[SigTurner]

I have read a bit about the oil industry and intrigue and political influence sure.

In the 30s oil isnt a huge peacetime economic resource. Coal drives the railways and factories. Oil is needed for cars, trucks but there arent that many. In war ships, tanks, planes it's much more important. Generally there was no shortage and access during peace was easy.

I dont think oil was a major factor in politics. 30s politics was very inward, domestic. The rise of the fascists was about social factors. Sure the British in Persia, securing their own supply (to fuel the fleet in war) was a major factor in there policies. Japan too major factor. But most others no.

Japan definitely oil reserves a major factor but it was access to resources in general, oil being one of a number, the US cutting the oil was a major blow.

Read some more:

http://books.google.com/books?id=WiUTwB ... il&f=false

"Hitler's obsession was oil. To Hitler, it was the vital commodity of the industrial age and for economic power." --Daniel Yergin

[pugsville]

Of course he's going to say that. He's writing about oil.

Whats he going to say, oil was relatively unimportant?

[SigTurner]

Of course he's going to say that. He's writing about oil.

Whats he going to say, oil was relatively unimportant?

I'm sorry, were you trying to say something meaningful?

[Smilin' Dave]

You are forgetting that the whole point of the Fascist movement was to politically unify continental Europe for the sake of European industrialists who could no longer compete with American industrialists under the aegis of entirely discrete nations.

Mussolini's Fascists never advocated or implemented this, and Nazi Germany certainly did not. In fact the Nazi practice of seizing control of war industry etc. for them selves, rather than securing it for their existing European industrialists shows this wasn't their concern. Also their approach to annexing some territories and varying levels of state independence within the Axis/Reich shows no systematic approach to unification.

The essence of Fascism is private ownership of government.

...this runs completely opposite to what Corporatism was either in theory or practice.

Ever wonder why France rolled over so easily in WWII when they fought WWI to a stalemate? It was because many influential French industrialists were in league with the Fascists all along.

Show evidence of this. And I've never wondered why France collapsed in WWII, there's actually a lot of good explanations for it that don't involved Fascist sympathisers in industry.

Indeed, the Fascist movement was even popular amongst the citizens of France, though obviously not as popular as it was in Italy, Spain, and Germany.

The far-right in France was actually quite divided however, and some of those groups would have supported notions the Fascists would have rejected.

Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were just hired guns (whether they knew it or not).

Franco really doesn't fit into this picture, he actually pursued an independent path, even from his Fascist allies. His economic practices were closer to autarky than a unified European economic model (that probably came more after his death).

What is a fasci?

First of all it wasn't the symbol of Nazi Germany...

The sticks represent all the nations of Europe.

Says who? Did the Fascists ever claim this?

Hitler's obsession was oil. To Hitler, it was the vital commodity of the industrial age and for economic power.

Hitler wrote a whole book about his obsessions, it was called Mein Kampf. It mentions among other things venereal diseases... but I don't recall it mentioning oil once.

[pugsville]

You want to say something meaningful dont just say there's this book which totally backs my point, summarize the argument. I'm not rushing out to buy a book. I have read similar books, the oil industry has a long history and political influence and murky dealings to be sure.

But European politics did not revolve around oil in the 20s and 30s. The Growth of various right wing movements was about the social conditions rather than global economics. World trade collapsed, it was barter on a individual basis.(the Germans traded 6 He112 for soybeans!)

The British involvement in Persia (and Iraq) from ww1 on was about securing their own supplies for the fleet in wartime. Japan was massively constrained by resources, particularly oil, and it was running a major war. But Japan like other nations generally internal politics determined international politics. They wasnt a shortage of oil it was readily available. Large air forces, massive motorization of armies was really only a late 30s thing, for most of the20s and 30s it wasnt a critical resource particularly in the peace time economy.

[SigTurner]

Mussolini's Fascists never advocated or implemented this, and Nazi Germany certainly did not. In fact the Nazi practice of seizing control of war industry etc. for them selves, rather than securing it for their existing European industrialists shows this wasn't their concern. Also their approach to annexing some territories and varying levels of state independence within the Axis/Reich shows no systematic approach to unification.

You bring up an interesting point, and one to which I have already alluded.

It appears that Hitler and the Nazi regime were Fascists just long enough to seize power; after which the regime morphed into a brutally authoritarian form of gangsterism that maintained nationalist and socialist pretenses so to beguile the German masses and keep them quiet, and to give the rank and file Nazi something to believe in.

However, "Authoritarian Gangsterism" by a horde of thugs from the lower classes was never what the wealthy financiers of Fascism ever intended. They wrongly believed they could control Hitler. After the "Night of the Long Knives" and the death of Hindenburg, Fascist agents such as Franz von Papen were maginalized, if not assassinated, and the Nazis seized absolute control over Germany. Of course, this presented a problem with continued financing. By the time Hitler took control of the Reichsbank, Germany was already cutoff from the rest of the world financial community, having depended upon Mefo bills in order to rearm itself. From this point forward, the Nazi regime would obtain its financial backing through the direct looting and extortion of the reserves and resources of its neighboring countries, was well as their citizens (especially those of Jewish descent).

