SEGUNDA GUERRA MUNDIAL

[FoxTroop]

Soultrain, é por demais óbvio que ele sabia e os relatórios de espionagem vindos de vários lados não davam margem para dúvidas. Estaline recusou acreditar neles, de forma tão obcecada que deixou muitos dos seus colaboradores perplexos.

Estaline sempre esperou que a guerra alemã a Oeste durasse o suficiente para se preparar convenientemente e quando se vê com 2/3 da Wehrmacht estacionada junto à sua fronteira tentou o apaziguamento a extremos. A colocação de forças soviéticas junto à fronteira é um puro exercício de demonstração de músculos. Sem logística montada, sem bases de partida para as forças, sem ordens de batalha minimamente inteligíveis, sem nada que demonstre um ataque, apenas "show off" de forças.

Basta ir aos acontecimentos do Pacto Molotov-Ribbentrop para se perceber que Estaline queria assegurara paz com Hitler pelo menos durante 10 anos, o que significa um horizonte de preparação para combate nunca inferior a 7 anos.

Que os soviéticos mais tarde ou mais cedo enfrentariam a Alemanha Nazi, isso é certo. Que queria ter a iniciativa, não duvido, fazia e faz parte da doutrina. Querer fazer acreditar que seria na 1ª metade da década de 40, só em sonhos.

Tal como digo, basta olhar para os mapas e ver onde estão as unidades e como funcionavam as doutrinas. Cai logo aí.

[soultrain]

Não conheço esse assunto em profundidade suficiente para o discutir, mas interessa-me e estou curioso.

Tem mais dados?

[Penguin]

Interessante livro...

[pt]

Você nega que afirmou aqui no fórum que o Nazismo era um regime Socialista de esquerda?
(não foi nesta discussão).

Eu AFIRMEI E AFIRMO que os nazistas tinham principios iguais aos comunistas.
Os nacional-socialistas alemães tinham principios económicos e ideias em tudo parecidas aos da União das Republicas Socialistas Soviéticas.

NÃO RETIRO UMA ÚNICA VIRGULA, PONTO OU PARÁGRAFO DO QUE ESCREVI SOBRE AS RAIZES SOCIALISTAS DOS NACIONAL-SOCIALISTAS ALEMAÃES.
Mas o facto de os criminosos terem ideias parecidas, não implica que não possam entrar em guerra !

Em termos de organização economica, Hitler tinha uma visão socialista do mundo, em tudo parecida por exemplo à do ditador venezuelano Hugo Chavez.
“Podes ter empresas, mas és obrigado a produzir o que eu mando”

Havia uma relação de admiração-ódio entre alemães e russos, que é conhecida. Apoiaram-se mutuamente, invadiram países vizinhos mutuamente e partilharam entre si outros países.
Mas dois escorpiões, ainda que escorpiões, nunca deixarão de ser escorpiões.
Por isso os dois tinham planos para se matar um ao outro. Tanto a Russia comunista como a Alemanha nazista eram impérios e os impérios lutam por poder, independentemente de muitos dos seus princípios serem idênticos.

Você nega que afirmou aqui no fórum que não houve apoio de empresas ocidentais ao Nazismo?
(não foi nesta discussão)

Soultrain: Eu já repeti mil vezes neste mesmo tópico que nunca neguei o apoio de empresas dos países democráticos, mas note que essencialmente o apoio aos nazistas foi de empresas alemãs (que você, seguindo a cartilha estalinista, classifica de ocidentais)

Você nega que afirmou que os Nazistas eram aliados dos Comunistas Soviéticos?

MAIS UMA VEZ: NÃO INVENTE SOULTRAIN.

É claro que os nazistas foram aliados dos comunistas ! ! !
Como é que alguém poderia negar o pacto Molotov-Ribentrop ? ? ?

Os Nacional-socialistas alemães aliaram-se aos comunistas russos com pactos para a invasão da Polónia que incluiram protocolos secretos para a tomada pelos soviéticos dos Estados Bálticos, e de parte da Roménia. Os alemães propuseram até aos russos a partilha da India.
Depois entraram em guerra, e os dois tinham planos para se atacar um ao outro.

Mas era um jogo entre países que se odiavam, porque ambos eram impérios, independentemente de partilharem muitos ideais, nomeadamente no sector economico.


O problema é o extremo maniqueísmo da suas posições.
Você recusa-se a entender que nestas coisas, como na vida em geral, não há nada preto ou branco, é tudo cinzento...

É pena, é uma característica dos fanáticos.
Tanto dos fanáticos comunistas como dos fanáticos nazistas...

