Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Itís Not Easy Being Red and Green
Sultan Knish ^ | Feb 16, 2013 | Daniel Greenfield

Posted on 02/17/2013 4:52:16 AM PST by expat1000

The left has never adapted to the transition from nationalistic wars to ideological wars. It took the left a while to grasp that the Nazis were a fundamentally different foe than the Kaiser and that pretending that World War 2 was another war for the benefit of colonialists and arms dealers was the behavior of deluded lunatics. And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.

The Cold War was even worse. The moderate left never came to terms with Communism. From the Moscow Trials to the fall of the Berlin Wall, the left slowly disavowed the USSR, but refused to see it as anything more than a clumsy dictatorship. The only way that the left could reject the USSR was by overlooking its ideology and treating it as another backward Russian tyranny being needlessly provoked and pushed around by Western Europe and the United States.

Having failed the test twice, it is no wonder that the left has been unable to come to terms with Islam, or that it has resorted to insisting that, like Germany and Russia, the Muslim world is just another victim of imperialism and western warmongering in need of support and encouragement from the progressive camp.

The anti-war worldview is generations out of date. It is mired in an outdated analysis of imperial conflicts that ceased being relevant with the downfall of the nation-state and its replacement by international organizations and causes based around ideologies. Nazism could still loosely fit into the jackboots of the nation state. Communism was another creature entirely, a red virus floating around the world, embedding its ideas into organizations and using those organizations to take over nations.

Islamism is even more untethered than Communism, loosely originating from powerful oil nations, but able to spring up anywhere in the Muslim world. Its proponents have even less use for the nation state than the Communists. What they want is a Caliphate ruled under Islamic law; a single unit of human organization extending across nations, regions and eventually the world.

The left is incapable of engaging with Islamism as an ideology, instead it reduces the conflict to a struggle between colonial and anti-colonial forces, showing once again that the left's worldview is usually at least fifty years out of date. Mapping colonial and anti-colonial conflicts over a map of Mali, where the anti-colonial forces are represented by the slave-owning Tuaregs and the Arab and Pakistani Jihadis invading an African country, makes very little sense, but that is all that the left knows how to do.

The anti-war movement does not deal with wars as they are, but with a revisionist history of war. The continuum from Oliver Stone to Ron Paul resolves all questions through a historical revisionism that locates the source of every conflict in American foreign policy. By blaming America for it all, they are freed of the need to examine who the other side is and what it wants.

During WW2, Trotskyist unions in the UK claimed that American troops weren't coming to help fight Hitler, but to break up labor protests. That same obtuse obliviousness, the insistence that a conflict spanning centuries, religions and continents is all about their pet cause, is how the left has responded to every conflict since.

Their response to the Clash of Civilizations has been to include Islamists in the global rainbow coalition of minorities, gays and gender theorists, indigent third world farmers, transsexuals, artists and poets, sex workers and terrorists; without considering what the Islamists were or how they would fit into this charmed circle.

The left views the Islamists as just another front group to be used. The Islamists see the left the same way and in Iran, Egypt and Tunisia, the Islamists have a better track record of getting the better of the left. But the left never learns from history. It never questions its outdated Marxist fisheye view of events or realizes that the Industrial Revolution, feudal peasants and the banks are not a metaphor for absolutely every struggle that takes place anywhere in the world. And so the left dooms itself to repeat again and again the history that it refuses to learn.

The left only recognizes one ideological war. Its own. Through its narrow garret window, it sees only the dead hand of the capitalist establishment and the fossilized nation-state bound together by a devilish compact of greed blocking its way. It cannot recognize that there are other historical forces at work and other fanatics who dream of exploiting the collapse of the western nation-state for their own purposes.

Progressives see history moving forward in their direction and ignore the Islamists who see everything coming up Jihad. There are two ideologies who both see themselves as the culmination of human history going down the same track and only one of them can make it to the final destination. The Islamists understand that, but the left does not.

Rather than deal with Islamism, the left persists in fighting phantom wars against nationalism, capitalism, militarism, colonialism and imperialism; all things that are approaching extinction in its sphere of influence, while thriving outside its sphere of influence. The left is too busy fighting a civil war to see that if it wants to survive, it will have to fight a global war. True to its nature, it is determined to finish digesting the West before it is ready to defend it, and by the time that the left digests the West, with the help of its Islamist allies, the war will be over and the left will have lost.

The left is undone by its own conception of history as a treadmill moving forward through historical stages, rather than a chaotic morass of forces colliding together. In the progressive understanding of history, progressive forces defeat reactionary forces and humanity advances to the next stage. There is no room in that neat orderly evolution for the violent chaos of Islamism and its resurrection of tribal forces, ethnic grievances and religious intolerance into a worldwide movement that is every bit as fanatical and determined to forcibly carve out its own vision of a new world order.

From the progressive perspective of history as an evolutionary process, Islamist tribal fanaticism is from too early a stage to threaten the left. Socialism must battle against the industrialism of the previous stage, with each generation advancing the future by destroying the achievements of the previous generation in a species of grim historical cannibalism. The left fears being held back by capitalism, not by Islamism. It does not believe that the values of the 6th century can compete with it, only that the values of the 19th century can.

The left's rigid view of history has caused it problems before. It rejected Zionism as a historical aberration, and spent over a century fighting against the idea with spiteful hate, propaganda, terrorism and tanks. In the left's view of history, a Jewish State is an attempt to turn back time by building a state whose roots are in religious scripture. Israel is ahistorical and must therefore be destroyed.