...this runs completely opposite to what Corporatism was either in theory or practice.

There were various styles of Fascism in the early 20th century; however, the one thing they all had in common was an absolute intolerance for Communism. Fascism evolved out of the European industrialist's fears of communist political encroachment, which they believed could not be contained by democratic means.

Corporatism is Fascism in its purest state.

Show evidence of this. And I've never wondered why France collapsed in WWII, there's actually a lot of good explanations for it that don't involved Fascist sympathisers in industry.

WWI: Germany invades France via the low countries of Belgium and Luxembourg.

WWII: Germany invades France via the low countries of Belgium and Luxembourg.

Do you expect me to believe that France fell for the same basic strategy TWICE and that Germany did not get some help from the inside the second time around?

Truth is, France was awash with Fascist political parties up until their suppression by the Popular Front in 1936 following the Stravisky Affair and the 6 February 1934 riot. Still, there were a lot of pissed-off Fascists of considerable ways and means in and around the French government and its military throughout the 30's.

The far-right in France was actually quite divided however, and some of those groups would have supported notions the Fascists would have rejected.

The only notion that really mattered to those financing the Fascist movement was anti-Communism.

First of all it wasn't the symbol of Nazi Germany...

Second of all, I never said it was....

Says who?

Says me.

Hitler wrote a whole book about his obsessions, it was called Mein Kampf. It mentions among other things venereal diseases... but I don't recall it mentioning oil once.

Mein Kampf was published in 1925 when Hitler was still giving speeches in beer halls. It is doubtful that he had any comprehension whatsoever of the importance of oil reserves during this time.

[SigTurner]

You want to say something meaningful dont just say there's this book which totally backs my point, summarize the argument.

I already have. Apparently, you have not read my posts, just as you have not read Yergin.

I'm not rushing out to buy a book.

I strongly suggest that you do.

But European politics did not revolve around oil in the 20s and 30s.

I never said that it did.

However, by 1939, any world leader who did not recognize the critical importance of access to oil in regards to the national security of his country had to be in a coma.

[Rich]

As I said before dealing with the Soviet Union was never going to be a cake walk. However the the two turning points were in winter 38/39 and the Summer of 1940, in both cases Hitler threw away a very strong position, by taking the rump Czech state when he had been given enormous latitude to consolidate his position in Eastern Europe by the Munich agreement and in the second when he failed to make peace with the nations he had defeated.

[Smilin' Dave]

It appears that Hitler and the Nazi regime were Fascists just long enough to seize power; after which the regime morphed into a brutally authoritarian form of gangsterism that maintained nationalist and socialist pretenses so to beguile the German masses and keep them quiet, and to give the rank and file Nazi something to believe in.

Show evidence that these trappings were pretense as you claim. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the people behind them believed it to be genuine.

However, "Authoritarian Gangsterism" by a horde of thugs from the lower classes was never what the wealthy financiers of Fascism ever intended. They wrongly believed they could control Hitler.

There is no evidence that the industrialists ever tried to control Hitler. In fact the only group to try were essentially the old guard nationalists.

Fascist agents such as Franz von Papen were maginalized

Von Papen was not a Fascist.

Fascism evolved out of the European industrialist's fears of communist political encroachment

Spot making things up, industrialists did not create Fascism. Its roots lie in the Romanticist movement, the Futurists, the National Syndicalists and so on. The catalyst of WWI and the common ground between all these grounds (all being pro-war) caused their fusion. People like D'Annunzio and Mussolini were not building a political movement in the 1920s at the behest of industrialists.

Corporatism is Fascism in its purest state.

Yes and contrary to your assertion it doesn't involve 'the private ownership of government'. Corporatism in theory was cooperative approach between state, industry and labour. In practice it ended up being the state using the mechanisms of corporatism to cow labour and industry.

WWI: Germany invades France via the low countries of Belgium and Luxembourg.

WWII: Germany invades France via the low countries of Belgium and Luxembourg.

In WWI the Netherlands were bypassed by the Germans, in WWII it was invaded and occupied. What this ought to suggest to you is that the Schlieffen Plan and Manstein's 'sickle' strike were actually quite different strategies attacking across different fronts. Never mind that the technology used was completely different. Or that France by WWII was a shadow of what it had been prior to the First World War? Do you want to get into the demographic and economic aftermath?

Do you expect me to believe that France fell for the same basic strategy TWICE and that Germany did not get some help from the inside the second time around?

I don't care what you 'believe' there is no evidence France collapsed thanks to some Fascist industrialist conspiracy as you claim. You expect me to believe those same industrialists who profitted from the last minute rearmament attempts suddenly decided to shoot themselves in the foot?

