Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
walterkaschner
In memoriam
Posts: 1588
Joined: 13 Mar 2002 01:17
Location: Houston, Texas

Post by walterkaschner » 26 Jun 2002 03:43

Hi Scott,

I find it hard to disagree with at least 50% of your far ranging June 23 post, while the balance gets my adrenaline pumping. But it's past the witching hour tonight and I'm off to Never-Never land. Perhaps we can start a new thread on the issue of the tu quoque argument; your point has some force and is worth IMHO further thought. Tonight, however, my grey cells just can't cope.

Regards, Kaschner

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

Post by Scott Smith » 26 Jun 2002 05:43

Thanks Walter, I always appreciate your input.

Best Wishes,
Scott

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

Re: Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Post by Qvist » 26 Jun 2002 11:26

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

Well, Mr. "Deep thinker", I hope you think deeper than you read, although the logic you employ sadly does not indicate that this is the case.

Considering that you are obviously clueless about even the basic ethnic composition of Czechoslovakia, and seem to be under the impression that "slavs" are a nationality, I am reluctant to attach much weight to your curious statement that it, like Poland, was somehow not a real state, but an artificial one and thus couldn't survive.

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

Reply to Qvist.

Post by deepthinker » 26 Jun 2002 19:06

You said:
Considering that you are obviously clueless about even the basic ethnic composition of Czechoslovakia, and seem to be under the impression that "slavs" are a nationality


The slavs in czechoslovakia did consider themselves a minority group. In March 1939 they proclaimed a seperate state called slovakia. Czechoslovakia had thus ceased to exist and became 2 different states each now had their own goverments etc. These seperate nations were then later occupied at different times for seperate reasons. You apparently misunderstood what I said.

Then you said:
I am reluctant to attach much weight to your curious statement that it, like Poland, was somehow not a real state, but an artificial one and thus couldn't survive.


That was not my idea but the general thinking at the time. The reason was because czechoslovakia was composed of bits of territory that belonged to other nations.

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

Post by Qvist » 26 Jun 2002 22:08

The SLOVAKS regarded themselves as a separate nationality. So did the Czechs. The Slovak state of the time was very much a German creation, and is something of which the Slovaks aren't particularly proud today. And, both nationalities are SLAVS.

That was not my idea but the general thinking at the time. The reason was because czechoslovakia was composed of bits of territory that belonged to other nations.

To be precise, it was composed of two bits of territory, both of whom had belonged to A other state - namely the Habsburg Monarchy. The same thing could be said about Hungary or Austria. After 1918, that state no longer existed. No part of Czechoslovakia had ever belonged to Germany. And this was decidedly not "the thinking at the time", except in the Reich Chancellery.
Last edited by Qvist on 08 Jul 2002 13:20, edited 1 time in total.

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

Reply to Qvist:

Post by deepthinker » 27 Jun 2002 14:12

You said:

No part of Czechoslovakia had ever belonged to Germany. And this was decidedly not "the thinking at the time", except in the Reich Chancellery.


True. But this was not the reason Czechoslovakia was taken. First it was not a full scale invasion the way most people think of it. Czechia was still an independant nation. After the collapse of Czechoslovakia 2 nations came into existence- czechia and slovakia. Both czechia and slovakia were made protectorates which meant that Germany would safeguard them from other nations. The emergence of the 2 seperate weak states made Hitler fear that other nations might try harder to get them into their orbit. Hitler was especially worried about the Russians building airbases there, a point that most people still seem to be ignoring.

User avatar
Walther Darré
Member
Posts: 114
Joined: 02 Apr 2002 15:13
Location: European Union

Poland, UK and France

Post by Walther Darré » 27 Jun 2002 15:48

Just a question: Did Great Britain and France sign the pact with Poland before or after Poland said "we can reach Berlin in a weak"? If it was before, obviously these two former nations were the ones who wanted war.

But, what do you all say about Hitler's testament, that "International Jewry" was the reason for the war? :lol:

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

Reply to Walther Darre

Post by deepthinker » 27 Jun 2002 16:33

He meant that Jewry was responsible for it being a world war. Hitler had wanted Germany restored to the position she had enjoyed before World War 1. Hitler saw the Jews as everywhere. He believed they were responsible for Germany's first defeat and so they were in a sense responsible for the second world war because he also believed they were responsible for the treaty of versailles and the rise of communism. Hitler saw Germany as fighting against the Jews for a new order in Europe. In his mind there would be either a new order dominated by Germany and the aryan race or a new order dominated by Russia or America. Both nations Hitler said were under Jewish control. Thus a German victory would mean defeat for the Jews. Hope this helps.

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

Re: Reply to Qvist:

Post by Roberto » 27 Jun 2002 18:18

deepthinker wrote:Hitler was especially worried about the Russians building airbases there, a point that most people still seem to be ignoring.


1. Evidence ?

2. Relevance (i.e. would that be a justification)?

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

Reply to Roberto.

Post by deepthinker » 27 Jun 2002 18:29

You said:
deepthinker wrote:
Hitler was especially worried about the Russians building airbases there, a point that most people still seem to be ignoring.