What it rejected as ahistorical for the Western Jew, who was expected to assimilate into the Socialist society, rather than building a nation state of his own, it accepted from the Muslim world, which it deemed more backward and in need of passing through all the historical stages to get to the red finish line. The left has been willing to tentatively accept Islamism, even when it is destroying Arab Socialism, because it assumes that Muslims are backward enough to need an Islamic simulation of Socialism.

While the left sees itself as progressive and Islamism as reactionary, it is the left that has trouble adapting to new developments, while the Islamists have successfully glommed onto everything from the Cold War to the fall of the Soviet Union, the rise of international organizations and even the War on Terror, and exploited events for their ends. In the new century, the Islamists have been riding the left over the finish line, without the left realizing that it was being ridden.

The Islamists are intellectually and morally backward, but unlike their collaborators on the left they are not bounded by an inflexible vision of history. Their strategy is flexible and they are willing to do anything that works. They are utterly unconcerned with the tactics they use or with the historical implications of movements and events so long as they lead to them toward a Caliphate.

The Islamists do not need to understand the left. All they need to do is go on using it. The left does need to understand Islamists, but generally chooses not to. When some among the left, like Christopher Hitchens, take a long look at the Islamists, they have the same reaction that the USSR did when the Nazi tank began rolling across the Russian border, and realize that it's come down to fight or die.

The left dwells in an intellectual bubble of its own making. It transforms that bubble into an elaborate place, furnishing the space until it resembles a miniature world, but a bubble is not a world, it can only ever be a bubble. Ideology is the left's bubble. It is the lens that the left sees through, the air that it breathes and the clamor that fills its ears. Ideology conditions the left to view history as an orderly progression. An arrangement of chess pieces moving forward in a complex strategy to cripple their opponents.

The left is often vicious, hysterical and irrational, but underneath that is the vision of an orderly historical progression toward a great society. Trapped inside the bubble, it cannot realize that the world is going backward, not forward, that the 21st century is really the 7th century and that the future is the past. The Islamists understand this quite well. The left cannot.


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: communism; danielgreenfield; islam; islamism; marxism; progressives; redgreen; sultanknish; watermellon

1 posted on 02/17/2013 4:52:18 AM PST by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: arasina; daisy mae for the usa; AdvisorB; wizardoz; free-in-nyc; Vendome; Louis Foxwell; ...


Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield Ping List (notification of new articles). FReepmail or drop me a comment to get on or off.
2 posted on 02/17/2013 4:53:09 AM PST by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

3 posted on 02/17/2013 5:09:55 AM PST by Perseverando (Gun control? It's really not about gun control is it? It's really about PEOPLE CONTROL!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Keep your stick on the ice...


4 posted on 02/17/2013 5:12:29 AM PST by laker_dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
The left has never adapted to the transition from nationalistic wars to ideological wars. It took the left a while to grasp that the Nazis were a fundamentally different foe than the Kaiser and that pretending that World War 2 was another war for the benefit of colonialists and arms dealers was the behavior of deluded lunatics. And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.

People used to talk about WWII being the time when America was united, but the truth is that the Left in the U.S. was extremely anti-war right to the day that Hitler invaded the USSR. Then they spun 180 degrees and started to call for the U.S. to enter the war immediately to "stop Hitler".

As soon as the war ended, the U.S. Left set about giving our secrets to the Soviets and doing everything they could to work against us.

5 posted on 02/17/2013 5:23:01 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Brilliant stuff. He is so right about the self-centeredness and blind intellectual rigidity of the left. The left truly lives in a dream world that doesn’t account for the intelligence and ideological drivenness of other movements. The left is only able to see them as victims struggling against Western imperialism per its limited model (or its narrow view through the garret window as he puts it). He is really on to something here.

*Bump*


6 posted on 02/17/2013 5:50:34 AM PST by Yardstick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

Marxism was already outmoded by the time I read “The Communist Manifest” back in the sixties. I remember reading Marx’s “predictions” about the “withering away of the state” and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and realizing, even as a 16 year old hippie, that Marx had been totally refuted and discredited by HISTORY.

The left must have complete blinders on...and willfully so.

Brilliant, as Usual, Sultan!


7 posted on 02/17/2013 5:54:45 AM PST by left that other site (Worry is the darkroom that developes negatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
The left's rigid view of history has caused it problems before. It rejected Zionism as a historical aberration, and spent over a century fighting against the idea with spiteful hate, propaganda, terrorism and tanks. In the left's view of history, a Jewish State is an attempt to turn back time by building a state whose roots are in religious scripture. Israel is ahistorical and must therefore be destroyed.

Nice observation. I've never understood the left's anti-Israel stance, and this is a logical explanation that I'll have to give serious thought.

8 posted on 02/17/2013 6:03:48 AM PST by Pollster1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

BUMP for later


9 posted on 02/17/2013 6:14:16 AM PST by YankeeReb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

I’ve read the FDR would have left Britian to their own devises if Russia looked like it was going to be overrun


10 posted on 02/17/2013 6:22:14 AM PST by South Dakota (shut up and build a bakken pipe line)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

islam is an evil, leftist political movement like communism but hides behind the veil of a false, satanic “religion”.

The satanic leftists are very good at relabeling their brand names for a more positive image:

Marxists -> Communists -> Progressives -> Liberals -> Progressives

Homosexual -> gay/lesbo/etc


11 posted on 02/17/2013 6:22:42 AM PST by newfreep (Breitbart sent me...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Some corrections are in order:

“And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.”

The USSR assisted NAZI Germany in its efforts to rebuild the German armed forces, particularly the Luftwaffe, by making its territory and Soviet armed forces available for secret training to circumvent the World War One Armistice terms. During the Second World War, amny German officers who served in the Soviet Union with Soviet commissions and enlistments to circumvent the WWI Armistice were tried for treason against the Soviet Union and executed rather than being retained as prisoners of war (POWs).

