Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Marcus
Member
Posts: 33963
Joined: 08 Mar 2002 22:35
Location: Europe

Re: Why, thank you DeepThinker.

Post by Marcus » 10 Jul 2002 12:16

Izan wrote:One of the more educated and interesting posts made around here...of which, for the most part, are becoming fewer and farther between.


Considering that deepthinker has decided to leave this (as he put it) "Jew ridden forum", you should not expect any more words of "wisdom" from him...

/Marcus

User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 10 Jul 2002 13:48

Hi Scott

I'm not accusing you of the teleological fallacy it's one of my pet peeves.


It is one of mine as well. :)


Points a-d are not my view of events, but rather an attempt to provide a reasonable summing-up of the following document from Wirtschaftsstab Ost:

A destruction of the Russian manufacturing industry in the forest zone is an indispensable necessity also for the far-off peacetime future of Germany. […] From this there results that the German administration in these areas may well endeavor to milder the consequences of the famine that will doubtlessly occur. It can be undertaken to cultivate these areas more intensively in the sense of extending the land for cultivating potatoes and other high output fruits important for consume. It will not be possible, however, to stop the famine thereby. Many tens of millions of people will become superfluous in this area and will die or have to emigrate to Siberia.


You will note that it is well in line with the general views outlined in the Posen speech, also that it contradicts your interpreation of these points. This is not a theory by any historian, it is an original document and as such an expression of policy.

I didn't say that I would throw out the Table Talks. But, nevertheless, I don't consider what Hitler's critics, his opportunists, and postwar sensationalists wrote about Hitler's ruminations between the cabbage and the alfalfa course to be a primary source of his views.


Of course they aren't. And you don't have to. It is open to anyone to read them, digest them and draw their own appropriate and reasonable conclusions, taken together with what later research have uncovered by way of relevant wartime documentation. But then it doesn't do to put them into question - as anybody can with anything - when they contradict your own interpretations. While history has inherent aspects of subjectivity and bias, this simply imposes on those who practice it an obligation to draw conclusions reflecting, as far as possible, reasonable interpretations of source material rather than the bias we all carry. That, as I see it, is the issue, not how many monkeys agree with you. :)

I don't think they are logically exclusive.


Logically, if you are a Pan-German first and a Pan-European second, then this means that any time the requirements of the two clash, you will be a Pan-German. This in turn reduces "Pan-Europeanism" to whatever requirements of Pan-Europeanism that does not conflict with the requirements of "Pan-Germanism".

I wouldn't call it an empire unless it directly meant the RULE of non-German peoples (taxation/tribute and the whole works). With World War, yes, Hitler's national objectives were swamped by the immediate demands of empire--and without that cordon sanitaire, she had no hope of surviving a war-of-attrition.


A superpower exercises de facto hegemony just by the gravity-well of its economic and cultural power. All "satellite" states are not RULED by Berlin but are certainly influenced by her, and the foreign intelligentsia educated in German universities. And we haven't even discussed German military power yet.


That is one way for a superpower to exercise hegemony, at least if you add "military" to cultural and economic. That does not mean that this was the way Hitler specifically wanted to exercise hegemony. About that there is little need to speculate, because we have ample material testifying to his own views on this issue.

In any case, how could Germany specifically at that specific time become so strong as to exercise ANY kind of hegemonical influence, be it through annexation, occupation, taxation or just influence? Germany certainly couldn't on the basis of her own territory, either in 1938 or 1914 - economically she was not that strong, culturally she was not dominant and militarily she could always be challenged by Britain/France and/or Russia/The Soviet Union. How then become a superpower? The answer was, not illogically, more territory, bigger population, control of more natural resources and military defeat of Britain, France, the Soviet Union and anybody else required.

And please, understand this: No-one has ever had hegemony in Europe. No-one. Ever. Not even the Romans. Napoleon made a pitch for it, and he ended up on St.Helena. Then there's Hitler, and that's about it. German hegemony would not have been a reflection of the inherent potentials of European states, it would have been the end result of a process of German expansion and aggression aimed at all powers strong enough to challenge her, as well as policies of de- and repopulation unparallelled in modern European history, if not in global history. In short - there was no reason why Germany should have a hegemonical position in Europe. Nor any why she should require it for her security, any more than France in 1800 or Spain in 1550. And the only way she could get it, like the others mentioned, was to attack and defeat all major opponents and re-arrange the map of Europe substantially. And that, my friend, cannot reasonably be called "national objectives" except in a propagandistic sense.