[pt]

Soultrain, é por demais óbvio que ele sabia e os relatórios de espionagem vindos de vários lados não davam margem para dúvidas. Estaline recusou acreditar neles, de forma tão obcecada que deixou muitos dos seus colaboradores perplexos.

Estaline sempre esperou que a guerra alemã a Oeste durasse o suficiente para se preparar convenientemente e quando se vê com 2/3 da Wehrmacht estacionada junto à sua fronteira tentou o apaziguamento a extremos. A colocação de forças soviéticas junto à fronteira é um puro exercício de demonstração de músculos.

Mas diga-me uma coisa:
Se Estaline foi ao ponto de imobilizar os guardas de fronteira, porque estava obcecado em não irritar Hitler, como explica que ao mesmo tempo o fosse irritar ao extremo colocando tropas na fronteira e na posição mais avançada ?

As tropas que estavam na fronteira eram tropas novas, dos novos corpos de tanques (2 div.blindadas e 1 div.motorizada) que os alemães nem conheciam, porque estavam em organização.

Repare na surpresa alemã com o T-34 e o KV-1.
Então o Estaline coloca tropas na fronteira, mas não as mostra ?

As movimentações de tropas para a fronteira eram secretas e muito pouca gente tinha conhecimento delas.
Apenas os generais de topo tinham noção do posicionamento das tropas e o próprio Zhukov fez referência a isso.
Os comandantes de divisão, de corpo de exército e de exército tinham muito pouca informação.
Possuem apenas planos de ataque (que eles chamam de contra-ataque) e mais nada.

Se Estaline pensasse numa Paz a dez anos, não teria preparado alguma coisa ?
Se preparava uma paz a dez anos, porque parou a construção de fortificações (que são construções puramente defensivas) na antiga linha-Estaline (próxima da antiga fronteira entre a Polónia e a URSS) em 1940 ?
Porque parou a construção de fortificações ao mesmo tempo que fabrica mais e mais armas ofensivas ?


O problema com a tese tradicional, é que ela não se aguenta com facilidade.
Eu, que comecei a estudar este tema utilizando livros que tinham como base chamada «História da grande guerra patriótica» sempre me coloquei questões, e perguntas a dados que não batiam certo.

Há apenas uma explicação lógica para o que aconteceu.
Essa conclusão passa por concluir que Estaline e os soviéticos mentiram sobre as suas intenções.

Será muito difícil aceitar que os comunistas russos mentiram ??

[FoxTroop]

Inacreditável...... Começo a pensar seriamente que conhece tanto de estratégia e táctica, como eu de lagares de azeite

Diga-me lá, acabo de assinar um tratado de paz que me deve garantir estabilidade, tenho como objectivo passar à ofensiva num determinado horizonte de tempo e tenho o meu adversário empenhado num conflito que supostamente deveria durar um bom tempo e vou desperdiçar recursos, por natureza estrutural limitados, em obras maciças de defesa? Para quê?!!! Estou ameaçado no imediato?!!! Com que fito?!!! Qual a doutrina soviética?!!!

Eu não afirmei em lado algum que a URSS não queria atacar a Alemanha, mas em 41 ou 42?!!!! Com que meios?!!!! Com o Exército em profunda reorganização?!!! Com um suposto plano de ataque até ao Vístula

Se à coisa que não se aguenta é a sua tese (não é mais do que isso e agarra-se ao que Hitler supostamente disse quando iniciou a invasão)

Há apenas uma explicação lógica para o que aconteceu.
Essa conclusão passa por concluir que Estaline e os soviéticos mentiram sobre as suas intenções.

Será muito difícil aceitar que os comunistas russos mentiram ??

Pois mentiram e mentiam, coisa absolutamente normal quando se trata de interesses vitais para um regime/nação, se é nisso que se baseia para "credibilizar" a sua tese

E já agora, se reparou eu não entrei no campo ideológico, peço que não leve a discussão para esse patamar. De resto a continuar assim volto até à varanda.

[pt]

inacreditável...... Começo a pensar seriamente que conhece tanto de estratégia e táctica, como eu de lagares de azeite

Foxtroop -> O cancelamento da construção das defesas não é posterior à invasão da Polónia, ocorre mais tarde.
A linha defensiva em profundidade (por oposição à linha defensiva avançada) é uma característica de um posicionamento defensivo com tropas em profundidade.

Se você ler os autores do tempo da História da Grande Guerra Patriótica, você verifica que os russos diziam que tinham as tropas dispostas em profundidade.
Mas depois sabemos que as defesas em profundidade tinham sido interrompidas.

(há demasiadas falhas no raciocinio)

Outro erro é subestimar a capacidade da industria russa.
É verdade que se demonstrou que a qualidade dos materiais russos tinha sido profundamente afectada com a loucura das metas de produção dos planos quinquenais (houve fábricas russas que não produziram peças de reposição para poderem atingir as metas estabelecidas para veículos novos, o que explica as falhas do sistema de abastecimento russo).

Mas não é menos verdade que a industria russa produzia tanques em quantidades enormes, mesmo antes de 1943, quando começou a recuperar do choque de 1941.
Não havendo ataque alemão, os russos teriam pelo menos 5.000 T-34 no Verão de 1942. Os KV-1 seriam mais de 1.000 e a isto juntavam-se milhares de camiões ZIS-5, ZIS-6, GAZ-AA e GAZ-AAA e uma enorme quantidade de veículos de apoio.
(Quando se chegou ao fim de 1941, os russos tinham produzido pelo menos 3.000 T-34/76 (2.300 destruidos). Não faltaria muito para atingir 5.000 tanques). E os 3.000 tanques foram produzidos na maioria em Kharkov, que viu a produção encerrada em Setembro de 1941.

Grande parte desta estrutura ofensiva estava já construida em 1941.
Que país, poderia enfrentar um exército com essas dimensões ?
A Russia tinha o recrutamento e mobilização praticamente terminado em 1941 (terminaria em 42, com um exército de 8 milhões de homens).

Você acha possível que Estaline tivesse preparado um exército de 8.000.000 de homens, para o deixar envelhecer sete anos, para só então atacar ?




Nota:
Eu não tenho nenhuma tese.
As afirmações que aqui coloquei, são retiradas do livro «Stalin's Follie» de Konstantin Pleshakov.
A afirmação de Hitler «Estaline pensava que me enganava». é do Pierre Rondiere, que se baseou nos escritos da História da Grande Guerra Patriótica em «Quando Hitler atacou a leste».

[soultrain]

somar a isto, os proprios nazistas chamaram o seu movimento de NACIONAL SOCIALISTA.
Ninguém apelida um movimento da massas de SOCIALISTA, apenas para parecer bonito.

Eles eram socialistas...

As relações entre comunistas e nazistas, .... eram as mais estreitas pelo menos até 1940

NADA, ABSOLUTAMENTE NADA, SEPARA COMUNISTAS E NAZISTAS para lá do grupo social ou étnico que cada um dos grupos decidiu exterminar.

Disse que não disse ou disse que disse? Eu sei que tu sabes que eu sei. sabes o que estou a falar...!

[pt]

Soultrain:
Eu parto do principio que estou a falar com pessoas com um mínimo de IQ

Não retire as palavras do contexto. É um truque que vocês costumam utilizar, mas você não é especialmente bom nisso.

Entenda:
Os nazistas e os comunistas eram socialistas, com uma diferença:
Os alemães queriam criar o Homem Novo e fazer uma revolução, com base numa luta de raças.
Os russos queriam criar o Homem Novo w fazer uma revolução com base numa luta de classes.

Fora isso, os dois acreditavam na intervenção do Estado na economia, na ditadura, no esforço colectivo em favor do bem comum, na critica ao individualismo (uma coisa típica dos malvados decadentes ocidentais) e na critica ao malvado capitalismo e aos capitalistas.
Neste caso os nazis apoiaram-se inicialmente no dinheiro de alguns capitalistas, que os utilizavam para conter os sindicatos. Isto é conhecido, mas não significa nenhum apoio das democracias ao nazismo.

Em suma: Os dois movimentos eram quase gémeos, mas tinham um ponto em que discordavam tanto que era inevitável que se atacassem.
Voltemos ao tema da II guerra mundial, porque indo por aí, você não vai a lado nenhum
Está errado. E não há nada que possa fazer.

Gostaria no entanto de lhe pedir que levasse a discussão ideológica e o bolor comunista para outro tópico.

[soultrain]

Individualism over collectivism.

Many conservatives argue that Hitler was a leftist because he subjugated the individual to the state. However, this characterization is wrong, for several reasons.

The first error is in assuming that this is exclusively a liberal trait. Actually, U.S. conservatives take considerable pride in being patriotic Americans, and they deeply honor those who have sacrificed their lives for their country. The Marine Corps is a classic example: as every Marine knows, all sense of individuality is obliterated in the Marines Corps, and one is subject first, foremost and always to the group.

The second error is forgetting that all human beings subscribe to individualism and collectivism. If you believe that you are personally responsible for taking care of yourself, you are an individualist. If you freely belong and contribute to any group -- say, an employing business, church, club, family, nation, or cause -- then you are a collectivist as well. Neither of these traits makes a person inherently "liberal" or "conservative," and to claim that you are an "evil socialist" because you champion a particular group is not a serious argument.