Hitler changed his schedule for the invasion of the Soviet Union and postponed further attempts to invade Britain because he became aware of Stalin’s plans and preparations to abrogate the pact and invade through the Eastern Front while Germany’s forces were committed to the battles on the Western Front. Stalin was surprised and disbelieving of Churchill’s warnings about the coming German invasion because Stalin was already convinced that Hitler was comitted to the Western Front as the Soviet forces prepared to invade from the East.
“As soon as the war ended, the U.S. Left set about giving our secrets to the Soviets and doing everything they could to work against us.

“The Left was busy disgorging every bit of secret and non-secret information they could hand over to the Soviets before, during, and after the war. By Agreement, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt handed over tons of U.S. secret documents and weapons to the Soviets. U.S. military police and intelligence services were forbidden by President Roosevelt to inspect or interfere with in any way as the Soviets transported these vital resources out of the United States aboard aircraft and ships. When the U.S. Army Counter-intelligence Corps got to close to the Soveit espionage agents in the Roosevelt Administration and documented Eleanor Roosevelt’s extra=marital affairs, heterosexual and homosexual, he ordered their intelligence files to be destroyed and their units to be transferred to the European Theater of Operations (ETO). The commander of the counter-intelligence unit disobeyed the President’s orders and preserved those intelligence files, while other units complied and destroyed their files implicating Harry Hopkins and other Administration officials in the Soviet espionage. So, the breaches in U.S. security after the end of the war were business as usual for the American Left.


12 posted on 02/17/2013 6:29:25 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

We’re forced to duel with Islamism with our right hand only, while our left hand is tied behind our back, trying to stab us.


13 posted on 02/17/2013 6:35:16 AM PST by Chad N. Freud (FR is the modern equivalent of the Committees of Correspondence. Let other analogies arise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laker_dad

If I had a way to post pictures, I would have posted him...


14 posted on 02/17/2013 6:40:40 AM PST by sauropod (I will not comply)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: left that other site
Marxism was already outmoded by the time I read “The Communist Manifest” back in the sixties. I remember reading Marx’s “predictions” about the “withering away of the state” and the “dictatorship of the proletariat” and realizing, even as a 16 year old hippie, that Marx had been totally refuted and discredited by HISTORY. The left must have complete blinders on...and willfully so.

No, they don't. Never assume that what they say is what they really think. The Left's positions make perfect sense once you just realize that they (or at least their leadership and opinion-molders) are liars who strive for power over others.

15 posted on 02/17/2013 6:41:56 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

Good point!

I stand corrected. :-)


16 posted on 02/17/2013 6:53:51 AM PST by left that other site (Worry is the darkroom that developes negatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
“And yet much of the left insisted on approaching the war in just that fashion, and had Hitler not attacked Stalin, it might have remained stuck there.”

Events in the United Stats such as the Communist-led North American Aviation strike of 1941 lend credence to this argument. It is also true that prior to the German invasion of the USSR, the British Communist Party philosophically opposed its own government's war effort due to the Nazi-Soviet Pact being in place.

17 posted on 02/17/2013 7:04:18 AM PST by Colonel_Flagg ("Don't be afraid to see what you see." -- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
Events in the United Stats such as the Communist-led North American Aviation strike of 1941 lend credence to this argument. It is also true that prior to the German invasion of the USSR, the British Communist Party philosophically opposed its own government's war effort due to the Nazi-Soviet Pact being in place.

I would imagine that part of the deal was that the USSR would use its control over the various Communist organizations in the US, UK, and Europe to prevent effective opposition to Germany. It may be why France folded so quickly -- they had lots of Communists.

18 posted on 02/17/2013 7:59:26 AM PST by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: expat1000
During WW2, Trotskyist unions in the UK claimed that American troops weren't coming to help fight Hitler, but to break up labor protests. That same obtuse obliviousness, the insistence that a conflict spanning centuries, religions and continents is all about their pet cause, is how the left has responded to every conflict since.

Their response to the Clash of Civilizations has been to include Islamists in the global rainbow coalition of minorities, gays and gender theorists, indigent third world farmers, transsexuals, artists and poets, sex workers and terrorists; without considering what the Islamists were ...

Well, Greenfield nailed it again... amazing.

19 posted on 02/17/2013 10:24:42 AM PST by GOPJ (To be free is to own one’s risk - Jonathan Levy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

No problem, as long as you have duct tape.

20 posted on 02/17/2013 10:26:07 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota

I don’t think that most people have any idea just how anti-war most Americans were going into WWII. Nor do I think people understand how anti-British many Americans were.

There were probably several reasons for the anti-British sentiment. We had fought Britain in two wars for national survival and had a tough time of it. People were still taught history then, and they thought of Britain as an aggressor. Globally, Britain was still a colonial power, and we were anti-colonial by birth right. Finally there were a lot of Irish immigrants that had absolutely no use for the British at all.

Even after WWI we were still making warplans to fight the British and defend our Eastern seaboard from the Royal Navy.


21 posted on 02/17/2013 11:19:34 AM PST by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan
I don’t think that most people have any idea just how anti-war most Americans were going into WWII.

The Commies sure were "anti-war", but that all changed when Hitler invaded their beloved Soviet Union. Then the press' attitude towards the isolationists suddenly changed.

22 posted on 02/17/2013 11:26:07 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: South Dakota
I’ve read the FDR would have left Britian to their own devises if Russia looked like it was going to be overrun

That is actually a sensible policy. Without an Eastern front the eventual invasion of a German controlled Europe would have been impossible. If the USSR had surrendered I think that Great Britain would have come to terms with Hitler.

23 posted on 02/17/2013 1:17:54 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Soylent Green is Boomers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

add me please


24 posted on 02/17/2013 1:23:27 PM PST by TurboZamboni (Looting the future to bribe the present)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SampleMan

Another significant sore point was Britain’s use of war loans being used to reloan to other allies and deprive the United States of the jobs the war loan to Britain was supposed to produce. The Britain rubbed even more salt in the wound by defaulting on the multi-billion dollar debt when the debt when the allies they reloaned the money to defaulted on their repayments of the reloans to Britian. Britain simply wasn’t trusted to keep its agreements or honor the contracts to produce american jobs in excchange for the loans.


25 posted on 02/17/2013 1:26:21 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

If the USSR had sued for peace as it did in World War One, Britain could not have succeeded in negotiating anything less than an unconditional surrender. Such an unconditional surrender would have resulted in a genocide equal to or greater than that experienced by Poland. Germany already had plans in place to exterminate the British leadership, intelligentsia, and military. Military age males were to be executed or sent as slave labor to Europe. Uselss mouths such as the elderly and infirm were to be liquidated in extermination concentration camps in Britain. females were to be liquidated in the extermination concentration camps, unless they were deemed to be useful for slave labor and Aryan breeding programs. The Royal Navy Fleet was to be used in the war Against the United States and its New World allies.

In the eevent of the loss of the Soviet Union and the occupation of Britain, the pre-war United States was already preparing to build an inter-continental bomber force. Some of the propased bases for this inter-continental bomber force were the Potuguese Azores, seized bases in North Africa, and/or captured Mediterranean island bases. The disparity in the ground forces was to be compensatedd by air supremacy, strategic bombing, and the atomic bomb weaponry.


26 posted on 02/17/2013 1:39:14 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: expat1000

The Sultan is awesome, I’ve seen a few of his articles. Please add me to the ping list? Thanks!


27 posted on 02/17/2013 2:02:26 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
In the eevent of the loss of the Soviet Union and the occupation of Britain, the pre-war United States was already preparing to build an inter-continental bomber force. Some of the propased bases for this inter-continental bomber force were the Potuguese Azores, seized bases in North Africa, and/or captured Mediterranean island bases. The disparity in the ground forces was to be compensatedd by air supremacy, strategic bombing, and the atomic bomb weaponry.

That's interesting. Not just because it discusses the alternative strategy of dealing with Hitler, but it shows the complete and total lack of concern about what Japan was doing on he other side of the world. Totally ignoring a real threat until it slaps you across the face is as American as apple pie, I guess. The difference between the reactions to 12/07/41 and 09/11/01 is astounding, and it does not bode well for this country.

28 posted on 02/17/2013 2:11:48 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Another significant sore point was Britain’s use of war loans being used to reloan to other allies and deprive the United States of the jobs the war loan to Britain was supposed to produce.

I'd never heard that. It would be like Ford lending me money to buy a Chevy?

29 posted on 02/17/2013 2:14:30 PM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

1941. Germany had lost the Battle of Britain and was not doing all that well on the seas either. I believe that Germany attacked the USSR because it couldn’t invade Britain any time soon. Had the USSR surrendered before December 1941 the US would not have entered the war, but Germany still wouldn’t have been strong enough to force surrender upon GB which still had the support of it’s Empire and the United States. I think the settlement would be that GB lifts it’s blockade of Germany and keeps it’s empire IOW: a stalemate. A triumphant Germany would not have made the same mistakes with Russia that it did in 1917.


30 posted on 02/17/2013 2:27:04 PM PST by Mike Darancette (Soylent Green is Boomers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Hitler had always planned upon conquering and colonizing Russia, as can be seen in his book, Mein Kampf. Stalin had always planned on invading Germany and the rest of Europe. It was not a question of if there would be invasions. There was only a question of when and how the invasions would occur. After the deeat of Goerings Adler Tag campain in the battle of Britain, Hitler found it necessary to consider the problems he would face with a longer and more costly campaign to invade and conquer Britain, when Hitler’s intelligence services were telling him how Stalin’s preparations for his own offensive against Geermany and Eeurope were approaching readiness.

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know Stalin’s plans were doomed to failure due to the poor combat performance of the Red Army and Stalin. But Stalin was not ware of this incapacity to perform in 1941. Just as he vastly overestimated the capabilities of the Red Army in its campaign against Finland in 1940, he had no clue how bad the Red Army would actually perform in Operation Barbarossa.

Hitler decided he could not afford to have Stalin attack him in the ear while he was drawn into a prolonged campaign against Britain in 1941 or 1942. Instead, he gave the Kriegsmarine the mission to starve Britain into submission with a submarine offensive and blockade, while the Whermacht disarmed and defeated Russia. Hitler badly needed resources to continue a prolonged war. Russia and the Middle East had those oil and other resources, while Britain did not. So, Hitler trusted the Kriegsmarine to handle the threat in the Weest, while the Wehrmacht conquered the threat and the future resources in the East.

