Something tells me you really don't want people talking about the bankers and globalists initially financing Hitler.
A common Hiterlboo defense is to claim he just wanted the territory Germany lost after WW1
If "Hitlerboo" is someone who's completely clueless about Hitler and national socialism as a whole then yeah, I can believe that. But you're changing the argument now. "Just" wanting that territory isn't what I said.
I went back through that chapter btw and he's not saying anything close to what you're claiming; the exact opposite, basically. I see him criticizing two things, the pre-WW1 politicians who chose to pursue Germany's independence through colonies and trade agreements instead of European expansion, and the present-day Germans who thought they could regain the lost territories and reunite Germany through protests or negotiations. I'm guessing it's the second one you got confused about, because he's saying stuff like this?
"In other words, the desire to regain lost territories must be ruthlessly postponed, and the primary interest of regaining liberty for the main territory of the country must be the only immediate goal."
But the entire point of that, like he explains, is because freeing and rearming the surviving mainland is NECESSARY to retake the rest, not because he didn't think it should be retaken. The closest concession on that front is that they should let South Tyrol go because Italy'd be a valuable ally and there's more important lands with a lot more Germans.
Poland aligned itself against Germany several years before the Danzig issue was pressed, also.
I hope you're criticizing Hitler for simply being low enough to take advantage of Britain and France's diplomatic ineptitude, not with the impression that they were entitled to honest diplomacy in the first place. Because they weren't.
I responded directly to a question you asked, and Hitlerboo is some pro neo-nazi type whos entire claim is basically hitler dindu nuffin wrong at all and WW2 was all just this vague conspiracy stuff where Hitler was actually the good guy.
I may be wrong about the chapter, I just remember it was near the end of the second volume and I clearly remember being shocked at just how wrong all his defenders were because he very clearly said he was against the idea of working with French and British colonial independence movements and seeking just to retake land lost after WW1.
Im criticizing Hitler for starting WW2 by taking clear advantage of France and especially Britains fears of another world war breaking out by playing this game of chicken with them where he bullies weaker nations into just giving him what he wants and then the Powers of UK and France just sit there and do nothing because they are scared of stepping in and starting a world war. He finally pushed this shit too far with Poland and then after that, he desperatly pulled this "okay I was just joking!" shit and tried to sue for peace with Britain after despite the fact that his word was worthless because his entire political career up to then was just breaking every single promise he ever made the moment it became convenient for him.
Hitler was a 2 bit gangster thug who led his nation and the world with it into hellfire and ruin. Thats why I dont like him or his edgy defenders.
You haven't responded in the slightest about Hitler's initial financial backers, you started this whole discussion about the diplomacy before WW2 instead.
Well, you were wrong about what you claimed, and I never said anything about him "just" wanting to retake land from the Versailles treaty, so I don't see how all that's relevant here. Personally I've never come across a single neo-Nazi who thought Hitler didn't want to expand, that seems exceedingly retarded, like saying the British Empire didn't want to colonize. That's probably why things got confused.
Out of curiosity, what business is it of Britain or France if Germany's bullying weaker nations?
Out of curiosity, what business is it of Britain or France if Germany's bullying weaker nations?
If you really want to just go down this completely nihilisitic "might makes right" path, then it ends with me just saying Germany lost the war and thats it. Why should I care about the intentions or ideas of the loser who was bested?
Something tells me you really don't want people talking about the bankers and globalists initially financing Hitler.
If "Hitlerboo" is someone who's completely clueless about Hitler and national socialism as a whole then yeah, I can believe that. But you're changing the argument now. "Just" wanting that territory isn't what I said.
I went back through that chapter btw and he's not saying anything close to what you're claiming; the exact opposite, basically. I see him criticizing two things, the pre-WW1 politicians who chose to pursue Germany's independence through colonies and trade agreements instead of European expansion, and the present-day Germans who thought they could regain the lost territories and reunite Germany through protests or negotiations. I'm guessing it's the second one you got confused about, because he's saying stuff like this?
"In other words, the desire to regain lost territories must be ruthlessly postponed, and the primary interest of regaining liberty for the main territory of the country must be the only immediate goal."
But the entire point of that, like he explains, is because freeing and rearming the surviving mainland is NECESSARY to retake the rest, not because he didn't think it should be retaken. The closest concession on that front is that they should let South Tyrol go because Italy'd be a valuable ally and there's more important lands with a lot more Germans.
Poland aligned itself against Germany several years before the Danzig issue was pressed, also.
I hope you're criticizing Hitler for simply being low enough to take advantage of Britain and France's diplomatic ineptitude, not with the impression that they were entitled to honest diplomacy in the first place. Because they weren't.
I responded directly to a question you asked, and Hitlerboo is some pro neo-nazi type whos entire claim is basically hitler dindu nuffin wrong at all and WW2 was all just this vague conspiracy stuff where Hitler was actually the good guy.
I may be wrong about the chapter, I just remember it was near the end of the second volume and I clearly remember being shocked at just how wrong all his defenders were because he very clearly said he was against the idea of working with French and British colonial independence movements and seeking just to retake land lost after WW1.
Im criticizing Hitler for starting WW2 by taking clear advantage of France and especially Britains fears of another world war breaking out by playing this game of chicken with them where he bullies weaker nations into just giving him what he wants and then the Powers of UK and France just sit there and do nothing because they are scared of stepping in and starting a world war. He finally pushed this shit too far with Poland and then after that, he desperatly pulled this "okay I was just joking!" shit and tried to sue for peace with Britain after despite the fact that his word was worthless because his entire political career up to then was just breaking every single promise he ever made the moment it became convenient for him.
Hitler was a 2 bit gangster thug who led his nation and the world with it into hellfire and ruin. Thats why I dont like him or his edgy defenders.
You haven't responded in the slightest about Hitler's initial financial backers, you started this whole discussion about the diplomacy before WW2 instead.
Well, you were wrong about what you claimed, and I never said anything about him "just" wanting to retake land from the Versailles treaty, so I don't see how all that's relevant here. Personally I've never come across a single neo-Nazi who thought Hitler didn't want to expand, that seems exceedingly retarded, like saying the British Empire didn't want to colonize. That's probably why things got confused.
Out of curiosity, what business is it of Britain or France if Germany's bullying weaker nations?
If you really want to just go down this completely nihilisitic "might makes right" path, then it ends with me just saying Germany lost the war and thats it. Why should I care about the intentions or ideas of the loser who was bested?