Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Re: NEUTRALITY...

Post by Roberto » 20 Jun 2002 11:28

Scott Smith wrote:
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.


Scott Smith wrote:Sorry to burst your bubble


Wishful thinking taking over again?

Scott Smith wrote:but superpowers can do anything they want, however they perceive their security interests.


One thing is what they do, another what they are entitled to do. Smith keeps mixing up the two.

Scott Smith wrote: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.


Subtle manipulations, apart from being hard to prove, don't consitute aggression and breach of international law. Adolf's "direct approach" did.

User avatar
Siegfried Wilhelm
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 15:19
Location: Kleinkleckersdorf, NC, Confederate States of America

Post by Siegfried Wilhelm » 20 Jun 2002 15:48

I just came in on this discussion and I'm afraid I have to come in on the side of Scott Smith and Deepthinker. I don't think either of them are praising Hitler and his actions, but merely attempting to expalin how the German leaders were thinking. Right or wrong that is how they saw it...I would tend to agree with the assessment. If one takes a look at a 19th century map of Europe one can see tha German people (I use that term because Germany was not united at the time) 'controlled' ie. lived in, many areas that over the years, mostly as a result of WWI (I never have understood THAT one!), Germany had lost. The victors of the first war did indeed attempt to set things up so Germany would cease to be a major player in world power. Germany was indeed hurting and was in what could be considered by them a life threatening situation and they yearned to regain what they felt had been unjustly taken from them--this was not just Hitler and his Nazis speaking, but the German man on the street felt Germany had gotten a raw deal.
The first goal was to regain what she had lost and reunite the German people again. The only thing I don't understand or condone is the taking of Czech territory, beyond the Sudetenland. Deepthinker makes a good point about the post WWI setup though. Anyway, the Danzig corridor became the final straw, and the war started.....

tonyh
Member
Posts: 2911
Joined: 19 Mar 2002 12:59
Location: Dublin, Ireland

re

Post by tonyh » 20 Jun 2002 16:17

The problem is, is that some people are not able to think outside the nonsense that Hitler "wanted to take over the world". To view the German occupations of other European nations in the war in an objective manner requires this ability to think in an alternative way.

Tony

User avatar
Siegfried Wilhelm
Member
Posts: 744
Joined: 17 Jun 2002 15:19
Location: Kleinkleckersdorf, NC, Confederate States of America

Post by Siegfried Wilhelm » 20 Jun 2002 16:24

Tonyh I agree. I think that's what Scott and Deepthinker were saying. They were trying to see it as Germany saw it. Germany had wants, but in order to achieve them she got deeper and deeper into events beyond her control and couldn't get what she wanted without 'driving on' and going for broke as it were.

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

Post by Roberto » 20 Jun 2002 17:46

Siegfried Wilhelm wrote:The first goal was to regain what she had lost and reunite the German people again. The only thing I don't understand or condone is the taking of Czech territory, beyond the Sudetenland. Deepthinker makes a good point about the post WWI setup though. Anyway, the Danzig corridor became the final straw, and the war started.....


I’d say the war was the result of Hitler’s taking Polish territory beyond the Danzig corridor. :aliengray

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 ...

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

THINKING OUTSIDE OF THE BOX...

Post by Scott Smith » 21 Jun 2002 01:09

Roberto wrote:
Scott wrote:but superpowers can do anything they want, however they perceive their security interests.

One thing is what they do, another what they are entitled to do. Smith keeps mixing up the two.

No, because there is no higher sovereignty than a sovereignty. The only "entitlement" is force or implied force.

Therefore, a superpower is entitled to do whatever a superpower wants.

Now, superpowers do live in a multilateral community of other superpowers, although today it is almost unilateral, since the United States is really the only superpower. But even incomparable superpowers must contend with the impertinence of smaller sovereignties or coalitions, depending on how much weight can be thrown around in the diplomatic/military arena, and how important certain issues are to them.

Basically, Hitler was ENTITLED to annex the moon if he wanted to, as he was the Führer of a sovereign superpower called the Third Reich. However, other sovereignties are fully entitled to protest or declare war if they disagree with those measures.

I agree with Siegfried Wilhelm that occupying the rump Czech State after Hitler had been given the ethnic-German Sudentland was a bad move diplomatically!

Prior to that time his diplomacy was based on values trumpeted by Allied propaganda itself, namely the Self-determination of Peoples, and therefore Hitler was only asserting Germany's legitimate rights, as defined by Versailles but denied by Versailles.

Hitler did not want a non-German empire, yet he found himself increasingly controlling non-Germans in order to gain resources to prevent his empire from getting swamped by hostile coalitions and empires determined to prevent a strong and united Germany.

Unredeemable diplomatic mistakes were made in 1939 leading to an almost inevitable world war. And the Germans were unable to rectify these with military force. But in the long view-- make no mistake about it,--WWII was merely the conclusion of a conflict that began in 1871 with the reunification of most of Germany.