Without the United States actively engaging the Kriegsmarine in the Battle of the Atlantic, Britain had absolutely zero chances for surviving much beyond late 1942 to late 1943. Eveen with the support of the United States, the Battle of the Atlantic was being lost until 1943, when the loss rates were suddenly and deecisively reversed. Prior to a date in 1943, the Allies were losing more merchant ship tonnage than it could build by a substantial margin. If things had kept on going the way they were, Britain would have been starving to death by late 1943 to early 1945. The cross channel invasion and strategic bombing campaign in the ETO would have to have been canceled or greatly reduced. The new anti-submarine efforts of the U.S. 10th Fleet and the Royal Navy reversed looming defeat into the steady and inexorable destruction of the U-boats. Hitler could have built far more U-boats and crews before he invaded Poland, but he miscalculated the Allied response. So, the Kriegsmarine went to war unprepared to blockade Britain and starve it into submission and surrender before the United States could intervene with its entry into the war. Hitelr could still have defeated the successful Allied anti-submarine campaign by the earlier construction of the advanced design U-boats in quantity, but he chose not to do so in time and numbers to overcome the Allied successes in 1943. Hitler failed to anticipate these events when he made his 1941 decision to proceed with Operation Barbarossa.


31 posted on 02/17/2013 3:37:33 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Hitler had always planned upon conquering and colonizing Russia, as can be seen in his book, Mein Kampf. Stalin had always planned on invading Germany and the rest of Europe. It was not a question of if there would be invasions. There was only a question of when and how the invasions would occur. After the deeat of Goerings Adler Tag campain in the battle of Britain, Hitler found it necessary to consider the problems he would face with a longer and more costly campaign to invade and conquer Britain, when Hitler’s intelligence services were telling him how Stalin’s preparations for his own offensive against Geermany and Eeurope were approaching readiness.

With the benefit of hindsight, we now know Stalin’s plans were doomed to failure due to the poor combat performance of the Red Army and Stalin. But Stalin was not ware of this incapacity to perform in 1941. Just as he vastly overestimated the capabilities of the Red Army in its campaign against Finland in 1940, he had no clue how bad the Red Army would actually perform in Operation Barbarossa.

Hitler decided he could not afford to have Stalin attack him in the ear while he was drawn into a prolonged campaign against Britain in 1941 or 1942. Instead, he gave the Kriegsmarine the mission to starve Britain into submission with a submarine offensive and blockade, while the Whermacht disarmed and defeated Russia. Hitler badly needed resources to continue a prolonged war. Russia and the Middle East had those oil and other resources, while Britain did not. So, Hitler trusted the Kriegsmarine to handle the threat in the Weest, while the Wehrmacht conquered the threat and the future resources in the East.

Without the United States actively engaging the Kriegsmarine in the Battle of the Atlantic, Britain had absolutely zero chances for surviving much beyond late 1942 to late 1943. Eveen with the support of the United States, the Battle of the Atlantic was being lost until 1943, when the loss rates were suddenly and deecisively reversed. Prior to a date in 1943, the Allies were losing more merchant ship tonnage than it could build by a substantial margin. If things had kept on going the way they were, Britain would have been starving to death by late 1943 to early 1945. The cross channel invasion and strategic bombing campaign in the ETO would have to have been canceled or greatly reduced. The new anti-submarine efforts of the U.S. 10th Fleet and the Royal Navy reversed looming defeat into the steady and inexorable destruction of the U-boats. Hitler could have built far more U-boats and crews before he invaded Poland, but he miscalculated the Allied response. So, the Kriegsmarine went to war unprepared to blockade Britain and starve it into submission and surrender before the United States could intervene with its entry into the war. Hitelr could still have defeated the successful Allied anti-submarine campaign by the earlier construction of the advanced design U-boats in quantity, but he chose not to do so in time and numbers to overcome the Allied successes in 1943. Hitler failed to anticipate these events when he made his 1941 decision to proceed with Operation Barbarossa.


32 posted on 02/17/2013 3:43:48 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: TurboZamboni; Cyber Liberty

Welcome to the Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield ping list!


33 posted on 02/17/2013 3:53:17 PM PST by expat1000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

Japan was not ignored at all in the pre-war planning. In fact, it was envisaged that Japan was to be the foe of the United States, while the Britiash Empre and France dealt with Germany and Italy. The German Blitzkrieg of Western Europe in 1940 upset some of those earlier war plans and brought other alternative war plans to the forefront.

The B-17 and B-24 bombers were conceived as hemispheric defenses against hostile naval fleets approaching the continental United States. The B-29, B-32, B-36, and other very long-range bombers were conceived as inter-continental bombers. The inter-continental bombers were intended to be used against Japan, Germany, or other threats if and when the bases required very long-range missions.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was so determined to stay out of the major wars, Hap Arnold was nearly fired in 1941 when he warned Roosevelt about the dangers of waiting too long to obtain the Congressional appropriations needed to build the aircraft and ar forces needed for a U.S. defense in the war.


34 posted on 02/17/2013 4:21:01 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cyber Liberty

President Wilson’s deal with Britain was to make war loans to keep Britain afloat in World War One, if Britain used the loaned monies to purchase war supplies from the United States. After the war loans were given to Britain, Britain reloaned the same monies to the other allied powers using the same kinds of terms. The allies were to use the loaned monies to purchase war supplies only from British manufacturers. So, not only were the U.S. taxpayer funds not spent by Britain to purchase war supplies from U.S. manufacturers and U.S. labor, but Britain used the U.S. taxpayer funds to require the other allied nations to purchase only from British manufacturers and British labor instead of those in the United States. Then Britain added insult to injury by suspending repayment of the war loans when the allies defaulted on their repayments of the war loans to Britain. During the Great Depression, U.S. taxpayers were furious with Britain for what they viewed as British duplicity.

It is for these reasons the British diplomate in the Second World War referred to the U.S. Lend-Lease to Britain as such a great act. He had a double meaning, given the forgiveness of the British default in the same war loans of the prevous war.


