Guderian plan for conquest of Africa

[Kelvin]

Hi, everyone, I see Guderian 's memoir mentions he objected to armistice with France and promptly suggested the Invasion of French North Africa. Of Course, German did not have enough shipping nor did she have any supplies for Long distance Expedition. Despite the fact that Hitler might have used Italian base in Libya or Spanish bases in Morocco for that Purpose.
Should Hitler revise his Policy of conquest from Invasion of USSR to conquest of both French and British Colonial empire, he still can build big empire but at less Risk. Is it good Option for alternative for Invasion of USSR ? Thank

[Aida1]

A bit over the top to call it a plan given Guderians job at the time.Just an opinion he expressed. The Seekriegsleitung certainly wanted to focus on fighting the British empire instead of going for the USSR and Raeder presented this to Hitler(Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion Boog,etc.. Fischer 1983 pp 50-51).

[Kelvin]

I would think the defeat of France was supreme object of Hitler's political Career, collapse of France certainly avenged the Insultation of Treaty of Versailles of 1919 because German surrendered to France in 1918.

Attack on Russia should be carried out much later and at least secured French and British Colonial empire. Perhap the defeat of Luftwaffe over British skies made Hitler excuse that collapse of British empire was not Advantage to German but to USSR and Japan or even US to cover his defeat. On the other Hand, if British surrendered, German still can controlled most of Africa, including Suez Canal. Of Course, India and SE Asia might be handed over to neighbour powers like USSR or Japan.

[Peter89]

I would think the defeat of France was supreme object of Hitler's political Career, collapse of France certainly avenged the Insultation of Treaty of Versailles of 1919 because German surrendered to France in 1918.

Attack on Russia should be carried out much later and at least secured French and British Colonial empire. Perhap the defeat of Luftwaffe over British skies made Hitler excuse that collapse of British empire was not Advantage to German but to USSR and Japan or even US to cover his defeat. On the other Hand, if British surrendered, German still can controlled most of Africa, including Suez Canal. Of Course, India and SE Asia might be handed over to neighbour powers like USSR or Japan.

The Treaty of Versailles as a "crushing and unjust dictatum" has proven to be wrong, or at least misinterpreted.

At the time of the first world war, every coalition wanted to enforce a peace that would crush the other's colonial empire, and even the ability to build one. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk was conceived in the same manner.

Germany didn't lose its great power status at Versailles. They only had to accept two things: the loss of the colonies and the loss of its armed forces.

The true execution happened at the Treaty of Saint-Germain-en-Laye, where Austria lost its empire, its great power status and whatnot. It completely disrupted the economical, scientific and cultural development of that region - forever.

The Treaty of Versailles had a big echo only because the German civilian population suffered too little to influence the public opinion.

[corbulo]

Germany didn't lose its great power status at Versailles. They only had to accept two things: the loss of the colonies and the loss of its armed forces.



Territory...? Both lost and occupied. Crushing reparations...?

[Aida1]

Germany didn't lose its great power status at Versailles. They only had to accept two things: the loss of the colonies and the loss of its armed forces.



Territory...? Both lost and occupied. Crushing reparations...?

He forgot those minor details. And with a 100.000 man army one is not a great power anymore.

[Peter89]

In fact, Germany rearmed itself in 6 years.

In the age of technological breakthroughs, Germany didn't need a big standing army to be a great power.

In fact, WW1 broke the back of all the colonial empires' economies (ie. all the great powers of Europe). Germany didn't fare much worse than the "victors" on the continent. The French, the British and the Soviets spent a staggering amount on their military. The former two hopelessly tried to cling to their colonial empires, but the expenses were too high already. What Germany needed to do was technological and civil development, and not building up a warmaking potential.

[Aida1]

In fact, Germany rearmed itself in 6 years.

In the age of technological breakthroughs, Germany didn't need a big standing army to be a great power.

In fact, WW1 broke the back of all the colonial empires' economies (ie. all the great powers of Europe). Germany didn't fare much worse than the "victors" on the continent. The French, the British and the Soviets spent a staggering amount on their military. The former two hopelessly tried to cling to their colonial empires, but the expenses were too high already. What Germany needed to do was technological and civil development, and not building up a warmaking potential.

If you want to be a real great power then you need an army that at least can defend yourself and a 100.000 men army is not that.

[Peter89]

In fact, Germany rearmed itself in 6 years.

In the age of technological breakthroughs, Germany didn't need a big standing army to be a great power.