Political scientists therefore do not label people "liberal" or "conservative" on the basis of their individualism or collectivism. Much more important is how they approach their individualism and collectivism. What groups does a person belong to? How is power distributed in the group? Does it practice one-person rule, minority rule, majority rule, or self-rule? Liberals believe in majority rule. Hitler practiced one-person rule. Thus, there is no comparison.

And on that score, conservatives might feel that they are off the hook, too, because they claim to prefer self-rule to one-person rule. But their actions say otherwise. Many of the institutions that conservatives favor are really quite dictatorial: the military, the church, the patriarchal family, the business firm.

Hitler himself downplayed all groups except for the state, which he raised to supreme significance in his writings. However, he did not identify the state as most people do, as a random collection of people in artificially drawn borders. Instead, he identified the German state as its racially pure stock of German or Aryan blood. In Mein Kampf, Hitler freely and interchangeably used the terms "Aryan race," "German culture" and "folkish state." To him they were synonyms, as the quotes below show. There were citizens inside Germany (like Jews) who were not part of Hitler's state, while there were Germans outside Germany (for example, in Austria) who were. But the main point is that Hitler's political philosophy was not really based on "statism" as we know it today. It was actually based on racism -- again, a subject that hits uncomfortably closer to home for conservatives, not liberals.

As Hitler himself wrote:

"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." (4)

"The state is a means to an end. Its end lies in the preservation and advancement of a community of physically and psychically homogenous creatures. This preservation itself comprises first of all existence as a race… Thus, the highest purpose of a folkish state is concern for the preservation of those original racial elements which bestow culture and create the beauty and dignity of a higher mankind. We, as Aryans, can conceive of the state only as the living organism of a nationality which… assures the preservation of this nationality…" (5)

"The German Reich as a state must embrace all Germans and has the task, not only of assembling and preserving the most valuable stocks of basic racial elements in this people, but slowly and surely of raising them to a dominant position." (6)

And it was in the service of this racial state that Hitler encourage individuals to sacrifice themselves:

"In [the Aryan], the instinct for self-preservation has reached its noblest form, since he willingly subordinates his own ego to the life of the community and, if the hour demands it, even sacrifices it." (7)

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture." (8)

Racism or racial segregation over racial tolerance.

"All the human culture, all the results of art, science, and technology that we see before us today, are almost exclusively the creative product of the Aryan." (9)

"Aryan races -- often absurdly small numerically -- subject foreign peoples, and then… develop the intellectual and organizational capacities dormant within them." (10)

"If beginning today all further Aryan influence on Japan should stop… Japan's present rise in science and technology might continue for a short time; but even in a few years the well would dry up… the present culture would freeze and sink back into the slumber from which it awakened seven decades ago by the wave of Aryan culture." (11)

"Every racial crossing leads inevitably sooner or later to the decline of the hybrid product…" (12)

"It is the function above all of the Germanic states first and foremost to call a fundamental halt to any further bastardization." (13)

"What we must fight for is to safeguard the existence and reproduction of our race and our people, the sustenance of our children and the purity of our blood…" (14)

Eugenics over freedom of reproduction

"The folkish philosophy of life must succeed in bringing about that nobler age in which men no longer are concerned with breeding dogs, horses, and cats, but in elevating man himself…" (15)

"The folkish state must make up for what everyone else today has neglected in this field. It must set race in the center of all life. It must take care to keep it pure… It must see to it that only the healthy beget children; that there is only one disgrace: despite one's own sickness and deficiencies, to bring children into the world, and one highest honor: to renounce doing so. And conversely it must be considered reprehensible: to withhold healthy children from the nation. Here the state… must put the most modern medical means in the service of this knowledge. It must declare unfit for propagation all who are in any way visibly sick or who have inherited a disease and therefore pass it on…" (16)

Merit over equality.

"The best state constitution and state form is that which, with the most unquestioned certainty, raises the best minds in the national community to leading position and leading influence. But as in economic life, the able men cannot be appointed from above, but must struggle through for themselves…" (17)

"It must not be lamented if so many men set out on the road to arrive at the same goal: the most powerful and swiftest will in this way be recognized, and will be the victor." (p. 512.)

Competition over cooperation.

