Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
deepthinker
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 13:55
Location: Lincoln

Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Post by deepthinker » 19 Jun 2002 16:40

Allright Andy and Roberto. You wanted to know the reasons why Hitler was making so called aggressive moves and taking countries? Well here they are.

Let's start in 1935. This is where according to the Nuremburg trials Germany's first "aggressive" moves are made. In January the Saarland an independant German district votes to become part of the reich. A month later Hitler announces rearmament. In a speech he states that he is doing so in view of the failure of the disarmament conference and the fact that France and Britain have much more arms then they do. In June Britain signs a naval agreement with Germany and approves rearmament.

In 1936 Hitler retakes the Rhineland (which is again a German district). The French submit the matter to the League of nations who says it is ok.

In 1937 nothing is done.

In 1938 Hitler annexes Austria. Austria was a nation that considered itself German so it wasn't really an invasion. There are news reels that show the Austrians cheering for Hitler like crazy. Cheering because there were thankful to be free of what had been a very corrupt government and because they were glad to finally be apart of Germany. In September Hitler wanted the Sudetenland from czechoslovakia. That was a territory that was populated with Germans and further more it bordered on Germany and had been taken away from her in the treaty of versailles.
It was given to Germany at the Munich conference.

In 1939 Hitler took the rest of czechoslovakia. He did this for a number of reasons. First, although some of it's defenses had been taken away a large part of it still remained and this threatened Germany from a geographical standpoint. You need to look at a recontsructed map of the time to understand that point. Second it's goverment refused to adopt a friendly attitude towards Germany and Hitler feared the Russians would set up airbases there. Airbases at such a geographical position with regards to Germany would be very threatining indeed. Czechoslovakia had in fact been constructed by the allies after World War 1 for exactly that reason. To be an airbase used against the reich. This was all part of the allied plan to perpetually hold Germany down. The state couldn't survive anyway because it was an artificial state. It collapsed when after Munich a movement from the Slavs created a seperate state called Slovakia. Hitler occupied the czech part because of the reasons outlined above and later occupied the Slavic part because of Poland. At both instances the leaders of the seperate states (the czech part and the slavic parts) signed a treaty giving the Germans permission to come. Poland by then was becoming a problem. In 1938 Hitler started negotians with Lithuania and Poland. Each of these states had cities that belonged to Germany. They had been given away in the treaty of versailles. Lithuania was reasonable and gave up Memel but the Poles were not. They refused to give up the city in spite of very fair demands from Berlin. The British and French then stepped in and started complicating matters. They issued a guarantee to Poland in March and the Poles immediately accepted it. They had their own agenda against Germany. Poland Germany had been long standing enemies through out the 1920's. Poland, like czechoslovakia wan artificial state created by the allies to help hold Germany down. The Poles wanted a large part of Eastern Germany. With the guarantee they felt they could be safe in war with Germany. The allies gave that guarantee as part of an encirclement policy directed against Germany. France wanted to hold Germany down because she wanted to be master of the continent while Britain wanted the same thing but her goal was to make sure that no power came close to her own. Hitler decided that in view of Poland's refusal to give up Danzig and the fact that she had gone to over to his enemies that it might be necessary to fight her. Thus in April he planned for possible war with Poland. Meanwhile the allies realized that Poland might not help enough in the encirclement so it was decided to try for an alliance with Russia. When Hitler heard about that he decided to go for his own alliance with Russia. In August he succeeded. By that time things were getting considerably worse with Poland. Feeling that they had in Germany in a bad position they began to become hostile towards the Germans in Danzig. As a result of this hostility which was growing to outrageous proportons Hitler deced enough was enough and lanched the invasion. Britain and France then launched the second world war, when on September 3rd they used the German Polish conflict as an excuse to go to war because their encirclment policy was broken.

In 1940 Hitler invaded Norway because the British were about to. Then he invaded Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland. He had to do this to get to France. When these countries began to resist Germany was forced to take care of them. France was conquered because she had declared war on Germany and actively sought Germany's destruction.

In 1941 Hitler invaded Greece. Greece had already been invaded by Italy and besides, their government had gone over to the allied side. So they were an enemy. The same was true for Yogoslavia. Hitler then invaded Russia IN June because they were expanding into strategic areas of europe and were threatining Germany by being close to it's main source of oil. The United States had war declared on them because of acts they had been committing against Germany. In 1940 they violated their neutrality by shipping aid to Britain. They then began trying to force the Japanese to abandon areas they needed to continue the war with China. When the Japanese refused an oil embargo was imposed upon them. Because of the failure of negotians the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. After the U.S. declaration of war Hitler decided to help Japan out because she was his ally and because the U.S. was shipping supplies to Russia and Britain and had been issuing threatining statements against her. Roosevelt had even gone so far as to issue an order to shoot German ships on site. Hitler declared war to put an end that and force the U.S. into a two front ocean war.

Are you happy now? If I left out a country plase tell me so. BTW Andy I am waiting for your list of reasons why the U.S. has fought all it's wars.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 19 Jun 2002 16:52

Sillythinker,

Then he invaded Luxembourg, Belgium and Holland. He had to do this to get to France.


You must be joking. Invade Holland to get to France? This makes no sense at all. And what do you mean with:

When these countries began to resist Germany was forced to take care of them
?

Are you seriously suggesting that Germany had to deal with Holland, Belgium and Luxemburg because they resisted them? What do you mean with that?

deepthinker
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 13:55
Location: Lincoln

Reply to Timo

Post by deepthinker » 19 Jun 2002 17:52

Holland had to be invaded so the Germans had a wider front to fight France with. The same was true for Luxembourg. You need to take a look at a map of back then. And yes these did countries resist Hitler's forces when he tried to go through them. On the web, I need to find it again, there is a German pamphlet telling the Dutch there need be no fighting between them. The only reason in there world they were there was part of their strategy to defeat France. As resistance came from them they bacame enemy nations that had to be dealt with no matter how small.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

SIEG IM WESTEN

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jun 2002 18:01

France declared war on Germany and then hid behind her Maginot line, not that she could have fared better on the attack, IMHO.

A German invasion was expected from the low-countries which would insure that the battlefield was not France's problem, so Allied troops rushed to meet the German threat, which worked in favor of the German strategy. The low countries--let's be honest here--would never have permitted German troop movements to France, but they sure as hell would have permitted the "defensive deployment" of Allied troops and airbases against Germany. They were hardly neutral. As should be expected, most of the crowned-heads of Europe danced the Windsor Waltz.
:)

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 19 Jun 2002 18:07

Let me guess what the deep thinker is trying to tell us:

Any move his beloved Führer ever made against a foreign country was justified by a threat to Germany emanating from that country or by some bad, bad thing it had done to Germany.

Am I right?

The former was the case of Czechoslovakia minus Sudetenland: Hitler annexed it i.a. because its territory might eventually be used by his enemies as a staging base for an attack on Germany. Those bloody Czechs, why did they have to live in a country that was strategically so well positioned?

The latter was especially noticeable in the case of Poland: Why did those bloody Poles have to be so stubborn on the issue of Danzig and the Polish corridor, refusing to hand over territory that had belonged to the Polish republic since its constitution? Not that this would really have been Adolf's issue, you see. He wanted to do away with the Polish nation once and for all because

80 million people must get their right, Their existence must be assured.


Living space for the great German nation, in other words, the obtaining of which required the annihilation of the Polish nation, as Hitler told his generals on 22 August 1939:

Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Ziel ist die Beseitigung der lebendigen Kräfte, nicht die Erreichung einer bestimmten Linie. Auch wenn im Westen Krieg ausbricht, bleibt Vernichtung Polens im Vordergrund. Mit Rücksicht auf Jahreszeit schnelle Entscheidung.
Ich werde propagandistischen Anlass zur Auslösung des Krieges geben, gleichgültig, ob glaubhaft. Der Sieger wird später nicht danach gefragt, ob er die Wahrheit gesagt hat oder nicht. Bei Beginn und Führung des Krieges kommt es nicht auf das Recht an, sondern auf den Sieg.
Herz verschliessen gegen Mitleid. Brutales Vorgehen. 80 Millionen Menschen müssen ihr Recht bekommen. Ihre Existenz muss gesichert werden. Grösste Härte. Schnelligkeit der Entscheidung notwendig. Festen Glauben an den deutschen Soldaten. Krisen nur auf Versagen der Nerven der Führer zurückzuführen.
Erste Forderung: Vordringen bis zur Weichsel und bis zum Narew. Unsere technische Überlegenheit wird die Nerven der Polen zerbrechen. Jede sich neu bildende lebendige polnische Kraft ist sofort zu vernichten. Fortgesetzte Zermürbung. Neue deutsche Grenzführung nach gesunden Gesichtspunkten, evtl. Protektorat als Vorgelände. Militärische Operationen nehmen auf diese Überlegungen keine Rücksicht. Restlose Zertrümmerung Polens ist das militärische Ziel. Schnelligkeit ist die Hauptsache. Verfolgung bis zur völligen Vernichtung.
Überzeugung, dass die deutsche Wehrmacht den Anforderungen gewachsen ist. Auslösung wird noch befohlen ...


