Books To Recommend ?

numbersix, the very idea that Hitler would have accepted a negotiated peace in 1940 is a nonsense, because he was hacking-up at that stage. Regardless, his every move from 1933 onwards was about expansion of the Reich, and the destruction of non-pure races/people, including but not limited to, Jews, Romanis, and Slavs, as well as the physically handicapped and mentally infirm.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
numbersix, the very idea that Hitler would have accepted a negotiated peace in 1940 is a nonsense, because he was hacking-up at that stage.
Click to expand...
Although it's somewhat surprising that he never traded shorter than 1.42 at any stage. Where was Harry Findlay in 1940?
 
Grasshopper said:
numbersix, the very idea that Hitler would have accepted a negotiated peace in 1940 is a nonsense
Click to expand...

Not so. Approaches were made, including, IIRC a public speech.

Then again, not having read numbersix's recommended book, you clearly know nothing about anything very much.
 
simmo, what was offered was a peace between Britain and the Reich, and would have meant the two countries no longer being hostile to one another. The 'peace' - for what it would have been - was not going to stop the German's continuing to rampage all over mainland Europe, exacting their special kind of retribution.
 
Last edited:
simmo said:
but it might have saved 6 million Jews from being killed and was surely, therefore, worth a shot????
Click to expand...

It wouldn't have saved a single Jew.

Hilter's peace offer was essentially along the lines of "Stay the fk out of things, and we won't invade". This, naturally, was not acceptable to the UK, hence Hitler authorised Operation Sea Lion to be progressed.

The offer wasn't anything to do with stopping his aggression on the mainland.
 
Last edited:
Grasshopper said:
Regardless, his every move from 1933 onwards was about expansion of the Reich, and the destruction of non-pure races/people, including but not limited to, Jews, Romanis, and Slavs, as well as the physically handicapped and mentally infirm.
Click to expand...

You forgot homosexuals- I hear that's why he had Rohm killed during the aptly named Night of the Long Knives.. ;)

Seriously, though, the idea that a negotiated peace could have been forged with Germany is a non-starter.

On the Jewish situation, the notion that GB and/or the USA could just have begun giving asylum to 6 million people is totally infeasible. Bit of common sense required..
 
trackside528 said:
You forgot homosexuals- I hear that's why he had Rohm killed during the aptly named Night of the Long Knives.. ;)

Seriously, though, the idea that a negotiated peace could have been forged with Germany is a non-starter.

On the Jewish situation, the notion that GB and/or the USA could just have begun giving asylum to 6 million people is totally infeasible. Bit of common sense required..
Click to expand...

Britain had a huge Empire then, and therefore a massive territory which could have been used as a temporary "safe haven". The US population has grown considerably more than 6 million since 1942.

There is a lot of debate GH about the seriousness of "operation Sealion". Many have Hitler being a massive admirer of the British and their Empire (something not lost on Churchill pre-war). Although it is fact that plans were drawn up for a British invasion by the Axis, it is widely believed that the Nazis expected the British to sue for peace because Churchill and Roosevelt would support a war on Bolshevism. Churchill is quoted in the book as attributing Bolshevism to the Jews and describing Trotsky as being "above all a Jew" in a very derogatory fashion.

With a war on two fronts (aerial in the west until 1943) and attritional in the East, one can speculate that the "Jewish question" turned to one of all out annihilation by 1942. There is no evidence to suggest the Nazis planned to annilate European Jewry prior to this time.

At this time I would like to nominate another excellent read (albeit much older). Heinze Hoehne's "The Order of the Death's Head" is a tireless and detailed account of the rise of the SS.
 
trackside528 said:
You forgot homosexuals- I hear that's why he had Rohm killed during the aptly named Night of the Long Knives.. ;)


quote]

I visted Dachau in 1988 and was disgusted to learn that no official memorial had been pu tin place to acknowledge the systematic persecution and murder of Homosexuals. I trust this has been remedied in the intervening years.
Click to expand...
 