The German cousin is the mortal enemy in the Anglo-Saxon mentality after 1871 (but by 1910 at the latest).


This is a bit of a side-issue in itself, but I disagree somewhat with that. Britain has traditionally been favourably disposed to Prussia/Germany, their enmity, which certainly did not start in 1871, appears as basically conditioned by circumstances at the time and more than a little by German policies, as previously discussed elsewhere. In fact, I'd say that that if there is a mortal enemy of the Anglo-Saxon mentality, it is the French. Even between the wars, the FO was worrying more about possible French pre-eminence in Europe than about a possible resurgence of Germany. I submit that between 1871 and 1939, there was only one power so unfavourably disposed towards Germany as to rule out close co-operation, and that was France. For the others, it was within the realm of the possible for Germany to achieve friendly relations, depending of course on the political course she chose to pursue.

That is one of the reasons why Hitler was so reluctant to resort to it--even if he could have adequately armed non-Germans for a pan-European crusade against Bolshevism, which he couldn't--he would have to negotiate with them as equals and he hoped in the short-term to exploit non-German territories. Hitler was more than willing to negotiate with foreign allies as equals, if they were worthy of his respect.


Well, it's rather hard to negotiate with countries as allies after you have occupied them, and with governments who would not last ten seconds if that occupation came to an end, in which case Degrelle for one would have dangled from the nearest lamp post. And if they had not been occupied in the first place, they wouldn't have had the least interest in a Pan-European crusade. That's what comes from being generally recognised as having hegemonic ambitions. As well as the price you pay for relying on force to achieve your political objectives.

This does not however mean that he wanted to "ethnically cleanse" them so that Germany could take the land or enslave them in a sort of postwar Teutonic-Slav feudal system. I think that is hyperbole. What is even worse, is the notion that Hitler planned this from his Genocidal Beer Hall days.


This is not a matter of what you or I "think". It is a question of German policies committed to paper, preserved and as far as possible implemented, as set out in the above quoted documental passage. Hitler's thoughts on the subject is easily available in MK, among other places.

And this is only a problem when Germany does it--not France or Albion? I don't think so. The Allies were quite willing to turn Europe over to the Communist Russians as long as Germany was neutered. They sought a repeat of 1648 and didn't care about the consequences. The USA just wanted to inherit the Japanese and British empires to expand financial markets and held strange romantic notions about the Soviets for far too long.


Very, very simplistic Scott. The British have never attempted hegemony in Europe. France pursued such a policy from Richelieu to Napoleon, and it was indeed very much a problem - so much so that it created an anti-French alliance who brought Napoleon down. Britain, incidentally, was part of it, as you know. If the Western Allies were willing to turn Europe over to the Russians, then why was NATO formed? Roosevelt's curious naivete regarding Stalin was real enough, but even so, your description of US motivations fall well short of the insightful.

That's all I have time for at the moment -

cheers

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

SIMPLICISMUS Scott...

Post by Scott Smith » 10 Jul 2002 14:51

Qvist wrote:
Scott wrote:And this is only a problem when Germany does it--not France or Albion? I don't think so. The Allies were quite willing to turn Europe over to the Communist Russians as long as Germany was neutered. They sought a repeat of 1648 and didn't care about the consequences. The USA just wanted to inherit the Japanese and British empires to expand financial markets and held strange romantic notions about the Soviets for far too long.

Very, very simplistic Scott. The British have never attempted hegemony in Europe. France pursued such a policy from Richelieu to Napoleon, and it was indeed very much a problem - so much so that it created an anti-French alliance who brought Napoleon down. Britain, incidentally, was part of it, as you know.

I don't think it is necessary to have hegemony to promote balkanization or containment policies from "collective security." A simple balance-of-power may do, with all diplomacy geared to encouraging petty rivalries. If you are a rich country you can afford it. I agree that France was a more natural enemy of Britain prior to 1871. I also agree that the Kaiser badly handled his foreign policy in making an enemy out of the English crown.

If the Western Allies were willing to turn Europe over to the Russians, then why was NATO formed? Roosevelt's curious naivete regarding Stalin was real enough, but even so, your description of US motivations fall well short of the insightful.