The United States holds the premier superpower torch today, but perhaps a United Europe (or elsewhere) will hold it tomorrow.
:)

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

Post by Roberto » 21 Jun 2002 12:23

Scott Smith wrote:The only "entitlement" is force or implied force.

Therefore, a superpower is entitled to do whatever a superpower wants.


Smith’s (and his beloved Führer’s) creed in a nutshell. This is how Adolf put it when addressing his generals on 22 August 1939:

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.


Scott Smith wrote:Hitler did not want a non-German empire, yet he found himself increasingly controlling non-Germans in order to gain resources to prevent his empire from getting swamped by hostile coalitions and empires determined to prevent a strong and united Germany.


No non-German empire? Does that mean he wanted to wipe out all non-Germans in the great empire in the East that he dreamed of? :aliengray

We National Socialists have to go still further. The right to territory may become a duty when a great nation seems destined to go under unless its territory be extended. And that is particularly true when the nation in question is not some little group of negro people but the Germanic mother of all the life which has given cultural shape to the modern world. Germany will either become a World Power or will not continue to exist at all. But in order to become a World Power it needs that territorial magnitude which gives it the necessary importance to-day and assures the existence of its citizens.
Therefore we National Socialists have purposely drawn a line through the line of conduct followed by pre-War Germany in foreign policy. We put an end to the perpetual Germanic march towards the South and West of Europe and turn our eyes towards the lands of the East. We finally put a stop to the colonial and trade policy of pre-War times and pass over to the territorial policy of the future.
But when we speak of new territory in Europe to-day we must principally think of Russia and the border States subject to her.
Destiny itself seems to wish to point out the way for us here. In delivering Russia over to Bolshevism, Fate robbed the Russian people of that intellectual class which had once created the Russian State and were the guarantee of its existence. For the Russian State was not organized by the constructive political talent of the Slav element in Russia, but was much more a marvellous exemplification of the capacity for State-building possessed by the Germanic element in a race of inferior worth. Thus were many powerful Empires created all over the earth. More often than once inferior races with Germanic organizers and rulers as their leaders became formidable States and continued to exist as long as the racial nucleus remained which had originally created each respective State. For centuries Russia owed the source of its livelihood as a State to the Germanic nucleus of its governing class. But this nucleus is now almost wholly broken up and abolished. The Jew has taken its place. Just as it is impossible for the Russian to shake off the Jewish yoke by exerting his own powers, so, too, it is impossible for the Jew to keep this formidable State in existence for any long period of time. He himself is by no means an organizing element, but rather a ferment of decomposition. This colossal Empire in the East is ripe for dissolution. And the end of the Jewish domination in Russia will also be the end of Russia as a State. We are chosen by Destiny to be the witnesses of a catastrophe which will afford the strongest confirmation of the nationalist theory of race.
But it is our task, and it is the mission of the National Socialist Movement, to develop in our people that political mentality which will enable them to realize that the aim which they must set to themselves for the fulfilment of their future must not be some wildly enthusiastic adventure in the footsteps of Alexander the Great but industrious labour with the German plough, for which the German sword will provide the soil.


Mein Kampf, Volume II, Chapter XIV – GERMANY’S POLICY IN EASTERN EUROPE

Source of quote:

http://www.stormfront.org/books/mein_ka ... 2ch14.html

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

ERADICATE the INFIDELS...

Post by Scott Smith » 21 Jun 2002 12:57

Roberto wrote:No non-German empire? Does that mean he wanted to wipe out all non-Germans in the great empire in the East that he dreamed of?

No, I think that's hogwash. Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :mrgreen:

On the other hand, the American Century is dedicated to stamping out EVIL. Every last one of you cotton-pickers.
:wink:

Image

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

Re: ERADICATE the INFIDELS...

Post by Ovidius » 21 Jun 2002 16:01

Scott Smith wrote:On the other hand, the American Century is dedicated to stamping out EVIL. Every last one of you cotton-pickers.


Cotton-pickers of which yourself are one. :mrgreen:

~Ovidius

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

Re: ERADICATE the INFIDELS...

Post by Roberto » 21 Jun 2002 17:50

Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:No non-German empire? Does that mean he wanted to wipe out all non-Germans in the great empire in the East that he dreamed of?


Scott Smith wrote:No, I think that's hogwash. Of course that's just my opinion. I could be wrong. :mrgreen:


The acknowledgement that Adolf wanted a great empire in the East is appreciated. The question whether he wanted to wipe out every non-German being inside it was rhetorical. While the Generalplan Ost and other documents related to Operation Barbarossa betray the intention to get rid of a considerable part of the local population by letting it starve of displacing it behind the Urals, the Garden Eden of the Master Race would always have been in need of sub-human slaves to tend it.

Scott Smith wrote:On the other hand, the American Century is dedicated to stamping out EVIL. Every last one of you cotton-pickers.


Is that so? What ethnic or social group have they undertaken to wipe out down to every last one?

