Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    lol - lebensruam - he wanted the Ukraine and the southern industrial areas of the USSR for primarily that, Ukrainian industry and grain for his soldiers, do you really think he was on an ideological quest?

    if he was so hell-bent on the destruction of Bolshevism, why make a ground-breaking pact with Stalin? why support Hiwis (minority volunteers) in fighting the red army? who were in fact marxists !
    hi, sorry, i dont mean this in a rude way at all, please dont take it as such, but can i ask who taught you about the third reich?

    i honestly dont know one scholar of nazi germany who would deny hitler had ethnic goals in the field of foreign affairs. read mein kampf, it is littered with implicit references.

    and throughout the war he spoke of such thigns.....the invasion of poland for example and "polish mismanagement" would "enable us to clenase the reich itself, of jews and polacks" it is thus implicit that hitlers domestic policy of racial purity was intimately linked to his foreign policy. but again im not saying there were no other considerations, the aims of nazi policy in polnad often changed according to external constraints. one only has to look at the madagascar plan to realise other considerations came into play which possibly changed nazi foreign policy.

    To view hitlers war as simply another traditional geopolitical conflict, (for land and resources) is short sighted and is the result of looking at certain aspects of it only.

    if this was not a racial crusade, how does one account for the huge numbers of racial 'scientists' who were employed before the war on poland, and again before the war on the SU to research and consult the reich administration on resettlement, reorganisation etc etc.

    of course you can argue that geographers were also consulted and thus this was indeed a traditional land grab war, but to ignore the racial segement is absurd, furthermore, one must look at the very role of ideology which acts as a prism through which relaiyt is considered, so for example, in terms of land one must not conceptualise it how we would normally, but analyse the nazi conceptualisation of it, land in nazi ideology was intimately related to soil and blood. both were key elements in nazi ideology.

    indeed translate lebensraum and you have living space, this has biological undertones to it. germans were to be resettled in this living space. the whole of europe was to be resettled along racial lines. if one looks at occupation policies the issue that mattered most was the posiiton the population occupied on the nazi racial hierarchy. now im not saying other considerations such as socio-economics played no role but to deny the first criterai is laughable.

    It clearly was a racial war, hence on June 22nd hitler told his generals that the impending war against Russia will be a “war of extermination”. It was the war against the sU that revealed most obviously the ideology inherent in hitlers foreign policy.

    Hitler saw his enemy as a "Judeo-Bolshevist" conspiracy, which he believed was his destiny to eliminate. This meant not only a war of annihilation of the Soviet Union; it also meant the destruction of the European Jewish community.

    Your arguemnt that hitler signed a non aggression pact with staling, and thus he did not want to destroy the Soviet union is again quite short sighted. although stalin was, arguably, convinced the pact was real and would ensure peace for at least 25 years, hitler always saw it as merely a means to an end, a smokescreen and trick both against the west, and against the soviet union. he always planned to invade, if oen thing is a constant in his writings it is this aim.

    The idea of a racial crusade was certainly also clear to people of the time both those:
    who supported hitler such as himmler who was often even more extreme than hitler, down to those drafted into the army. the social democrat reischock noted in his diary the "master race" mentality evinced by towards the poles by the others in his unit.

    and those who disagreed with his aims, such as Colonel Helmuth Steiff who spoke of "the extermination of entrie races...is only possible by a sub humanity that no longer deserves the name german"

    another official, colonel-general blakowitz, who disagreed with the harsh treatment of east european populations wrote a memo to all units in which he wrote that harsh methods were, "justified by the need to secure German lebensraum and the solutions to ethnic-political problems ordered by the fuhrer"

    his replacement spoke of "the achievement of a final solution of this ethnic struggle, which has been raging for centuries along our eastern frontier"
    the ideology and mythology of nazi germany was steeped in the idea that the tueton had to push back the slav barbarian from the gates of europe.