Why non-insightful? Because once Germany was defeated, the USSR wanted more "reparations" (i.e., booty and hegemony) and the West was never pro-Communist anyway. This is the beginning of the Cold War, and Rightwing American hardliners like Byrnes and Forrestal recognized that with Germany out of the picture, containment of totalitarian-Russia was now necessary, so there was an end to the implementation of the Morgenthau Plan and the adoption of the Marshall Plan instead.

By 1948, the Cold War was in full-swing, but even with the explosion of the Soviet atomic bomb the next year, it never aroused the degree of hysteria that Hitler's Germany had. Partly this was a result of how comparatively easy it had been for the British to contain Tsarist expansionism in the 19th century by restricting her access to warm-water ports. Still, the Korean War was considered a diversion to a possible European war. But I can't imagine a milquetoast airlift having been used against Hitler. :roll:

However, I will say that Stalin's foreign policy was more shrewd, even more imperial. Hitler believed in seizing fleeting-chances to advance German interests. Stalin believed in Socialism-In-One-Country and cautious imperial expansion. His empire seldom pressed for areas that could not be Slavicized in some sense, nor was Communism monolithic. Furthermore, from a Western point-of-view, Russian totalitarianism/authoritarianism seemed consistent--a good thing in diplomacy--while Hitler's seemed erratic. Both sides did not understand the other! Hitler viewed American messianists as wannabe imperialists with no experience whatever under their belts, and therefore elitist amateurs.

Perhaps too much was expected from diplomats because, to the Anglo-Saxon/American elite, Germany seemed the heart of the occident, whereas the Russians had traditionally been viewed as oriental or foreign, and therefore there was less assumption on motives and, by that time, less genuine fear of revolutionary politics.

American intellectuals still had a fascination with the Communist experiment for a very long time after the Hitler Evil had been finally eradicated. If anything, Senator McCarthy (McCarthyism 1948-1954) *understated* his claims about Communist infiltration of the government and State Department, but he couldn't prove them at the time. So he smeared all liberals as Communists, with his real goal being to move American foreign policy to the Right anyway, toward a pax americana instead of toward a United Nations or U.S. global constabulary.

I have to run too. Nice talking with you.
:)

George F. Kennan, theorist of Soviet Containment (1946)...
Stalin is no Hitler!

Image

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

Post by Roberto » 10 Jul 2002 16:06

Scott Smith wrote:Now, you mentioned Roberto. My problem with his dogmatic Is-Too/Is-Not approach


I strongly doubt that Smith can explain what’s so “dogmatic” about an approach that, contrary to his, is based on evidence and elementary common sense.

Scott Smith wrote: is that he basically takes the views of his favorite Genocide historians and argues their case BLINDLY and without any analysis of his own.


If, as Smith would have it, I “blindly” argue someone else’s “case”, how come Smith is usually left without counter-arguments, his woeful inability to answer my many questions regarding the evidence to the events he denies being utterly exposed?

Could it be that the quoted contention is just some more of Smith’s dishonest bullshit?

Scott Smith wrote: If he can think outside of the box he hasn't shown it to me.


I actually have a lot of trouble thinking inside any box, despite the persistent effort of proficient preachers like Smith to teach me. His above statement reflects the impression that I have gained of him throughout our discussions, and not I alone:

Brain & David

I felt as you did when I first started posting here a couple of months ago, that is, I thought Roberto did get a bit personal with Scott.

I thought that what Roberto said was so well referenced and researched that it could speak for itself without any personal animosity towards Scott.

However, I must admit that now I do share Roberto's feelings towards Scott. Why? Fundamentally because Scott is intellectually dishonest.

Once you have been here for a while you will notice a pattern to Scott's posts - a topic will be raised, he will vent his usual apologist/revisionist arguments, that will prompt a response from some of the more knowledgable posters correcting his errors, Scott will either acknowledge that his arguments are wrong or contradicted by the evidence (or will just ignore the posts) and the topic will eventually die off.

A few weeks later a similar topic will come up and we are back at square one with Scott, he will raise the same points again and its as if the earlier discussion with him never occurred. He seems to have no capacity to learn or to develop his arguments.

On one view it might be thought that Scott is not particularly bright, that he simply is unable to comprehend why his arguments and "facts" are wrong.

