Ask me about Adolf Hitler.

[Poofler]

What was Hitler's goal, in terms of conquering? In other words, where would he have stopped if he never faced true adversity?

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Did you ever come across any connection between Hitler, Martin Luther, and the Lutheran faith?

Luther himself was a fairly anti-semitic figure and I'm pretty sure Hitler used some of his anti-semitic quotes to justify what he was doing.

Also, the Kristallnacht took place on Martin Luther's birthday and some speculated Hitler did this on purpose to honor Luther, is there any truth to that?

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't know anything about that. But I remember seeing something here on 2p2 about why the Jews are often so hated on throughout history.

Back in the middle ages it was against the Christian law to lend money and charge interest on it. But money still needed to be borrowed so the Jews stepped in to fill the vacuum and lend the money.

After a few centuries the Jews had a monopoly on loans and ended up with all the money. Then of course they became the greedy Jews conspiring to steal money from all the hard working Protestants, etc.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
What was Hitler's goal, in terms of conquering? In other words, where would he have stopped if he never faced true adversity?

[/ QUOTE ]


To the North east it would have been the Ural mountains about a thousand miles behind Moscow. To the Southeast it would have been the gates of India. To the west he merely wanted to conquer the rest of England, but even there he would have preferred a peace treaty. His main goal was Eastern expansion. I saw on the History channel about the Nazi's secret plans to invade America, but I think those were just plans. A government has to at least plan for every conceivable scenario.

If the Germans won the war America probably would have been conquered eventually, but probably not in Hitler's lifetime.

If the Germans conquered Stalingrad and got to the Russian oil near Iran he would have a free pass in the Middle East due to his policy on the Jews and the anti-semitic bias in the region. He was planning to march to the gates of India with Arab armies and possibly take India (which belonged to England at the time.)

But that is perhaps overy positive hopes on his part as I'm sure the Arabs hatred for the Jews would not outweigh the disgust of infidels in the Holy Land. So probably they would have to retreat back to the border of Iran in the Southeast after intense Guerrila warfare. Not many people know this, but at the time of WW2 Iraq was ruled by England. So if the English could control the region than maybe the Germans could have had as well.

[Mr. Philosophy]

How did Hitler view Iranians? Did he actually consider them part of the Aryan race or did he view them as being inferior.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
How did Hitler view Iranians? Did he actually consider them part of the Aryan race or did he view them as being inferior.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well he obviously couldn't consider them Aryan's. He considered all races inferior to the Aryan's. Many people assume that he felt the Jews were the most inferior of the races, but he actually saw the Slavs and Gypsies as most inferior. He regarded the Jews as the most intelligent and deadly of the Aryan's racial enemies and that is why his policies were most focused upon them.

He felt the Jews had engineered WW1 for Germany to lose. He saw Slavs and gypsies as being like serfs to the Jews, unwittingly carrying out their plans for world domination via the vehicle of Communism.

[Mr. Philosophy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How did Hitler view Iranians? Did he actually consider them part of the Aryan race or did he view them as being inferior.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well he obviously couldn't consider them Aryan's. He considered all races inferior to the Aryan's. Many people assume that he felt the Jews were the most inferior of the races, but he actually saw the Slavs and Gypsies as most inferior. He regarded the Jews as the most intelligent and deadly of the Aryan's racial enemies and that is why his policies were most focused upon them.

He felt the Jews had engineered WW1 for Germany to lose. He saw Slavs and gypsies as being like serfs to the Jews, unwittingly carrying out their plans for world domination via the vehicle of Communism.

[/ QUOTE ]

From a technical standpoint Iranians are Aryans. Therefore, it might have been possible for him to consider them as not being inferior. However I am not sure he would have since they are middle eastern.

[martijn]

Not really Hitler questions themselfs, but more about Germany in WW2.

Why is/was German engineering superior to that of the allies?And do you believe Germany could've won the war if their numbers were more even to the ammount of the allies?