The only notion that really mattered to those financing the Fascist movement was anti-Communism.

This assumes that Fascists never came into conflict with each other, because of their supposed shared financial base. This is clearly false and ignores conflict even within established alliances like the Axis.

Second of all, I never said it was....

Well pay attention, this is a thread about pivotal events in WWII. Is Fascist Italy pivotal outside of its many spectacular failures? No. So constructing a theory about Fascism which apparently doesn't involve its most notable practitioner, is highly dubious.

Says me.

Since you're not a representative of the Italian Fascist party from the 1920s I don't give a stuff what you think the sticks of the Facses represent. Here's a news flash for you: The fasces was a symbol of authority, it was a weapon of punishment. It had nothing to do with the states of Europe, you just made that up.

Mein Kampf was published in 1925 when Hitler was still giving speeches in beer halls. It is doubtful that he had any comprehension whatsoever of the importance of oil reserves during this time.

Then go ahead and point me to where Hitler showed his obsession for oil after this point.

I strongly suggest that you do.

I'm actually familiar with Yergin's work in other texts and would recommend that pugsville give this one a miss. Is there a reason you can't actually summarise how the book relates to your argument? You have read it yourself, right?

[SigTurner]

Show evidence that these trappings were pretense as you claim. There's plenty of evidence to suggest the people behind them believed it to be genuine.

They believed what to be genuine, the will to power? They certainly believe in that.

Did they believe in taking the concept of positive law to the point where law was merely a matter of the whim's of the regime. Absolutely.

Were they filled to the brim with blanket anti-Semitism? Obviously.

Outside of the above, what did the core Nazi regime really believe in?

Behavior is the best barometer of character---not platitudes, not accoutrements, not long-winded speeches, not vainglorious autobiographies, and not flying banners. It is what people do that defines them.

The core Nazi regime were nothing more elegant than gangsters.

Von Papen was not a Fascist.

Despite all pretenses to the contrary, Von Papen was most certalnly a Fascist. More specifiically, he was a covert political agent representing the interests of the wealthy European industrialists. In essence, Von Papen was another one of these shadowy characters of history who lurk behind the throne and whisper in the King's ear.

Spot making things up, industrialists did not create Fascism. Its roots lie in the Romanticist movement, the Futurists, the National Syndicalists and so on. The catalyst of WWI and the common ground between all these grounds (all being pro-war) caused their fusion. People like D'Annunzio and Mussolini were not building a political movement in the 1920s at the behest of industrialists.

Industrialists do not create political movements. Their business is business. They merely invest in those political movements which they believe most likely to serve their interests.

Funny thing about Mussolini, in the beginning he was an ardent socialist and then...

"As Prime Minister, the first years of Mussolini's rule were characterized by a right-wing coalition government composed of Fascists, nationalists, liberals, and two Catholic clerics from the Popular Party... In political and social economy, he passed legislation that favored the wealthy industrial and agrarian classes (privatisations, liberalisations of rent laws and dismantlement of the unions)."[8]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mussolini

Yes and contrary to your assertion it doesn't involve 'the private ownership of government'. Corporatism in theory was cooperative approach between state, industry and labour. In practice it ended up being the state using the mechanisms of corporatism to cow labour and industry.

We seem to be on two different pages. By "corporatism" I am referring to the more modern phenomenon of corportacracy.

In WWI the Netherlands were bypassed by the Germans, in WWII it was invaded and occupied. What this ought to suggest to you is that the Schlieffen Plan and Manstein's 'sickle' strike were actually quite different strategies attacking across different fronts. Never mind that the technology used was completely different. Or that France by WWII was a shadow of what it had been prior to the First World War? Do you want to get into the demographic and economic aftermath?

Case Yellow was almost identical to the Schlieffen Plan. The point is that the Nazi's basic strategy was to invade France by going around the Franco-German border, just as they did during WWI.

With Germany's invasion of Poland, and France and Britain's consequent declaration of war on Germany, France could have easily invaded Germany and put a decisive end to the whole thing while Germany was preoccupied in Poland. They did not.

France had eight months to gather intelligence and prepare for a German invasion during the Phony War, yet at the commencement of the Battle of France, the French military was utterly disorganized and seemingly caught off guard, especially in regards to logistics.

As much as Raynaud tried, he could not seem to find the political support to get rid of the suspiciously incompetent Gamelin until it was far too late, only to have him replaced by the even more incompetent Maxime Weygand.

Petain, Huntziger, Weygand, etal. seemed suspiciously all too willing to collaborate with the Nazis.

