Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
The Fuhrer

Reply to Roberto.

Post by The Fuhrer » 19 Jun 2002 19:04

The problem with you people is that is you don't realize that this war was a life and death struggle for Germany. Who cares where you invade if it means stopping the enemy and achieving victory. It was victory that counted.

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

Re: Reply to Roberto.

Post by Roberto » 19 Jun 2002 19:37

The Fuhrer wrote:The problem with you people is that is you don't realize that this war was a life and death struggle for Germany.


Who - other than the enemies the Nazis created with their wars of aggression and atrocities - threatened the "life" of Germany? Could it be that the it was the Nazis who brought this life and death struggle upon Germany?

The Fuhrer wrote:Who cares where you invade if it means stopping the enemy and achieving victory. It was victory that counted.


Exactly. As the Führer told his generals on 22 August 1939, prior to the attack on Poland:

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.


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:

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.

The Fuhrer

Reply to Roberto.

Post by The Fuhrer » 19 Jun 2002 20:11

The idea that Germany started the second world war is allied propaganda. On September 1, 1939 Germany decided that the time had come once and for all to eliminate Poland. The Poles had been mistreating the Germans in Danzig, had been making serious border violations, were mobilizing at Germany's border and to top it all off wouldn't even send an ambassador to accept the most generous terms any nation could offer. In view of these acts it was clear that Poland had to be taught a thing or to about arrogance. They actually thought they go against me- the Fuhrer. The second world war started on the 3rd of September when Britain and France declared war on the reich. It was they who launched world war 2 and they are responsible for everything that happened after it.

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

Re: Reply to Roberto.

Post by Roberto » 19 Jun 2002 20:30

The Fuhrer wrote:The idea that Germany started the second world war is allied propaganda. On September 1, 1939 Germany decided that the time had come once and for all to eliminate Poland.


To which Germany was perfectly entitled, of course. Lousy Polish sub-human bastards.

The Fuhrer wrote:The Poles had been mistreating the Germans in Danzig, had been making serious border violations, were mobilizing at Germany's border


Source, please. Preferably something other than Nazi propaganda.

The Fuhrer wrote:and to top it all off wouldn't even send an ambassador to accept the most generous terms any nation could offer.


What exactly did those terms look like, when were they submitted and with what period of response? If after the signature of the Nazi-Soviet pact and/or with only a few hours to reply, they count for nothing.

The Fuhrer wrote:In view of these acts it was clear that Poland had to be taught a thing or to about arrogance.


Yeah, sure. And this is the lesson that the Führer had in mind:

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 nocht 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 ...


The Fuhrer wrote:The second world war started on the 3rd of September when Britain and France declared war on the reich.


I'd say it didn't start before Hitler attacked the Soviet Union. You might also date the commencement of world war to the date on which Germany declared war on the United States. But that's a matter of opinion.

Britain and France declared war in order to honor their commitment towards Poland. It was that or losing all diplomatic credibility, and it took them three days to screw up the courage for it. When they did, no action followed. Grossly outnumbering the German forces that faced them, British and French troops sat on their behinds while Poland was being taken apart.

The Fuhrer wrote:It was they who launched world war 2 and they are responsible for everything that happened after it.


Including the Nazi attack on the Soviet Union and the Nazi genocide of Jews and other undesirables, I suppose. An instructive statement that says a lot about the mindset of who writes such nonsense. The greatest weakness of the Führer's fans is that they can't help being themselves.

AndyW
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 24 Mar 2002 19:37
Location: Bavaria

Post by AndyW » 19 Jun 2002 21:58

The guy living two houses left of me doesn't like me since I stole his lawn-mover 5 years ago.

Last week I saw him having a box of matches.

Today I went by as he opened his garage and I saw two cans of gasoline standing there.

Seems I have every right to burn down his house and kill him because he's obviously a threat to me.

Seems also I'm allowed to burn down the neighbors' house between him and me because there's a threat that this neighbor might offer his house as a jumping base.


Unfortunately WW II history isn't like a "Stan and Ollie"-movie. But I enjoy reading the excuse song played for Hitler here.


Cheers,

AndyW
Member
Posts: 120
Joined: 24 Mar 2002 19:37
Location: Bavaria

Re: Reply to Roberto.

Post by AndyW » 19 Jun 2002 22:04

The Fuhrer wrote:The idea that Germany started the second world war is allied propaganda. On September 1, 1939 Germany decided that the time had come once and for all to eliminate Poland. The Poles had been mistreating the Germans in Danzig, had been making serious border violations, were mobilizing at Germany's border and to top it all off wouldn't even send an ambassador to accept the most generous terms any nation could offer. In view of these acts it was clear that Poland had to be taught a thing or to about arrogance. They actually thought they go against me- the Fuhrer. The second world war started on the 3rd of September when Britain and France declared war on the reich. It was they who launched world war 2 and they are responsible for everything that happened after it.


If this is your appliance letter for a job at Goebbels propaganda ministerium, I have bad news for you: You're 57 years too late. The Russians closed it.

But that's OK, I knew some people living in the past. ;)

User avatar
Birgitte Heuschkel
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 18 Mar 2002 08:07
Location: Fredericia, Denmark

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 19 Jun 2002 22:11

Now tell me why Denmark was invaded in '40? To my knowledge, Danish policy was to remain strictly neutral as we'd been in WWI.

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

Re: NEUTRALITY...

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jun 2002 22:42

Roberto wrote:
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.

