Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The effect of Anglo-German ‘consanguinity’ on Hitler’s decision making

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The effect of Anglo-German ‘consanguinity’ on Hitler’s decision making

    The effect of Anglo-German ‘consanguinity’ on Hitler’s decision making?

    The WWII Forum still appears to still be in a state of ‘lull’.
    . What to do?
    . Long pause while I yawn, ponder my self-significance and then examine the third finger-nail on my
    left hand (relax it’s just fine)
    . Perhaps another lodestar thread-starter?
    . No perhaps about it!
    . Another pause while I rest my chin on my palm and stare adoringly into a mirror (once again no need
    for concern ….. all is perfect…absolutely perfect)

    Naw just messing, what I was going to say was:

    The use of the term ‘Consanguinity’ in a thread-starter by the venerable wolfhand (see Barracks sub Forum for context) has greatly interested me.
    In fact not just interested me but actually inspired me to explore the issue in relation to one aspect of WWII.
    [A red letter day for wolfhand; very few posters have the honour of providing the divine lodestar with ‘grist for his mill’ - it is of course nearly always the other way around.
    Which just shows that even a demi-god can be motivated to respond to an issue if it be truly worthy.
    But don’t let it go to ya head wolfy babe - you just got lucky …this time……and it’ll probably be just this once].

    Now that’s enough time wasted on my usual mischievous prologues, so quickly to the matter at hand.

    Very broadly Consanguinity and is the concept of genetic homogeneity.

    Technically it has been defined as:
    "blood relation", from the Latin consanguinitas) is the property of being from the same kinship as another person”
    ………big yawn …technical definitions bore me, as do many other things; people for example or concepts like honour, loyalty and virtue.

    However, the idea can of course be expanded and in the context this topic refers directly race and ethnicity.
    In short it can be used to refer to the ….errrr …….. ummmm common blood, as some saw (including AH) that connected the British and German peoples.
    A common racial origin? Hence Anglo-German consanguinity?

    (thanks a lot Roman Empire for crumbling and unleashing the Teutons upon Northern Europe! Now look at what’s happened to the neighbourhood!)

    Now of course I realise that the degree of that connection is a bone of contention, but I don’t really what to address that at this stage.
    One because it isn’t really crucial to the issue, Hitler saw a strong connection and that’s what matters here.
    Secondly bones of contention are another thing that bores me

    So to get to the heart of the matter:
    It is of course no secret that ole Adolf was a great admirer of the British and their empire and on more than one occasion openly expressed a wish to work with not against Britain.

    Now before anyone suggests I’m trying to re-hash that old revisionist warhorse that the UK and Nazi Germany maybe should have err …..ummmm….. ‘come to an understanding , or um just ignored each or whatever:

    … It is perfectly clear that with Churchill in charge there was zero chance of anything like that occurring …..and .. contrary to what some pundits have suggested, even without Winnie the chances were slim, thanks of course the La Manche (I cannot bring myself to use that other term), the Royal Navy and above all else mainstream British political opinion in May 1940 which was by then firmly anti-appeasement.

    Okay everyone fine with that?

    However I do want to explore he idea of the effect that Hitler’s attitude may have had on his decision making when he was facing off against the Brits:

    . From the oft suggested notion that he did not pursue the destruction of the BEF at Dunkirk because deep down he hoped the brits might somehow be ‘grateful’ and ‘come to see sense’.
    . To his very desultory interest in the Battle of Britain (Hitler, as AJP Taylor has pointed out in an article in War Monthly magazine Vol 1 April 1974: “took no interest in it. He retired to
    Berchtesgaden for a prolonged holiday and emerged only to announce that the projected invasion would not take place.”)
    . To the minimal forces he allocated to fighting in North Africa as opposed and his near total obsession with the destruction of European jewry and the struggle in the USSR against ‘Jewish
    Bolshevism’.

    . To the scrapping of the surface fleet in 1943 and the refusal to give the U-boats higher priority.

    Get the idea?

    I’m currently having another read of ‘Best of Enemies Britain and Germany: Truth and Lies in Two World Wars by Richard Milton (Icon Books 2007) an volume that explores some issues relevant to this topic.