Source of quote: Ernst Klee / Willi Dressen, "Gott mit uns”: Der deutsche Vernichtungskrieg im Osten there is yet another summary of Hitler's statements at the afternoon meeting on the Obersalzberg on 22.8.1939. The document referred to is Nuernberg Document 1014-PS, IMT, Volume XXVI.

My translation:

The annihilation of Poland is the priority. The goal is the removal of living forces, not the reaching of a certain line. Even if war should break out in the West, the annihilation of Poland remains the priority. Considering the time of the year, a quick decision is required.
I shall provide for a propagandistic reason to unleash the war, regardless of whether it is credible or not. The victor is not asked at a later stage whether he told the truth or not. In beginning and conducting a war, what matters is not right but victory.
Close heart to pity. Brutal proceeding. 80 million people must get their right, Their existence must be assured. Greatest harshness. Quick decision is necessary. Firm faith in the German soldier. Crises must only be attributed to commanders having lost their nerves.
First requirement: Advance to the Vistula and the Narev. Our technical superiority will break the nerves of the Poles. Every new Polish force forming must be immediately annihilated. Continuous attrition. New German frontier according to healthy criteria, eventually a protectorate as a buffer area. Military operations must not take these thoughts into consideration. The utter shattering of Poland is the military goal. Pursuit until complete annihilation.
Conviction that the German Wehrmacht is up to the task. Unleashing will yet be ordered ...


Next victims, Belgium and the Netherlands. They did nothing wrong other than resisting the peaceful passage of German troops through their country in order to defeat the French and British armies. They just happened to be in the way. And its not as if Adolf had cordially asked them to let his troops pass through, is it? He just sent in his paratroopers who, in daring surprise attacks, occupied the Dutch bridges and Belgian border fortresses.

Thinker mentions Greece. There Hitler intervened to pull his partner Mussolini out of the mud, whose invasion of Greece had badly misfired.

Thinker also mentions Yugoslavia. Hitler tried to pull them to his side, but there was a coup in Belgrade and the new government chose the other side. Hitler decided to punish Yugoslavia most harshly for having rejected him. The military action, which included the destruction of defenseless Belgrade by the Luftwaffe with ca. 17,000 people killed, was even code-named "Operation Punishment", if I well remember.

Next in line was the Soviet Union, which Thinker would have Hitler attack solely in order to counter the perceived threat of Soviet expansionism. Strangely enough, and to a much greater extent than in the previous campaign against Poland, this "preventive" move involved a wholesale war of conquest, exploitation and annihilation aimed at destroying the Soviet state, killing off certain segments of the population and letting the remainder starve, expell them to Siberia or turn them into slaves living at the whim of their German masters in the great Teutonic empire of Hitler's dreams. Which suggests that those dreams were at least as important an element of the decision process as concern with the threat that Soviet expansionism might pose to Germany in however distant a future.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 19 Jun 2002 18:14

Holland had to be invaded so the Germans had a wider front to fight France with.


Hmmm. So you would invade a country not neighboring your target, in order to widen your front to attack your initial target? Or is Holland next to France on your (old or new) map? Or do you mean you have to invade Holland in order to attack Belgium in order to attack France?

I guess you believe the fable that England would attack Holland as soon as Germany attacked Belgium and France, so Hitler moved in to prevent this? I noticed in your version of the events in the east it worked the same way....

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 19 Jun 2002 18:20

Roberto,

Also consider the consequences of invading a country because its your neighbour and thus a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...You end up with a new neighbour who is a possible base for an enemy who plans to attack you. So you better take that country too, or otherwise...

...untill you conquered the world :)

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

PEACE IS OUR PROFESSION...

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jun 2002 18:23

Timo wrote:I guess you believe the fable that England would attack Holland as soon as Germany attacked Belgium and France, so Hitler moved in to prevent this?