35 posted on 02/17/2013 4:32:23 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Stalin was surprised and disbelieving of Churchill’s warnings about the coming German invasion because Stalin was already convinced that Hitler was comitted to the Western Front as the Soviet forces prepared to invade from the East.

Stalin was planning his invasion for 43 or 44. He had absolutely no plans to attack in 41.

36 posted on 02/18/2013 4:37:48 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

You are quite right. The Nazi plan was to move East, as seen in MK.

Hitler never wanted to fight UK. He actually wanted to make peace after the Battle of France, leaving UK free to dominate the rest of the world while he took Europe. He assumed, not unreasonably, that the Brits would make peace after such a total defeat. He was absolutely shocked when they gave no sign at all of interest in peace.

From the POV of Nazi ideology, fighting in western Europe at all was a diversion from the true German destiny in the East.


37 posted on 02/18/2013 4:45:59 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“Hitler never wanted to fight UK. He actually wanted to make peace after the Battle of France, leaving UK free to dominate the rest of the world while he took Europe. He assumed, not unreasonably, that the Brits would make peace after such a total defeat. He was absolutely shocked when they gave no sign at all of interest in peace.”

It is true that Hitler envisaged an alliance with Britain when he wrote Mein Kampf, and his hopes were encouraged somewhat by the later naval treaty with Britain. However, Hitler reversed his attitude towards Britain in 1938 when Britain entered into alliances with Poalnd and France in the aftermath of the Munich agreement that surrendered the Sudetenland from czechoslovakia to Germany. from that point onward Hitler planned the conquest and recolonization of Britain by German colonists as the British population was exterminated in an even more comprehensive manner than Poland. Hitler’s comments in 1940 were more in the form of disingenuous propaganda to disarm those Britons who were disposed to fight to the bitter end. Hitler’s genuine intent by 1940 was to enslave and exterminate the population of Britain.

“From the POV of Nazi ideology, fighting in western Europe at all was a diversion from the true German destiny in the East.” Once Britain made it clear that it would remain a threat to Germany’s ambitions with a blockade of the continental powers as was accomplished in World War One, Hitler’s priority was to neutralize the threat in the West before pursuing the conquest of lebensraum in the East. Hitler intended to fight on one front at a time, which is why he entered into the non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union. Stalin’s imminent invasion plans and Germany’s desperate need for war material in Soviet territories caused Hitler to compromise his strategy. Hitler’s failure to defeat and occupy Britain in time to open sea trade for petroleum, iron ore, rubber, and other critical war supplies forced his hand into taking on Stalin’s forces before the completion of the the western campaigns.


38 posted on 03/01/2013 10:33:32 AM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX

I’ve read a number of books on the subject and I disagree.

Hitler considered the British to be for the most part perfectly good Aryan racial material, unlike the subhuman Slavs who needed to be exterminated eventually.

Had he succeeded in his conquest of Eurasia, access to the sealanes would have been more or less irrelevant.

Hitler was so convinced he would be able to cut a deal with Britain that the Germans didn’t really have anything even vaguely resembling a plan for conquest of Britain. They more or less rolled up to the English Channel and said, “Whoa, where did all this water come from? The tanks are going to have a little trouble getting to London.”

He was even less prepared to cross the Channel than he was to fight a winter war in Russia. In both cases he assumed the enemy would do what he wanted them to do, and was shocked when they failed to follow his script.

The Battle of Britain was to a considerable extent more like a tantrum and an attempt to intimidate the British into making peace than it was an actual prelude to an invasion.

Operation Sea Lion required that the Germans have BOTH naval and air superiority for a considerable period, and they never came close to getting either, even briefly.


39 posted on 03/01/2013 2:05:08 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Hitler was so convinced he would be able to cut a deal with Britain that the Germans didn’t really have anything even vaguely resembling a plan for conquest of Britain.

That's why I believe he sent Hess on his mission to fly to Britain, even though of course he denied it...I think Hitler and Hess were the only two people who knew about it.

40 posted on 03/01/2013 2:12:14 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

“I’ve read a number of books on the subject and I disagree.”

Unfortunately, your readings have left you inadequately informed and/or misinformed. Hitler changed his attitude towards Britain and plans to make an alliance or conquer Britain as needed to pursue his grand strategies. The same was true to a different degree with Poland. If Poland could be enticed into making a non-aggression treaty with Germany, then Hitler was prepaed to begin his offensive in the West with Britain as the primary target of the offensive, before renouncing treaties with Poland and the Soviet Union to pursue his plans for conquering Lebensraum in the East. If Britain had been willing to enter in the Comintern Pact and secure Hitler’s access to oil and other war supplies, Hitler would have first targeted Poland and the Soviet Union. Every time Britain acted in opposition to Hitler’s aggressions, Hitler further identified Britain and the West as his main target, and Poland was intended to secure his eastern front while he concentrated his forces against the West and Britain in particular. These events are documented in a number of books and papers such as the Hossbach Memorandum, histories of Hitler’s foreign policy, and a variety of other documents.

“Hitler considered the British to be for the most part perfectly good Aryan racial material, unlike the subhuman Slavs who needed to be exterminated eventually.”

Qualifications as an Aryan did not forestall punishment for resistance against Hitler’s aggressions or his plans for aggression, whether in Poland, the Ukraine, Britain, France, or elsewhere.

“Had he succeeded in his conquest of Eurasia, access to the sealanes would have been more or less irrelevant.”