[WhoIam]

Re: the Middle East, Germany had major fuel problems throughout the war and much of the military strategy revolved around acquiring oil fields. This went on until the end including the absurdly optimistic offensive we call the battle of the bulge. During Rommel's last command, most of his communications went something like:

Rommel: I need fuel so I can drive my tanks. They're not doing much good sitting there.

Command: That sucks.

Rommel: Seriously, I need fuel. I can't maneuver and are troops are getting killed for no reason.

Command: Yeah, sorry about that.

I'm not sure how developed the oil fields/refineries were in the Middle East at that point.

[WhoIam]

[ QUOTE ]
What was Hitler's goal, in terms of conquering? In other words, where would he have stopped if he never faced true adversity?

[/ QUOTE ] In my opinion, he would have been quite happy uniting all the ethnic Germans and conquering Russia in order to provide lebensraum or "living space." I think this would have kept the Nazi regime busy and contented for quite a while, as it was their main goal for Germany. They didn't have much interest in fighting England or France since they were considered aryan (though not as good as the Germans) and had pretty formidable military capabilities.

Obviously if he knew it would be a piece of cake, Hitler would have conquered the whole damn continent. This was probably the ultimate goal, but they would have rather attempted it maybe 25 years after WWII started with a massive population that had mostly known nothing other than Nazi ideology their entire lives.

One major problem with conquering is that you have to police your newly-acquired territory. The easiest way to do this is to be extremely brutal; there's a reason ancient empires wiped out all the males in the land they conquered. The Germans had no problem with brutalizing inferior races, but it was a different matter with fellow aryans. Sure, there were terrible things that went on in occupied France, but this was an order of magnitude less than what the Poles and Russians faced. If you're going to to conquer someone but leave their culture essentially intact, it requires a lot of manpower.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Not really Hitler questions themselfs, but more about Germany in WW2.

Why is/was German engineering superior to that of the allies?And do you believe Germany could've won the war if their numbers were more even to the ammount of the allies?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think the Germans were ahead of the other countries in the field of physics before the war began. Albert Einstein lived in Germany before WW2 and was a professor at Berlin Universtiy. Later on he was director of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for physics from 1914 to 1932. They probably had better scientists due to necessity since nothing breeds scientific innovations like a war. And the Germans knew they were going to war before anyone else did.

The Germans also had much better tanks than the western allies. For example an American tank could hit a German tank point blank and not even put a hole in it wherea a German tank would decimate American tanks with one shot. They also had a longer range. The Russian T-34 however seems to be considered the best tank of the war due to its quickness in production and battlefield mobility even if it lacked as much armor as the German counterparts. Sometimes though having more advanced weaponry is useless if inferior technolgy will produce better results. For example Speer writes: "From the end of July 1943 on tremendous industrial capacity was diverted to the huge missile later known as the V-2: a rocket forty-six feet long and weighing more than thirteen metric tons. Hitler wanted to have 900 of these produced monthly.

The whole notion was absurd. The fleets of enemy bombers in 1944 were dropping an average of three thousand tons of bombs a day over a span of several months. And Hitler wanted to retaliate with thirty rockets that would have carried twenty-four tons of explosives to England daily. That was equivalent to the bomb load of only twelve Flying Fortesses." So I guess you could say that Hitler suffered from Fancy Play Syndrome.

Now If the Germans had as much manpower as the Russians they certainly would have won as they were inflicting about a 4:1 ratio upon Russia when attacking and about 9:1 when defending. The movie 'Enemy at the Gates' will show you why the Russians may have had such a disadvantage. In one scene men are sent forward (some without weapons) to attack the Germans and if they retreat they are simply shot by their commanding officers. So they run into machine guns and tanks and die or they run away and are killed for being traitors.

There is also a deep military tradition in Germany, particulary in Prussia which was the closest thing to a modern day Sparta. It was said in the 1700's that Prussia was not a country with an army, but an army with a country.