This is demonstratively wrong, both on the lines of the "master race canard" and on National Socialism requiring expansionism.
Er, well, I did not say "master race". I said culture. Or should I say, "Kultur". You see, the Nazis just rode a wave that existed long before them, and merely had to refine it to their purposes.
I am not that knowledgeable about Nazi ideology, so the argument that I improperly made earlier was this: Germany, and later Nazi Germany, had this little concept called "Kultur", which means civilization. What the hell am I trying to say then, you might ask. To answer you, it is better for me to quote a long excerpt of an article made during World War One by a Frenchman, in 1915.
( Because it is tough to find a proper definition of the terme elsewhere)
The French source that I translated
( Pages are 467-46
However, let us not hide that a major obstacle will be France's legitimate disgust for the German "kultur". Indeed, she gives herself the appearence of an authentic product of science. In truth, it is in the German universities, workshops of the oldest nationalism, dating back to the era of the European Nationalisms [ He means after 1848 ], where its pieces have been carved, forged and put together. It is the work of the German erudites, of philosophers first, of Fichte in 1811, then of historians, jurists, philologists, from seminary erudites and laboratory erudites.
But, it is in its name, under its pressure, with its justification, by right of the divine first place that she gives to the German people over all other peoples of the world, that has been committed on Earth and on the sea all crimes, all atrocites that Germany will bear the weight before an impartial History. How to forget it? And how not to shift the blame on the science that she says to be a legitimate product of, the horror of such doctrines and such consequances?
Yet, there will be a need to, one day or the other, to ventilate this atmosphere. Taken as a whole, the German "kultur" is a monster, in all meanings of the word. When taken apart, it divides itself into two groups of very diverse elements: the first being specifically Germanic, the other being universal.
Are specifically Germanic the supposed superiority of the the German race over all other races, the imperial vocation that she claims for herself, the providential mission that she gives herself, to be born in the world to reveal, over other decadant civilizations, a superior civilization, and to impose it to all as if it is for their own good; the ability that she deduces, for herself, to take from the law, not of human consciousness, but of the steel of artillery; the pretention to take for null and void treaties, conventions, word given and signed, as long as its interest make it necessary to do so, or simply as a easy way. All of that must be condamned and rejected.
Before World War Two, before Nazism, before all that we are talking about, there was a German claim of superiority over all nations and races by virtue of being more civilized and knowledgeable than them. And this has no real counterpart in France ( Universalism, according to Jules Ferry, had this weird idea that France had to civilize people outside of Europe, but not in Europe. )
So, we're talking about a century old idea of innate German superiority in all fields, brought to bear against France in 1870, 1914-1918, and 1940. Therefore, I am forced to reaffirm that a victorious Nazi Germany would have erased French and English identity, by virtue of their civilization being better. You can choose to say that I'm full of shit and that I would never be sure of what I claim, if Nazi Germany triumphed.
But it is what I will claim here.
Britain and France both declared war on Germany, not the other way around, and Germany was clearly willing to work with even non-whites and even had them within the Nazi military.
The lack of detail here is astounding, and I'm strangely surprised. You seem to be the knowledgeable chap, after all. But okay, I'll remind you of a few things.
So, you do forget that at least France had an old, old alliance with the Poles, that goes back at least to Napoleon Ist, who literally gave them their country? You also do forget that the French had sent officiers and a few thousand men to train and assist the Poles so that they could push back the Bolchevik invasion, after World War One?
Google the Miracle of the Vistule, in 1920 and then get back to me. You might even find that a certain Charles de Gaulle was sent there to train Polish officers in how to properly use artillery and modern infantry.
In 1939, IIIrd Republic finally found the balls to honor its alliance with the Poles, and the British, well the British were happy to prevent German Hegemony, as they usually do.
And may I remind you that being willing to work with someone does not mean that this someone is respected or even valued beyond the war effort? See the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, where communists and fascists shook hands as brothers.
You do know the absolute hatred that Adolf Hitler had for them, don't you?
So, even though you might be right, I see no logical reason to be convinced.
The only real "expansionist" action you could really even argue Germany carried out was the invasion of Poland,
Surprisingly false. Have you ever heard of Tchecoslovaquia, or of the Munich Accords of 1938, where Daladier of France and Chamberlain of the UK abandoned their allies to the territorial hunger of the Reich, in order to save the peace?
Peace that was claimed by Hitler himself to last "a thousand years"?
Peace that lasted one freaking year?
And don't tell me that Hitler did not know the Polish-French friendship, which therefore means that war would have erupted when Poland was invaded
This argument is comically absurd, and given that I'm not that great of a debater myself, I'd advise you to reconsider your position.
I don't know about Phillipe Petain's mental state, but he was a smart guy.
He was, yes. Pétain's greatness lied in his intricate skill as a defensive general who understood how to apply artillery to keep his defensive positions safe. He was an outlier in that, and he was therefore universally despised by most of French High Command before the war. However, beyond his skill, he also played a major role in fostering talent, such as Charles de Gaulle, whose unwavering belief in relentless assault ( Later relentless assault by tanks ) and aloof personality made him also a target of ridicule, jealousy and hatred.
However, old age made him greedier for power and reputation. Which is why de Gaulle considered that he (intellectually speaking) died in 1925. His old age also allowed true bastards like Pierre Laval to exert great influence in the Vichy Regime.
What I know about Vichy France is that he used his position to make people go outside more
True. He also refused the idea of advanced education, considering that the business of France was to be an agricultural nation and no more. He established the infamous Milice to track down and assist the Gestapo in the elimination and torture of dissidents. He created work camps for the youth, that also happened to be fenced to keep them in. He re-established the old system of corporations ( That existed during the Monarchy ), that strictly controled work and work conditions. He also promoted a planned economy, created organizations meant to control and educate the youth.
He tried to trial the leaders of the Front Populaire and saw his judges get their ass handed to themselves by Léon Blum, who used his trial as a tribune to denounce the cowardice of the whole Vichy Regime ( They were accused of weakening France before the war, but the FP had tried to modernize French military, but to no avail. )
( I could probably say more, but I'd have to reread my books and notes on the era, and it is getting late where I live )
Not to say that it was hell on earth, but it was mostly an puppet regime, and we can't have that.
Regarding your points about the famine, it is the first time that I heard of this, but I'll believe you on your word. Still, it is a treacherous idea to seize the fleet of a surrendering enemy, even though it was to be expected.
And I also agree on the points raised about the ambitions of some muslims to control all aspects of life, which is a key aspect of Fascism, which in terms makes it fairly logical to call them what they profess.
However, I can't agree on the idea that Franco's Spain was great to live in. It might have been orderly, but the repression and suppression of freedom required makes the whole system unpalatable to me. Maybe I'm still that naive.