Indeed, even the Brits were credulous about which side the French were really on:

"Suspicions of complicity undermined the overall Allied position to such a degree that Britain abandoned the conflict on the continent. 338,226 men (including 120,000 French soldiers) withdrew across the English Channel during the Dunkirk evacuation. A second British Expeditionary Force, due to land in Normandy in mid-June, was cancelled."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Gamelin

I don't care what you 'believe' there is no evidence France collapsed thanks to some Fascist industrialist conspiracy as you claim. You expect me to believe those same industrialists who profitted from the last minute rearmament attempts suddenly decided to shoot themselves in the foot?

Who says they were shooting themselves in the foot? Said industrialists might have had every reason to believe that they could make even more money collaborating with the German war machine than they ever could with relatively passive France.

This assumes that Fascists never came into conflict with each other, because of their supposed shared financial base. This is clearly false and ignores conflict even within established alliances like the Axis.

Why would anyone make such a silly assumption? Internal conflicts usually arise in any conspired human endeavor, most especially those involving money and power.

Well pay attention, this is a thread about pivotal events in WWII. Is Fascist Italy pivotal outside of its many spectacular failures? No. So constructing a theory about Fascism which apparently doesn't involve its most notable practitioner, is highly dubious.

This would assume that the Fascist movement was peculiar to Italy, which it was not. Indeed, what is peculiar is that Fascism would become so popular, so coincidentally, throughout so many European nations at relatively the same time in history.

Since you're not a representative of the Italian Fascist party from the 1920s I don't give a stuff what you think the sticks of the Facses represent.

I beg your pardon, but I do not have to be a "representative of the Italian Fascist party from the 1920s" to make such an interpretation any more than I have to be a representative of Ancient Rome to make such an interpretation.

Here's a news flash for you: The fasces was a symbol of authority, it was a weapon of punishment. It had nothing to do with the states of Europe, you just made that up.

And here's a news flash for you: The fasci was a symbol of strength through unity, in Ancient Rome as in early 20th century Europe. It had nothing to do with punishment. The conveyed idea was that a single stick could easily be broken while a bundle of sticks could not. The axe in the middle was symbolic of the power of a strong central goverment.

Then go ahead and point me to where Hitler showed his obsession for oil after this point.

Hitler did not know his thumb from his d*ck during the period in his career when he wrote Mein Kampf. This is the point!

I'm actually familiar with Yergin's work in other texts and would recommend that pugsville give this one a miss. Is there a reason you can't actually summarise how the book relates to your argument? You have read it yourself, right?

Yergin's work was the very inspiration for my argument. The critical focus during WWII, from start to finish, was on the pursuit of oil reserves. The one thing which the Axis powers lacked, which the Allied powers did not lack, was direct access to ample oil reserves. This should be your first clue towards understanding the war.

But for the life of me, I cannot possibly understand why you or anyone else should find the idea of oil being central to the conflict of WWII so mystifying. Even today, we are embroiled in military conflicts surrounding control over oil.

The trucks, tractors, airplanes, and (ever increasingly) the trains and ships, to say nothing of the tanks and U-boats of the era, ran on petroleum products. In other words, without oil, a nation could not function in the 20's and 30's, nor long survive, anymore than they could today.

Get it now?

[Smilin' Dave]

The core Nazi regime were nothing more elegant than gangsters.

That's not what you were supposed to be proving. You claimed that the Nazi regime's programs were all window dressing (which may or may not fit into your conspiracy theory). This actually seems to be contradicted by the start of your spiel where you acknowledge that Nazis tended to believe in the will to power and antisemitism, and that they tended to act accordingly. That doesn't sound like pretense.

Despite all pretenses to the contrary, Von Papen was most certalnly a Fascist. More specifiically, he was a covert political agent representing the interests of the wealthy European industrialists. In essence, Von Papen was another one of these shadowy characters of history who lurk behind the throne and whisper in the King's ear.

Your description doesn't make him a Fascist in any sense of the term. A look at Papen's background also doesn't paint the picture of a Fascist but rather of a member of the conservative old guard (military background, member of the Catholic Zentrum party, associate of von Hindenburg etc.).

They merely invest in those political movements which they believe most likely to serve their interests.

If they don't have control or even a say in the party platform, then your conspiracy theory where all Fascists are just a front for European industrialists makes no sense. Even if Fascist parties were well funded by industrialists (and many weren't), it doesn't mean they had any influence. Nazi Germany after all was not going to be a modern democracy where money is necessary to finance campaigns etc.

Funny thing about Mussolini, in the beginning he was an ardent socialist and then...

He fell out with the Socialists years before the seizure of power (which was you know, after the formation of the Fascist Party...), and had been involved with right wing elements before Italy even entered WWI. You're misrepresenting events here.

We seem to be on two different pages. By "corporatism" I am referring to the more modern phenomenon of corportacracy.

Great. Corporatism was what was proposed and practiced (after a fashion) by Fascists, not some imagined rule by corporations.

Case Yellow was almost identical to the Schlieffen Plan. The point is that the Nazi's basic strategy was to invade France by going around the Franco-German border, just as they did during WWI.