The German hands were forced by the allies to seach for a "final solution".
Click to expand...

That opinion on its own says all you need to know about numbersixs prejudices. Pretty vile comment isnt it. unbelievable. We "made" them do it. Warped....

I suppose britain ...or should i say "the brits" eh?...are responsible for the Hutu massacres too...because we didnt give the whole population asylum
but it might have saved 6 million Jews from being killed and was surely, therefore, worth a shot????
Click to expand...

Up to that point i thought you had a grip on this Simmo.



Given that the jews were only exterminated because the americans and "brits" didnt do enough to give all six million of them immediate sanctuary perhaps this should be explained?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-palestine-stopped-by-desert-rats-474080.html

Rather undermimes the suggestion that the european jews were just a small local and rather understandable problem for hitler which he was "forced by the allies to seach for a "final solution"."
 
Last edited:
It wouldn't have saved a single Jew.

Hilter's peace offer was essentially along the lines of "Stay the fk out of things, and we won't invade". This, naturally, was not acceptable to the UK, hence Hitler authorised Operation Sea Lion to be progressed.

The offer wasn't anything to do with stopping his aggression on the mainland.
Click to expand...

Spot on.
 
clivex said:
Up to that point i thought you had a grip on this Simmo.
Click to expand...

I have been captivated entirely by numbersix's well thought out and reasonable arguments.

It would be interesting I think, to see the opinions of our German/Austrian members on this particular subject. It would add a different perspective from that of persons brought up in the UK.
 
clivex said:
That opinion on its own says all you need to know about numbersixs prejudices. Pretty vile comment isnt it. unbelievable. We "made" them do it. Warped....

I suppose britain ...or should i say "the brits" eh?...are responsible for the Hutu massacres too...because we didnt give the whole population asylum


Up to that point i thought you had a grip on this Simmo.



Given that the jews were only exterminated because the americans and "brits" didnt do enough to give all six million of them immediate sanctuary perhaps this should be explained?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-palestine-stopped-by-desert-rats-474080.html

Rather undermimes the suggestion that the european jews were just a small local and rather understandable problem for hitler which he was "forced by the allies to seach for a "final solution"."
Click to expand...

Typically you introduce highly emotive and controversial language to try and cause outrage among passing viewers of the thread.

There is nothing "vile" or "prejudicial" in anything I have said. I have simply put across an interpretation I have gleaned from a book, one which considers the possible adverse effect of the sustained bombing and economic bloackading by Churchill of German and axis occupied territories.

The article you have posted is completely erroneous in the context of this discussion. By 1942 the Nazis were committed to the Holocaust and were in the process trying to completely exterminate the Jewish population of Europe.

If you bothered to register my earlier posts you may have picked up on the fact that the book concludes at the end of 1941, and the period during which it is speculated a negotiated peace might have been reached between Britain and Germany was in the early summer of 1940 - fully two years before the period described in the atricle you have randomly downloaded from the net to mask a rather poor grasp of the subject matter being discussed.

Mind you, this wouldn't be the first time you have been known to enter into conversations about subjects which you have little idea about. In fact, I cannot recall ever seeing a worthwhile post from you on here or ant other forum for that matter, which begs the question, why bother?
 
The article you have posted is completely erroneous in the context of this discussion. By 1942 the Nazis were committed to the Holocaust and were in the process trying to completely exterminate the Jewish population of Europe.
Click to expand...

LOL

You couldnt make it up!

I suppose it was down to the fact that genocide became habit forming, given that as you say;

The German hands were forced by the allies to seach for a "final solution".
Click to expand...



Perhaps you are a little too prejudiced to apprecaite that murdering jews wasnt something we, sorry us Brits, "forced" them to do but was a deep seated desire regardless of circumstances. As illlustrated by my example

Typically you introduce highly emotive and controversial language to try and cause outrage among passing viewers of the thread.
Click to expand...


