Have you read this book, cerberus? If not, you should consider checking it out.

Preface

In his ideological textbook Mein Kampf, Hitler had set forth clearly and unequivocally his plans for the future of Germany and Europe. Very simply, these plans amounted to the establishment of a pan-German racial state from which non-Aryans were to be excluded and whose future was to be secured by the conquest of Lebensraum in Eastern Europe, largely at the expense of Russia. Before the conquest of Russia could be undertaken, however, the military power of France was to be eliminated, for Hitler believed he could never risk a major military commitment in Eastern Europe while France remained in a position to stab Germany in the back.

In the policies he actually pursued after he came to power, Hitler seemed to adhere to his original ideological program with terrifying consistency. He set out at once to eliminate non-Aryans from national life; he launched a massive program of remilitarisation to prepare Germany for its career of conquest; with the annexation of Austria and the Sudetenland, he laid the foundations for his pan-German state; he began the process of German expansion into Eastern Europe with the conquest of Poland; he destroyed the military power of France; and at lst he embarked on what he had declared to be the major goal of his expansionist program, the conquest of Russia.

Yet many of Hitler's policies, far from being part of a consistent ideological pattern, not only failed to fit into that pattern but seemed an outright repudiation of his ideological program. He had advocated an alliance with England, but instead went to war with England. He had championed the concept of Germanic solidarity, yet he ruthlessly attacked Denmark, Norway, and the Netherlands. He had repudiated the former German rulers who had sought to extend German territorial dominion to the south and west, yet he sent his own armies of the frontiers of Spain and to North Africa, to Yugoslavia and Greece. He had denounced the folly of William II's diplomacy which had forced Germany to wage a war on two fronts, yet he himself gratuitously plunged into a war on two fronts. He formed an alliance with Japan, which not even the most skilled Nazi propagandist could represent as a Germanic nation. And in partnership with Japan he declared war on the United States, a Europeanized if not necessarily a Nordic country, which had not figured at all in his original plans for conquest. Finally in 1943, with the surrender of his Italian allies, he sent his armies into Italy and the Italian-occupied areas of the Balkans. By that time it was evident that Hitler's ideological blueprint for expansion, if it ever could have been regarded as a blueprint, had become very distorted indeed. So frequently and finally so completely was Hitler diverted from his ideological course that many students of the Nazi era have questioned whether such a course had ever existed, or if it did exist whether it was of any importance whatever in determining his strategy and objectives. They argue that Hitler's expansionism, instead of adhering to some ideological pattern, was in reality little more than a series of improvisations.

Besides the record of Hitler's diplomatic and military activity, however, there exists another body of evidence on which to base an estimate of his purposes and the role of ideology in his political calculations: the policies he pursued in the territories that came under his dominion. This evidence is all the more important because, in the realm of government and administration, in contrast to diplomacy and war, Hitler was not constantly obliged to adjust his policies to the moves, or suspected moves, of other powers, but had a relatively free hand to implement his own programs. Here too, of course, his policies were bound to be affected by the exigencies of politics, economics, and war. Yet it is here, if anywhere, that one might expect to find a reliable guide to his war aims.

This evidence assumes even greater significance in view of the fact that Hitler's ideological writings and pronouncements contained only broad general guidelines for future policies, that the details of those policies and the methods for implementing them still had to be worked out. Hitler had expressed is intention to remove non-Aryans from his pan-German racial state, to eliminate the Jews and to make use of the Slavs and other lesser breeds as menial labour for the German master race until they too could b removed. But did Hitler really propose to put such preposterous ideas into practice? Students of the Nazi era who question the importance of his ideology would presumably feel compelled to doubt it. Indeed it is difficult to believe, in view of Hitler's willingness to commit all kinds of racial heresies in the interest of political or military expediency and the manifest inexpediency of his proposed racial policies, that he could have taken his racial theories seriously. Quite apart from their inherent absurdity, how could such theories ever be transformed into practical policy? How was anyone to define an Aryan? Even if defined, how could it be possible to isolate Aryans from non-Aryans in the incredible hodgepodge of peoples and nationalities that made up the population of Europe? And how could any government be foolish to undertake the politically disastrous, economically ruinous, not to mention supremely inhuman task of removing the millions of Jews and tens of millions of Slavs and other non-Aryans from the territories under its control.