That's a gross oversimplification. The disposition of forces was completely different and the objective was completely different. Not charging straight up the middle both times hardly makes them identical.

With Germany's invasion of Poland, and France and Britain's consequent declaration of war on Germany, France could have easily invaded Germany and put a decisive end to the whole thing while Germany was preoccupied in Poland. They did not.

Actually France had a go at invading Germany during the invasion of Poland, the Saar Offensive. However for various reasons the offensive was halted. It is incorrect to say they did nothing.

France had eight months to gather intelligence and prepare for a German invasion during the Phony War, yet at the commencement of the Battle of France, the French military was utterly disorganized and seemingly caught off guard, especially in regards to logistics.

You don't know much about the state of French military doctrine or industry in the inter-war period, do you? Disorganisation, poor investment etc. were all symptomatic of the period.

Meanwhile, where is the proof of your conspiracy?

Petain, Huntziger, Weygand, etal. seemed suspiciously all too willing to collaborate with the Nazis.

By the time they stepped forward France's military was stuffed. There wasn't any real chance that they could continue to fight.

Who says they were shooting themselves in the foot? Said industrialists might have had every reason to believe that they could make even more money collaborating with the German war machine than they ever could with relatively passive France.

Wouldn't it still make more sense to take the French government's money for a while before this imagined German money? If it's a conspiracy, why did Hitler even have to invade?

Why would anyone make such a silly assumption?

That's my question to you, but you missed the point. Read what I said again and have another go: strife between fascists was not only an internal phenomena.

This would assume that the Fascist movement was peculiar to Italy

Go ahead and point to a Fascist movement outside of Italy, prior to the creation of the Fascist Party. If you can't do that, show me a Fascist party from the 1920s and 30s that drew absolutely no inspiration from the Italian Fascist Party.

Indeed, what is peculiar is that Fascism would become so popular, so coincidentally, throughout so many European nations at relatively the same time in history.

Similar political, economic and social climate? Or are you now going to tell me the industrialists bought off the citizenry as well as the Fascist parties?

I beg your pardon, but I do not have to be a "representative of the Italian Fascist party from the 1920s" to make such an interpretation any more than I have to be a representative of Ancient Rome to make such an interpretation.

Your "interpretation" was presented as fact. Your fact/interpretation is not actually supported by facts of the matter. You could have "interpreted" the fasci as being made of cheese and being representative of a conspiracy of cheese makers to destroy Europe, but it still wouldn't have been a valid point.

The fasci was a symbol of strength through unity, in Ancient Rome as in early 20th century Europe. It had nothing to do with punishment.

...try again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lictor

They carried rods decorated with fasces and, outside the pomerium, with axes that symbolized the power to execute.

Some could carry the rods, but only some could carry the axe, a symbol of the ultimate punishment - death. The Romans didn't need to image the axe as a symbol of strong central government, the government already had symbols for itself.

Hitler did not know his thumb from his d*ck during the period in his career when he wrote Mein Kampf. This is the point!

Irrelevant, I asked to for proof that Hitler was obsessed with oil after this point. So do you have evidence or not?

Yergin's work was the very inspiration for my argument. The critical focus during WWII, from start to finish, was on the pursuit of oil reserves.

How does Yergin explain the invasion of Poland? It didn't have any oil and invading it didn't secure any new access to oil. You yourself claimed that the Nazis could have had access to Soviet oil indefinately, so the events of WWII still don't make sense if we assume it was all about getting oil.

But for the life of me, I cannot possibly understand why you or anyone else should find the idea of oil being central to the conflict of WWII so mystifying.

Did you miss my discussion on the importance of securing Romania's oil fields earlier in the thread? Perhaps you've interpreted that into something else...

[SigTurner]

That's not what you were supposed to be proving.

Who said I was trying to prove anything? Besides, what would you have me present as proof, a written document signed by Hitler stating "To all who may be concerned, I and my henchmen were nothing but gangsters."

You claimed that the Nazi regime's programs were all window dressing (which may or may not fit into your conspiracy theory). This actually seems to be contradicted by the start of your spiel where you acknowledge that Nazis tended to believe in the will to power and antisemitism, and that they tended to act accordingly. That doesn't sound like pretense.

Okay, you got me. The Nazis believed in three things: 1) the will to power, 2) positive law, and 3) anti-semitism. Happy now?

BTW: The core Nazi regime also believed in making a lot of money for themselves.

Your description doesn't make him a Fascist in any sense of the term. A look at Papen's background also doesn't paint the picture of a Fascist but rather of a member of the conservative old guard (military background, member of the Catholic Zentrum party, associate of von Hindenburg etc.).

Papen was a mouthpiece for the wealthy industrialists. The same wealthy industrialists that were funding the Fascist movement. Money is power. Get it?