But, if you ever encounter a topic here that does not involve Jews, the Holocaust or Nazi atrocities then you will see that Scott can actually write well reasoned and researched posts and is capable of intelligent debate.

Its just that once a topic comes up that involves his personal biases it seems he is unable to resist the temptation to run the same points again and again, no matter how bad they are, he so desperately wants to believe certain things that he just turns his brain off.

This is starting to ramble, I just think that once you have been here for a while you may understand why Scott is such a source of frustration for quite a few of us.


Source of quote:
Stephen’s post # 47 (5/30/01 3:56:00 am) on the thread

American TV Dramatization of Wannsee Conference
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 21&stop=40


But OF COURSE you will find confusing, contradictory, self serving, biased, muddled and purely erroneous testimony in that Trial. It lasted 10 months. Feelings were high. I once knew but have forgotten how many witnesses testified and how many documents were offered into evidence, but there were a lot. There was BOUND to be some chaff with the wheat. Any lawyer who has engaged in trial work will testify to that. You simply blink at reality to expect perfection in the workings of any system of justice – we are humans after all, laboring to do the best our frail natures are capable of in the real world, not gods on Olympus. And just because testimony is entered or a document is presented in evidence is no guarantee of its veracity or authenticity. Nor does it indicate that the trier of fact gave it any weight whatsoever. So I think you are quite right in concluding that history can not accept as gospel every piece of evidence offered just because it was offered at the Nuremberg Trial. But on the other hand to try to vitiate the legitimacy of the entire trial process by picking at a few isolated examples of phony-baloney testimony suggests to me either a sophomoric idealism or some ulterior motive. And frankly Scott, I am troubled and disappointed by the fact that most of your posts on this thread follow in lockstep with the stuff on Zundlesite, which IMHO is clearly neo-Nazi, and IHR, which is not much better. I think you have a better and more inquiring mind than that.


Source of quote:

Walter Kaschner’s post # 243 (9/22/01 1:20:20 am) on the thread

Any information on the Nurenberg trials?
http://pub3.ezboard.com/fskalmanforumfr ... 61&stop=80

Scott Smith wrote: I don't like History by Holo-site


What’s wrong with the “Holo-sites” I usually refer to, Smith? Except that they point to inconvenient evidence that you’d rather not look at, of course?

Scott Smith wrote: or by search-engine.


Why, it’s not as if I didn’t copiously refer to printed sources as well, is it, Reverend?

Scott Smith wrote:I prefer to read what I will


Such as the “Journal of Historical Review” and the writings of Butz, Rudolf, Berg and other enlightened propagandists, right?

Scott Smith wrote:and form my own opinions,


The joke of the day, considering how slavishly Smith parrots whatever his gurus produce :lol:

Scott Smith wrote:and I don't think they are more wrong because I don't bother to cite Ph.D.s.


No, you cite lying propagandist frauds like Butz, Rudolf, Berg, …

Scott Smith wrote:with their own axes to grind.


I strongly doubt that Smith can show us any of those supposed “axes”. The political agenda of the propagandists he looks up to, on the other hand, is obvious to anyone not wearing an ideological blindfold. It clearly becomes apparent from statements of theirs such as:

Keep the Faith fellow revisionists. The Nazis and the SS were the good guys--but the anti-Nazis and the anti-revisionists dare not admit it for fear of losing their fabulous, ill gotten gains from the war.


“Hoaxbuster” Friedrich Paul Berg on the Codoh discussion forum.
http://www.codoh.org/dcforum/DCForumID9/143.html#10

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

THAT'S MY ROBERTO!

Post by Scott Smith » 10 Jul 2002 16:51

Funny, I don't recall ever citing Butz or Rudolf. Perhaps I have and just don't remember. You must think my reading format is limited. :lol:

I see you are back to the Stephen quote. Where is that young man hiding anyway?

This one is better:

Xenon wrote:I'm spectating this childish theatre for quite a long time now. Its has continued for more then one year now. Two or three adults, having a permanent querrel, each one unable to go one or two steps further in his opponents direction. Not a single day misses, that does not see 20 more of this boring posts, showing the always same links and arguments. One gets sick, that is forum is permanently be penetrated by such dumb and inflexible minds.