With respect to the Jews and Slavs Hitler had at least provided ideological guidelines for future Nazi policies. But what about the other nationalities that came under Nazi rule in the course of the Second World War? Presumably the Germanic peoples such as the Scandinavians, the Dutch, or the Flemings were to share in the benefits of Hitler's New Order. But what was to be the nature of their association in the Germanic Empire? On this subject Hitler had said very little. Nor had he made any specific pronouncements about the future fate of the French. Their military power was to be removed before the war for Lebensraum in Russia was launched, but where did the French fit into Hitler's racial-political scheme? Did he intend to accord a privileged status to these descendants of ancient Germanic tribes and fellow members of the Carolingian Empire? Or were the French, too, to be relegated to a menial role? The Italians, another racial anamoly, were originally conceded a predominant position in the Mediterranean area, but Hitler's intentions toward Italy changed radically after the Italian surrender. His plans also fluctuated in considering the future of the peoples of Southeastern Europe, who had played an insignificant role in his ideological calculations. And what of the nations that did not come under his immediate control, the peoples of Finland and the neutral countries of Europe, of Sweden, Switzerland, or Spain? Of the Arabs, whose aid Hitler attempted to enlist in his war against Britain? Of the peoples of the Western Hemisphere, above all the Americans, whom he regarded as the chief arsenal of British strength and a major obstacle to his avowed aim of an accord with Britain? What were his ultimate intentions with regard to his Japanese allies?

The answers to all these questions, if indeed there were answers, could only be found in the record of Hitler's actual government and administration of the peoples who came under his rule, and in the plans he formulated in dealing with the constantly shifting political, military and economic situation with which he was confronted. . .

Fade,
I have never read "Mein Kampf" from end to end got about quarter way throught it when I was a lot younger but to be honest I found it hard going, not to say , well let me put it this way he was not a natural author.
Perhaps in the future I will try again.
As you say he did go pretty much for his main aim to re dress the wrongs of 14-19 as he saw them and to aquire living space in the east , Russia and communism would be destroyed.

Your mention of his not actually want a war with Gb brings us back again to 39 and his angry words to Von Ribbentrop " What Now !".
I can also reflect on my fathers experince as a R.N. rating in a U-Boat en route from Loch Ryan to Lisahally.
A German sailor rather the worse for wear told the R.N. sailor ( who was also rather the worse for wear) , " we should never have fought each other.
" We had the Italians , you had the Americans , that was all wrong.We both should have been together fighting the Russians".
War in Southern Europe / Africa all led from Italian adventures which went wrong , all side shows , side shows which offerred opportunity that would never be followed as long as Russia was absorbing so much of Germany's limited resources.

Having invaded Russia there was no end game in sight. he had some vague ideas of where he would stop but would he have , could he have ?
The attacks on the other European Nations , why not they did not matter , they would have to live within the reality of a German victory and co-operate. This is how I think he would have view things , there would be no such thing as an independent European nation , all would be under Germany's wing or influence.

Plans for the Jews , Slavs etc , why not sort everything out by race and order it to serve Greater Germany , I could honestly see Himmler "Empire Building" a power base for himself and grooming himself for even higher office.
It would be right up his street.

War aims , why did he ever declare war on America ?
Did he have to invade Russia before defeating GB ?
Why did he not remove all resistance in Africa before turning on Russia ?
With Crete he left it half done and by entering Africa in a "damage control only" capacity he invited further problems.

The war was not directed by professional soldiers and Hitler held to much the reins of power and decision making , he was too rigid and too inflexible.
He sometimes advanced his aims against rational advice and paid the price.
A more reasonable approach in Russia might have kept the local population largely on his side and brought about a peace on terms favourable to Germany.
He could have settled for half the pie insteady of " Going for broke" ,
Hitler's inability to adapt to changing circumstances and demands cost him.
Sticking too much to his aims led him into a war he could not win , and he was unwilling to accept anything less.
A peace with Russia was in Germany's best interest in late 41/ early 42 could have been possible.
After the failed Russian spring offensive at Kharkov he should have been exploring the possibility of some settlement with Stalin.