Holland would not need to be attacked. British troops would simply be "invited in," just like in Norway, :mrgreen: to widen the front against Germany and to establish bases, and also to deny Germany access to those markets, which works even better than a blockade.
:)

deepthinker
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 13:55
Location: Lincoln

Reply to Timo.

Post by deepthinker » 19 Jun 2002 18:27

I am not sure what Holland's exact geographical position was/is. I have an old atlas that I need look at again. One thing I do remember however is that I read somewhere that it had to be invaded in order to help defeat France, which is what my whole point is about anyway. Besides when your nation's security is at stake the important thing is that the enemy is taken care of no matter where you invade. According to you Germany isn't allowed to defend itself but the allies can invade and do whatever they want to any nation choose. :roll:

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Post by Timo » 19 Jun 2002 18:27

Nonsense Scott,

The Dutch policy (we are not known for being brave) was aimed at staying NEUTRAL just like we were in World War 1, and our government was prepared to do whatever it would take to stay neutral. The Dutch prime minister wouldn't even consider "inviting in" the Allies.

Timo
Member
Posts: 3869
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 22:09
Location: Europe

Re: Reply to Timo.

Post by Timo » 19 Jun 2002 18:34

deepthinker wrote:I am not sure what Holland's exact geographical position was/is. I have an old atlas that I need look at again. One thing I do remember however is that I read somewhere that it had to be invaded in order to help defeat France


LOL. Yet you adapt something you read 'somewhere" to your version of history because it fits your story, despite the fact that it makes no sense.

which is what my whole point is about anyway. Besides when your nation's security is at stake the important thing is that the enemy is taken care of no matter where you invade.


You lost contact with earth. Houston, we have a problem :)

According to you Germany isn't allowed to defend itself but the allies can invade and do whatever they want to any nation choose. :roll:


Hallo, Houston? Where did I suggest that? Learn to read....

deepthinker
Banned
Posts: 50
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 13:55
Location: Lincoln

Reply to Timo

Post by deepthinker » 19 Jun 2002 18:39

From what I remember Hitler said not invading Holland in World War 1 was a mistake and that was one of the reasons they lost. So Germany had to invade it in World War 2 as part of Hitler's new strategy to defeat France.

User avatar
Scott Smith
Member
Posts: 5602
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 21:17
Location: Arizona

NEUTRALITY...

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jun 2002 18:43

Timo wrote:Nonsense Scott,

The Dutch policy (we are not known for being brave) was aimed at staying NEUTRAL just like we were in World War 1, and our government was prepared to do whatever it would take to stay neutral. The Dutch prime minister wouldn't even consider "inviting in" the Allies.

I sympathize, as I am an advocate of neutrality myself, but if allowing troop movements is the only option it is better than declaring a war that you cannot win. At any rate, the British were capable of exercising a lot of coercion. The Netherlands had a lot of foreign investment and an overseas empire. No, they were in the British pocket, whether they liked it or not. And no one expected the Germans to move like lightning or project an aerial siege that allowed little time for face-saving defiance.
:)

Ovidius
Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 19:04
Location: Romania

Post by Ovidius » 19 Jun 2002 18:46

Timo wrote:Nonsense Scott,

The Dutch policy (we are not known for being brave) was aimed at staying NEUTRAL just like we were in World War 1, and our government was prepared to do whatever it would take to stay neutral. The Dutch prime minister wouldn't even consider "inviting in" the Allies.


Well, my dear Mr. Timo Worst from Amsterdam, I don't know who claimed to "know that Dutchmen weren't brave", but that man/woman certainly didn't know what he/she was talking. Because the about 50,000 Dutchmen who fought on the Axis side were pretty damn' brave fellows. :P

I have to confess that before I've found this forum, I did not have a very high opinion on Dutchmen in general. Now it's just the opposite, since I like and admire the Dutch people, for obvious reasons. :D

~Best regards,

Ovidius

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: NEUTRALITY...

Post by Roberto » 19 Jun 2002 18:55

Scott Smith wrote:At any rate, the British were capable of exercising a lot of coercion. The Netherlands had a lot of foreign investment and an overseas empire. No, they were in the British pocket, whether they liked it or not.


They were not subject to British influence, but they might have been subjected to it.

They did not allow British or French troops on their territory, but they might have done so.

So the Führer was fully justified to attack them.

Conclusion: Any country that might in one way or another be influenced by his enemies, the Führer was entitled to attack.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”