Britain and Germany attempted to blockade and starve each other into submission in World War One. Germany’s U-boats in World War One came perilously close to succeeding in starving Britain, but Britain’s blockade of Germany did bring widespread starvation in Germany before the defeats on the Western Front. Hitler was determined to prevent any such blockade from happening again in the future. Germany’s defeat of Russia/Soviet Union in 1916 gave it access to Eurasian land communications, but Germany was nonetheless subjected to the British blockade and starvation. What Germany needed was oil, and Hitler in 1936 to 1940 still neededd access to import the needed oil subject to British blockades. Therefore Britain either had to join the alliance with Germany or be conquered to secure Germany’s access to foreign trade. Hitler’s views on these matters were discussed with German millitary leaders, the conference which produced the Hossbach memorandum, discussoins with Joachim von Ribbentrop, and more.

“Hitler was so convinced he would be able to cut a deal with Britain that the Germans didn’t really have anything even vaguely resembling a plan for conquest of Britain.”

The planning for Operation Sealion commenced on 16 July 1940 Hitler Directive 16. This was within a few weeks of the fall of France. Planning for the invasion of Britain occurred well after the fall of France because the French surrender occurred far sooner than Hitler had anticipated. Even if hitler had anticipated such an early victory in the Netherlans, belgium, and france; there is no way Germany could have anymore quickly consolidatedd its gains and marshalled the forces needed to attempt the invasion much sooner than it did historically.. While the Army Groups had reached the shores of the English Channel in forcce, their logistical tail lagged far behind. It was going to take some very critical weeks before the logistical nightmares could be rectified sufficiently to sustain a major maphibious campaign into the island nation of Britain. Since Hitler knew full well he was not going to be able to make the leap across the English Channel for some weeks to come, he had nothing to lose by offering yet again an alliance with and promise to spare Britain. If the British fell for the ruse, he could always abrogate the treaty like all the others he abrogated at the time of his choosing. If the British refused, hitler could proceed with his invasion palns sooner rather than later, which was preferable anyway to prevent Britain doing the same to him after he bcame engaged on the Eastern Front conquering the Lebensraum. This was the same approach he had used a year earlier with Poland and Russia. Make a treaty to gain an adavantage and abrogate the treaty when it gave an advantage.

The 16 July 1940 Hitler Directive No. 16 was preceded on 10 July 1940 by a request from Grossadmiral Raeder, commander of the Kriegsmarine, to Hitler for a decision on the earlier proposed amphibious invasion of Britain across the North Sea or across the English Channel from Channel ports to be capured in the upcoming CASE YELLOW war plans. Hitler’s decision was to await the results of CASE YELLOW before proceeding with the planning for an invasion of Britain.

During the month of January 1940, Grossadmiral Raeder explained to Hitler his objections to the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKH) plans for the invasion of Britain. Grossadmiral Raeder agreed with Hitler that the defeat of Britain and occupation should be securedd by an air offensive and naval blockade of Britain to starve and destroy its communities into submission, surrender, and occupation.

The plan study for the invasion of Britain objected to by Grossadmiral Raeder in January 1940 was one of two such plan studies prepared by the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (OKH) and the Oberkommando der Marine (OKM) at the directive of Hitler in November 1939. Many of the war plan objectives and and steps incorporated in the Operation Sealion war plan ordered by Hitler’s 16 July 1940 directive No. 16 were first authored in the OKH and/or OKM war plan studies for the invasion of Britain in November 1939.

Prior to the actual operational planning for the invasion of Britain that began in November 1939, Hitler’s war plans regarding Britain were more strategic than operational in nature. In his conversations with his military leaders between 1936 and 25 August 1939, Hitler commented upon his desires to either engage Britain into an alliance or else conquer Britain and thereby eliminate it as a threat to his other plans for conquest. After Britain refuse to join the 25 November 1936 AntiComintern Pact, Hitler said he was abandoning his hopes to get Britain to join as an ally with Germany against the Soviet Union, and Britain would have to be neutralized in the West before the war plans against the Soviet Union could proceed forward in the East. The 5 November 1937 Hossbach Memorandum recorded Hitler’s plan to make war on the Soviet Union sometime between 1938 and 1943, and the West played a key role in determining the final schedule for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Hitler’s conversations indicated his desire to either secure an alliance, Britain’s neutrality, or Britain’s negotiated surrender by means of a naval and air blockade to starve Britain into negotiations.

Following the 29 September 1938 Munich Agreement, Hitler infuriated by Britain’s obstructions to his war plans inceasingly insisted that Britain’s ability to interfere had to be neutralized by treaty or by a naval and air blockade in the coming war plans.

This all culminated in Hitler’s 25 August 1939 failed attempt to neutralize Britain in a non-aggression treaty with Britain, and Foreign minister joachim von Ribbentropp’s failed prediction that Britain and France would not honor their mutual defense treaty with Poland by a declaration of war against Germany. When britain and France declared war on Germnay on 3 September 1939 as promised intheir treaty with Poalnd, Hitler tried to either negotiate a settlement favorable to Germany or begin the plans for the defeat of the West and the conquest of Britain by naval and air blockade or by invasion. The planning studies for invasion were then ordered by hitler in November 1939. The final operational planning for the invasion of Britain were subsequently ordered by Hitler’s Directive No. 15 on 16 July 1940.

“He was even less prepared to cross the Channel than he was to fight a winter war in Russia. In both cases he assumed the enemy would do what he wanted them to do, and was shocked when they failed to follow his script.”

Regardless of what you think about Hitler’s preparations for the campaigns, he did in fact make long-term plans for war with Britain by 1936 and earlier, and he did order invasion palns as early as November 1939. It was only thre final operational palnning for Operation Sealiion which were repeatedly delayed until after the Fall of France and the 16 July 1940 hitler Directive No. 16. Hitler’s indeciseness can just as easily be attributed to his desire to determine the outcome of CASE YELLOW before making operational invasion plans for the corss channel attack versus the other proposed “North West” invasion paln across the Nortth Sea including bases in Norway.

