Comments by "Nicholas Conder" (@nicholasconder4703) on "The Hossbach Memorandum PROVES Hitler Wanted to Wage a War of Aggression" video.

I have no problem believing the legitimacy of the Hossbach Memorandum for two reasons not stated in the video. First, the Germans had a mania for writing everything down, which is why there was so much evidence that could be presented during the Nuremburg trials. The fact that even the Wannsee Protocol (notes on the infamous meeting about the Final Solution) was recorded and kept illustrates this. Second, the small number of individuals present during the meeting that Hossbach attended supports the validity of the memorandum. Hitler is discussing invading other countries, so he would want the fewest possible number of people to know about his future plans. More attendees would mean more possibilities of a leak of the meeting's purpose. After all, forewarned is forearmed.
67
Alien Alien Fakes incident to start a war. Shoots film using same actors who complained about mistreatment in Sudetenland talking about Polish atrocities at Danzig. Has his air force ruthlessly shoot up unarmed civilians fleeing the fighting. Ignores repeated requests by Britain and France to cease his attack on Poland.Then complains when Britain and France abide by their treaty obligations. Yep, sounds like Britain and France declared war first!
13
@keithsledger6282 Um, didn't France declare war 3 days AFTER Poland was invaded, in response to TREATY OBLIGATIONS that Hitler knew about?
13
@Botzorz Yes, Germany is currently occupied by the EU. They will help us to economically dominate Europe. LOL.
7
Alien Alien I would hardly say sending an ultimatum to tell Germany to "knock it off" declaring war first. Hitler wanted a war, it's just that he didn't really want war with Britain and France. He was aiming for the Soviet Union. Poland was in the way. But to say that Britain and France declared war first is twisting facts. Hitler declared war (unjust and unwarranted war) on Poland first, that is what started the ball rolling. Saying anything else is distorting history for personal reasons. You really should watch Time Ghost's week by week history of WW2, it is unvarnished truth.
6
@Botzorz There are a few countries that have no military and are quite happy. Your argument does not really hold water.
4
@D L The Luftwaffe investigated building the "Ural Bomber" but decided to drop it because they wanted an air force to support their ground forces (i.e. be subservient to the army, not independent), not because it was a "defensive weapon". Had von Seeckt not died in an air crash in 1936, or Goering and Kesselring supported the project, Germany might have had a strategic bomber force by 1940. Also, Bomber Command was created because of fears of a German increase in aircraft production, not the other way around. And, if you have watched or seen anything about WW2, you would know that Bomber Command spent the first year or more of the war dropping leaflets. Maybe the British figured they could drown the Nazis in paper.
4
The Colonel I would have to dispute this interpretation of the memorandum, based on what Hitler did in the 1920s (e.g. Beerhall putsch), Mein Kampf and his other book, as well as ramping up training of the Wehrmacht, concentration camps, etc. The Hossbach Memorandum is but one piece in a larger puzzle that, as a whole, shows that Hitler was planning aggressive war from the very start. From my perspective, it doesn't matter that Hitler was trying to do an end run around Schacht, what matters is the motive. Why was arms production so important? Why did he spend so much time talking about invading Austria and Czechoslovakia? As with many things like this, I look at patterns of behavior, not just individual pieces.
4
Yes, a discussion on the merits of 30 gallon versus 50 gallon tanks can get rather boring.
3
Well, two things I would like to say. First, Germany always had plans to re-arm. von Seeckt and the German General Staff were secretly rearming and training the Wehrmacht during the 1920's and early 1930s in contravention of the Treaty of Versailles. They wanted another war to prove how great Germany was (also one of the reasons Germany went to war in 1914). Second, the Hossbach Memo is more of a rough outline for aggressive expansion rather than a discussion of what to do if Germany is attacked. Indeed, Hitler was upset about the results of Munich - he wanted war in 1938. And let's face it, the Czechs weren't planning an aggressive war against Germany, nor was Poland, or Yugoslavia, or Greece, or Belgium, or Holland, and the list goes on. I do agree that Britain, France, Belgium and Holland (and even the US) had overseas empires. However, some people inside those countries were starting to seriously talk about the cost of empire, and seeking to divest themselves of their empires. Britain had already given independence to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa by this time. So these countries were finally, and extremely slowly, starting to realize that imperial conquest was wrong. Japan, Italy and Germany did not have those developing scruples, which is one reason they were condemned for their actions. However, it should never be forgotten that the primary reason they are vilified is their excessive barbarism towards everyone nation and people they fought or occupied. Finally, these three nations attempted to create empires at a time when people's views on self-determination were changing. I do agree (and have often thought) that in any era prior to the mid-1900s their actions would have been taken in stride. However, their brutality and avarice during an age of mass communication turned the entire world against them.
2
@neilkenny4585 Well, Britain has always been sensitive about the Low Countries for some reason or other since Elizabethan times. The Germans in their arrogance brought about British intervention on WW1, by invading Belgium (a neutral country). It was Germany that built a fleet specifically to defeat the Royal Navy. For what? Unlike Britain they didn't have that much overseas trade to protect. It was pure arrogance. That same militaristic arrogance was there during the 1920s and 1930s when Germany secretly armed and trained an army. Not to mention lie about how they lost WW1. The German High Command wanted a rematch, and gave Hitler the tools to do so. The whole Danzig Corridor thing was an excuse, a causa belli. Given German troop dispositions I doubt very much that even if the Poles had acquiesced that Germany would have accepted it. It would have been Serbia/Austria 1914 all over again, and for much less cause. I'm sorry, but trying to say that Germany was misunderstood and Britain and France are responsible for the war is like saying that the Soviet Union was a worker's paradise and the Mayans were peaceful agrarian philosopher astronomers. It is, in my opinion, pro-Nazi revisionist history at its worst.
2
@larryhats4320 First, since people like Halder corroborated the orders that people like Hitler and Goering signed, not to mention Goering himself, they could hardly be fake. Second, the Nazis tried to burn incriminating evidence, but there was so much of it they couldn't. Besides, if you watch Time Ghost War Against Humanity series you would see that there is TONS of other documentation. And before you say it was all faked, MY MOTHER visited Bergen Belsen right after the war ended and SAW IT ALL WITH HER OWN EYES. You cannot fake thousands of people recovering from starvation or mass graves that are STILL being filled with bodies of the HUNDREDS WHO WERE STILL DYING. So stop trying to rewrite history just to suit pro-Nazi racist platforms.
2
In fact their attack on the American gunboat Panay in 1937 is often viewed as an attempt by extremists in the Japanese military to start a war with the US. I wouldn't say that the need for oil was an excuse, but it definitely was a causa belli that fit with the militarists desire to expand the empire.
2
@michael boultinghouse Sudetenland, anyone?
1
@neilkenny4585 You obviously have not been watching Time Ghost's week by week recounting of WW2. Britain was actively trying to help the Finns against the Soviets during the Winter War of 1939-1940, and even managed to send some aircraft to Finland to fight the Soviets. Unfortunately, access to Finland was extremely limited. Britain also had plans to launch air raids against Baku and the Caucuses oil fields in 1940. The only reason they didn't was because they didn't feel that they would be able to stop a Russian offensive into Iran and on into Iraq, where the bombers would be stationed (not to mention Britain's Middle East oil fields). It was better to sit and bide ones time, and not fight too many foes at once. With regards to a Navy in WW1, why did Germany even need one? The US, Japan, France and Britain were all invested in international maritime trade, unlike Germany. And again, why was their navy built specifically to take out the Royal Navy? That was its expressed purpose, not protection of trade, but destroying the Royal Navy. That is why their ships were mostly designed with the minimum of crew comforts, and why the sailors lived in barracks on shore most of the time. You can say what you want, but Germany had no reason or business invading Belgium. IT WAS WRONG! You can make all the excuses you like, but the point of fact is that Germany wanted a war in 1914 to defeat the Russians before they industrialized, and wanted to impose their will on the then order of Europe. They were itching for a fight. I agree that in 1939 the British government made promises to Poland it could not keep. I think they thought that by doing so they might cause the Germans to pause and rethink what they were doing. Like many miscalculations before and after, they were wrong. Hitler wanted a war, and he got it. Britain ended up paying the price, although I think the war merely hastened what was already happening, that is, the breakup of the empire. But if you think WW2 was not a justified war, you should watch the Time Ghost series "War on Humanity" or the Nazi's plans for the occupation of Britain and, believe it or not, the United States. Hitler and his cohorts were monsters who had to be stopped, and were. By the way, two things. One, I do research stuff. I actually have a fairly extensive home library, and my parents served in WW2. Two, I have never once called you or anyone else corresponding on this site a Nazi.
1
@neilkenny4585 I took a quick look at the synopses, and am pretty sure I would probably get about half way through them before tossing them out. They seem to be written by people who long for the British Empire as it was, ignoring the fact that the world was changing at the time. Are both authors ignoring the growing independence movements worldwide? The developing unsustainability of the Empire? Britains slow decline due to aging industrial complexes and changing technology? I agree that WWI and WWII bankrupted Britain, of that there is no doubt. But in the long term, Britain's participation in WWI prevented the formation of a Europe dominated by a rapacious Germany bent on European hegemony. If Germany had defeated France and Russia, they wouldn't have been content to stop there. The German High Seas Fleet wanted to defeat the Royal Navy and replace it. It would probably have not taken long for the Germans to start wanting to invade England as well. Same in WWII, but worse, as Germany was driven by a bunch of ideologues who viewed themselves as the master race who's prime duty was to enslave anyone who was "inferior". In both cases, a Germany triumphant wouldn't want any rivals on the world stage. Do you really think they would have left Britain alone? Seriously, this is revisionist history at its worst, trying to rewrite history to create a utopian version where everyone gets along together, kumbaya. Both books seem to be written from an Anglo-centric view, and ignore the larger picture of what would have happened in the world had Britain not sacrificed its treasure and Empire to save humanity. To ignore this is to belittle the sacrifices of 2 generations of Britain's youth, and the enormous amount of gratitude and respect Britain has obtained through their actions.
1
@empowl1607 I think you also have to look at motive. Yes, Britain had a large navy, etc. However, the navy was used primarily as a defensive tool, to protect British and international trade. Part of Britain's empire came about as reparations for aggressive French expansion during the time of Louis XIV and XV (Canada and parts of India, for example). Britain was interested in trade, not fighting another war. In fact, if you look at the build-up of military hardware, Britain lagged behind Germany from the time Hitler took power until around mid-1940 or 1941. It is very easy to sit on a moral pedestal with 20/20 hindsight and say how awful the British were for creating their empire. I am not making excuses for the people who made the policies and created the empire by force, graft, theft, etc. But you also cannot judge those people by our modern standards. The world was different back then, and nations had different ethical viewpoints (mostly those of robber barons or mafia dons). We can, however, use modern standards to judge Nazi Germany because it came into existence in modern times. We know they waged aggressive war against every nation surrounding them, even those who were neutral (Denmark, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Greece), and eventually even their own allies. So no, it is not valid to equate Britain with Nazi Germany. As Yellow 13 said, it is the same as equating carrots to pineapples. As far as the US goes, they kinda fall in the middle. I have always viewed the US as the guy with the angel on one shoulder and a demon on the other. Sometimes the US does the right thing for the right reasons, other times the wrong thing for the wrong reasons. The only reason I would not label the US as an aggressor nation is that they are not actively seeking to expand territory per se. Trying to expand influence, yes. Increase access to resources, yes. Actively taking over and governing countries, no.
1
@michael boultinghouse That could be a yes or no, depending on events, timeline and motive. Suez Crisis, yes, I agree this was a last gasp of British and French gunboat diplomacy. Kuwait, I would say no because Saddam walked into a trap of his own making. Second Gulf War, yes, but Saddam opening his mouth and putting both feet in up to his neck didn't help any pleas of innocence he might have had. One has to take these on a case by case basis, and not make blanket judgements. Even then we don't necessarily know enough facts to make a good judgement. I will freely admit that I could be wrong on my thoughts on these events. But will reiterate that, in some events in the Middle East, I do agree with you.
1