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." (18)

"It must never be forgotten that nothing that is really great in this world has ever been achieved by coalitions, but that it has always been the success of a single victor. Coalition successes bear by the very nature of their origin the germ of future crumbling, in fact of the loss of what has already been achieved. Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions." (19)

"The idea of struggle is old as life itself, for life is only preserved because other living things perish through struggle… In this struggle, the stronger, the more able, win, while the less able, the weak, lose. Struggle is the father of all things… It is not by the principles of humanity that man lives or is able to preserve himself in the animal world, but solely by means of the most brutal struggle… If you do not fight for life, then life will never be won." (20)

Power politics and militarism over pacifism.

Allan Bullock, probably the world's greatest Hitler historian, sums up Hitler's political method in one sentence:

"Stripped of their romantic trimmings, all Hitler's ideas can be reduced to a simple claim for power which recognizes only one relationship, that of domination, and only one argument, that of force." (21)

The following quotes by Hitler portray his rather stunning contempt for pacifism:

"If the German people in its historic development had possessed that herd unity [defined here by Hitler as racial solidarity] which other peoples enjoyed, the German Reich today would doubtless be mistress of the globe. World history would have taken a different course, and no one can distinguish whether in this way we would not have obtained what so many blinded pacifists today hope to gain by begging, whining and whimpering: a peace, supported not by the palm branches of tearful, pacifist female mourners, but based on the victorious sword of a master people, putting the world into the service of a higher culture." (22)

"We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." (23)

"In actual fact the pacifistic-humane idea is perfectly all right perhaps when the highest type of man has previously conquered and subjected the world to an extent that makes him the sole ruler of this earth… Therefore, first struggle and then perhaps pacifism." (24)

One-person rule or self-rule over democracy.

"The young [Nazi] movement is in its nature and inner organization anti-parliamentarian; that is, it rejects… a principle of majority rule in which the leader is degraded to the level of mere executant of other people's wills and opinion." (25)

"The [Nazi party] should not become a constable of public opinion, but must dominate it. It must not become a servant of the masses, but their master!" (26)

"By rejecting the authority of the individual and replacing it by the numbers of some momentary mob, the parliamentary principle of majority rule sins against the basic aristocratic principle of Nature…" (27)

"For there is one thing we must never forget… the majority can never replace the man. And no more than a hundred empty heads make one wise man will an heroic decision arise from a hundred cowards." (28)

"There must be no majority decisions, but only responsible persons, and the word 'council' must be restored to its original meaning. Surely every man will have advisers by his side, but the decision will be made by one man." (29)

"When I recognized the Jew as the leader of the Social Democracy, the scales dropped from my eyes." (30)

"The Western democracy of today is the forerunner of Marxism…" (31)

"Only a knowledge of the Jews provides the key with which to comprehend the inner, and consequently real, aims of Social Democracy." (32)

Capitalism over Marxism.

Bullock writes of Hitler's views on Marxism:

"While Hitler's attitude towards liberalism was one of contempt, towards Marxism he showed an implacable hostility… Ignoring the profound differences between Communism and Social Democracy in practice and the bitter hostility between the rival working class parties, he saw in their common ideology the embodiment of all that he detested -- mass democracy and a leveling egalitarianism as opposed to the authoritarian state and the rule of an elite; equality and friendship among peoples as opposed to racial inequality and the domination of the strong; class solidarity versus national unity; internationalism versus nationalism." (33)

As Hitler himself would write:

"The German state is gravely attacked by Marxism." (34)

"In the years 1913 and 1914, I… expressed the conviction that the question of the future of the German nation was the question of destroying Marxism." (35)

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political sphere." (36)

"The Marxists will march with democracy until they succeed in indirectly obtaining for their criminal aims the support of even the national intellectual world, destined by them for extinction." (37)

"Marxism itself systematically plans to hand the world over to the Jews." (38)

"The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." (39)

Realism over idealism.

Hitler was hardly an "idealist" in the sense that political scientists use the term. The standard definition of an idealist is someone who believes that cooperation and peaceful coexistence can occur among peoples. A realist, however, is someone who sees the world as an unstable and dangerous place, and prepares for war, if not to deter it, then to survive it. It goes without saying that Hitler was one of the greatest realists of all time. Nonetheless, Hitler had his own twisted utopia, which he described:

"We are not simple enough, either, to believe that it could ever be possible to bring about a perfect era. But this relieves no one of the obligation to combat recognized errors, to overcome weaknesses, and strive for the ideal. Harsh reality of its own accord will create only too many limitations. For that very reason, however, man must try to serve the ultimate goal, and failures must not deter him, any more than he can abandon a system of justice merely because mistakes creep into it…" (40)

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his nationality." (41)

Nationalism over internationalism.

"The nationalization of our masses will succeed only when… their international poisoners are exterminated." (42)

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the national community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and the fatherland." (43)

"Thus, the reservoir from which the young [Nazi] movement must gather its supporters will primarily be the masses of our workers. Its work will be to tear these away from the international delusion… and lead them to the national community…" (44)

Exclusiveness over inclusiveness.