1. Evidence ?

2. Relevance (i.e. would that be a justification)?


I'm still looking for the evidence part but I believe it would be a justification. The possible threat that Russian bases would pose too great a threat to just leave them alone. Besides you keep forgetting that they were not annexed but made proctectorates and that the leaders of the newly formed states signed treaties with Germany allowing them to come in. Allied propaganda later used this perfectly legitimate move by Germany to safeguard her interests as a pretext for keeping an encirclement policy directed against Germany.

User avatar
Richard Murphy
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 19:24
Location: Bletchley, England

Late starter

Post by Richard Murphy » 27 Jun 2002 19:38

Sorry to jump in so late but here goes;

The treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty. Breaking its conditions is justification for declaring war by any of the the signatories. Obviously, the UK and France, neither of which were keen to restart a conflict that had virtually bankrupted both of them, decided to try and reach a diplomatic settlement and bent over backwards to accomodate German "demands" (Which were completely unjustified because of the fact that the loser of a war has always had to suffer the consequences-this has been true since the begining of warfare, though nowdays we don't usually massacre the levée en masse and ransom the elité!), but as soon as they budged an inch, Hitler made more demands and the whole process starts all over again.
The final straw came with Czechoslovakia. After being forced to agree to the incorporation of the Südetenland (Even though it hadn't been part of Germany prior to WW I.) into the Reich after it became obvious that if they did not reach an agreement at Munich then Germany would march in anyway, Hitler, who had said that "Germany has no further claims" goes and makes Allied diplomats look stupid (And also torpedo any international standing he had.) by invading the rest of the state within a year. Given that Hitler's word wasn't worth a jot, is it any surprise that when he turned his attention to Poland the UK immediately put up the strongest support it could for his next victim (I was going to use the word "potential", but there can't be any serious doubt that he would have gone ahead whatever happened*.)

Again, Hitler got what he wanted, but as with any child (Hitler was fundamentally childish.), once he got what he wanted, he didn't know what to do with it and wanted something else.

Regards from the Park,

Rich


*See Irving The War Path p242 ""I'm only afraid that at the last moment some-" and here he paused, searching for the right word- "some Schweinehund might put to me a plan for mediation"" and Kershaw "Nemisis p208

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

Post by Qvist » 27 Jun 2002 20:19

Deep Thinker -

I hate to be rude, but there seem to be no end to your ability to produce jaw-dropping statements. Like this:

Both czechia and slovakia were made protectorates which meant that Germany would safeguard them from other nations.


That they became protectorates does not mean that Germany would safeguard them from other nations. It means that they came under German rule.

And even the basic description of events is not correct. Firstly, there was no such thing as czechia. The territory in question was the protectorate Böhmen-Mähren, equivalent, except for the Sudeten areas to the Czech Republic of today. That protectorate was only established after the Germans invaded in 1939. And Slovakia was never a protectorate, at least not in name.
Last edited by Qvist on 08 Jul 2002 13:21, edited 1 time in total.

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

Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by deepthinker » 27 Jun 2002 20:26

For starters the Versailles treaty was invalid. There are 2 reasons why the Versailles treaty was invalid at the time.
1. Germany had been forced to sign it practically at gunpoint.
2. It was the Weimar Rupblic that had signed the treaty. The Hitler government was seperate from the Weimar Rupublic and therefore the treaty had nothing to do with him. Hitler said he had never signed such a treaty and would put to death anyone who did or would like to.
Also you need to read my previous posts on how czechoslovakia was taken. Hitler did not break the Munich pact. The state collapsed for reasons previously stated in my other posts. The pact was rendered null and void after the collapse. Sorry, but you are simply reciting standard allied propaganda like a parrot. :)

User avatar
Richard Murphy
Member
Posts: 751
Joined: 09 Mar 2002 19:24
Location: Bletchley, England

Polly picked a cracker

Post by Richard Murphy » 27 Jun 2002 22:07

Deepthinker (?)
a)Of course the Germans had a gun to their heads! They fought a war and lost!!
b)So a new administration does not have to honour treaties made prior to its coming to power? I'd like to see that put into practical effect!! Newly elected governments would spend all their time negotiating every treaty agreed before them! Does that seem even faintly logical?

I did read your previous posts, but, being as they are a) factually incorrect and b) lacking in any evidence as regards the fallacious Soviet airfields, I decided to bite the bullet and wade in.
Hitler wanted the rump of Czechoslovakia for one reason only; resources! Trying to keep production of luxury goods to keep the masses happy (And thus on-side!) and armaments to keep his generals happy (ditto) as well as furthering his territorial ambitions was crippling the German economy. Schacht warned him about it shortly before the invasion (And it was an invasion.) but was sacked for his trouble, after which Hitler (Who had even less experience in finance than he had in military command.) remarked;
"There is to be no possibility whatever that anybody at all can even think that there is some institution or other in Germany that has a different opinion from the one expressed by the Führer."
(The War Path p171)

Regards from the Park,

Rich

Rich

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

Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by deepthinker » 27 Jun 2002 22:18

It was not an invasion. An invasion is when troops come in against somebody's will. Not only did the governments of the states that emerged from the collapse of czechoslovakia not protest but hey even signed a treaty giving them permission to come. Allied propaganda later claimed it was an invasion when it wasn't.

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”