    as for contradictions in his policies which seem to fly in the face of this racial war, hitler was nothing if not contradictory! he was immensely ideological but also quite pragamtic at times. the exampel you use of the hiwis is valid, however they were not necessarily marxist....though some members were, many were simply local (west) ukranians. also at the start hitler was adamnatly opposed to their use.the steady depletion of the german army in russia gradually brought about a change, as did less ideological officers in the eastern armies.

    honestly i think you would be hard pressed to find a serous scholar of the third reich that would argue hitler only had socio-economic and geo-political aims. after all even his geo-political aims which were largely inspired by gobineau were linked to the racial hierachies of houston chamberlain. so i agree with you that traditionalc ocnerns played a role, but only a side issue to the racial crusade he envisgaed.

    im afraid the vast majority of scholarship on the subject stands implicably opposed to your viewpoint.

    phew sorry for such a long post. i hope it wasnt too boring!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    hi, sorry, i dont mean this in a rude way at all, please dont take it as such, but can i ask who taught you about the third reich?
    A great teacher, an erudite scholar and an enlightened historian!

    (Original post by Masonne)
    i honestly dont know one scholar of nazi germany who would deny hitler had ethnic goals in the field of foreign affairs. read mein kampf, it is littered with implicit references.
    Ian Kershaw


    (Original post by Masonne)
    and throughout the war he spoke of such thigns.....the invasion of poland for example and "polish mismanagement" would "enable us to clenase the reich itself, of jews and polacks" it is thus implicit that hitlers domestic policy of racial purity was intimately linked to his foreign policy.
    Hitler’s rhetoric became successful due to his totalizing vision. Hitler proposed an all-encompassing plan that appeared to offer a solution to all of Germany’s problems. His ideology was a complete 'worldview', meant to explain anything that was encountered. Hitler’s ability to convince the masses of his totalizing vision brought unity to the German people and was largely based on the irradiation of what he called ‘the ultimate evil.’ “Jews were the German nation's true enemy,” he wrote. “As such, they were not a race, but an anti-race.” Hitler’s all encompassing 'worldview' was meant to be the answer to any possible question. All fingers were pointed at the Jews for Germany’s previous problems.


    (Original post by Masonne)
    but again im not saying there were no other considerations, the aims of nazi policy in polnad often changed according to external constraints. one only has to look at the madagascar plan to realise other considerations came into play which possibly changed nazi foreign policy.
    Yes, that's what I'm saying - Hitler was trying to be pragmatic - do you think the forefront in his mind was the the industrial and agricultural capacity of the Donbass region, the Ukraine and Poland - or the racial cleansing? bearing in mind he was being attacked from both sides by 1941.



    (Original post by Masonne)
    To view hitlers war as simply another traditional geopolitical conflict, (for land and resources) is short sighted and is the result of looking at certain aspects of it only.

    if this was not a racial crusade, how does one account for the huge numbers of racial 'scientists' who were employed before the war on poland, and again before the war on the SU to research and consult the reich administration on resettlement, reorganisation etc etc.
    there weren't 'huge numbers', a few dozen in each concentration/death camp - people such as Mengele, Oberheuser and Clauberg did commit some grotesque experiments and investigations, however these were not on such a grand scale as to hinder the German war effort.

    (Original post by Masonne)
    of course you can argue that geographers were also consulted and thus this was indeed a traditional land grab war, but to ignore the racial segement is absurd, furthermore, one must look at the very role of ideology which acts as a prism through which relaiyt is considered, so for example, in terms of land one must not conceptualise it how we would normally, but analyse the nazi conceptualisation of it, land in nazi ideology was intimately related to soil and blood. both were key elements in nazi ideology.
    but how can you really believe in that? what about the hiwis? the italian allies? the syrians? the bulgarians? the finns? the slovakians? - and if land is so entrenched in the 'Nazi ideology' then why did they cede land to the USSR?