Not that
The German hands were forced by the allies to seach for a "final solution".
Click to expand...


...is in any way insulting
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
LOL

You couldnt make it up!

I suppose it was down to the fact that genocide became habit forming, given that as you say;





Perhaps you are too thick to apprecaite that murdering jews wasnt something we, sorry us Brits, "forced" them to do but was a deep seated desire regardless of circumstances. As illlustrated by my example




Not that



...is in any way insulting
Click to expand...

Instead of throwing (typically) insults around why not try and put your own argument across (as opposed to randomly posting newspaper columns that happen to be on the same subject).

Between 1933-1940 less than 100,000 Jews died on continental Europe as a result of the actions of the Nazis. It wasn't until January 1942 at the Wannasee conference that the decision was made to systematically murder European Jewry.

Why the gap between the Battle of Britain and Wannasee? Almost two years? Would it be because the Nazis wanted to explore alternatives (which indeed they did)? In the absence of any documentary evidence supporting the claim the Nazis intended exterminating the Jews prior to January 1942, why presume that it was always their intention? Why also not presume that were the British and Americans more active in seeking a peace treaty with Hitler, events in Eastern Europe may have taken a different, less bloodthirsty course?

Nobody is claiming the Nazi regime was not wholly despicable (which is of course the inference in your penultimate post when using emotive words like "vile" and "prejudice"). However, there is descriminating, and forcing into ghettos and then there is a Shoah. The White South African regime was wholly despicable and descriminated against its black population, forcing them into Ghettos aka townships. That does not mean that systematically murdered the balck population, nor did they ever consider doing so.

At least Simmo is a reasonable man who can civily engage in healthy debate and has now taken it upon himself to seek out "Human Smoke" and hopefully return with his comments, which I will of course respect. And, being the obvious gentleman he is, will not include childish insults in his precise.

Take a leaf out of his book Clivex (I am assuming you intellect has the scope for this).
 
Why also not presume that were the British and Americans more active in seeking a peace treaty with Hitler, events in Eastern Europe may have taken a different, less bloodthirsty course?
Click to expand...


Because...as i have shown twice to you through their plans in arabia...

.....the nazis were intent on exterminating jews WHEREVER they were. Wherever they could

And why should the allies have sued for peace? Perhaps the venal approach of Switzerland (still living off the proceeds) and others appeals to some, but thankfully their was enough of an obligation to existing allies, a vision for the future and, regardless of what some would wish to believe, a genuine distaste and hatred for all that nazism had brought to the world to take a genuine stance

You might like to consider that the freedom to type the stuff your typing is in a great part down to Churchill and Roosevelts leadership (which was extraordinary by anyones standards) and down to the bravery and sacrifice of the allies (and other countries citizens who fought for them)

There again, some of what you typed may well have gained approval of the relevant authorties.....
 
Right lads...this is thread is going way off tangent. The thread is related to books for recommendation...not a discussion on the reasons for the Natzi's actions etc. Also keep the tone civil...
 
I am happy to do that Galileo. However I would also welcome your intervention in order to request an apology from Clivex for calling me "thick" and continuing to make very dangerous inferences about me using words such as "vile" and "prejudiced". His final post is a flagrant attempt to portray me as being sympathetic to the Nazi cause. This is completely unacceptable and untrue.

He chooses to conveniently ignore the timeline of the aruments being put forward in order to embark on an embarrassingly ill-informed one man crusade.

The Nazi regime would be the first to rigorusly stamp out anyone who question their interpretation of history. It can't work both way Clivex.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I'd have the stamina for a book of Winston Churchill, Clive. ;)

I've ordered Hugh McIlvanney's imaginatively-titled "McIlvanney on Horseracing." Anybody had the chance to read it.
 
I have that - one of those books that's great to dip into randomly. I may or may not have read most of it on the jacks...
 
Back
Top