Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Michael Miller
Forum Staff
Posts: 8695
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:05
Location: California

Illogical point #1

Post by Michael Miller » 22 Jun 2002 04:32

"deepthinker", eh? Not deep enough.

I've only read the first three posts of this intriguing thread, but am looking forward to reading other posters' dissections of the initial post.

Someone else has probably addressed this delightful statement in further posts, but I have a comment or two to make about it:

"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."

Hitler's need to dispense with these countries "to get to France" was hardly a justification for invading them. You say he "was forced to take care of them" because they resisted. But they
did not resist until Hitler made his move- invasion- "to take care of them".

Assuming you're correct that Germany could do no wrong, that every foreign policy move up to and including invasion/occupation was justified, what of the policies and actions undertaken once occupation was complete? Rounding up millions of people in those countries to serve as slave laborers in the Reich; the deliberate murder and starvation of millions of Soviet prisoners of war (justified simply because of the actions of Soviet authorities against German POW's, or the fact that the USSR had never signed the Geneva Convention?); the deportation and mass murder of millions of Jews; etc., etc.? Are all of these things justified? Well of course they are from a CERTAIN POINT OF VIEW. A point of view that lacks compassion or a belief in the fundamental sanctity of human life.

Even your average neo-Nazi admits that Germany made some mistakes. You seem determined to keep Hitler et al on a pedestal at all costs.
But if he were around to answer our questions, I'd wager even Adolf would concede that he screwed up more than once, most notably in attempting to take on Russia when Germany was entirely unprepared to do so.

Regards,
~ Mike Miller

User avatar
Michael Miller
Forum Staff
Posts: 8695
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 22:05
Location: California

The tragic plight of Iceland in WW II...

Post by Michael Miller » 22 Jun 2002 04:54

Thanks, Scott, for pointing that out about Iceland.

I remember well the horrific newsreel footage of hundreds of B-17's raining incendiary bombs on hapless Rejkjavik; reading stories of U.S. troops rounding up and executing the country's intelligentsia; the looting of Iceland's many art museums and banks; the deportation of millions of Icelanders to the concentration and slave labor camps of Wisconsin, Utah, and Idaho.

The stoic Icelanders never once complained, though, unlike those whiny Poles, Yugoslavs, Czechs, etc.

Regards,
~ Mike

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

Reply to Michael Miller.

Post by deepthinker » 22 Jun 2002 05:07

You wrote:
"Assuming you're correct that Germany could do no wrong, that every foreign policy move up to and including invasion/occupation was justified, what of the policies and actions undertaken once occupation was complete? Rounding up millions of people in those countries to serve as slave laborers in the Reich; the deliberate murder and starvation of millions of Soviet prisoners of war (justified simply because of the actions of Soviet authorities against German POW's, or the fact that the USSR had never signed the Geneva Convention?); the deportation and mass murder of millions of Jews; etc., etc.? Are all of these things justified?"


Many of these actions were justified so that order could be maintained and the war effort continued. As far as for the starvation of soviet pows is concerned- there simply wsn't enough food to feed them all and besides the German soldiers had to come first.

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

Re: ERADICATE the INFIDELS...

Post by Scott Smith » 22 Jun 2002 05:22

Ovidius wrote:
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:

That's true, he he. Cotton does grow here in Scottsdale, although mostly the fields are owned by the Native Americans and they use machinery to harvest it.
:)

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

Re: ERADICATE the INFIDELS...

Post by Scott Smith » 22 Jun 2002 05:47

Roberto wrote:
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?

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.

Well, In Mein Kampf Hitler noted (correctly) that the proper German objectives in the First World War would have been not to support the moribund Turkish and Austro-Hungarian empires and therefore to fight the French and the British but to move against the moribund Russian Empire, where German Lebensraum could be gained from non-Russian lands in the Tsar's empire.

I think in 1940 when France was neutralized and the British remained intransigent, Hitler started coming back around to his original position of operations along the lines of the gains from Brest-Litovsk and thus waging a Holy War against Communism. I think that both the crusade against the hated Poles and the Bolsheviks was misguided but that is not my problem. I disagree with the Genocide-theory-of-history, however. Killing Slavs and Jews was not why the war was fought.

Roberto wrote:
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?

I never said it was on account of ethnicity or social/economic class, etc. A crusade against INFIDELS can be defined any way you want it--by democracies against dictatorships, for example--any definition of EVIL.

Evil in Democracy-Capitalist parlance is not opening up your financial markets to plutocratic penetration! President GW Bush says it is not a war against Islam but one against Evil. However, in reading some Jewish periodicals, they say: wake-up Mr. Bush, it IS against Evil. And that's how the Middle-East conflict is defined now, at least in the American media. Of course, none of this has anything (anything at all :mrgreen: ) to do with the irrational American Christian and Jewish messianism regarding the Holy Land of Israel, Apartheid and all, nor the inaccessiblity of Caucasian oil to the West. :mrgreen:

"Bless the Holy Fallout," as the mutants prayed in Planet of the Apes, part II.

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 22 Jun 2002 10:41, edited 4 times in total.

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

Neo-Imperialism...

Post by Scott Smith » 22 Jun 2002 05:50

walterkaschner wrote: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."

Yes, but Germany did not invade the United States in two World Wars, as we did Europe.

"Making the world safe for democracy," however you slice it, is still aggression.
:)

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

Re: The tragic plight of Iceland in WW II...

Post by Scott Smith » 22 Jun 2002 06:04

Michael Miller wrote:Thanks, Scott, for pointing that out about Iceland.

I remember well the horrific newsreel footage of hundreds of B-17's raining incendiary bombs on hapless Rejkjavik; reading stories of U.S. troops rounding up and executing the country's intelligentsia; the looting of Iceland's many art museums and banks; the deportation of millions of Icelanders to the concentration and slave labor camps of Wisconsin, Utah, and Idaho.

The stoic Icelanders never once complained, though, unlike those whiny Poles, Yugoslavs, Czechs, etc.

Germany didn't bomb Denmark either, at least not significantly, and if Iceland had the ability and inclination to resist the U.S. invasion, would not they have been bombed? Italy was certainly bombed by the Allies--just a little persuasion to get them to switch horses. :mrgreen:

And other nations, such as those in South America were "induced" to declare war on Germany, which at one stroke of the pen made these markets inaccessible to Germany, and without naval military force. And I thought Democracy-Capitalists stood for free-trade... This also forced other countries to ratify the Allied victory, warts and all.

I don't think any Icelanders were put into concentration camps for their surly attitudes with respect to the American occupation, but American citizens of Japanese ancestry living west of the Gila River were certainly held by executive order in camps in Arizona and Idaho. I don't think there were any Nissei "resisters" of Roosevelt or actual saboteurs caught, but if the Germans incarcerated any Danes at all, including Jews, this was probably the case.
:)

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

Post by walterkaschner » 23 Jun 2002 00:05

Hi Scott!

In response to my post:

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."


you wrote:

Yes, but Germany did not invade the United States in two World Wars, as we did Europe.

"Making the world safe for democracy," however you slice it, is still aggression.


I am disappointed and dismayed to see that you have descended to that last refuge of Hitler apologists by resorting to the "tu quoque" argument. You are much better than that, and I can only believe that your inspiration momentarily nodded.

But be that as it may, I do not recall that the US "invaded Europe in two World Wars" (whatever that is intended to mean, Europe not being a nation in either War).

In World War I the AEF troops were of course present on the continent at the invitation of the French and had never invaded German territory at the time of the Armistice, which fact the post-war German revanchists were proud to boast of. The US presence in France was not in violation of any treaty or understanding with Germany or any other of the Central Powers, nor did it come without warning or without any previous declaration of war. The US troops were there after a legitimate declaration of War by the Congress of the United States, brought on by the arrogance and stupidity of the German leadership in attempting to attract Mexico into an aggressive alliance against the US ( witness the Zimmerman telegram), by resuming unrestricted submarine warfare despite Wilson's previous warnings that this could be considered as a causus belli and by torpedoing and sinking 3 US mechant ships with loss of American lives in a single day. Certainly there were other factors militating towards war with the Central Powers, as there were factors militating against. But IMHO had the Kaiser and his advisers been more attuned to US sensibilities and strengths the diplomatic situation would have continued to be what we in Texas call a "Mexican stand-off", with neither side being able to pull the US into its side of the contest.

In WWII, do I need to remind you that Germany and Italy declared war on the US rather than vice versa? It is a curious definition of aggression that denotes the victim rather than the instigator the aggressor. (Yes, yes, I am well aware of the many steps which the US took to favor the British over the Nazis, and that those might be argued to be aggression themselves, but that, in truth, was not the point you tried to make.)