Dumb and inflexible. Yes, indeed! Since I readily admit to error, I don't think I'm the inflexible one. :wink:

For a good, childlike laugh check out the response!

Roberto wrote:
Xenon wrote:@Roberto : Let me ask you the other way around - what is your purpose for this endless discussion with people, who don't share your thoughts ? Do you hope to convince them, or do you see yourself as a kind of guardian for the truth ? Tell me, i'm interested...

The main purpose is to provide information to those interested in history, as a counterpoint to the lies that propagandists try to spread.

The secondary purpose is to kick these propagandists' butts. I like doing that because I deeply dislike them.

Got the picture?

Ach, so! The Guardian of TRUTH... 8O

Image

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

Re: THAT'S MY ROBERTO!

Post by Roberto » 10 Jul 2002 17:47

Scott Smith wrote:This one is better:

Xenon wrote:I'm spectating this childish theatre for quite a long time now. Its has continued for more then one year now. Two or three adults, having a permanent querrel, each one unable to go one or two steps further in his opponents direction. Not a single day misses, that does not see 20 more of this boring posts, showing the always same links and arguments. One gets sick, that is forum is permanently be penetrated by such dumb and inflexible minds.


Scott Smith wrote:Dumb and inflexible. Yes, indeed! Since I readily admit to error, I don't think I'm the inflexible one.


No, you're the dumb one.

Unless of course, as Stephen so accurately put it:

Stephen wrote:Its just that once a topic comes up that involves his personal biases it seems he is unable to resist the temptation to run the same points again and again, no matter how bad they are, he so desperately wants to believe certain things that he just turns his brain off.


Scott Smith wrote:For a good, childlike laugh check out the response

Roberto wrote:
Xenon wrote:@Roberto : Let me ask you the other way around - what is your purpose for this endless discussion with people, who don't share your thoughts ? Do you hope to convince them, or do you see yourself as a kind of guardian for the truth ? Tell me, i'm interested...


The main purpose is to provide information to those interested in history, as a counterpoint to the lies that propagandists try to spread.

The secondary purpose is to kick these propagandists' butts. I like doing that because I deeply dislike them.

Got the picture?


I'd say that Smith's butt his hurting real bad. Yet he always comes back for more. Could it be that he likes it? :aliengray

Scott Smith wrote:Ach, so! The Guardian of TRUTH...


Such pretensious titles suit omniscient preachers like Reverend Smith (who know what happened and what did not without even looking at the evidence), not me.

I'm just a nasty little bugger who keeps using their beakers of "Truth" for target practice.

Image

walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 11 Jul 2002 01:00

Well, after returning from a most pleasant vacation its good to see that controversy has not abated on this forum, and I feel compelled to add a small share.

Michael Mills wrote:

In order to complete the break-up of Czecho-Slovakia, Hitler encouraged the government of Slovakia to declare full independence. When it did so, remaining pro-Benes elements in the rump Czech military began preparations to invade Slovakia and force it back under Czech control. That was the trigger for German military occupation of Czechia in early March 1939.



and also:

I think the basic thrust of my post still stands. I consider it likely that Hitler was generally satisfied with the reconstitution of Czecho-Slovakia after Munich. The hostile Benes regime, which had allied itself with the Soviet Union and made Czechoslovakia a potential base for Soviet forces against Germany, had gone, and been replaced by a subservient regime in Czechia, which carried out German policies, and a friendly ally in Slovakia. It is quite possible that Hitler would have been content to leave the situation as it was, without actually occupying Czechia; the new puppet government would have made its industrial resources available for the German war-effort (as in fact happened).

However, Hitler miscalculated in encouraging Slovakia to go for full independence. That fanned the last smouldering embers of Czech chauvinism, making it necessary for Germany to occupy Czechia militarily in order to quench those embers. Hitler thereby upset a finely balanced mechanism, leading to the British guarantee to Poland, the "blank cheque" which the Polish colonels used to bring on the war they desired in order to conquer Germany's eastern territories ( initially a bad mistake, but a move that eventually succeeded with the help of the Red Army).