If they don't have control or even a say in the party platform, then your conspiracy theory where all Fascists are just a front for European industrialists makes no sense. Even if Fascist parties were well funded by industrialists (and many weren't), it doesn't mean they had any influence.

In most instances, political power is ultimately governed by the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Nazi Germany after all was not going to be a modern democracy where money is necessary to finance campaigns etc.

As I said already, Nazi Germany appears to have been the exception to the rule. Soon after they took over, they made it crystal clear to Papen, and the wealthy industrialists whom he represented, who was really in now in charge.

He fell out with the Socialists years before the seizure of power (which was you know, after the formation of the Fascist Party...), and had been involved with right wing elements before Italy even entered WWI. You're misrepresenting events here.

He fell out with the Socialists because the Fascists paid so much better. Open your eyes.

Great. Corporatism was what was proposed and practiced (after a fashion) by Fascists, not some imagined rule by corporations.

Is it really your contention that the major corporations do not wield enormous influence over our government? What do you suppose the Fascists meant by government cooperation with industry? Why do you suppose the Fascists were so opposed to labor unions?

That's a gross oversimplification. The disposition of forces was completely different and the objective was completely different. Not charging straight up the middle both times hardly makes them identical.

Stop it. The Germans came in through Belgium, again. That is basically what happened.

Actually France had a go at invading Germany during the invasion of Poland, the Saar Offensive. However for various reasons the offensive was halted. It is incorrect to say they did nothing.

For "various reasons" I'm sure. It always makes more strategic sense to wait for your enemy to finish up on his eastern front so that he can rearm and come after you eight months later, doesn't it? The fact that France halted the Saar Offensive when they could have broke through the exceedingly thin Siegrfried Line and made a bee line for Berlin should be your first clue that something funny was going on.

You don't know much about the state of French military doctrine or industry in the inter-war period, do you? Disorganisation, poor investment etc. were all symptomatic of the period.

Another symptom of the period was that the Fascist movement was very strong in France.

Meanwhile, where is the proof of your conspiracy?

Stop asking me for proof. This is only a theory. How about if you prove to me that everything you know about WWII is not based upon erroneous information?

By the time they stepped forward France's military was stuffed. There wasn't any real chance that they could continue to fight.

You make it sound as though it was someone else's fault.

Wouldn't it still make more sense to take the French government's money for a while before this imagined German money?

Not if you believed it would soon be worthless.

If it's a conspiracy, why did Hitler even have to invade?

Obviously, the Fascists, though an especially strong influence in France during the 30's, never actually managed to take control of the French government.

That's my question to you, but you missed the point. Read what I said again and have another go: strife between fascists was not only an internal phenomena.

I didn't miss anything. You're just being deliberately obtuse. Conspirators do not have to be in 100% agreement with each other at all times and in all matter in order to conspire.

Go ahead and point to a Fascist movement outside of Italy, prior to the creation of the Fascist Party. If you can't do that, show me a Fascist party from the 1920s and 30s that drew absolutely no inspiration from the Italian Fascist Party.

A political movement has to start somewhere, doesn't it? The Fascist movement might just as easily have started in Spain or Germany, or even France. Understand that the core impetus for Fascist movement was both the fear of Communist infiltration coming from the east, and the fear of monolithic American economic might coming from the west, and then of course, there was the oil issue.

Similar political, economic and social climate? Or are you now going to tell me the industrialists bought off the citizenry as well as the Fascist parties?

In as much as propaganda can be paid for and have a beguiling effect over the citizenry, yes.

Your "interpretation" was presented as fact. Your fact/interpretation is not actually supported by facts of the matter. You could have "interpreted" the fasci as being made of cheese and being representative of a conspiracy of cheese makers to destroy Europe, but it still wouldn't have been a valid point.

It's a valid point in as much as it fits in with my theory about the desire of European industrialists to unite all of Europe under one political entity, and to do it as quickly as possible.

...try again:

You try again. The fasci was a symbol of strength through unity. I'm not going to argue this point. If you feel like picking gnat sh*t out of pepper over this, get lost.

Irrelevant, I asked to for proof that Hitler was obsessed with oil after this point. So do you have evidence or not?

I have substantial historical testimony that he split his forces in Barbarossa just to go after the oil fields in the Caucasians and Baku. If that's not proof of an obsession over oil, I don't know what is.

[Rich]

By the time they stepped forward France's military was stuffed. There wasn't any real chance that they could continue to fight.

Not disagreeing with the main thrusts of your arguments your making some excellent points. However the French most certainly could have fought on without the homeland as De Gaul in fact did. The Navy was intact, Some of the air-force could have flown out, some land forces could have been evacuated. Libya and Ethiopia could have been cleaned up quickly in such a scenario and incorporated into France as reward by Britain for fighting on. The Dodecanese could have been taken and offered to Greece, that would have put the cat amongst the pigeons. France wouldn't have had to surrender to Japanese demands in South East Asia and Franco wouldn't even have considered dallying with Hitler with his African possessions under threat.

