World War II General Discussion

By this we don’t mean that their crazy politics were some kind of way forward in general, but that the Hitlerite rats, as the Soviets deliciously called them, would never have been able to gain the footing they needed to launch the Eastern European annexation campaign that resulted in the World War.

They effectively had a full and firm grasp on Austria, and represented a total cancelation of fascism. To invade Austria, it was essencial to the national socialists that #1 they didn’t seriously resist and #2 there was a strong local national socialist component.

Which also goes to show that national socialism and fascism was anti-traditionalist.

In a way, the Dolfuss government was calling fascism on its bluff.

It was such a perfect strike that assassination was the only appropriate compliment.

Briefly, the national socialist agenda was to annex certain key points in eastern Europe. Those had, they aspired to either come together with or nullify England and France, which they would have the resources now to come to the negotiating table about. Their estimation was that they would probably rather need to be nullified, cowed into insignificance. This accomplished, the complete annexation of Russia.

It was carefully designed domino per domino, because they only had enough strength at any one time to tackle one particular objective.

Austria was a key domino. Without it, it all would have fizzled into the flash in the pan everybody thought it would be.

They had to do it this way because their socialist policies were already veering Germany into bankrupcy, and they had looted all the Jewish people of their wealth. So now they needed to loot other countries. Socialism isn’t terribly creative.

They couldn’t save up to do the war all the military men imagined which would have started in 1942, because they were bleeding capital rather than raising it.

Remember when Bush had to change “infinite justice” to “enduring freedom”?

Not WWII, but.

That’s socialism for you. Stick to the subject as long as you think you can twist it into your pamphlet. Change it immediately if you don’t.

When I think WWII, I think Bonhoeffer driving a spoke into the wheel of injustice.

Ah, a Protestant. Can socialism survive but by?

The story of German high command plots against Hitler is itself engrossing though. Mainly because they tended to agree with him on almost everything, and simply wanted to stop him wasting the Wermacht’s power without actual hopes of suiccess.

Being German military men, they failed to understand that it was an economic imperative. It was war now or bankruptcy later.

Think about who could have survived in high command for the 6 whole years from 33 to 39. I’m sure some antisocialists, but few.

Is it WWII you want to discuss, or how Christianity & its denominations (mis)align with socialism, capitalism, etc.? If it violates self=other, call it antichristian. The End.

WWII, Christianity insofar as it has anything to do.

From a historical perspective, though, discussing pamphlets bores me to death.

Which by the way includes this self=other having deep historical significance.

WWII was a war of Socialism. Self=other is the cornerstone of socialism.

(So, by the way, is thinking of facts as stumbling blocks for programs).

Catholicism doesn’t admit of it, because every Catholic is a son of God. Perfect individualism. For a protestant, God is not a father of individuals, but a fence of a collective mass.

One of the early crusades was against German proto-protestants, still then called heretics, ranting about, wouldn’t you know it, killing all the Jews.

I don’t know, hahaha, that seems to me relevant vis the war against the national socialists.

Therefore, it is relevant that the Wermacht was originally a Catholic creation and that, far from making it, socialism broke it.

These things, these myths, aren’t happenstancical evolutionary remnants, but actual policy propaganda as far back as the first year of national socialist dictatorship. The Wermacht was consciously branded as a national socialist creation.

The fat generals allowed it because it meant money finally, and it meant at least rejecting the Versailles restrictions.

A few years before, though, von Seeckt had threatened to shoot Hitler in the face. So did his successor.

But the middle rank military class was on the ascendant, because their socialism was the only political force that simply did not give a shit about legality, geopolitical constraints, or any kind of decency.

von Seeck didn’t say no when the national socialists asked him to inspect the troops: he created them. But he was very much part of a class within the military that had been pushed out.

In a sense, von Seeckt’s strict antipolitics made the Reichswer vulnerable to follow the orders of anybody who happened to be giving them.

What he and that whole class envisioined was a return to a Monarchism where everybody went peaceably about their business, the military was built up, strong relations were forged with the Christian powers and, eventually, war with Russia. I can’t be happy about war with Russia, but I can’t hate fighting the major socialist force.

It was the measured sanity of this conservatism that made it a fantasy: it was too easy for faffy liberals to stop it in its tracks. All they had to do was make a law, or even a fuss in the legislative chamber, and a man like von Seeckt could be pushed out.

The weakness Catholics had was the same one Jews had: the back of the mind belief that God would never allow true horror to happen. Complacency.

It’s also a thing that happens in all socialist revolutions: people just aren’t used to thinking as fast as events begin to happen. The extermination of the Jewish people began the very day National Socialism took the Chancelory. It just all seems too ridiculous to be real.

For the Godless, of course, nothing is too ridiculous.

Because PZR isn’t taking messages, I have to address him openly.

Could you refrain from writing one-liners? It makes the threads unnecessarily long and you normally follow up with a second, third or even fourth one-liner, which could all be part of one post.

Thanks

PZR… your history is mostly editorial license. So. Nothing to discuss.

Well that’s a flaccid way to address nothing.

By the way, as a gesture of solidarity with Ecmanud, I have placed Bob on ignore.

You don’t have to address me directly, though, you can just post any thoughts you have on WWII.