- Feb 2015
If you are going to define everything short of invading Germany as 'doing nothing,' then yes, I concede the point that France and England did nothing about Hitler incorporating his home country into his sphere. They also did nothing when Stalin invaded Poland, Finland and the Baltics; and had plenty of colonies of their own that they acquired by Anschlussing Africa, while the US did nothing. And France and Britain did nothing when Lincoln Anschlussed the CSA. And everyone did nothing in 1945 when Stalin Anschlussed.The "limiting condition" is to describe the actions in question. People made various comments and protests about things the Nazis did, but they never went further than that. The French and British protested the Anschluss but did nothing that would make the Nazis think twice about the decision.
What do you suppose it is, out of a world history that is largely the story of territorial aggression, that yout think these two particular countries were supposed to do something about an aggressive neighbor, that at some point, was capable of kicking their combined asses?
INot years. Fifty-one days from Jan 30 to Mar 23.And yet in the years immediately after Hitler became Chancellor and before the Enabling Act Germany did still have elections the Nazis still didn't gain much in the way of votes
So, you are agreeing with me that the Vatican was in more of a position to slow Hiter than France or Britain? The problem is, they are not on opposite sides. Isn't Von Pappen already a Knight of Malta? To see that they are not on opposite sides, I suggest the following books - off the top of my head: Mary Cusack, The Black Pope; Cornwell, Hitler's Pope; Loftus, Unholy Alliance; Dreshner, God and the Fascists. And probably a dozen others.The Vatican certainly could have done more... revocation of the Concordat would probably send a clear message to German Catholics
Why? I didn't claim his mistakes were intended. I said he took the head fake; fell for the feint (a fencing. Do you know what that means? For some reason, you are just desperate in trying to make a distinction that somehow superior generalship is not part of superior military.You'd need to present some evidence that Gamelin's "mistakes" were intended
The facts say otherwise. The same people built more than one. You need to come to grips with reality. American financiers and industrialists with government blessing created, for example, IG Farben (which produced most of Germany's explosives, by itself, as well 100% of other critical war materials). US-German companies gave money to the Nazi's in the late 20s, and the relationships continued. A few of them were exposed and had to pay a public price, like the Union Bank in 1943 Yes, 1943. You know whose bank that was?America built its war machine in America, not in Germany or in France
Surely "madman" is a colorful exaggeration, and like every other political memoir writer, Manstein is self-serving. However, that doesn't make the essence of his argument wrong. Again, the broad-brush and obvious inference is that Hitler destroyed Germany, Prussia in particular. That, again, is just 20-20 hindsight.The "madman Hitler" argument came out of the arguments of men like Manstein who essentially threw Hitler under the bus after the war to make their own strategies seem more brilliant.
That's really the genesis of all your other denialism. Your boy, FDR, has his fingerprints all over this stinking mess.It's not a "FDR is stupid" defense. It's FDR is a democratic leader that lacks total control over every company in America
First, he doesn't have to control every company. As I have explained, this interlocking and interrelated network of German-American cooperation is a cartel of a finite number of companies, with a finite number of directors each of whom sits on the boards of several of these companies - and it is a relatively finite number of banks, mostly out of the federal-reserve/JP Morgan orbit (as if the federal reserve is not part of JP Morgan).
Second, you statement is factually false. Just look at Proclamation 2040, and its reference to the enabling legislation, the "amended" 1917 Trading With The Enemies Act. It was specifically created to allow the President to seize German property, amended to apply to all This is the very act by which they are pursuing the New Deal, seizing banks (EBA), seizing farms (AAA), etc. Of course, he can seize any German-American and or any company I mentioned - but then he would be prosecuting, bankrupting and humiliating his friends, business partners and political sponsors. Sorry, I don't live in fantasy land and I don't cease thinking and following the money because of words like "socialism" or "fascism" or "democracy." The people who rule don't care about labels and are not bound by your definitions. FDR did what he did, whether you call him a democrat a capitalist or a space alien.
Look at the Neutrality Acts of 1936, and the companies that were exempted from trading with belligerents. It includes the same three US companies I already identified as critical to the Nazi war machine. Right from the Wiki page, "nor did it cover materials such as trucks and oil. U.S. companies such as Texaco Standard Oil, Ford and General Motors." And don't be surprised, London, Paris, Moscow, Rome know exactly what was going on.