[pugsville]

1940 was radically different from 1914.

The French actually fought OK when they were given a chance. The Allied Dyle Pan was a reasonable plan (aside from the lack of reserves) for a rerun of 1914. The German plan "sickle" to cut off large parts of the allied army in Belgium with a thrust through the Ardennes, was the worst possible German plan given the Allied plan. The Allies contributed greatly to their own defeat. Lack of reserves was pretty basic error in any period. Poor Intelligence - especially analysis, Poor Communications greatly reduced their ability to cope once things went wrong. And mostly these were poor by 1914 standards. The German plan had flaws a strong counter attack could of cut off the panzers and led to a huge German defeat. But they were slow to work out was happening, communications were really bad, and few reserves available.

The trapping and elimination of most of the better and mobile units of the allied armies in a pocket effectively made it game over with the Germans having overwhelming numbers from that point. Defeatism became a factor after defeat not before. Lack of aggression in 1939 is different, a vigorous campaign in 1939 would at least exposed the kinks in the French army.

[Smilin' Dave]

Who said I was trying to prove anything?

So your argument is completely unfounded and you can't be bothered proving it? Nice, glad we clarified that.

BTW: The core Nazi regime also believed in making a lot of money for themselves.

Which could contradict your industrialist conspiracy theory again. So they 'created' a party that apparently was full of people keen to steal their wealth, rather than generate more wealth for them? Makes no sense.

Papen was a mouthpiece for the wealthy industrialists. The same wealthy industrialists that were funding the Fascist movement.

Show proof of this, no biographical material seems to support this assertion.

As I said already, Nazi Germany appears to have been the exception to the rule.

So you mean to tell me you thought Fascist Italy was going to be the modern style democracy I've dismissed as comperable?

He fell out with the Socialists because the Fascists paid so much better. Open your eyes.

You just made that up. Mussolini kept diaries, he somehow never mentioned better pay by industrial conspirators as the cause of his ideological split. He also apparently didn't mention it to any of his contemporaries. What am I supposed to open my eyes to, lies you pull out of your ass?

Is it really your contention that the major corporations do not wield enormous influence over our government?

We aren't talking about our government, unless you have access a time machine and you're really living in Europe between say 1920 and 1939.

What do you suppose the Fascists meant by government cooperation with industry? Why do you suppose the Fascists were so opposed to labor unions?

First sentence shows you still haven't comprehended Corporatism. On your second point Fascists were opposed to independent labour unions, they tended to create their own towards seperate goals, rather than just outright oppose all unionism.

Stop it. The Germans came in through Belgium, again. That is basically what happened.

Restating your gross oversimplification won't make it any more incorrect.

It always makes more strategic sense to wait for your enemy to finish up on his eastern front so that he can rearm and come after you eight months later, doesn't it?

Did I say all the various reasons were good or even logical ones?

The fact that France halted the Saar Offensive when they could have broke through the exceedingly thin Siegrfried Line and made a bee line for Berlin should be your first clue that something funny was going on.

The French struggled with the logistics to even assemble an army to invade Germany, never mind advance any great distance. Something funny was going on: The French army wasn't actually that good as becomes obvious under a thorough analysis.

Another symptom of the period was that the Fascist movement was very strong in France.

It was also in the political wilderness and meanwhile you have produced exactly zero proof they had any role in the fall of France.

Stop asking me for proof. This is only a theory.

A theory without support should be dismissed as incorrect. We shouldn't be scrambling around trying to justify it as correct in the face of all logic and evidence.

How about if you prove to me that everything you know about WWII is not based upon erroneous information?

The volume and range of sources on the period would make the total falsification of records impossible. You meanwhile aren't even using erroneous information, you're just making things up then refusing to even defend them and calling it a theory even as you insist you're completely correct.

You make it sound as though it was someone else's fault.

Amazingly the German army had a lot to do with the defeat of the French army. Controversial analysis, I know.

Not if you believed it would soon be worthless.

German currency wasn't much better in the time period and there were many indicators it would get worse.

Conspirators do not have to be in 100% agreement with each other at all times and in all matter in order to conspire.

When their actions completely defeat the purpose of their supposed conspiracy it's a pretty serious question mark however...

A political movement has to start somewhere, doesn't it? The Fascist movement might just as easily have started in Spain or Germany, or even France. Understand that the core impetus for Fascist movement was both the fear of Communist infiltration coming from the east, and the fear of monolithic American economic might coming from the west, and then of course, there was the oil issue.

What does this have to do with what you were replying to? Also, still no proof from you oil had anything to do with the rise of Fascism.

In as much as propaganda can be paid for and have a beguiling effect over the citizenry, yes.

If propaganda were that simple everyone would use it and nobody would have any free will at all. Realistically propaganda is simply an attempt to project a particular information stream, a view point. Sometimes it works, sometimes the particular strategy backfires.

