You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Africa North
Egypt's Military: Doing What Germany's Should Have Done in 1933
2013-08-20
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper described the Muslim Brotherhood as a "largely secular" organization with "no overarching agenda." This was a rather unusual characterization of a group whose motto is: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. The Qur'an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." If that is secular, what might the religious be?

In this struggle for power, some people will win; others will lose, but it is important enough that both sides are willing both to take and to lose lives to reach their objectives. Tut-tutting on the sidelines makes the United States appear ridiculous. Instead of just deploring violence, we should be appraising the character of the moral principles animating the two sides in this conflict and supporting the side that more closely comports with our own. And yes, that may require the choice of a lesser evil.

Unfortunately, the German military did not move against Adolph Hitler when he became Chancellor of Germany in 1933. Had they done so, Europe and the United States would have been spared a world of woe. Had that happened, would the American government have tried to intervene at the time, insisting on a restoration of Hitler, who had been democratically elected by a plurality of the German people? Would we have insisted that our democratic creed required us to do so? These questions answer themselves. We would have been grateful to the German military for doing so. We should likewise have some appreciation for what the Egyptian military has done to save its country and, by the way, preserve U.S. strategic interests in that area of the Middle East.
All that assumes (must .. resist .. Godwin) that we would have had the foresight, in 1933, to know what we knew about Hitler by 1942. A few among us then did but they were roundly ignored. Recall that both Bolshevik socialism and national socialism had claims on American attention spans and admiration then. Ditto in Europe. Had the German army moved on Hitler (and with what, they were still very much in disarmament mode) Hitler's SA might have stopped them. European powers might have stopped them. Hitler might have ended up stronger than ever.
Posted by:OldSpook

#8  FWIW - Mannstein in his bio points out that when France declared war Hitler had to dust off a 20 year old contingency plan to invade, and had no plan at all for invading England. Doesn't sound like either had been on his to do list.
Posted by: Woodrow Guelph8541   2013-08-20 23:43  

#7  
Hitler, who had been democratically elected by a plurality of the German people?


Actually no. The NSDAP didn't have a majority when Hindenburg appointed Hitler on January 1933. And even the (no longer exactly democratic elections) did bring him the hoped for absolute majority.

No it was the infamous Enabling Act of 1933 that brought Germany down. Since a two third majority was needed for this in the Reichstag, the non-coalition parties could have prevented the Act. In that case it's quite likely that Hitlers government would have collapsed within months. Because the Reichspräsident Hindenburg still had the power to simply fire Hitler.

Maybe that would have meant civil war. We don't know. But Hitler knew very well he neeeded the well organized German Reichswehr, not his SA goons to survive. And they made the deal with the Devil.
Posted by: European Conservative   2013-08-20 21:16  

#6  "If Churchill had only thrown one more bone, seriously that's all the leader of the Folk wanted, really."

Yep - "Peace in our time."

Pfui.
Posted by: Barbara   2013-08-20 19:58  

#5  If Churchill had let Poland go, then Hitler would have achieved his election promise of restoring pre-Versailles Germany.
And then if Hitler had attacked the USSR, and the US had stayed neutral, he might have won the Eastern Front. And then France, the Low Countries, and maybe even Britain could have followed. A European Union 50 years earlier! And Judenrein, to boot, with no Israel. What would the Palestinians do without an Israel to blame for all their woes?
Posted by: Glenmore   2013-08-20 19:15  

#4  Could also have eyeballed the low countries, wanting more ports nearby the German industrial areas, which would have placed a large navy presence uncomfortably close to Britain.

Germany was already mingling in Spain at any rate. Say they get them organized and demanding Gibraltar for Spain, do they let that go?

Such an influx of material via Suez and a lack of a Western Front could have made the difference in attacking Russia. The operations leading to Dunkirk were a disaster, but they kept Germany honest and forced them to divert resources which would have otherwise ended up going east, such as the bombing campaign vs. Malta.

Then Hitler would have been able to keep all his secret promises, such as people burning and ballistic missiles with nuclear devices.

Didn't keep his promise with Stalin, but to be fair that goes back to Teutonic times. The attack on France was very coordinated, not an "Oh Sh!t whaddwe do now?" No, one more Chamberlain victory would have been a bone too far.
Posted by: swksvolFF   2013-08-20 18:57  

#3  If Churchill had let Poland go, then Hitler would have achieved his election promise of restoring pre-Versailles Germany.

LOL. Yep, it's a wonderful theory. If Churchill had only thrown one more bone, seriously that's all the leader of the Folk wanted, really. :)

No.
Posted by: Shipman   2013-08-20 17:18  

#2  To restore Germany to pre-WWI borders Hitler would have wanted Alsace-Lorriane back. The French would not have been obliging (then again, they did cough it up for about four years).
Posted by: Steve White   2013-08-20 15:10  

#1  Here's a theory. If Churchill had let Poland go, then Hitler would have achieved his election promise of restoring pre-Versailles Germany. France and the UK would not have been attacked--this only happened after they declared war on Germany. There would have been war in the east between Hitler and Stalin, but the West would have largely sat that one out.
Posted by: Elmearong Gurly-Brown5896   2013-08-20 14:28  

00:00