"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on earth." (45)

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all others." (46)

Meat-eating over vegetarianism.

It may seem ridiculous to include this issue in a review of Hitler's politics, but, believe it or not, conservatives on the Internet frequently equate Hitler's vegetarianism with the vegetarianism practised by liberals concerned about the environment and the ethical treatment of animals.

Hitler's vegetarianism had nothing to do with his political beliefs. He became a vegetarian shortly after the death of his girlfriend and half-niece, Geli Raubal. Their relationship was a stormy one, and it ended in her apparent suicide. There were rumors that Hitler had arranged her murder, but Hitler would remain deeply distraught over her loss for the rest of his life. As one historian writes:

"Curiously, shortly after her death, Hitler looked with disdain on a piece of ham being served during breakfast and refused to eat it, saying it was like eating a corpse. From that moment on, he refused to eat meat." (47)

Hitler's vegetarianism, then, was no more than a phobia, triggered by an association with his niece's death.

Gun ownership over gun control

Perhaps one of the pro-gun lobby's favorite arguments is that if German citizens had had the right to keep and bear arms, Hitler would have never been able to tyrannize the country. And to this effect, pro-gun advocates often quote the following:

"1935 will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." - Adolf Hitler

However, this quote is almost certainly a fraud. There is no reputable record of him ever making it: neither at the Nuremberg rallies, nor in any of his weekly radio addresses. Furthermore, there was no reason for him to even make such a statement; for Germany already had strict gun control as a term of surrender in the Treaty of Versailles. The Allies had wanted to make Germany as impotent as possible, and one of the ways they did that was to disarm its citizenry. Only a handful of local authorities were allowed arms at all, and the few German citizens who did possess weapons were already subject to full gun registration. Seen in this light, the above quote makes no sense whatsoever.

The Firearms Policy Journal (January 1997) writes:

"The Nazi Party did not ride to power confiscating guns. They rode to power on the inability of the Weimar Republic to confiscate their guns. They did not consolidate their power confiscating guns either. There is no historical evidence that Nazis ever went door to door in Germany confiscating guns. The Germans had a fetish about paperwork and documented everything. These searches and confiscations would have been carefully recorded. If the documents are there, let them be presented as evidence."

On April 12, 1928, five years before Hitler seized power, Germany passed the Law on Firearms and Ammunition. This law substantially tightened restrictions on gun ownership in an effort to curb street violence between Nazis and Communists. The law was ineffectual and poorly enforced. It was not until March 18, 1938 -- five years after Hitler came to power -- that the Nazis passed the German Weapons Law, their first known change in the firearm code. And this law actually relaxed restrictions on citizen firearms.

Common sense over theory or science.

Hitler was notorious for his anti-intellectualism:

"The youthful brain should in general not be burdened with things ninety-five percent of which it cannot use and hence forgets again… In many cases, the material to be learned in the various subjects is so swollen that only a fraction of it remains in the head of the individual pupil, and only a fraction of this abundance can find application, while on the other hand it is not adequate for the man working and earning his living in a definite field." (48)

"Knowledge above the average can be crammed into the average man, but it remains dead, and in the last analysis sterile knowledge. The result is a man who may be a living dictionary but nevertheless falls down miserably in all special situations and decisive moments in life." (49)

"The folkish state must not adjust its entire educational work primarily to the inoculation of mere knowledge, but to the breeding of absolutely healthy bodies. The training of mental abilities is only secondary. And here again, first place must be taken by the development of character, especially the promotion of will-power and determination, combined with the training of joy in responsibility, and only in last place comes scientific schooling." (50)

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be able to safeguard their existence on this earth." (51)

Pragmatism over principle.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and not of principle." (52)

Religion over secularism.

Hitler's views on religion were complex. Although ostensibly an atheist, he considered himself a cultural Catholic, and frequently evoked God, the Creator and Providence in his writings. Throughout his life he would remain an envious admirer of the Christian Church and its power over the masses. Here is but one example:

"We can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice… comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less unwilling to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of faith. And so it stands today more firmly than ever." (53)

Hitler also saw a useful purpose for the Church:

"The great masses of people do not consist of philosophers; precisely for the masses, [religious] faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude… For the political man, the value of a religion must be estimated less by its deficiencies than by the virtue of a visibly better substitute. As long as this appears to be lacking, what is present can be demolished only by fools or criminals." (54)

Hitler thus advocated freedom of religious belief. Although he would later press churches into the service of Nazism, often at the point of a gun, Hitler did not attempt to impose a state religion or mandate the basic philosophical content of German religions. As long as they did not interfere with his program, he allowed them to continue fuctioning. And this policy was foreshadowed in his writings:

"For the political leader the religious doctrines and institutions of his people must always remain inviolable; or else he has no right to be in politics…" (55)

"Political parties have nothing to do with religious problems, as long as these are not alien to the nation, undermining the morals and ethics of the race; just as religion cannot be amalgamated with the scheming of political parties." (56)

"Worst of all, however, is the devastation wrought by the misuse of religious conviction for political ends." (57)

"Therefore, let every man be active, each in his own denomination if you please, and let every man take it as his first and most sacred duty to oppose anyone who in his activity by word or deed steps outside the confines of his religious community and tries to butt into the other." (58)

Hitler was raised a Catholic, even going to school for two years at the monastery at Lambauch, Austria. As late as 24 he still called himself a Catholic, but somewhere along the way he became an atheist. It is highly doubtful that this was an intellectual decision, as a reading of his disordered thoughts in Mein Kampf will attest. The decision was most likely a pragmatic one, based on power and personal ambition. Bullock reveals an interesting anecdote showing how these considerations worked on the young Hitler. After five years of eking out a miserable existence in Vienna and four years of war, Hitler walked into his first German Worker's Party meeting:

"'Under the dim light shed by a grimy gas-lamp I could see four people sitting around a table…' As Hitler frankly acknowledges, this very obscurity was an attraction. It was only in a party which, like himself, was beginning at the bottom that he had any prospect of playing a leading part and imposing his ideas. In the established parties there was no room for him, he would be a nobody." (59)

Hitler probably realized that a frustrated artist and pipe-dreamer like himself would have no chance of achieving power in the world-wide, 2000-year old Christian Church. It was most likely for this reason that he rejected Christianity and pursued a political life instead. Yet, curiously enough, he never renounced his membership in the Catholic Church, and the Church never excommunicated him. Nor did the Church place his Mein Kampf on the Index of Prohibited Books, in spite of its knowledge of his atrocities. Later the Church would come under intense criticism for its friendly and cooperative relationship with Hitler. A brief review of this history is instructive.

In 1933, the Catholic Center Party cast its large and decisive vote in favor of Hitler's Enabling Bill. This bill essentially gave Chancellor Hitler the sweeping dictatorial powers he was seeking. Historian Guenter Lewy describes a meeting between Hitler and the German Catholic authorities shortly afterwards:

"On 26 April 1933 Hitler had a conversation with Bishop Berning and Monsignor Steinmann [the Catholic leadership in Germany]. The subject was the common fight against liberalism, Socialism and Bolshevism, discussed in the friendliest terms. In the course of the conversation Hitler said that he was only doing to the Jews what the church had done to them over the past fifteen hundred years. The prelates did not contradict him." (60)

As anyone familiar with Christian history knows, the Church has always been a primary source of anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism therefore found a receptive audience among Catholic authorities. The Church also had an intense fear and hatred of Russian communism, and Hitler's attack on Russia was the best that could have happened. The Jesuit Michael Serafin wrote: "It cannot be denied that [Pope] Pius XII's closest advisors for some time regarded Hitler's armoured divisions as the right hand of God." (61) As Pope Pius himself would say after Germany conquered Poland: "Let us end this war between brothers and unite our forces against the common enemy of atheism" -- Russia. (62)

Once Hitler assumed power, he signed a Concordat, or agreement, with the Catholic Church. Eugenio Pacelli (the man who would eventually become Pope Pius XII) was the Vatican diplomat who drew up the Concordat, and he considered it a triumph. In return for promises which Hitler increasingly broke, the Church dissolved all Catholic organizations in Germany, including the Catholic Center Party. Bishops were to take an oath of loyalty to the Nazi regime. Clergy were to see to the pastoral care of Germany's armed forces (regardless of what those armed forces did). (63)

The Concordat eliminated all Catholic resistance to Hitler; after this, the German bishops gave Hitler their full and unqualified support. A bishops' conference at Fulda, 1933, resulted in agreement with Hitler's case for extending Lebensraum, or German territory. (64) Bishop Bornewasser told a congregation of Catholic young people at Trier: "With our heads high and with firm steps we have entered the new Reich and are ready to serve it body and soul." (65) Vicar-General Steinman greeted each Berlin mass with the shout, "Heil Hitler!" (66)

Hitler, on the other hand, kept up his attack on the Church. Nazi bands stormed into the few remaining Catholic institutions, beat up Catholic youths and arrested Catholic officials. The Vatican was dismayed, but it did not protest. (67) In some instances, it was hard to tell if the Church supported its own persecution. Hitler muzzled the independent Catholic press (about 400 daily papers in 1933) and subordinated it to Goebbels' Ministry of Propaganda and Enlightenment. Yet soon the Catholic Press was doing more than what the Nazis required of it -- for example, coordinating their Nazi propaganda to prepare the people for the 1940 offensive against the West. (68) Throughout the war, the Catholic press would remain one of the Third Reich's best disseminators of propaganda.