As to "making the world safe for democracy", which was a phrase employed by Wilson in his war speech to Congress and caught up by the media and the pro-war propagandists, it may certainly have been (and in retrospect clearly was) naïve, but I don't find it ignoble.

Here I must confess to an emotional bias. My father fought and bled in WWI as part of the AEF and, although not a stupid or uneducated man, sincerely felt that he had fought for a cause above and beyond mere patriotic self-interest. I had three uncles who fought in WWII - one, a tank commander, was severely wounded in Normandy and spent the rest of his life as a blinded semi-vegetable; - one, a Marine, was twice wounded in the South Pacific and was primed for the invasion of the Japanese mainland when the surrender came;- one, a doctor in the Medical Corps in Europe, was so affected psychologically by the horrors of the wounded he attended to that he abandoned his medical practice. I myself am an unashamed veteran of the Korean conflict, and have never felt that any opprobrium attached to a willingness to serve a cause which, at least ostensibly, rises above simple crass national self interest. This simply to disclose that, try hard as I may, I might not be able to be totally objective in my views.

But, as I said before, no matter how you slice them I think yours are sheer baloney.

Regards, Kaschner

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

Re: The tragic plight of Iceland in WW II...

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 23 Jun 2002 01:13

Scott Smith wrote:...but if the Germans incarcerated any Danes at all, including Jews, this was probably the case.:)


Just the entire police force, any major political opponents, any resistance fighter caught (though that would be obvious), and any Jew that didn't manage to flee to Sweden first.

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 23 Jun 2002 05:46

walterkaschner wrote:In WWII, do I need to remind you that Germany and Italy declared war on the US rather than vice versa? It is a curious definition of aggression that denotes the victim rather than the instigator the aggressor.

Also in WWII, England, and France, declared war on Germany, rather than vice versa.

Thorfinn
Banned
Posts: 237
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 13:42
Location: USA

Post by Thorfinn » 23 Jun 2002 05:47

Michael Miller wrote:...the deportation of millions of Icelanders...

That would be a neat trick, considering there are not millions of Icelanders.

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

Re: The tragic plight of Iceland in WW II...

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Jun 2002 07:43

Birgitte Heuschkel wrote:
Scott Smith wrote:...but if the Germans incarcerated any Danes at all, including Jews, this was probably the case.:)

Just the entire police force, any major political opponents, any resistance fighter caught (though that would be obvious), and any Jew that didn't manage to flee to Sweden first.

Birgitte, I'm sure that you know much more about your own country's history than I do. :mrgreen: But are you sure this is the case?

I mean, political opponents would likely have been handled by the Danish authorities themselves, being as the policy was collaboration with the German occupation. As far as saboteurs, nothing could save them, assuming that the charges were justified, and that is not always the case. As far as the Jews, they were protected as ordinary Danish citizens on account of the Danish collaboration and therefore not deported as enemy aliens. The only ones I know of that escaped to Sweden (please correct my naïveté) were Allied troublemakers like Niels Bohr, who gave his Gestapo surveillance the slip on a tug to Sweden and then took a British Mosquito fighter out to wind up at Los Alamos, New Mexico to offer commiseration for the atomic scientists preparing the fry the Germans (and then the Japanese) with the Bomb.

But my point is not that the Danish occupation was so wonderful, because any war is harsh, but in comparative terms of wartime Europe, Denmark came out far easier than most because she did not cause trouble and therefore was not generally treated as the enemy. Nevertheless, when superpowers collide it can be messy, even for peaceful peoples.

Best Regards,
Scott

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

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 23 Jun 2002 08:19

Scott, the scenario you describe holds true up to 1943 where the collaborating government collapsed and things took a turn for the worse. At this point every police officer that didn't manage to go into hiding was deported to the Danish camp of Frøslev and to Theresienstadt for internation (as opposed to some of the more harsh treatment that others received). Not too long after, the order was given from Berlin to 'purge the Jews from Denmark'.

History takes a little known and interesting turn here. The stories of Jews escaping to Sweden across the Oresund is fairly common, but the background for it less so. Standartenführer (insofar I recall) Dr. Best, commander of the occupation forces had participated in similar programs in Poland (and was later tried for these). In Denmark he 'happened' to mention these orders to suspected collaborators with the underground in just enough time for the rescue to Sweden operation to be carried out. When reprised from Berlin later, Dr. Best responded, 'but I did purge Denmark of the Jews, there isn't any left.'