    I think that, as usual I’ve probably gone on too long (boy, will, I ever learn) so over to you gals and guys.

    Regards
    lodestar




  • #2
    That is certainly one way to look at it. We know historically that the various royal families of Britain and Germany were inter-related during WWI, and also related to Czarist monarchy.

    But I think that Hitler saw the British as primarily anti-communist, as was he, so therefore an ally in that sense, and that he might also have enjoyed the possibility of not having to watch his Western flank all the time while denying America a base of operations right across the channel. Certainly, obtaining an alliance with Britain would have solved some of his most major problems later on, and saved the horrific effort and expense of the Atlantic Wall, as well as gaining a major sea power on his side. but given that Hitler was far from trustworthy, it just didn't happen. However, given the national characters, such an alliance would have been formidable.

    Frankly, his choice of Italy and Japan was less than useful, especially Italy. Had he allied with the Eastern European states against Russia that might have been a better choice, but the obermensch attitude ruled that out.

    In the hands of a better leader, the Reich might still be around in some form, but Hitler was far too erratic and sociopathic. Maybe Morell was to blame? But whether or not Hitler's increasingly sociopathic behavior was the product of, or enhanced by, the avalanche of drugs he was given is another subject. (PERVITIN was meth)

    At least, that's what Mountain Man seems to think. We don't always see eye to eye.
    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

    Comment


    • #3
      There’s certainly little doubt that the Nazis believed that Germany and Britain were kindred nations and thus should have been natural allies: - the teutonic strain in British DNA ( an anachronism, but you know what I mean) was seen to be dominant. Indeed, prior to WW1 this feeling was fully reciprocated given the numerous links between the two nations:cultural and scientific, and the historic shared animosity towards France. The Hanoverian Royal Family was a significant link since the eighteenth century, of course, and where else could be found to provide Protestant princes and princesses as marriage partners ?
      "I dogmatise and am contradicted, and in this conflict of opinions and sentiments I find delight".
      Samuel Johnson.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Frankly, his choice of Italy and Japan was less than useful, especially Italy. Had he allied with the Eastern European states against Russia that might have been a better choice, but the obermensch attitude ruled that out.

        At least, that's what Mountain Man seems to think. We don't always see eye to eye.


        That's the conventional view of Hitler's alliance with Italy; that it was more of a hinderance and a burden than a help.

        However.... (and with lodestar there is nearly always a 'however'):
        Another way of looking at it is that in fact Italy 'tied up' the Western allies for far too long.
        I addressed this some yaers ago in my threadstarter:

        Did the Western Allies pursue an essentially ‘Italy & Vichy France First’ policy from mid 1940-43?

        Part of the OP read;
        "Basically this interpretation of the Western Allied land war effort in the years after the fall of France in mid 1940 proposes that far from pursuing the stated policy of defeating ‘Germany first’ they in reality concentrated nearly all their endeavours on knocking out the Italian ‘paper tiger’ and Germany’s vassal Vichy.

        Essentially, the argument runs that the western allies, that is the British Commonwealth from July 1940 up to late 1942 and then the UK/US alliance, while technically at war with Nazi Germany, took the easy option of fighting and defeating the above two secondary Axis powers.

        While for the Western allies the chief theater of land operations for much of the above period was of course North Africa and operations were for the most part pursued against Italian or Vichy French Forces."

        and:

        "It took the immensely powerful (and don’t kid yourselves the British Commonwealth and USA were, in comparison the Axis forces they actually did face – immensely powerful) Western democracies three years (Sept 1940 to Sept 1943) to defeat a much derided supposedly pathetic Fascist Italy and even more dismal Vichy France."

        An alliance or understanding of some sort with Great Britain may have been Hitler's 'dream scenario' due to his belief in the 'blood-ties' between the two nations and many see the 'Pact of Steel' with Fascist Italy as poor substitute, but it was not without it's benefits.

        Regards lodestar





        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by lodestar View Post
          The effect of Anglo-German ‘consanguinity’ on Hitler’s decision making?

          The WWII Forum still appears to still be in a state of ‘lull’.
          . What to do?
          . Long pause while I yawn, ponder my self-significance and then examine the third finger-nail on my
          left hand (relax it’s just fine)
          . Perhaps another lodestar thread-starter?
          . No perhaps about it!
          . Another pause while I rest my chin on my palm and stare adoringly into a mirror (once again no need
          for concern ….. all is perfect…absolutely perfect)

          Naw just messing, what I was going to say was:

          The use of the term ‘Consanguinity’ in a thread-starter by the venerable wolfhand (see Barracks sub Forum for context) has greatly interested me.
          In fact not just interested me but actually inspired me to explore the issue in relation to one aspect of WWII.
          [A red letter day for wolfhand; very few posters have the honour of providing the divine lodestar with ‘grist for his mill’ - it is of course nearly always the other way around.
          Which just shows that even a demi-god can be motivated to respond to an issue if it be truly worthy.
          But don’t let it go to ya head wolfy babe - you just got lucky …this time……and it’ll probably be just this once].

          Now that’s enough time wasted on my usual mischievous prologues, so quickly to the matter at hand.

          Very broadly Consanguinity and is the concept of genetic homogeneity.

          Technically it has been defined as:
          "blood relation", from the Latin consanguinitas) is the property of being from the same kinship as another person”
          ………big yawn …technical definitions bore me, as do many other things; people for example or concepts like honour, loyalty and virtue.

          However, the idea can of course be expanded and in the context this topic refers directly race and ethnicity.
          In short it can be used to refer to the ….errrr …….. ummmm common blood, as some saw (including AH) that connected the British and German peoples.
          A common racial origin? Hence Anglo-German consanguinity?

          (thanks a lot Roman Empire for crumbling and unleashing the Teutons upon Northern Europe! Now look at what’s happened to the neighbourhood!)

          Now of course I realise that the degree of that connection is a bone of contention, but I don’t really what to address that at this stage.
          One because it isn’t really crucial to the issue, Hitler saw a strong connection and that’s what matters here.
          Secondly bones of contention are another thing that bores me

          So to get to the heart of the matter:
          It is of course no secret that ole Adolf was a great admirer of the British and their empire and on more than one occasion openly expressed a wish to work with not against Britain.

          Now before anyone suggests I’m trying to re-hash that old revisionist warhorse that the UK and Nazi Germany maybe should have err …..ummmm….. ‘come to an understanding , or um just ignored each or whatever:

          … It is perfectly clear that with Churchill in charge there was zero chance of anything like that occurring …..and .. contrary to what some pundits have suggested, even without Winnie the chances were slim, thanks of course the La Manche (I cannot bring myself to use that other term), the Royal Navy and above all else mainstream British political opinion in May 1940 which was by then firmly anti-appeasement.

          Okay everyone fine with that?

          However I do want to explore he idea of the effect that Hitler’s attitude may have had on his decision making when he was facing off against the Brits:

          . From the oft suggested notion that he did not pursue the destruction of the BEF at Dunkirk because deep down he hoped the brits might somehow be ‘grateful’ and ‘come to see sense’.
          . To his very desultory interest in the Battle of Britain (Hitler, as AJP Taylor has pointed out in an article in War Monthly magazine Vol 1 April 1974: “took no interest in it. He retired to
          Berchtesgaden for a prolonged holiday and emerged only to announce that the projected invasion would not take place.”)
          . To the minimal forces he allocated to fighting in North Africa as opposed and his near total obsession with the destruction of European jewry and the struggle in the USSR against ‘Jewish
          Bolshevism’.

          . To the scrapping of the surface fleet in 1943 and the refusal to give the U-boats higher priority.

          Get the idea?

          I’m currently having another read of ‘Best of Enemies Britain and Germany: Truth and Lies in Two World Wars by Richard Milton (Icon Books 2007) an volume that explores some issues relevant to this topic.

          I think that, as usual I’ve probably gone on too long (boy, will, I ever learn) so over to you gals and guys.

          Regards
          lodestar


          1 Dunkirk : Hitler WAS pursueing the destruction of the BEF at Dunkirk
          2 BOB : that Hitler was at Berchtesgaden does not meen that he was on holiday
          3 the ''minimal '' forces allocated to NA were the maximum forces that could operate in NA. Besides,there were no reasons to allocate more forces to NA.
          4 the surface fleet was not scrapped in 1943,and there was no reason to give the UB war higher priority, besides it was impossible to give the UB war more resources than was given in the HTL.

