Sebastian Haffner's 'Defying Hitler' is a fairly well-known account of, amongst other things, Hitler's rise to power. Less well-known, it seems, is Haffner's 'The Meaning of Hitler': a remarkable essay of analysis. Here he is on 1940: "If Hitler had only wished it, he could have had peace with France at any time in the summer of 1940, and if that peace had turned out to be reasonably generous it would, without any doubt, have made all the lesser Western European countries against whom Hitler had made war equally hungry for peace. Conclusion of peace with France, followed by a European peace congress called if possible jointly with France...was within reach for a German statesman in Hitler's position in the summer of 1940. It would, incidentally, have been the most promising approach to disarming Britain psychologically and letting the war with Britain wither away. After all, what would Britain have left to fight for if the countries for whose sake it had declared war were making their own peace with Hitler?" The clarity of Haffner's prose (or perhaps that of his translator Eward Osers) gives added force to his arguments. I do not agree with all of his conclusions; but I heartily recommend this book. (Haffner and his Jewish wife fled Germany to Britain in 1938.)
good day uncle george.advanced member,yesterday 11:33.am.the meaning of hitler.there are many opinions on hitler.just follow the history of his power.peace was not the issue with him.total domination was.and he nearly made it.thank you for an interesting post.regards bernard85
Hi Bernard85 Thanks for your reply. Yes, Haffner makes the same point as you. He speaks of "a German statesman in Hitler's position": yet, Hitler was not a statesman. He "quite simply lacked the statesmanlike vision this would have required and ... he was not interested in the fate of the countries and nations now placed in his hands. To him they were merely auxiliary nations, suppliers of raw materials and deployment areas for his further adventures." Haffner makes another interesting point, when writing of a possible peace with France in 1940: "It is significant that these opportunities can be shown not to have played the least part in Hitler's thinking and planning... He did not even consider them in order to reject them. Such a policy simply never occured to him. When, after his victorious campaign in France, he made an offer of peace it was not addressed to vanquished France but to undefeated Britain - a totally paradoxical attitude if one stops to think about it..."
Hi "Uncle George" I have had trouble despite all I have seen in understanding what the "true" fascination of/in Hitler ever was, and indeed still is. Particularly as it must have been apparent and painfully evident to many around him that whilst able to "appear" controlled, he was capable of quite literally appearing to be insane: http://ww2talk.com/forums/topic/57094-depictions-of-hitler-did-he-really-chew-on-the-carpets/ There's a good series of podcast here by Ray Harris over in the US - that early on in the series took a good look at Hitler and into what caused the war and what Hitler actually thought he could get out of it, and give to the "German race": http://podbay.fm/show/493253759 (He wanted his generals to never think about anything but war and I suspect that if not fighting a war against anyone else - he' would have had them fighting one another - like gladiators - just to "work" out which one was "best") As well as a newer series here: http://podbay.fm/show/973388278 - that's just going through a similar process of trying to unpick what made him "tick" I guess it can always be summed up in a million ways but I think he was a small weak scared little man that grasped power and wanted everyone else to feel smaller and weaker than him for ever thereafter. (A bit like the "boot stamping on people's faces" for ever after in 1984) Anyone could have made "peace" with Hitler if they allowed him to have whatever he wanted, they just tended to realise too late that Hitler's version of imposed peace was worse than Hitler's lightening war (it was always better not to give in and just keep fighting on). If the Versailles treaty forced Germany back into World War 2, what did Hitler's treatment of countries he "defeated" in WW2 inevitably mean in terms of a new post world war 2 peace (if won by Germany) actually ever being an end to war. His tactics of peace were actually impossible to live with, so many people thought it better to resist and even die). No matter what happened he'd always have ended up meeting something bigger than himself and from the day he set out he was already on the route to an inevitable defeat (because he just couldn't stop and was always looking for more of the pie to break off). He already had a bone to pick with Japan about Germany's former pre WW1 colonies in the Pacific and China so at some stage I imagine he'd quite happily have been prepared to take them on, if he thought that they had anything that he wanted or could use over there. Even being his friend / on his side - didn't tend to make sense. Italy soon saw that. He didn't actually have any friends that didn't seem useful to him and enough of those around him died or were killed off when not "useful" that you wonder if the relationship such as it was wasn't actually all one way. He even killed his dog and would have been happiest if Germany had died utterly with him... nothing at all heroic or worthy there to harp about. Btw - did Germany ever actually strip him formally of his "iron cross" ? - it is a bit tiresome to hear that he "had one" and it seems like if he ever "earned" it, subsequently he did enough "not to deserve it" any more? And so someone ought to have "taken it back"? Ps. "Interesting" footnote here from an "impeccable" source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1303804/Adolf-Hitler-loner-rear-area-pig-according-WWI-regiment.html All the best, Rm.
Hello Ramiles Thanks very much for your thoughts. You wonder what the "fascination" with AH is, and for me the interest lies in how this (pre-Great War) rough-sleeper/doss-house resident was able to rise to a position in Germany of absolute power, greater than that of the Kaisers or Bismark or Ludendorff, at the head of a vast empire, able to carry with him a nation into that collective madness. As this thread is a review of 'The Meaning of Hitler', I quote below some of Haffner's thoughts on this: "Although that difference has provoked numerous explanations it is in fact more apparent than real, not merely because Hitler's political career continued to be disjointed during its first ten years, and Hitler the politician turned out in the final analysis to be a failure, albeit on a supreme scale, but mainly because Hitler's personal life remained poor and stunted even during the second, public, period of his life... "The division which certainly marks Hitler's life does not cut across it but runs through the whole. Not all weakness and failure before 1919, all vigour and achievement after 1920. But before and after an exceptional intensity of political living and feeling alongside an exceptional meagureness of personal experience...." And touching on your thoughts about AH's war, and his peace: "To Hitler the political thinker war was the norm and peace the exception. He realized that peace could serve the preparation of a war. What he did not realize was that war must always serve the conclusion of a peace. To Hilter the ultimate goal of all politics was a victorious war - not the peace thereby won." Thanks again for your response. 'The Meaning of Hitler' - a thought-provoking book of (to me) unusual insight.