There is also one other repulsive dimension in Hitler’s hypothetical “New Order” that I think has not been discussed yet on this forum: what would have Nazis done to Christians after taking over Europe and securing their position?

No doubt those German “Christians” who wouldn’t have been too serious about their religion would have gotten along with it, equivalents of those Christians who submitted during the Roman persecutions and sacrificed to the “genius” of the Emperor.


This infamous citation from Hitler’s “Table Talk” might give us some indication what would have happened to all Christians who would have publicly disagreed with Hitler’s vision:


“As for the ridiculous hundred million Slavs, we will mould the best of them to the shape that suits us, and we will isolate the rest of them in their own pig-styes; and anyone who talks about cherishing the local inhabitant and civilising him, goes straight off into a concentration camp!”

http://www.thephora.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3918&page=4&pp=10&highlight=hundred+million


This was a threat against all committed German Christians, besides Slavic peoples.

That is, because every Christian with an inkling of genuine devotion would have felt compelled to protest against the Nazi imperialism and the grand-scale enslavement of Slavs.

If we are to take Hitler for his own words, all those Christian objectors would have been sent “straight off into a concentration camp!” or worse.


During the war, Nazis had no intention to crack down on Christianity (that would have seriously weakened the home-front), but the case of Werner Mölders, Luftwaffe’s greatest fighting ace and a pious Catholic, shows how much potential for conflict there was between believers and Nazi establishment even back then:


“As is clearly shown in this unique photo, exiting Mölders wears no military awards whatsoever - even though he was the most decorated Wehrmacht serviceman at that time. As a reaction to the persecution of the opposition to the Nazi regime within the Catholic Church during the Fall of 1941, Mölders declared that he "refused to carry the insignias of this heinous regime". After some historians, the fatal crash of He 111 on 22 November 1941 with Mölders on board wasn't an accident...”

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/molders/molders.htm


Petr

He did make it clear that he would "settle with religion" when the war was over.
That "new dark age" would certainly have been.

Want me to post excerpts from the Table Talk and Goebbels Diaries on Christianity, Petr?

Here is some info from Goebbels on the peace loving Führer and the Nazi attitude toward the Finns.

24 October 1939 (Tuesday)

"Molotov has said to Schulenburg that Halifax told Maisky England would be prepared to make peace under present conditions -- perhaps even surrender colonies -- if Russia and North America guarantee twenty five years' peace. But who knows if this is really true? It could be a rumour that has been planted and become exaggerated. In future, we also intend to use such methods. . .

Midday with the Führer. He is annoyed by an interview that Sven Hedin gave to the News Chronicle regarding his talks with him. Hedin trumpets Germany as Russia's enemy. An immediate denial. Hedin is also forced to issue a denial. The London newspaper's outbursts have the pure and simple aim of sowing distrust between us and Moscow. The Führer has absolutely no thought of peace anymore. He would like to put England to the sword.

He will not hear anything from the English about Bohemia and Moravia. They has no business interfering in the East. And the solution of the Polish question is purely a matter between Germany and Russia. We have absolutely no cause to interfere on the side of Finland. We have no interest in the Baltic states. And Finland has been so unpleasant to us during the last year that any aid for her now is quite out of the question. Moreoever, we must make it absolutely clear that the neutrals are basically against us. Particularly the states that were part of the old German Empire. Their attitude towards us is like that of emigres with a bad conscience. Therefore our attitude must be: keep strong, and do not weaken."

- "Want me to post excerpts from the Table Talk and Goebbels Diaries on Christianity, Petr?"


Yes sir. And not just anti-Christian tirades per se, but actual policies towards potential Christian dissidents.

