75 Years Since Hitler's Death

True.

I posted this in a thread a while back but I'll post it in here. It's very surreal hearing Hitler talk normally. It's a really fascinating 11 minutes.



Really is a bit mind blowing given you only ever hear him shouting and ranting. Thanks for posting.
 
Thank you very much esmufc. It's very disappointing to hear Hitler speak so rationally and with knowledge. I prefer to hear him as portrayed as in the movies, ranting and raving.

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.

Now another question. Should Stalin have invaded Romania and occupied the oil fields? According to Hitler if the Soviets had invaded and occupied the oil fields the war would have ended in 1941.

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
 
Thanks for that, I have vague recollections of a rather dry lecture that I unfortunately tuned out of discussing that argument as part of a module at uni actually. I've still yet to get round to learning about the US Civil War in any depth, it's on the list though. Any books you'd recommend for a good overview of the war itself?

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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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:
In the light of new source research, the representatives of the Russian and American general staff colleges and other military historians see their view reinforced: The Red Army neither prepared for an offensive in 1941, nor would they have been capable of one. Weapons and ammunition were insufficient, training on new equipment was inadequate, the transport and communications system was completely deficient, especially in the newly annexed territories in the Baltic countries and in eastern Poland. The character of the enormous Soviet mobilization was defensive. These details confirm what has been determined by German research since a long time: the German leadership did not expect an immediate threat from the Soviet military as well.

https://www.zeit.de/1995/09/Es_war_kein_Praeventivkrieg
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.
 
Going by that clip Hitler and his Generals seemed the rather surprised by what equipment the Soviets had
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.
 
Thank you very much esmufc. It's very disappointing to hear Hitler speak so rationally and with knowledge. I prefer to hear him as portrayed as in the movies, ranting and raving.

Now another question. Should Stalin have invaded Romania and occupied the oil fields? According to Hitler if the Soviets had invaded and occupied the oil fields the war would have ended in 1941.

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.
 
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?
 
Thank you very much esmufc. It's very disappointing to hear Hitler speak so rationally and with knowledge. I prefer to hear him as portrayed as in the movies, ranting and raving.

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.
 
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?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

Yes it's happening in the US right now isn't it.
 
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.

Sorry, I meant to say whether it was the most important factor in him coming to power.
 
The real problem with the Versailles Treaty is that it wasn't enforced, but that's probably a topic for another thread.

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.
 
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.

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.

Hitler was a great racist monster but a difficult personality. He clashed with Churchill because he shifted very far to the right, eventhough he won the Rhineland in that position. Tough personality? He still won plenty home and nationlevel
Nation
Nation
Nation level
NATIONAL LEVEL
NATIONAL LEVEL

SORRY ITS THE PHONE
 
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.