In fact, WW1 broke the back of all the colonial empires' economies (ie. all the great powers of Europe). Germany didn't fare much worse than the "victors" on the continent. The French, the British and the Soviets spent a staggering amount on their military. The former two hopelessly tried to cling to their colonial empires, but the expenses were too high already. What Germany needed to do was technological and civil development, and not building up a warmaking potential.

If you want to be a real great power then you need an army that at least can defend yourself and a 100.000 men army is not that.

Who wanted to attack Germany?

[Konig_pilsner]

Who wanted to attack Germany?

You mean, "who was attacking Germany?"

Answer = Poland

[corbulo]

In fact, Germany rearmed itself in 6 years.

In the age of technological breakthroughs, Germany didn't need a big standing army to be a great power.

In fact, WW1 broke the back of all the colonial empires' economies (ie. all the great powers of Europe). Germany didn't fare much worse than the "victors" on the continent. The French, the British and the Soviets spent a staggering amount on their military. The former two hopelessly tried to cling to their colonial empires, but the expenses were too high already. What Germany needed to do was technological and civil development, and not building up a warmaking potential.

without the Ruhr/Saar etc...? With the fallout of 1929...?

[corbulo]

In fact, Germany rearmed itself in 6 years.

In the age of technological breakthroughs, Germany didn't need a big standing army to be a great power.

In fact, WW1 broke the back of all the colonial empires' economies (ie. all the great powers of Europe). Germany didn't fare much worse than the "victors" on the continent. The French, the British and the Soviets spent a staggering amount on their military. The former two hopelessly tried to cling to their colonial empires, but the expenses were too high already. What Germany needed to do was technological and civil development, and not building up a warmaking potential.

If you want to be a real great power then you need an army that at least can defend yourself and a 100.000 men army is not that.

and tanks, airforce and navy (incl. submarines)

[Aida1]

In fact, Germany rearmed itself in 6 years.

In the age of technological breakthroughs, Germany didn't need a big standing army to be a great power.

In fact, WW1 broke the back of all the colonial empires' economies (ie. all the great powers of Europe). Germany didn't fare much worse than the "victors" on the continent. The French, the British and the Soviets spent a staggering amount on their military. The former two hopelessly tried to cling to their colonial empires, but the expenses were too high already. What Germany needed to do was technological and civil development, and not building up a warmaking potential.

If you want to be a real great power then you need an army that at least can defend yourself and a 100.000 men army is not that.

Who wanted to attack Germany?

Wars do happen and being unable to defend yourself is not a good place to be in. Not much use in an army that is not even sufficiently strong to defend yourself.

[Peter89]

Okay guys, let's make this short. Nobody wanted to attack Germany in the 1930's. In fact, the whole 1930's was about giving concessions to Germany without a war. The wise statesmen of Europe realized that a new war could only bring the total downfall of the continent from its world-leading role it held for centuries.

The world was changing. Japan and the USA were emerging as great powers, the colonial empires scrumbled, and thechnology made every kind of weaponry obsolate. The German nuclear bomb, radar and rocket projects - which were btw not even regulated by the Versailles Treaty - were the military blockbusters then. You no longer needed hoards of raw materials and vast colonies of poor population to sell your industry's products.

The Germans were so deeply traumatized by the lost WW1 that a lot of them wanted a rematch. It was such a good idea that in the end the Eastern style poverty came up to Vienna and Berlin. Germany and Japan - even now! - are two prominent nations in world economy; a feat they achieved after millions of dead, nuclear attacks, firestormed cities, another territorial losses, etc. Italy produces more than Russia.

Nobody wanted to attack Germany prior the WW2.

[Aida1]

Okay guys, let's make this short. Nobody wanted to attack Germany in the 1930's. In fact, the whole 1930's was about giving concessions to Germany without a war. The wise statesmen of Europe realized that a new war could only bring the total downfall of the continent from its world-leading role it held for centuries.

The world was changing. Japan and the USA were emerging as great powers, the colonial empires scrumbled, and thechnology made every kind of weaponry obsolate. The German nuclear bomb, radar and rocket projects - which were btw not even regulated by the Versailles Treaty - were the military blockbusters then. You no longer needed hoards of raw materials and vast colonies of poor population to sell your industry's products.

The Germans were so deeply traumatized by the lost WW1 that a lot of them wanted a rematch. It was such a good idea that in the end the Eastern style poverty came up to Vienna and Berlin. Germany and Japan - even now! - are two prominent nations in world economy; a feat they achieved after millions of dead, nuclear attacks, firestormed cities, another territorial losses, etc. Italy produces more than Russia.

Nobody wanted to attack Germany prior the WW2.

No thruth in this. War can happen particularly when you are militarily weak .