Sorry to burst your bubble but superpowers can do anything they want, however they perceive their security interests. That is how the British played it, though they were more manipulative and subtle, masters of cant and propaganda, whereas the Germans believed in the direct approach, and Hitler particularly in seizing the opportunities of the day. And that is how the United States plays it now, though they seldom need to even rattle sabers because dollar-diplomacy speaks a deafeningly silent roar of "cash or crash." Influence and coercion is an understatement where the confluent interests of global financial markets are at stake; and now U.S. troops can be deployed without any declaration of war whatever on "peacekeeping missions," a neo-imperialist foreign policy.
:)

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

Post by Timo » 19 Jun 2002 22:43

But Birgitte,

Didn't you know that Denmark was the perfect base for a possible attack on the glorious Führer by those nasty Norwegians? He simply had to take Denmark to keep the advantage... ;)

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

NEUTRALITY...

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jun 2002 23:17

Birgitte Heuschkel wrote:Now tell me why Denmark was invaded in '40? To my knowledge, Danish policy was to remain strictly neutral as we'd been in WWI.

I submit that the monarchy was not neutral but firmly in the Windsor camp, but regardless, the British did not respect Danish neutrality in WWI because the Royal Navy blockade put all of the neutrals on a ration-system so that no surplus could be sold to German markets. They also stopped "contraband," i.e., of all war materiel, defining this rather liberally.

If the neutrals had been superpowers that could throw their weight around then this wouldn't have been tolerated. Period. Let's face it: little countries are pushed around by superpowers. They can try to seek collective security with binding agreements and neutral arbitration to settle disputes, and jockey for alliances to get a balance-of-power that is not hostile to their interests, but they must be cautious playing off the big cats against each other. And if the superpowers become involved in war they will stomp on anybody that gets in their way. The Vichy French fleet got in the way, for example, at Mers el Kebir in 1940, and it was destroyed by their former British ally. It was no less treacherous than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor because the U.S. Pacific fleet was "in the way."

In WWII, the British set about invading Norway, for obvious strategic reasons; this required a German preemptive strike, for obvious strategic reasons. And it therefore required control of Denmark, for obvious strategic reasons.

Furthermore, occupation assured Germany access to these markets. Denmark basically fed the Reich during the war because Germany was almost her exclusive market, which could not be maniplulated by the British in their own interests, despite them wielding enormous financial power, and especially since invaded countries got victim-status in Allied propaganda instead of the status of neutral (called collaborator) or (heaven forbid) bona fide Axis enemy.

Sorry, but that is what superpowers do. The USA invaded Iceland to get airbases for the patrol of the Atlantic and for weather stations. Poor little Iceland was threatening the United States (not). So American forces invaded--oops, I mean they "liberated," of course.
:)
Last edited by Scott Smith on 19 Jun 2002 23:44, edited 3 times in total.

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

DENMARK...

Post by Scott Smith » 19 Jun 2002 23:33

Timo wrote:But Birgitte,

Didn't you know that Denmark was the perfect base for a possible attack on the glorious Führer by those nasty Norwegians? He simply had to take Denmark to keep the advantage... ;)

I guess the strategic significance is not as obvious as I thought. With a stronger German Navy and Air Force it might have been possible to preempt the British invasion of Norway without taking Denmark, but in the event this bridge was needed. And with British-Norway outside the continental pale, had it been allowed by Hitler, it would have been child's play for the Allies to control Danish markets by keeping them at subsistence level as long as the Danes were inclined to trade with the Germans. And failing economic coercion, the Allied empires could have found more lucrative inducements for them to want Anglo-Saxon freedom. Economic warfare is no less significant than industrial capacity, troops and weapons, and London was the world financial power at that time, with the nascient USA firmly in tow.
:)

User avatar
Birgitte Heuschkel
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 18 Mar 2002 08:07
Location: Fredericia, Denmark

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 20 Jun 2002 00:07

Thank you for the explanation, Scott. The strategical and supply points make some sorts of sense. Just our bad luck the good ole Danish policy of minding our own navel and letting the rest of the world fall apart as it wants to didn't work that time.

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

NEUTRALITY...

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jun 2002 00:16

Birgitte Heuschkel wrote:Thank you for the explanation, Scott. The strategical and supply points make some sorts of sense. Just our bad luck the good ole Danish policy of minding our own navel and letting the rest of the world fall apart as it wants to didn't work that time.

I know it sucks. That is one reson why I am against superpowers like the United States throwing so much weight around willy-nilly, except in dire necessity. But it could have been worse. Poland did not try to play it neutral and look at what happened to them. :(

User avatar
Birgitte Heuschkel
Member
Posts: 660
Joined: 18 Mar 2002 08:07
Location: Fredericia, Denmark

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 20 Jun 2002 00:32

Well, for what it's worth, Poland and Germany had more traditional conflicts to settle than Denmark and Germany. It's true that we've fought our number of border wars over southern Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein, but to an extent, these have been wars of dominion, more than cultural conflicts. It's my impression that the issues between Poland and Prussia ran considerably deeper at the time as to which government you'd be paying taxes to.

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

PAWNS...

Post by Scott Smith » 20 Jun 2002 00:46

Birgitte Heuschkel wrote:Well, for what it's worth, Poland and Germany had more traditional conflicts to settle than Denmark and Germany. It's true that we've fought our number of border wars over southern Jutland and Schleswig-Holstein, but to an extent, these have been wars of dominion, more than cultural conflicts. It's my impression that the issues between Poland and Prussia ran considerably deeper at the time as to which government you'd be paying taxes to.

I agree. The Polish-German issue ran deep at least to WWI. Also, Denmark has not been a pawn held by other powers like Austria, Prussia, and Russia, or, following WWI, the Versailles Entente, as was Poland. That makes a big difference.
:)

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”