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

Post by walterkaschner » 21 Jun 2002 18:56

In reading certain posts on this thread, I am reminded of the response of Georges Clemenceau, the French Président du Conseil, when he was asked by a German observer toward the end of the Versailles Conference "How do you think History will judge this Treaty?"

"I think, Monsieur," replied Clemenceau, "that History will not judge that Belgium invaded Germany."

To point out the obvious, I do not think that History will judge that either Czechoslovakia, or Poland, or Luxembourg, or the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Denmark, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece (have I left any out?) invaded Germany.

The excuses proffered on this thread for Hitler's aggressions are just too specious to merit debate. To quote an old saying, "No matter how you slice it, it's still baloney."

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

Post by Ovidius » 21 Jun 2002 21:35

walterkaschner wrote:To point out the obvious, I do not think that History will judge that either Czechoslovakia, or Poland, or Luxembourg, or the Netherlands, or Belgium, or Denmark, or Norway, or Yugoslavia, or Greece (have I left any out?) invaded Germany.


Yes, you did. Soviet Union :aliengray

~Regards,

Ovidius

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

Reply to Ovidious

Post by walterkaschner » 21 Jun 2002 21:49

Ovidious, I left out the Soviet Union and Great Britain ( i.e. the Channel Islands) because they ultimately did invade Germany and, as to Great Britain, it declared war on Germany rather than vice versa. I left out France for the same reason, and also because if I recall correctly she did make a couple of small forays across the Rhine during the Drole de Guerre, although I may be confused about that. And then of course there are Italy and Roumania, which don't seem to quite fit with the others. Anyway, the list seems long enough to make my point.

Regards, Kaschner

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

Re: Reply to Ovidious

Post by Ovidius » 21 Jun 2002 22:25

walterkaschner wrote:And then of course there are Italy and Roumania, which don't seem to quite fit with the others. Anyway, the list seems long enough to make my point.


Italy and Romania were official allies of the Third Reich, with all rights and duties that stem from this status.

While the Italians, before the war, had tried, like we say in Romanian(sorry for the rough phrase :oops: ) "to be with the arse in two boats"(= "to be with both sides"), and only when Germany appeared stronger Don Benito Mussolini "had thrown his arse in the German boat"(again, sorry for the rough terms :oops: ), Hitler had proposed an alliance to Romania ever since 1933, and every time our old-school diplomats with their chests full of decorations like Zhukov's had spit in his raised hand.

All these until 1940, when good 'old Adolf had decided that he should show us the iron fist covered in the velvet glove, and decided in favor of the Magyars over Transylvania(and even there he compelled them to reduce their claims from 60,000 sq km to 43,000 sq km). After that, when Soviet Russia had already taken North Bukovina + Bessarabia, and Hitler publicly announced that the Third Reich guarantees the Romanian borders(or whatever had remained from them), were his proposals accepted by Marshal Antonescu's government, who adhered officially to the Axis and took part in the war.

War in which, according to Generals Speidel and Manstein, the Romanians were the best allies of Germany(fact proved by the 17 Knights' Crosses won by Romanian military commanders, the highest number of any Axis country).

Now I do expect to hear a law professional's opinion about what is the difference between alliance and invasion.

Sorry for the rough/colourful terms used :oops:

~Best regards,

Ovidius

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

Post by walterkaschner » 22 Jun 2002 03:58

Hi Ovidious, no need to be sorry for the rough language - I suspect most of us have seen worse.

Now, as to the difference between an alliance and an invasion. Certainly both Italy and Roumania were initially allied with Germany at the beginning of the WWII. But unless my knowledge is hopelessly faulty, both cancelled that alliance before the war's end and were as a result the victims of German aggression. This is why I said in my post that their case does not seem to quite fit with the others.

In the case of Italy, after the Italian Grand Council booted out Mussolini in July 1943 and the Badoglio government sued for peace, the Germans took over Northern Italy by force, established the so-called "Republic of Saló", seized the Italian army and sent about 1 million Italian soldiers to prison camps in Germany and annexed - whether de jure or de facto - the predominently German speaking areas in the Alte Adige and Friule. Strictly technically that might not constitute an invasion, as many German troops were already there by "invitation" (although I understand that additional German troops were transferred to Italy as a consequence of the occupation), but it certainly constituted an act of aggression against its former ally.

As to Roumania, I'm sure you are more knowledgeable about that situation than I, but my understanding is that when King Michael ousted Antonescu in August 1944 and sued the Allies for peace Hitler was furious and attempted to thwart the effort by force, by, among other things, sending over 100 Stukas to bomb Bucharest into submission - of course unsuccessfully - which led Roumania to declare war against Germany. Again, perhaps not technically an "invasion" by the Germans, but certainly an aggression against what had theretofore been a loyal and gallant ally.

In any event, my previous posts were not intended to deal with the technical illegalities of Hitler's actions - although many of them were in clear violation of treaties to which Germany was a party, some of which Germany - and even Hitler himself! - had initiated. I had hoped, rather, to make a point by calling upon simple common sense. But although hope springs eternal in the human breast it is all too often denied.

Best regards, Kaschner

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”