Posted on 05/23/2009 5:20:58 AM PDT by Homer_J_Simpson
We are at present in a state of patriotic fervour, which is shared by two other nations – Italy and Japan. The period which lies behind us has indeed been put to good use. All measures have been taken in the correct sequence and in harmony with our aims. The Pole is no “supplementary enemy.” Poland will always be on the side of our adversaries. In spite of treaties of friendship, Poland has always had the secret intention of exploiting every opportunity to do us harm. Danzig is not the subject of the dispute at all. It is a question of expanding our living space in the East and of securing our food supplies. There is therefore no question of sparing Poland, and we are left with the decision to attack Poland at the first suitable opportunity. We cannot expect a repetition of the Czech affair. There will be war. Our task is to isolate Poland. The success of the isolation will be decisive.
If it is not certain that a German-Polish conflict will not lead to war in the West, then the fight must be primarily against England and France. If there were an alliance of France, England, and Russia against Germany, Italy, and Japan, I should be constrained to attack England and France with a few annihilating blows. I doubt the possibility of a peaceful settlement with England. We must prepare ourselves for the conflict. England sees in our development the foundation of a hegemony which would weaken her. England is therefore our enemy, and the conflict with England will be a life-and-death struggle. The Dutch and Belgian air bases must be occupied by armed force. Declarations of neutrality must be ignored.
If England intends to intervene in the Polish war we must occupy Holland with lightning speed. We must aim at securing a new defence line on Dutch soil up to the Zuyder Zee. The idea that we can get off cheaply is dangerous; there is no such possibility. We must burn our boats, and it is no longer a question of justice or injustice, but of life or death for eighty million human beings. Every country’s armed forces or Government must aim at a short war. The Government however must also be prepared for a war of ten or fifteen years’ duration.
England knows that to lose a war will mean the end of her world-power. England is the driving force against Germany.
The British themselves are proud, courageous, tenacious, firm in resistance, and gifted as organizers. They know how to exploit every new development. They have the love of adventure and the bravery of the Nordic race. The German average is higher. But if in the first World War we had had two battleships and two cruisers more, and the Battle of Jutland had begun in the morning, the British Fleet would have been defeated and England brought to her knees. In addition to the surprise attack preparations for a long war must be made, while opportunities on the Continent for England are eliminated. The Army will have to hold positions essential to the Navy and Air Force. If Holland and Belgium are successfully occupied and held, and if France is also defeated, the fundamental conditions for a successful war against England will have been secured.
Winston S. Churchill, The Gathering Storm
Note Hitler’s use of the term first World War in the final paragraph above.
Read about Hitler's response to the signing at #2.
Intereting sub headlines that caught my attention.
Hitler shows delight
Hitler bears grim witness
I can read the articles of the treaty and understand what it says. Doubt it would be the same for any treaty read today...................
The anti-Cominterm pact referenced in the sidebar consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan, plus the territories they had conquered up to that point, It also included Franco’s Spain, which wisely stayed out of WWII, and Hungary, which did not.
Or maybe not...?
How can you doubt? Where has he failed to accomplish his objective? Once Goering's Luftwaffe has airfields in France it will sweep the RAF from the sky in short order. The invasion will be, not a piece of cake, but managable under the Luftwaffe umbrella. It may not even come to that. When France falls, so will Chamberlain. He will probably be replaced by someone a little more realistic, who recognizes that German interests and British are not at all incompatible. Once the English people have seen Hitler's power they may even throw in with him and make common cause against the real enemy in the East.
Now there's an interesting thought. Wonder who that "more realistic" British leader might have turned out to be?
I wonder who he was thinking of. It definitely wasn’t Winston.
For sure not Churchill, but I've never seen who it was the Nazis figured might be more compliant than Chamberlain.
However, speaking generally, we have to remember that all the way up through Munich in 1938, a large number of Europeans and Americans were quite conflicted as to where the real danger lay -- was it Hitler, or Stalin?
Even today, after knowing how it all turned out, some people still argue it would have been better to ally with Hitler against Stalin.
Indeed, the issue was not really settled until it became more than obvious that, however brutal Stalin was to his own people, he did not represent the same immediate threat to France and Britain as Hitler.
Even well into the war, there were still some high level defeatists who considered Nazi victory inevitable, and peace at any price preferable. Those included the former King of England, and our own "Old Joe" -- Kennedy. Kennedy became especially bitter against FDR after his son "Young Joe" was killed in "Roosevelt's War."
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.