    (Original post by Masonne)
    indeed translate lebensraum and you have living space, this has biological undertones to it. germans were to be resettled in this living space. the whole of europe was to be resettled along racial lines. if one looks at occupation policies the issue that mattered most was the posiiton the population occupied on the nazi racial hierarchy. now im not saying other considerations such as socio-economics played no role but to deny the first criterai is laughable.
    it's not laughable, it's a pragmatic view rather than this revisionist pseudo-ideological view ! i seriously believe hitler wanted russia and western europe for primarily economic reasons, for continuing the war on both fronts - i mean why would he take on ethnic minorities opposed to Stalinism? primarily to fight off the Soviets for possible land which could be cultivated in an economic sense


    (Original post by Masonne)
    It clearly was a racial war, hence on June 22nd hitler told his generals that the impending war against Russia will be a “war of extermination”. It was the war against the sU that revealed most obviously the ideology inherent in hitlers foreign policy.
    that is quoted from an order to his armyin July 1941, obviously some more rhetoric to spur the Wermacht on

    (Original post by Masonne)
    Hitler saw his enemy as a "Judeo-Bolshevist" conspiracy, which he believed was his destiny to eliminate. This meant not only a war of annihilation of the Soviet Union; it also meant the destruction of the European Jewish community.

    Your arguemnt that hitler signed a non aggression pact with staling, and thus he did not want to destroy the Soviet union is again quite short sighted. although stalin was, arguably, convinced the pact was real and would ensure peace for at least 25 years, hitler always saw it as merely a means to an end, a smokescreen and trick both against the west, and against the soviet union. he always planned to invade, if oen thing is a constant in his writings it is this aim.
    yes, Hitler may have seen it as a means to an end, but i was talking of the Nazi-Soviet as contradictory to his racial ideology? Hitler's writings? yet again, superficial writing and taken with great caution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    The idea of a racial crusade was certainly also clear to people of the time both those:
    who supported hitler such as himmler who was often even more extreme than hitler, down to those drafted into the army. the social democrat reischock noted in his diary the "master race" mentality evinced by towards the poles by the others in his unit.

    and those who disagreed with his aims, such as Colonel Helmuth Steiff who spoke of "the extermination of entrie races...is only possible by a sub humanity that no longer deserves the name german"

    another official, colonel-general blakowitz, who disagreed with the harsh treatment of east european populations wrote a memo to all units in which he wrote that harsh methods were, "justified by the need to secure German lebensraum and the solutions to ethnic-political problems ordered by the fuhrer"

    his replacement spoke of "the achievement of a final solution of this ethnic struggle, which has been raging for centuries along our eastern frontier"
    the ideology and mythology of nazi germany was steeped in the idea that the tueton had to push back the slav barbarian from the gates of europe.
    yes, but how does this contribute to Hitler's ideology ? and the belief that the war was mainly ideological as you argue? :confused: :confused: yes, the opinions of some generals is interesting, but how does it contribute to the disagreement that Hitler was more of a pragmatist?




    (Original post by Masonne)
    as for contradictions in his policies which seem to fly in the face of this racial war, hitler was nothing if not contradictory! he was immensely ideological but also quite pragamtic at times. the exampel you use of the hiwis is valid, however they were not necessarily marxist....though some members were, many were simply local (west) ukranians. also at the start hitler was adamnatly opposed to their use.the steady depletion of the german army in russia gradually brought about a change, as did less ideological officers in the eastern armies.

    Nazism being an ideology is a very important question when looking into the rise of Hitler and how he used his so-called 'ideologies' to win over the support of the German people. The dictionary definition of the word 'Ideology' is 'Ideas that form the basis of a political or economic theory', from this we should be able to weigh the evidence to see if the Nazis ideas about political and economic system form an ideology. The Nazis did not fit the criteria for being ideological; they were contradictory and hypocritical. The Nazis coagulated the ideas and theories of philosophers, musicians and scientists and produced them in a way that appealed to the masses this is what made the Nazi party believable and supportable. Hitler presented to the masses a bombardment of political and ideological ideas, which seemed to take into account every individual and personal opinion of the average and indeed middle class German. The nationalistic component to Nazism appealed to every German, the fact that they were superior and stronger than other nations appealed to the masses and the apparent coherent way in which Hitler presented these ideas made it more believable than ridiculous.