Pacelli became the new Pope Pius XII in 1939, and he immediately improved relations with Hitler. He broke protocol by personally signing a letter in German to Hitler expressing warm hopes of friendly relations. Shortly afterwards, the Church celebrated Hitler's birthday by ringing bells, flying swastika flags from church towers and holding thanksgiving services for the Fuhrer. (69) Ringing church bells to celebrate and affirm the bishops' allegiance to the Reich would become quite common throughout the war; after the German army conquered France, the church bells rang for an entire week, and swastikas flew over the churches for ten days.

But perhaps the greatest failure of Pope Pius XII was his silence over the Holocaust, even though he knew it was in progress. Although there are many heroic stories of Catholics helping Jews survive the Holocaust, they do not include Pope Pius, the Holy See, or the German Catholic authorities. When a reporter asked Pius why he did not protest the liquidation of the Jews, the Pope answered, "Dear friend, do not forget that millions of Catholics are serving in the German armies. Am I to involve them in a conflict of conscience?" (70) As perhaps the world's greatest moral leader, he was charged with precisely that responsibility.

The history of Hitler and the Church reveals a relationship built on mutual distrust and philosophical rejection, but also shared goals, benefits, admiration, envy, friendliness, and ultimate alliance.

[pt]

Coloque a mensagem num tópico adequado, que não o tópico da II guerra mundial.
Talvez alguém lhe responda.




E já agora:
Coloque pelo menos um link para que saibamos qual a origem do copy-paste.
Se não houvesse copy-paste, o que é que esta criançada fazia...

[soultrain]

Depois desta longa aula, o menino PT tem duvidas que deseja serem esclarecidas?

É melhor um TPC, escreva 5000 vezes na sebenta, 4 frases por linha, para ser poupadinho:

O regime Nazista não foi de esquerda, foi de direita.

[soultrain]

Coloque a mensagem num tópico adequado, que não o tópico da II guerra mundial.
Talvez alguém lhe responda.

E já agora:
Coloque pelo menos um link para que saibamos qual a origem do copy-paste.

Está na página anterior, dá muito trabalho?

Isto é a segunda guerra mundial são as suas causas, que são tão ao mais importantes que o conflito em si, qualquer historiador de meia tigela o sabe!!! É moderador ou quer-se candidatar?

[cabeça de martelo]

Um texto realmente interessante Soul.

[pt]

Eu não vou discutir politica consigo Soultrain.
Vim a este fórum especificamente para discutir a questão da II guerra mundial, no que respeita aos planos russos para invasão da Alemanha.

Você já passou pelo Voltaire e até pelo Lula da Silva, para demonstrar o que não é possível demonstrar. Só lhe falta citar o Tiririca.

A Alemanha Nacional-Socialista atacou a Russia Comunista em 1941. Os dois regimes lutaram contra o grande capital e odiavam o capitalismo (o judeu era a personificação do agiota malvado).
Por cada disparate que você publica, há mil argumentos que o poderia ridicularizar.

Mas eu não vou entrar no seu jogo.

Eu não quero discutir consigo. Não pretendo que é possível converter alguém que acredita nas mais odiosas e criminosa ideologias da História. Que pretende provar que os assassinos são diferentes e que há assassinos maus e assassinos bons.
Que não aceita que todos os assassinos são maus e as ideias da Esquerda revolucionária estão na origem da maioria dos regimes criminosos. Que não entende que os movimentos fascistas e nazistas originaram de movimentos revolucionarios de esquerda por alguma razão.

Eu só pretendi discutir a II guerra mundial e não tenho problema em discutir com quem o possa fazer.
Não vou discutir teorias politicas consigo.

Você divide o mundo entre a sua direita e a sua esquerda, e quer separar o que não se pode separar.
Eu divido o mundo, entre o que acredito estar certo e o que acredito estar errado. Divido o mundo entre honestos e desonestos, entre os que matam e os que defendem a vida.

As nossas visões do mundo não se podem conciliar. Você não me vai convencer de nada, porque provavelmente ainda você usava fralda e já eu conhecia as ideias que você tenta vender.



Apelo novamente!
Volte ao tema: II guerra mundial