It's a valid point in as much as it fits in with my theory about the desire of European industrialists to unite all of Europe under one political entity, and to do it as quickly as possible.

My Roman cheese axe theory is valid now?

You try again.

Grow up.

The fasci was a symbol of strength through unity. I'm not going to argue this point.

Because you can't, it isn't supported by the facts. It's some bullshit you made up and think you can somehow ridicule people into believing.

If you feel like picking gnat sh*t out of pepper over this, get lost.

These aren't minor items I've pointed out in your "theory", they are huge gapping holes in your narrative that you're apparently too lazy to fill in.

I have substantial historical testimony that he split his forces in Barbarossa just to go after the oil fields in the Caucasians and Baku. If that's not proof of an obsession over oil, I don't know what is.

That's just good strategic sense, it isn't demonstrative of obsession. I could just as easily say the forces allocated between Army Groups A and B show that Stalingrad was the real 'obsession', rather than the Baku oil fields.


Moving on:

However the French most certainly could have fought on without the homeland as De Gaul in fact did. The Navy was intact, Some of the air-force could have flown out, some land forces could have been evacuated.

True, but I suppose the question is for French leaders what would the benefit have been. All of these moves wouldn't have benefitted the French 'core' very much at all, the strategic balance would still have been that Nazi Germany was going to occupy France. I'm sure for example the British would appreciate the extra troops and ships and so forth, but where would that leave France itself? The future Vichy leaders tried to come up with a compromise (and foolish one, but again who said they were being entirely sensible?) in that Vichy France would get to pretend to be independent and Germany would not simply absorb all of France.

[SigTurner]

So your argument is completely unfounded and you can't be bothered proving it? Nice, glad we clarified that.

No, it is not "completely unfounded." If you're going to be an ass, get lost.

Which could contradict your industrialist conspiracy theory again. So they 'created' a party that apparently was full of people keen to steal their wealth, rather than generate more wealth for them? Makes no sense.

You are obviously no longer even trying to comprehend what I'm telling you. It is a waste of time trying to have an intellectual discussion with a [warning issued - SD]. This conversation is over.

[SigTurner]

The French most certainly could have fought on without the homeland as De Gaul in fact did. The Navy was intact, Some of the air-force could have flown out, some land forces could have been evacuated. Libya and Ethiopia could have been cleaned up quickly in such a scenario and incorporated into France as reward by Britain for fighting on. The Dodecanese could have been taken and offered to Greece, that would have put the cat amongst the pigeons. France wouldn't have had to surrender to Japanese demands in South East Asia and Franco wouldn't even have considered dallying with Hitler with his African possessions under threat.

Seems to me that the French were awfully quick to capitulate. One would expect a people defending their homeland to put up a much better fight. The Battle of Sedan was such a comedy show of incompetency that it is difficult to believe that there was not some level of complicity connected with the Second Army. Indeed, Huntziger was strangely eager to collaborate with the Nazi regime in the aftermath of Dunkirk and all that followed.

[Igor Antunov]

Just like France is willing to cooperate with Germany today.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to chum up with your neighbour.

[Jackal]

While not the most pivotal point in World War II, I think the Germans crossing through neutral Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg avoiding the Maginot Line had a very profound effect on not only taking France but how the war on the Western Front would have played out. France would have put up quite a defensive fight and the Germans would have been much weaker had they manage to finally break through French defenses (which I personally think they would have). The Allied Forces would then not have had such a tough time pushing them back East due to the battered troops. Just a thought.

[Smilin' Dave]

No, it is not "completely unfounded."

It has no factual basis and is doesn't follow logic. Your "is so!" response doesn't change this.

If you're going to be an ass, get lost.

While we're on the topic of bad behaviour don't spam other threads with "prove it". I've deleted your bit of childishness.

You are obviously no longer even trying to comprehend what I'm telling you.

I understand exactly what you said, it's just incorrect. Apparently you can't even be bothered defending your rubbish conspiracy theory and seek to avoid further discussion.

The Battle of Sedan was such a comedy show of incompetency that it is difficult to believe that there was not some level of complicity connected with the Second Army.

The French troops at Sedan were under trained and had no experience of war and were subject to a bombardment the likes of which few had witnessed at that time in history. Remembering that the small number of fixed defences they relied upon were incomplete in 1940, making them more vulnerable to aerial and artillery bombardment. Then their position was attacked by a relatively better equipped military (the Germans turned up to Sedan with tanks, not just infantry) with compartively more experience and better morale. It's no great surprise they broke.

Meanwhile there is no evidence that there was any complicity between the defenders and attackers

Indeed, Huntziger was strangely eager to collaborate with the Nazi regime in the aftermath of Dunkirk and all that followed.

As I've already noted the Vichy government was not conceived by the generals that created it as a collaborationist state.