    In essence, Hitler used Nazism as a form of totally convincing the German people, that is the most important thing, rather than convoluted ideologies and political philosophies - he needed rhetoric to convince the German people, do you think he cared much for ideologies when a total of the majority of the major countries in the world declared war on Nazi Germany?

    and no, the majority of historical opinion does not stand against me at all - i believe that the economic reasons for lebensraum were most important during wartime rather than ideology, he was a fool and coerced a people into war using superficial rubbish, and the fact that his ideology is so rootless is an acceptable one - he took ideas from many areas and perverted them to a point where they become totally absurd, and to think that his war was totally ideological is a bit silly, what would he have to gain from exterminating a couple hundred of thousand of Russians compared to what he has to gain from the economic potential of thousands of miles of land?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi, just a quick note as im at work and cant reply fully as boss would wonder why i was typing so much (i never do much work!)..but can i ask who this historian was that taught you? i would be interested to read his writings.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    hi, just a quick note as im at work and cant reply fully as boss would wonder why i was typing so much (i never do much work!)..but can i ask who this historian was that taught you? i would be interested to read his writings.
    I've just finished college, and not started university yet, why?? my teachers did PhDs one on Apartheid South Africa and the other one did one Reformation England,


    I don't think it matters what my teachers say, I've got a personal interest in the second world war, and if someone took your line in an essay, it wouldn't be a very good one !
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    I've just finished college, and not started university yet, why?? my teachers did PhDs one on Apartheid South Africa and the other one did one Reformation England,


    I don't think it matters what my teachers say, I've got a personal interest in the second world war, and if someone took your line in an essay, it wouldn't be a very good one !
    i was just wondering who taught you so i could read up on the argument, no need to get defensive, it wasnt meant as an insult, i did make that quite clear.

    the last comment is a bit uncalled and offensive, and doesnt stand up to scrutiny at either UCL, Sheffield (under Ian Kershaw) or Cambridge, this is from personal experience btw.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Masonne)
    i was just wondering who taught you so i could read up on the argument, no need to get defensive, it wasnt meant as an insult, i did make that quite clear.

    the last comment is a bit uncalled and offensive, and doesnt stand up to scrutiny at either UCL, Sheffield (under Ian Kershaw) or Cambridge, this is from personal experience btw.

    well, i'm dismissing your thesis as you so readily do mine , i didn't mean it as an insult,

    how do you know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by John Paul Jones)
    well, i'm dismissing your thesis as you so readily do mine , i didn't mean it as an insult,

    how do you know it doesn't stand up to scrutiny?
    ok sorry, i thought you were being insulting. i apologise. lets keep this a clean argument as its a good one i think.

    however, i must point out i dont dismiss yours out of hand, i admit that hitler was often contradictory, the nazi soviet pact is a good example, but there are reasons to this beyond simply hitler never envisaged a racial war, it was solely to do with socio-economics.

    furthermore i accept the part of your argument that socio-economics undoubtedly played a part, i however disagree in the importance you ascribe to it.

    i know it doesnt stand up to scrutiny as i have done my bachelors at UCL history department specialising in german history. i should add kings college london as well would also disagree with your statement that my line of arguent would be laughed at, as i took the kings richard overy course during my second year (at the university of london you can take other history options within the university, so for example i was able to study at kings, others from ucl studied at lse for a topic, others went to soas etc etc, its a very good scheme, provides a lot of variety!!)

    i also applied to cambridge for the mphil in modern european history which i was accepted to (though i declined in favour of the mphil in international relations), the essays i sent in to support my application were on this topic of racial war and the second was on the role of ideoogy/worldview in the nazi regime and how it interreacted with the discourse/lexicon and mythos of the regime...in this esssay i also touched on how the war was both portrayed and perceived.

    for my dissertation i spent some time in sheffield university history department and consulted with ian kershawm and a good friend who did her phd at sheffield on the third reich underneath the big dude himself.

    anyways, i will write a proper reply when i get ou of work as i dont have the time here. this was just a side post.

    are you doing history at university, i would recoomend it to you, its fantastic and you seem to have a passion for it!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.