Thursday, February 24, 2005

There was no need for World War II

There Was No Need For World War II - by Alex S. Perry, Jr

(excerpt)

There was no need for World War II. Adolf Hitler was doing everything he could to come to peace terms with Britain, but Winston Churchill would not have it. Churchill knew of the many peace offers coming from the German government. He knew that neither Hitler nor any other Nazi leaders wanted to fight Britain. ...

The peace offer Hitler had in mind, if Britain would assume a neutral position, was such an astounding offer that Herbert Hoover, when he was told of Hitler's terms from Ambassador Kennedy, gasped: "Why didn't the British accept?" "Nothing but Churchill's bullheadedness," replied Kennedy.7 Kennedy's statement was enough to condemn Churchill as a war criminal.

At the height of Hitler's power, the German chancellor offered to withdraw from France, Denmark and Norway.8 He proposed to roll back his army without a shot being fired. He would make peace with England even if England would not agree to return the German colonies, which Britain had taken from Germany at the end of World War I.9

Hitler did not want war. He was so against war that he said it would not do Germany any good, even if Germany won the war, as war would put an end to all his plans. "Hitler was not thinking of war," Albert Forster, 36-year-old district leader of Danzig, told Churchill, as "the F├╝hrer's immense social and cultural plans would take years to fulfill."10


Comment: This article could have just as easily have been called "How History is Written by the Victors". The article more or less summarizes my basic views on the second world war, and to an extent, the reality of the Nazi regime (as opposed to the mania of modern times, in which Hitler has been made to fill the place of satan in the secular pantheon/mythos - a position which would have been far better filled by our 'Ally' Josef Stalin for what it's worth.) Since I'm am generally opposed to "state-ism", fascism is obviously not my cup of tea, nor is the neo-pagan/idol-of-nationalism spirit which imbued German fascism in particular.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hitler did not want war."

That has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, Seraphim.

Justin Kissel

10:51 p.m.  
Blogger The Rambler said...

Justin,

Well, I did qualify that the article basically articulated my views. Personally, I would have qualified that statement to read that he did not want war with the western most "allies" (such as England, Canada, and of course the United States). It is clear though, that he was intent on reclaiming every little piece of land which could possibly be considered part of some "greater Germania" (kind of like how fanatical Zionists pine for a "greater Israel", or Turkish nationalists would like to see the old stomping grounds of the Ottomon Empire returned to their supervision), including lands which I don't think truly qualified under that definition (Poland for example.)

However, the idea that Hitler wanted to "conquer the world", or that he had to be the foe of the British, is nonsense. It should also be quite apparent that he had no designs upon the Americas either.

Hitler's vision was euro-centric, as indicated by the title "third reich"; the first reich being the Holy Roman Empire (which would serve as the unifying political factor for the entirity of western Europe), the second being the pre-World War I unification of Germania after the effective dissolution of the old Empire (though it could be argued that in it's goals and spirit, there was a certain continuation of the "first" in the "second reich".)

Unfortunately, unlike the Empire which fell with the conclusion of the first World War, Nazi Germany was not characterized by a deep Christian ethos. If anything, it was imbued with all sorts of worldly theories/philosophies of the 19th century - everything from Darwinism, to nationalism/state-ism, through to the rise in interest in the occult (which interestingly enough, also played a significant role in the dissolution of Holy Russia and birthed the USSR). So in that sense, it did not deserve to succeed - however, those same trends to different degrees characterize most western powers to this day.

I'll say it again - I'm no "Nazi" or supporter of "Nazism". However in an attempt to be honest, I've tried to avoid the shrill prejudice which often passes for "considered opinion" on such things, and tried to understand before reacting.

As a child I remember being endlessly entertained by the cartoon G.I. Joe - it presented a very easy, polarized vision of reality; essentially a re-do of the old "westerns", with men in white hats on one side, men in black hats on the other. Unfortunately, reality is rarely so simple, where sinners are involved. It certainly isn't so, when neither side can truly claim to embody some true manifestation of Christendom, at least not as I've come to understand it. If anything, whether the attacks came from "our people" or "theirs", most of the last few centuries has been a coup to undo anything resembling a "social reign of Christ the King", or however one wishes to characterize the old order which was kapput once the last two genuine Christian monarchs (the Czar and the H.R. Emperor) were cut down.

9:05 a.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home