I don't think we'll ever know what motivated Dr. Best to this act, but there is little doubt it saved thousands of lives. Moreover, it is probably the chief reason he received a prison sentence for his acts in Poland, as opposed to the death sentence.

Where the treatment of resistance fighters is concerned, might is right. The German authorities dealt with these as saboteurs and/or partisans; the Danish people obviously viewed them as heroes. As for our getting through the occupation with remarkably little damage, this is probably also due to the fact that there was little fighting on Danish territory -- if D-Day had happened in Southern Jutland as was predicted possible by Rommel at a time, we might have had an entirely different course of events.

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

The Skulls of Justice are Blind...

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Jun 2002 09:02

Hi Walter,

There you go confounding my ruminations-of-thought with your logic!

I don't always have all the answers, but I hope I have at least some of the questions.

I accept your position on the AEF, and indeed I do have a soft spot for those guys from my youth, talking to an octogenarian or two about "making the Kaiser dance."

Image

It is not my intention to argue that the Kaiser wasn't an idiot and that the U.S. wasn't justified in declaring war over a long train of abuses. At least we did actually declare war in those days; now we have an unfortunate tendency to jump into adventures in response to every television sweeps month.

Nevertheless, I still feel that the American intervention in what amounts to a European civil war was fraught with ill consequences and global mischief. Some of Wilson's ideas were visionary, mostly they were naïve. We should have ignored petty provocations like the silly Zimmerman note and taken stern economic measures to protest other outrages.

I am an Isolationist but that doesn't mean I believe in disarmament. We should have been able to protect our own ships. And why do we have the right to sail happily through warzones, presenting our wares (rather one-sidedly) to the belligerents anyway? Because we can make money? Because profit is our God?

Instead of waging neutrality the merchants-of-death tooled up for the Allied cause long before the official opening of hostilities, presenting tremendous pressure on our pacifistic President, forcing him to develop twists of pedagogical justification for the inevitable volte face on his "he kept us out of war" campaign pledge.

So the financiers backed their favorite horse, requiring Congress and the AEF to save their investments after Russia's defeat--risky investments that they should have simply eaten in true laissez faire fashion when the British and French had inevitably lost.

Fortunately, some wisdom was gained after the war, and the nation washed itself of its acquired Interventionist perfidy--but not before the damage had been done.

As far as the Second World War, yes I am infused with baloney, or Fleischkäse as they say on the other side of the Rhein, but the fact remains that WE went there; the Germans did NOT come here...

Unless, of course, one wants to count the half-dozen or so clowns that landed to sabotage and cavort in the bar only to be caught and executed.

The remarkable thing is that the German declaration-of-war on December 11, 1941 did not come months sooner! If somebody had a shoot-on-sight policy with American ships we would demand instant gratification, an operation of infinite justice, maybe instant war (except maybe if the ministate taking that liberty happened to be Israel). :mrgreen:

Regarding the tu quoque argument, I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand! History depends upon comparative perspective. Foreign relations rely upon different factors than the misnomer implied by international law. Foreign relations are not codes of statutory laws, which we assume will be enforced uniformly by some higher power and with blind consistency. Historiography is even less like that.

Is it FAIR--I presume that is our lofty goal--to allow the mafia thug to plea bargain in exhange for fingering his boss or associates?

Is it fair to hold some members of the community to one standard of law not accorded to others on account of who or what they are?

Surely it is not fair to say that it is okay for me to kill my neighbor's wife because my neighbor has killed TWO of his neighbor's wives--but can we guard against selective morality and arbitrary enforcement of standards without tu quoque arguments? I think not.

And again, the area of international relations and historical comparisons is not one of criminal law but more like collective pride.

By what higher power do we justify the chavinistic morality of our global crusades? The doctrine of the dollar sign, perhaps?

By what epistemology do we know the Truth that gives us the Moral Certainty to know that our causus is necessarily just? Praise God and pass the phosphorous.

Do we never make mistakes?

How many Huns skulking through the streets of New York and the backwoods of Mississippi again?

Best Regards,
Scott
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

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

Collapsing Collaboration...

Post by Scott Smith » 23 Jun 2002 09:14

Thank you, Birgitte! I learned something and that is what we are here for, I hope. It now rings a bell in the dark corners of my memory that the Danish Jews lost their protection as the fortunes of the Axis waned, but nevertheless escaped to Sweden.
:)

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”