          Comment


          • #6
            May have had more to do with anti "Communism" ("Bolshevism" they called it at the time) than ‘consanguinity’ strictly speaking,

            H. presumably hoped the Western Alliance would realize in time that he was the only thing blocking Communist dominance of Eastern Europe for the better part of the next century.

            And he may well have been right, as history shows

            Think about it,

            IF Britain makes peace with H. - no Liberals, no Socialists, Communists, No Cold War, No Jewish Financial Globalists, no Homosexuals, no Muslim Invasion of Europe, AND no Tampax in mens toilets.

            Wouldn't the world have been a better place now, for some of you ?

            Why didn't they ?

            Originally posted by lodestar View Post
            (…)
            Long pause while I yawn, ponder my self-significance and then examine the third finger-nail on my
            left hand (relax it’s just fine)
            Not sure that's relevant to the discussion at hand, here.
            Last edited by Snowygerry; 27 Jan 20, 08:26.
            Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Game.

            Comment


            • #7
              Hitler could care less about the UK and its population. France was already conquered and occupied which gave the U boats a parking lot to come and go as they pleased. An invasion of France by the UK alone, would never have succeeded. Sure the Brits would have pestered imports and exports on the seas coming and going to Germany but they would not have had the impact they had in WWI.

              That Britain is an island gave Hitler nightmares because just as the Brits could never succeed in an invasion on the continent of Europe the Germans could never have succeeded an invasion of the British Island. Hitler was a sociopath that was of the opinion that the Brits were above the Bolshevists on the "race ladder" but certainly he thought they were below the Germanic "superior blood".

              Churchill must have creamed his pants when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union and when he declared war on the United States he was probably doing cartwheels across London Bridge. That Germany upset "the balance of power" in Europe was something Churchill detested and once Hitler made those mistakes the fat man chomping on his cigar knew it would not be long until everything was restored to the way it "should be"
              Theo mir ist die munition ausgegangen ich werde diesen ramman auf wiedersehen uns in walhalla

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lodestar View Post

                That's the conventional view of Hitler's alliance with Italy; that it was more of a hinderance and a burden than a help.

                However.... (and with lodestar there is nearly always a 'however'):
                Another way of looking at it is that in fact Italy 'tied up' the Western allies for far too long.
                I addressed this some yaers ago in my threadstarter:

                Did the Western Allies pursue an essentially ‘Italy & Vichy France First’ policy from mid 1940-43?

                Part of the OP read;
                "Basically this interpretation of the Western Allied land war effort in the years after the fall of France in mid 1940 proposes that far from pursuing the stated policy of defeating ‘Germany first’ they in reality concentrated nearly all their endeavours on knocking out the Italian ‘paper tiger’ and Germany’s vassal Vichy.

                Essentially, the argument runs that the western allies, that is the British Commonwealth from July 1940 up to late 1942 and then the UK/US alliance, while technically at war with Nazi Germany, took the easy option of fighting and defeating the above two secondary Axis powers.

                While for the Western allies the chief theater of land operations for much of the above period was of course North Africa and operations were for the most part pursued against Italian or Vichy French Forces."
                [/FONT]
                and:

                "It took the immensely powerful (and don’t kid yourselves the British Commonwealth and USA were, in comparison the Axis forces they actually did face – immensely powerful) Western democracies three years (Sept 1940 to Sept 1943) to defeat a much derided supposedly pathetic Fascist Italy and even more dismal Vichy France."

                An alliance or understanding of some sort with Great Britain may have been Hitler's 'dream scenario' due to his belief in the 'blood-ties' between the two nations and many see the 'Pact of Steel' with Fascist Italy as poor substitute, but it was not without it's benefits.

                Regards lodestar
                [/SIZE]



                Good point, although bolstering Mussolini drained valuable resources at a time Hitler could not really afford them.
                Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                Comment


                • #9
                  There were two dangers if Italy remained neutral in June 1940
                  1 It could join the Allies,as it did in 1915 and as it did in 1943 .
                  2 Britain could invade Southern Europe in 1940 instead of waiting til 1943 .

                  Comment

                  Latest Topics

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X