I'm pretty sure that Hitler would have somewhat tolerated "positive Christian" yes-men and bootlickers, cracking down only on those Christians who actually had guts to speak out about those beliefs of theirs that were in conflict with the Nazi dogma.

(Even Stalin had his own "officially certified" church synod)

Let's see if I'm right.


Petr

This is in the Goebbels Diaries.

28 December 1939 (Thursday)

I put forward my complaints about the church. The Führer shares them completely, but does not believe that the churches will try anything in the middle of a war. But he knows that he will have to get around to dealing with the conflict between church and state. At the moment, however, our own extremists are making things too easy for the churches. They are presenting them with cheap ammunition. The Führer passionately rejects any thought of founding a religion. He has no intention of becoming a priest. His sole, exclusive role is that of a politician. The best way to deal with the churches is to claim to be a 'positive Christian'. So far as these questions are concerned, therefore, the technique must be to hold back for the present and cooly strangle any attempts at impudence or interference in the affairs of the state. And this we shall endeavour to ensure to the best of our ability. . .

We come back to the religious question. The Führer is deeply religious, though completely anti-Christian. He views Christianity as a symptom of decay. Rightly so. It is a branch of the Jewish race. This can be seen in the similarity of religious rites. Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed.

"Both (Judaism and Christianity) have no point of contact to the animal element, and thus, in the end, they will be destroyed."

Whoa! Does Goebbels really accuse Christianity for not being animalistic? Nice compliment!


"So far as these questions are concerned, therefore, the technique must be to hold back for the present and cooly strangle any attempts at impudence or interference in the affairs of the state."


Are there any details about this "strangling" business?


Petr

Bolsheviks also created phony state-certified denominations to appease lukewarm Christians as their first step in a struggle against Christianity:


"There have been sixty years of persecution in the Soviet Union, roughly divisible into three stages. The first was the effort to replace the Orthodox Church with the so - called "Living Church" or "Renewed Church," created as a puppet institution shortly after the Bolshevik takeover. This attempt proved a total failure in the 1920s.

With the restoration of the Patriarchate in the late 1920s, the Russian Orthodox Church accepted the Soviet state - overaccepted it, in the view of many Orthodox abroad who broke with the church at this time (some, of course, broke earlier). "

http://theologytoday.ptsem.edu/jul1980/v37-2-article5.htm


Petr

Hitler in the Table Talk:

14 October 1941, midday

"It may be asked whether concluding a concordat with the churches wouldn't facilitate our exercise of power.

On this subject one may make the following remarks:

Firstly, in this way the authority of the State would be vitiated by the fact of the intervention of a third power concerning which it is impossible to say how long it would remain reliable. In the case of the Anglican Church, this objection does not arise, for England knows she can depend on her Church. But what about the Catholic Church? Wouldn't we be running the risk of her one day going into reverse after having put herself at the service of the State solely in order to safeguard her power? If one day the State's policy ceased to suit Rome or the clergy, the priests would turn against the State, as they are doing now. History provides examples that should make us careful.

Secondly, there is also a question of principle. Trying to take a long view of things, is it conceivable that one could found anything durable on falsehood? When I think of our people's future, I must look further than immediate advantages, even if these advantages were to last three hundred, five hundred years or more. I'm convinced that any pact with the Church can offer only a provisional benefit, for sooner or later the scientific spirit will disclose the harmful character of such a compromise. Thus the State will have based its existence on a foundation that one day will collapse.

An educated man retains the sense of the mysteries of nature and bows before the unknowable. An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) as soon as he perceives that the State, in sheer opportunism, is making use of false ideas in the matter of religion, whilst in other fields it bases everything on pure science.

That's why I've always kept the Party aloof from religious quesetions. I've thus prevented my Catholic and Protestant supportrs from forming groups against one another, and inadvertently knocking each other out with the Bible and the sprinkler. So we never became involved with these Churches' forms of worship. And if that has momentarily made my task a little more difficult, at least I've never run the risk of carrying grist to my opponents' mill. The help we would have provisionally obtained from a concordat would have quickly become a burden on us. In any case, the main thing is to be clever in this matter and not to look for a struggle where it can be avoided.

Being weighed down by a superstitious past, men are afraid of things that can't, or can't yet, be explained -- that is to say, of the unknown. If anyone has the needs of a metaphysical nature, I can't satisfy them with the Party's programme. Time will go by until the moment when science can answer all our questions.

So it's not opportune to hurl ourselves now into a struggle with the Churches. The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death. A slow death has something comforting about it. The dogma of Christianity gets worn away before the advances of science. Religion will have to make more and more concessions. Gradually the myths crumble. All that's left is to prove that there is no frontier between the organic and inorganic. When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.

Originally, religion was merely a propr for human communities. It was a means, not an end in itself. It's only gradually that it became transformed in this direction, with the object of maintaining the rule of the priests, who can live only to the detriment of society collectively.

The instructions of a hygenic nature that most religions gave, contributed to the foundation of organised communities. The precepts ordering people to wash, to avoid certain drinks, to fast at appointed dates, to take exercise, to rise with the sun, to climb to the top of the minaret -- all these were obligations invented by intelligent people. The exhortation to fight courageously is self-explanatory. Observe, by the way, that, as a corollary, the Mussulman was promised a paradise peoples with houris, where wine flowed in streams -- a real earthly paradise. The Christians, on the other hand, declare themselves satisfied if after their death they are allowed to sing Hallelujahs! All these elements contributed to form human communities. It is to these private customs that peoples own their present character.

Christianity, of course, has reached the peak of absurdity in this respect. And that's why one day its structure will collapse. Science has already impregnated humanity. Consequently, the more Christianity clings to its dogmas, the quicker it will decline.

But one must continue to pay attention to another aspect of the problem. It's possible to satisfy the needs of the inner life by an intimate communion with nature, or by knowledge of the past. Only a minority, however, at the present state of the mind's development, can feel the respect inspired by the unknown, and thus satisfy the metaphysical needs of the soul. The average human being has the same needs, but can satisfy them only by elementary means. That's particularly true of women, as also of peasants who impotently watch the destruction of their crops. The person whose life tends to simplification is thirsty for belief, and he dimly clings to it with all his strength.

Nobody has the right to deprive simple people of their childish certainties until they've acquired others that are more reasonable. Indeed, it's most important that the higher belief should be well established in them before the lower belief has been removed. We must finally achieve this. But it would serve no purpose to replace an old belief by a new one that would merely fill the place left vacant by its predecessor.

It seems to me that nothing would be more foolish than to reestablish the worship of Wotan. Our old mythology had ceased to be viable when Christianity implanted itself. Nothing dies unless it is moribund. At that period the ancient world was divided between systems of philosophy and the worship of idols. Its not desirable that the whole of humanity should be stultified -- and the only way of getting rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.

A movement like ours musn't let itself be drawn into metaphysical digressions. It must stick to the spirit of exact science. It's not the Party's function to be a counterfeit for religion.

If, in the course of a thousand or two thousand years, science arrives at the necessity of renewing its points of view, that will not mean that science is a liar. Science cannot lie, for its always striving, according to its momentary state of knowledge, to deduce what is true. When it makes a mistake, it does so in good faith. It's Christianity thats the liar. It's in perpetual conflict with itself.

One may ask whether the disappearance of Christianity would entail the disappearance of belief in God. That's not to be desired. The notion of divinity gives most men the opportunity to concretise the feeling they have of supernatural realities. Why should we destroy this wonderful power they have of incarnating the feeling for the divine that is within them?

The man who lives in communion with nature necessarily finds himself in opposition to the Churches. And that's why they're heading for ruin -- for science is bound to win.

I especially wouldn't want our movement to acquire a religious character and institute a form of worship. It would be appalling for me, and I would wish I'd never lived, if I were to end up in the skin of a Buddha!

If at this moment we were to eliminate the religions by force, the people would unanimously beseech us for a new form of worship. You can imagine our Gauleiters giving up their pranks to play at being saints! As for our Minister for Religion, according to his own coreligionists, God himself would turn away from his family!

