I have jumped ahead from reading AJP Taylor, and am looking abroad for other accounts of (Nazi) German perhaps-pre-emptive strikes and occupations. One such would be the lightning occupation of Denmark and the rather slower war in Norway.
The general impression I get from Taylor is that post-Bismarck Germany's interest was in regional hegemony; not in direct command. Germany might be German (there are recent genetic studies qualifying that) but the rest of central Europe assuredly is not. That is why Bismarck did not dismantle Austria when he defeated the Habsburgs' army, although he eminently could have. Bismarck wanted Austria intact as a German-run concern over those non-Germans further southeast. It is Taylor's thesis that Hitler's policy to Austria's southeast was similar; except that he had to play the Habsburg himself.
But... events, dear boy; events. More: Hitler was half the statesman Bismarck was. Taylor points out that Der Führer did pretty well with the hands dealt him; but the times demanded a Bismarck (or a Streseman), and... well, in the 1930s, the German race had only a Schiklgruber. Taylor asserts time and again that Hitler's first instinct was to wait out his opponents, until they appeased him. In between, Taylor lets slip that Hitler's second instinct was to make threats. When you do threats, you gotta be prepared to act on those threats should matters go elsewise.
Austria was wavering to sign on as a German satellite. Hitler just sent in the army and annexed the place. The Sudetens wavered on whether or not to join. Hitler bullied the Brits into forcing Benes of Czechoslovakia to sign them over; thus making that political-class look weak in front of their own voters. Slovakia declared independence and Hungary threatened to take them over. Hitler just plain invaded the Czech part before the Czech part could start a war it was certain to lose.
Even the occupation of the Rhineland in 1936 was unnecessary.
Anyhoo, back to my original paragraph: thanks to a commenter at Unz, I got into the CODOH rabbithole. John Wear - like Taylor, and like Bryant, and like me I guess - feels a duty to side with The Bad Guys as far as he can. In this article, Wear is discussing Norway (and Denmark). It seems that Churchill had sent some d00dz over to Norway to occupy the place For Democracy. Hitler then counter-occupied Denmark en route to ousting said d00dz from Norway. A war of about six weeks ensued. Churchill lost. So far, so good... if we're ignoring the Norse. Which some might be tempted to do: Moldbug once acidly noted how the Norse didn't fight hard on either side. At first.
Wear can't ignore the Norse, to his credit. By the end of the Norse war, one Vidkun Quisling had done coup'ed the useless bystanding état. Hitler recognised that government because... well, who else was there.
Quisling, it turned out, did not enjoy the same support in Norway that - say - Pétain and Laval would enjoy in Vichy. More to the point: Quisling did nothing to earn such support. This particular puppet ruled as a tyrant and bled the nation dry on Hitler's behalf.
Hitler wasn't one to stop his underlings when they were being murderous tyrants. Perhaps he should have been such a one. But then I suppose he wouldn't have been Hitler. Even the "revisionists" seem to be making the Allies' case for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment