Look IL–your belief that individual leaders’ intentions can be “proven” as “fact” (through speeches no less!) just shows that you fundamentally don’t understand historical analysis.
The intentions listed in my posts are factual and are not exclusive of every consideration. But to flip flop on a basic understanding of some of the influences behind basic decisions which are common and known by anybody with cursory knowledge of these events really shows on you. I provided tons of primary sources and you have provided nothing to disprove what i posted. You asked for sources and when confronted with the very words from these men, you harp on credentials, Hitler was a liar, only you know the truth. What BS. For somebody to quote Mein Kampf for facts, then totally discount the same man’s words in one of his most important speeches is really something. A book he writes 20 years earlier which could not possibly have accounted for the events of late 1940 is a huge stretch. Hitler had many reasons for doing Barbarossa and one of them was to diminish the British resolve to carry the war if the only remaining major power was defeated. And yes he had other reasons but that was not what my post was about. What you have is a very shallow knowledge of anything before 1950 and find yourself trying to bite off more than you can chew. Then you get caught with facts and quickly argue about other things and try to make new arguments for me to avoid the painful indignation of failure. I think you must have failed in Forensic debate and use the internet to create arguments out of thin air. Try another-
No historian says “I can PROVE that Caesar’s intentions were this, just look at this letter he wrote.” Historians provide hypotheses and the offer reasons, primary sources, etc., that support or deny those hypotheses, but to say that one can “prove” as “fact” an historical personage’s intentions is ridiculous.
You know little about History, not even the theroys of how to assess History. What i stated has been written by many sources. Nothing you provide discounts that.
If it were possible to prove something as fact as nebulous as a person’s intentions, then why do we still debate the worthiness of any historical figure, such as Wilson (did he or did he not want to be an American dictator?), Germanicus (had he been Imperator, would he have attempted to restore the Roman Republic, as Graves intimates?), or Lenin (was his marketization reforms before he died real, or were they simply a short term tactical ploy?)?
Some ideas, theories and hypotheses gain traction and possibly acceptance as years go by, but you’ve now said several times that speech X or speech Y “prove” that an argument is “fact” or even settled (as though generals or politicians never have secondary intentions that may undercut what they are trying to say for general consumption).
More Blah Blah Blah. Let me put you on point:
Here is your argument:
The analysis that the USSR needed to be destroyed so as to deny the UK an ally is ridiculous
Then you write a typical flip flop:
Honestly, I never excluded that Hitler saw a benefit in securing his Eastern Flank and knocking out a potential UK ally.
Here are replies from primary sources which prove that wrong… ( including a speech from Hitler)
From General Von Bock:
“There are said to be contacts between Russia and America; a Russia-England link is therefore also likely. To wait for the outcome of such a development is dangerous. But if the Russians were eliminated, England would have no hope left of defeating us on the continent, especially since an effective intervention by America would be complicated by Japan, which would keep our rear free.”
From General Halder:
“Britains hope lies in Russia and the United States. If Russia drops out of the picture, America, too, is lost for Britain, because elimination of Russia would tremendously increase Japans power in the Far East.”
Hitlers intuition told him that Britains only hope would be a falling out between him and Stalin and time was on both the British and the Soviet sides. They would become stronger and their combined power would be too much for Germany to overcome. The time was now to take from Britain her last hope, the Soviet Union. As late as one week before the invasion of the USSR the Fuehrer spoke at the Reich Chancellery to his top generals.
Present was General Field-Marshall von Bock who writes:
� “The more he had thought about the decision to attack Russia during the months, the more determined he became. Russia posed a grave threat to Germanys back and we now have to have our back free; as soon as she is cast down, England will have no ally left to win over the continent, and Germany can only be beaten on the continent. England will see all this, and it is to be assumed that it will then abandon the hopeless struggle. The Fuehrer hopes that this will come to pass in the first months after the end of the eastern operation”
“On the contrary. England will be all the less ready for peace, for it will be able to pin its hopes on the Russian partner. Indeed, this hope must naturally even grow with the progress in preparedness of the Russian armed forces. And behind this is the mass delivery of war material from America which they hope to get in 1942.”
A speech from Hitler:
“The situation in England itself is bad; the provision of food and raw materials is growing steadily more difficult. The martial spirit to make war, after all, lives only on hopes. These hopes are based solely on two assumptions: Russia and America. We have no chance of eliminating America. But it does lie in our power to exclude Russia. The elimination of Russia means, at the same time, a tremendous relief for Japan in East Asia, and thereby the possibility of a much stronger threat to American activities through Japanese intervention.”
Just like i said all along. Thanks. One of the points of Hitler’s decision to attack USSR in 1941 was among other things to deny a potential major ally on the European continent. The reasoning is rightfully or not that following a collapse of the Soviets, the British Empire would come to terms since no other player could help her.
This, again, is another reason why I don’t believe you truly understand the craft of history and that you lie about your educational background. I just expect more from someone who went to Stanford.
And as far as the name calling and saying that I follow you around and look for “crap” with which to find fault: Look, you’re the only one (so far as I can tell) who has a problem with me on these boards (to the point where you repeatedly suggested that I beat my infant child and preschooler, which as I’m sure you remember is one of the reasons that you were stripped of your status as board liaison). The same cannot be said of you (I can’t tell you how many emails I’ve gotten from people offering support to me and voicing their frustration with how you present yourself. Most recently, as a “twat”).
Let me call the Whambulance… If you don’t address the facts and swing for the clouds with empty knowledge, you fail. They are diversions that entertain me and others here. I don’t bring up anything here except proving my post is accurate. It is you that keeps bringing up nothing related and showing how you can’t stick to any fact pattern and make arguments about History by bringing up spankings,PM’s, Moderator…anything but a real argument. I’m sorry you have a tough life, just don’t take it out on these boards. They are for sane people.
When i hear this i know you lost the debate a long time ago. Just stick to Modern Warfare/ Geopolitical Science of current times.