I envisage the future, therefore, as follows: First of all, to each man his private creed. Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters. From the tenderest age, education will be imparted in such a way that each child will know that all that is important to the maintenance of the State. As for the men close to me, who, like me, have escaped from the clutches of dogma, I've no reason to fear that the Church will get its hooks on them.

We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. We shall continue to preach the doctrine of National Socialism, and the young will no longer be taught anything but truth.

- "When understanding of the universe has become widespread, when the majority of men know that the stars are not sources of light but worlds, perhaps inhabited worlds like ours, then the Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity."


Whoa! Was Hitler into ufology?

And surely he actually means "planets" - after all, "stars" are fiery blobs where nothing can live....


Petr

"Superstition shall not lose its rights. The Party is sheltered from the danger of competing with the religions. These latter must simply be forbidden from interfering in future with temporal matters."


As I've shown, this is just the same kind of "tolerance" that even Bolsheviks were ready to give for Christianity and other religions - and when that didn't work out, they switched into high-gear, bloody persecution.


Petr

"Midday with the Führer. He is annoyed by an interview that Sven Hedin gave to the News Chronicle regarding his talks with him. Hedin trumpets Germany as Russia's enemy. An immediate denial. Hedin is also forced to issue a denial."


The famous Swedish explorer Sven Hedin was an enthusiast for the early Third Reich AND a pious Christian who had actually bought into the Nazi propaganda that Hitler was solely concerned with defeating Bolshevism and not grabbing lands from Slavic nations.


Petr

I remember how I used to laugh whenever I saw NeoNietzsche attacking Christianity and enumerating its crimes. What a hypocrite. Fratricidal nationalism has been more destructive to Europe than religion ever was. At least Christianity helped put an end to slavery. At least Christianity might have inspired great artists during the Renaissance.

We have a rather interesting witness statement from a clergyman who had certainly felt the brutality of Bolshevism - from Ukrainian Greek Catholic Archbishop of Lvov, Andrey Sheptytsky.

Just before the Soviets retreated from Lvov in June 1941, they had summarily executed several thousand Ukrainian prisoners in local prisons.

If there were any man in Europe who should have realized that no matter how bad the Nazi occupation was, it was still preferable to Bolshevism, it should have been Bishop Sheptytsky.

Alas, that was apparently not the case.


Raul Hilberg adds concerning Sheptytsky:

He dispatched a lengthy handwritten letter dated August 29-31, 1942 to the Pope, in which he referred to the government of the German occupants as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. (Perpetrators, Victims, Bystanders, 1992, p. 267)

http://anon.free.anonymizer.com/http://www.ukar.org/60minart.html


Petr

- "I remember how I used to laugh whenever I saw NeoNietzsche attacking Christianity and enumerating its crimes. What a hypocrite."

Remember how NN seriously presented sources that argued that the death toll from the Great Witch Hunt rose to several millions?



- "At least Christianity might have inspired great artists during the Renaissance."

And very many great scientists as well, like Blaise Pascal and MRI scanner inventor Raymond Damadian.

Also:


Prof. Schawlow received his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Toronto in 1949. In 1981 he shared the Nobel Prize for Physics with Nicolaas Bloembergen and Kai Siegbahn "for their contribution to the development of laser spectroscopy". He is now a professor of Physics at Stanford University.

In understanding the relation between science and faith, Prof. Schawlow believes that science can neither prove nor disprove religion, because religion is founded on faith. When confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one asks why and not just how, and the only possible answers are religious. For him that means Protestant Christianity, to which he was introduced as a child and which has withstood the test of a lifetime. He believes that the context of religion is a great background for doing science. Psalm 19 says that "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth his handiwork". Thus scientific research is a worshipful act, in that it reveals more of the wonders of God's creation.

...

http://www.grisda.org/bclausen/papers/co40.htm



Petr

Let's give credit where the credit is due: Hitler DID have some insight on religious issues:


"An uneducated man, on the other hand, runs the risk of going over to atheism (which is a return to the state of the animal) ..."


Petr