IMHO the first quotation does not correctly portray the sequence of events which led up to Hitler's occupation of Czechia. As I understand it, President Hacha of Czecho-Slovakia was informed on the evening of March 9, 1939, that Joseph Tiso, the Premier of Slovakia, was planning a coup d'état for the following day the result of which would be the declaration by the Slovakian Cabinet of independence from Czecho-Slovakia. (This information was apparently false and communicated by an agent provocateur.) Hacha ordered the Slovakian Cabinet dissolved, Tiso arrested and appointed Karol Sidor Slovakian Premier.

According to Göring (who was vacationing in Italy at the time) he was advised in early March by a letter from Hitler that he had decided to occupy Czechia because the Czechs were not acting thoroughly enough against the Jews and Communists; moreover, Slovakia insisted on keeping itself tied to the Czech apron strings. Moreover, Keitel reported in his memoirs that at the beginning of March 1939 he and von Brauchitsch met with Hitler and were told that he had decided to intervene militarily in Czecho-Slovakia, but without naming a date. By telegram Hitler ordered Göring home on March 10.

On March 11 Sir Alexander Cadogan, Permanent UnderSecretary at the British Foreign Office, received a telegram from a German source stating that the German Army would invade Bohemia and Moravia at 6:00 AM on March 15. On March 12, formal orders were issued to the German Army to stand by for an invasion of Czecho-Slovakia at that time and date.

On the evening of March 11 Sidor, the New Slovakian Premier, was holding a meeting with his Cabinet in Bratislava when Seyss-Inquart, Nazi Governor of Austria, accompanied by Austrian Gauleiter Bürckel and 5 German Generals broke into the meeting (Bratislava is directly across the river from Vienna) to announce that Slovakia should declare its independence promptly, as Hitler had already decided the fate of the Czechs and the German army lay just across the river. Sidor stated that he felt obliged to consult with Prague before taking any such action.

On the morning of March 12 the Cabinet met again with Tiso present, who had been released from prison. Tiso announced that he had been summoned to meet with Hitler, which, despite Sidor's objections, he was determined to do, and in fact the meeting was held on the evening of March 13. In effect, Hitler told Tiso that if Slovakia failed to immediately declare its independence, it would be invaded by Hungary, whose troups were already massing on its borders.

On the morning of March 14 the Slovak Diet declared its independence of Prague and Hitler announced that he would "protect" it. On hearing the news, President Hacha ordered the Czech troops to take no action and requested a meeting with Hitler, which was held late that night. After the usual threats and browbeating, Hacha agreed to instruct the Czech Army to offer no resistance, and the German invasion went forward at 6:00Am on the 15th as planned.

The above sequence of events is based on Leonard Moseley, "On Borrowed Time", Random House 1969 at 143-168, and Ian Kershaw, "Hitler 1936-1945 Nemesis", W.W. Norton & Co. 2000, at 168-171. If it is essentially correct, as I (although admittedly no expert) have no reason to believe it is not, then it seems to me that Mr. Mill's notion that Slovakia's declaration of independence "fanned the last smouldering embers of Czech chauvinism, making it necessary for Germany to occupy Czechia militarily in order to quench those embers" just won't hold water. Hitler's decision to invade Czechia was made BEFORE he was able to bully Slovakia into declaring independence, and I know of no evidence that pro-Benes elements in the Czech military were beginning preparations "to invade Slovakia and force it back under Czech control." But as I say, I do not profess any expertise in this area and would accordingly be pleased to be informed of any such evidence should Mr. Mills have such.

I would suggest that Hitler's motives were probably quite different, and numbered among them the desire to obtain absolute control of Czechia's substantial remaining industrial and mineral resources and of Slovakia's agricultural potential, as well as the stategic advantage of intensifying the threat to Poland's southern border which should lead to increased pressure for Poland to accede to the demands which Hitler had made earlier in the year with no success. I think Hitler's views as reflected in the Hossbach memorandum add weight (albeit not conclusive) to this view:

Even though the populations concerned, especially of Czechoslovakia, were not sparse, the annexation of Czechoslovakia and Austria would mean an acquisition of foodstuffs for 5 to 6 million people, on the assumption that the compulsory emigration of 2 million people from Czechoslovakia and 1 million people from Austria was practicable. The incorporation of these two States with Germany meant, from the politico-military point of view, a substantial advantage because it would mean shorter and better frontiers, the freeing of forces for other purposes, and the possibility of creating new units up to a level of about 12 divisions, that is, 1 new division per million inhabitants.


Regards, Kaschner

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”