitler most likely did not want war "with the West." Great Britain's declaration of war on Germany, forced him into it, before he was ready.

Jim
[/quote]

This is the point of view I find the most lucid.

He didn't want war with Britain or France 'at that particular time', but that doesn't mean he didn't plan to have the war at a 'later time' when he was ready.

France nad Britain waiting before entering the war in order to build their forces would have allowed the Germans the same opportunity; and in the mean time Poland was litterally being extinguished. What percentage of Poles died in WWII? Anyone have any stats? I've heard it was near 30%.

[Theoketos]

I think the point Mr. Buchanan is trying to make is that the War might have been averted, and his current stick is that peace is better then war in our times.

[Winchester]

Not a defense of Hitler, but an attempt to shed a different light on the cause of war. Nowhere is Hitler lauded or is the Holocaust denied or laid at the foot of the Britain's declaration of war.

Of course, one might draw comparisons between this argument and those who argue against attacking Afghanistan and Iraq...

But let's not let anything get in the way of calling this a defense of Hitler. The question is, how can we blame George Bush for this and prop up Obama as the One?