“The Battle of Britain was to a considerable extent more like a tantrum and an attempt to intimidate the British into making peace than it was an actual prelude to an invasion.”

The air blockade and seige of Britain had been a primary component of hitler’s war planning sicne at least August 1936, when Hitler ordered Goering to prepare the Four Year plan for industry and rearmament. The Luftwaffe was designed and built to ssist in the air bloackade of Britain from the day of its reincarnation.

“Operation Sea Lion required that the Germans have BOTH naval and air superiority for a considerable period, and they never came close to getting either, even briefly.”

That oft repeated and very erroneous claim is of course hard to disprove, but a psotwar event provides better insight to the possibilities than all of the baseless speculations. Shortly after the war was over, Britain used its veteran wartime troops to stage war games to see whether or not Operation Sealion could or could not have succeeded. The British used the assistance of the German officers responsible for planning and commanding the German invasion operations. In the war games, it was determined that the German forces in Operation Sealion invasion had succeeded. While such wargames cannot be a substitute for reality, there is no better substitute available for evaluating the chances of success. It is not only possible, but is very likely Operatoin Sealion probably would have succeeded if it has been attempted in the Fall of 1940, albeit with excessive losses in aircraft, warships, and personnel. In any event, Hitler’s operational planning for the invasion began in November 1940, and his strategic planning for a war with Britain began no later than 1936.


41 posted on 03/01/2013 6:55:58 PM PST by WhiskeyX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: WhiskeyX
Shortly after the war was over, Britain used its veteran wartime troops to stage war games to see whether or not Operation Sealion could or could not have succeeded. The British used the assistance of the German officers responsible for planning and commanding the German invasion operations. In the war games, it was determined that the German forces in Operation Sealion invasion had succeeded.

Flatly untrue.

"After the game's conclusion, the umpires unanimously concluded that the invasion was a devastating defeat for the German invasion force."

"Of the 90,000 German troops who landed only 15,400 returned to France. 33,000 were taken prisoner, 26,000 were killed in the fighting and 15,000 drowned in the English Channel. All six umpires deemed the invasion a resounding failure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sea_Lion_(wargame)

The biggest factors were the inability of the Luftwaffe to successfully engage smallish, fast-moving surfaces vessels such as destroyers and MTBs, even with air superiority. Against such forces, even with perfect weather, the Germans had no chance of adequately supplying any troops they might have landed in Britain.

It is more than a little silly to claim, based on staff operational plans, what Hitler was "planning to do."

General Staffs make plans. That's what they do. The US General Staff has plans in the drawer for invading every country on earth, including Canada. Or at least I hope they do. That's their job. Doesn't mean such plans are intended to be implemented.

In the final analysis, Hitler's plans for dealing with UK depended on the assumption that the British would give in or strike a deal so a full-blown invasion would not have to be launched, just as I said. He was shocked when they refused to follow the script. It had worked with every other European country (except Yugo, and the Germans had been able to squash resistance there in short order).

While the Army Groups had reached the shores of the English Channel in force, their logistical tail lagged far behind. It was going to take some very critical weeks before the logistical nightmares could be rectified sufficiently to sustain a major maphibious campaign into the island nation of Britain.

An amphibious invasion of Great Britain would not have been like Iwo or even Okinawa. It would have been more like Operation Olympic, the invasion of the Japanese home islands that thankfully never took place.

The larger the size of the resisting force, the larger must be the invading force to destroy it. Which requires proportionally larger fleets and logistics lift. The US Navy and Merchant Marine, after four years of the most aggressive buildup in history, would have been strained to the max to support Olympic.

Hilariously, Sea Lion was dependent on keeping the RN busy in the Med and Atlantic so the Germans could slip across the strait without RN resistance. As if the RN would not have defense of the Channel as A1 priority no matter what! If apparently wouldn't occur to them that defending the home islands might be important.

Could the Germans have taken Britain? Sure. But only after several years of using the resources of conquered Europe to build a fleet and merchant marine capable of doing so. Amphibious invasion of a large territory defended by a powerful and undefeated fleet and air force, and by land forces that are not insignificant is not something that can be improvised in a couple of weeks. It requires several years at minimum.

Had the Germans put their minds to it they could have potentially had nukes to use on UK, or they could have built a much larger U-boat force and starved them out. (Something that again would have taken years to build).

But nukes were largely out of their reach for the simple reason that the Nazis drove out or in some cases killed most of the people who could have built them, who instead built them for us, and U-boats as such were doomed by radar, to a considerable extent built by those same refugees from Europe.

So IMO the German war against Britain was doomed from the start, as far as invasion and conquest of the British Isles goes. Since any such notion was quickly abandoned by the Germans, it seems they agreed. Rather than putting resources into developing the ships they needed for an invasion of UK, they abandoned the idea completely and switched to a continental strategy of obtaining the oil and other resources they needed from USSR and the Middle East by land invasion.

Almost worked, too.

42 posted on 03/01/2013 8:34:50 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

It would have worked if the Nazis treated the conquered Russians with some decency, in the beginning they were welcomed as liberators by many....of course the Nazis weren’t interested in making friends in Russia.


43 posted on 03/01/2013 8:39:22 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

I quite agree.

A couple of million men subtracted from the Red Army and added to the Wehrmacht could have made all the difference.

As with atomic power and radar, the Nazi racial ideologies were self-defeating in this regard.


44 posted on 03/01/2013 9:20:28 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson