Germany's so called aggressive moves.

Discussions on High Command, strategy and the Armed Forces (Wehrmacht) in general.
User avatar
Qvist
Member
Posts: 7836
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 16:59
Location: Europe

Post by Qvist » 27 Jun 2002 22:56

Deep Thinker -

This is the last I'll contribute to this increasingly absurd thread. Just when I thought you could not possibly make yourself look any more like an idiot than you already have, you just go right ahead and put up the invasion of Czechoslovakia as a voluntary accession to the Reich. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, as you have clearly demonstrated such an utter lack of not only geographical, ethnical, political and military knowledge, but also of common sense, basic reason or the most rudimentary of critical faculties. Congratulations - you win the award for the most consistent series of amazingly ridiculous consecutive posts within a single thread yet encountered by this writer on an online forum. ANY online forum.

Thersites
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: 27 Mar 2002 23:24

.

Post by Thersites » 27 Jun 2002 23:41

"Deep"thinker,
I've been avidly reading your pearls of wisdom over the past week, and I must say I am amazed. You should go back to basic History manuals. It is a proof of your incredible dumbness that usually calm people such as Richard or Qvist are at a loss at how to deal with your inextricable mixture of factual mistake and perverted thinking, impervious to any logical reasoning.
I had promsied myself not to join in this one, but I had to.
Regards

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by Richard Murphy » 28 Jun 2002 00:09

deepthinker wrote: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.


Earlier you claimed that Versailles was invalid because the Germans had a "gun held to their heads". The rump Czech republic (There were NOT two states!!!! Slovakia was formed AFTER the German invasion.) had four Panzer divisions, four Leichte Divisions, three Motorised Infantry Divisions and somewhere in the region of thirty Infantry Divisions to cope with! If that isn't holding a gun to someones head, I don't know what is!

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

Re: Late starter

Post by Scott Smith » 28 Jun 2002 04:00

Richard Murphy wrote:The treaty of Versailles was a peace treaty. Breaking its conditions is justification for declaring war by any of the the signatories.

This might seem surprising but sovereign states can make or break treaties as they please. They may also declare war with or without pretext. How other sovereign states and their alliances take this is something else.

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"

German demands were reasonable. The Versailles treaty was intended to keep Germany permanently contained if not balkanized. It was to be a source of markets not competition. To this end, the propaganda of the "self-determination of peoples" only applied to non-Germans. Austria was specifically prohibited from union with Germany, despite the wishes of ethnic Germans living there. Two states were expressly created from German territory and from the Austro-Hungarian and Russian empires: Czecho-Slovakia and Poland. The primary purpose was to creat a balance-of-power in the East. German minorities didn't figure into the calculus at all, and the self-determination of Slavic nationalites: Czechs, Slovaks, and Poles, was only secondary.

...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!),

A bit complicated for a simple reply. Under classic Clausewitzean doctrine the spheres of the military and politics/diplomacy are separated so that the military experts have no political hindrances. Diplomats are professionals on the other side of the coin. This formula becomes muddled a little with constitutional monarchies because power is divided. Not even the Kaiser could unilaterally tell professional diplomats and (even more unthinkable) professional soldiers, i.e., the General Staff, what to do. He was not a real autocrat. A U.S. President, as Commander-in-Chief, doesn't have this problem--especially when war is declared. He commands BOTH the military and the diplomatic corps.

So when Ludendorff (General Staff) asked Berlin to find a diplomatic solution because the war could not be won militarily, this did not mean that the war was lost. What it means is that the diplomats are supposed to find terms that will end the war. Germany still had a bargaining position so long as the German Army was in the field! And in fact, they still occupied enemy territory for the time being.

However, instead of commencing negotiations the Kaiser's government collapsed. The new government asked for an Armistice based on Wilson's Fourteen Points. An Armistice was received and a month later the bloodied but not beaten army had been demobilized. Hindenburg correctly called the revolution a stab-in-the-back.

When it came time for negotiations at Versailles in June of 1919, there was nothing to negotiate with. German representatives were not even invited to the negotiations! Like idiots, the Weimar government signed the Diktat and lost all credibility with the German people, eventually even being replaced by the ONE Party committed to overthrowing Versailles, lock, stock, and barrel: the Nazis. The Weimar government should have held out for serious negotiations, even if it meant an Allied occupation, which would not have been popular on the Allied homefront.

but as soon as they budged an inch, Hitler made more demands and the whole process starts all over again.

No, Hitler's terms never varied. He was going to dismantle Versailles and Germany was strong enough to do just that if he played his cards shrewdly.

The final straw came with Czechoslovakia.

No, this is how negotiations work. You give your opponent what he asks for but as little as possible of what he really wants (if it is important to you).

Munich gave Hitler what he asked for--the resolution of the legitimate German minorities issue in Czechoslovakia (Austria already being settled)--but not what he also wanted, the dismantling of this Versailles-state and (less legitimately) German hegemony over these non-Germans and unfettered access to more resources.

German control also prevented the establishment of Soviet bases, which, believe it or not, would have been supported by the Entente because it would establish an Allied "aircraft carrier" on the German flank. Remember, the Allied goal was balance-of-power and to contain Germany! And they wanted to do this CHEAPLY, because they had already WON the last war.

After being forced to agree to the incorporation of the Südetenland (Even though it hadn't been part of Germany prior to WW I.)...

The Sudetenland was peopled by ethnic German minorities who wanted to be German. The hypocrisy of the Versailles treaty was that "self-determination" only applied to non-Germans and at the expense of the German nation. However, for this to be practical, Versailles had made insufficient provision for ethnic-cleansing (which was not left to chance at Potsdam). Hitler successfully exploited this fact, the discrimination of German minorities, in his propaganda, and the Volksdeutsche formed an excellent Fifth Column against rival nationalities.

...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.

Hitler should have told Chamberlain to bugger-off at Munich and gone to war over the Sudetenland (and Czech) issue. That way he would have gotten what he asked for (Sudentenland) AND what he wanted (Czecho-Slovakian hegemony). Note that Slovakia is not Czech today. That is because Czecho-Slovakia was an artifical state created as a bulwark or dagger positioned against Germany in the East and not according to the principle of the self-determination of peoples, as per Allied propaganda.

Had he done so, the Allies likely would NOT have declared war because they were not ready yet psychologically. (It is hard for a victor to admit that he is no longer the cock-of-the-walk.) And Czechoslovakia, if they had resisted, would have fallen. Perhaps the threat of incinerating Prague with the Luftwaffe would have been sufficient incentive. Anyway, Poland would have then found herself needing either to make alliances with the Soviets or the Germans and realistically would not trust the Western Allies to save her. Either way she would have 'buried the hatchet" with Germany and settled the Danzig issue.

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*.)

It doesn't have anything to do with Hitler's word. Hitler failed to understand the Anglo-Saxon mentality. (Possibly a more skilled diplomat than Ribbentrop would have.) Hitler incorrectly viewed the Westerners as bourgeois politicians like some milquetoast Zentrum political party in Germany before the Machtergreifung. He therefore misinterpreted the English attitude and didn't expect the declaration of war over Poland--which made no sense because there is nothing that Albion could do about it with the USSR out of the Allied camp after the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact.

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.

No, he did not get what he wanted. Versailles was not completely dismantled until all ethnic Germans were brought into one Reich, which meant that Polish hegemony over Danzig had to end. The next goal, assuming that relations with Russia were satisfactory, would been a large enough navy and air-force so that the British blockade could never again be effectively imposed and that Germany would always therefore have fair access to world markets. Then Versailles was dead!

If Soviet relations started to cool then Germany could start thinking about a crusade against Bolshevism and Lebensraum at the expense of the Russian Empire again, and thus pressing the claims of Brest-Litovsk from the German defeat of Russia in the last war. This would of course mean abandoning a nationalist foreign policy for an imperialist foreign policy because German hegemony would be placed over non-Germans (not just the Czechs).
:)

A little clear-headed advice on diplomacy, Realpolitik: Machiavelli (1469-1527).

Image
Last edited by Scott Smith on 28 Jun 2002 10:58, edited 7 times in total.

User avatar
Lord Gort
Member
Posts: 2014
Joined: 07 Apr 2002 14:44
Location: United Kingdom: The Land of Hope and Glory

Post by Lord Gort » 28 Jun 2002 10:38

Well after ww1 selfdetermination was the legacy of the treaties. Hitler used this to his advantage. I must add that the Austrians considered themselves Germans. The Holy roman empire and the rhine confederation described them as german. Indeed they are. The difference was that it was the only one not too unite.


My persoanl annoyance but also relief is that the war as made almost totally clear ethinic boundries. But at the cost of millions of germans who used to inhabit all the coastline of the baltic. The lithuanian and Estonian germans, gone. Danzig, etc. Oh well

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

Re: Late starter

Post by Roberto » 28 Jun 2002 19:41

Scott Smith wrote:If Soviet relations started to cool then Germany could start thinking about a crusade against Bolshevism and Lebensraum at the expense of the Russian Empire again, and thus pressing the claims of Brest-Litovsk from the German defeat of Russia in the last war.


1. Whether or not relations between Germany and the Soviet Union were "cool" depended solely on how long it was convenient for Hitler to postpone his dreams of conquest, exploitation and racial subjugation in relation to the prime target thereof.

2. The treaty of Brest-Litovsk made the Versailles Treaty look generous by comparison, but Hitler's dreams of Lebensraum went far beyond "pressing the claims of Brest Litovsk":

There can be no doubt that practical strategic issues did push Hitler towards the most radical of military solutions. But a great war in the East had always been part of his thinking. Here was the real stuff of Lebensraum – living space. Hitler’s plans assumed fantastic proportions. By August he had decided to seize the whole vast area stretching from Archangel to Astrakhan (the ‘A-A Line’) and to populate it with fortified garrison cities, keeping the population under the permanent control of the master race, while a rump Asian state beyond the Urals, the Slavlands, would accommodate the rest of the Soviet people. Planning moved forward on this basis. By the spring of 1941 comprehensive programmes for the racial, political and economic exploitation of the new empire had been drawn up. ‘Russia’, Hitler is reported as saying, ‘will be our India!’.


Source of quote:

Richard Overy, Russia's War, page 62

Obtaining foodstuffs from the East was one of the principal objectives of the German Reich in the war against Soviet Russia. The breakdown of Germany in 1918 had been a traumatic experience for the German leaders, and it was still remembered by Hitler and his generals. The merciless exploitation of food resources in the East was designed to make it possible for the German people for enjoy food consumption as in peacetime and, thus, to stabilise wartime morale.
The bureaucrats involved in planning this exploitation were perfectly aware of the fact that this implied “without doubt the starvation of umpteen million people.”


Source of quote:

Christian Streit, The Fate of Soviet Prisoners of War. Published in: A Mosaic of Victims. Non-Jews Persecuted and Murdered by the Nazis. Edited by Michael Berenbaum. New York University Press, 1990.

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by Birgitte Heuschkel » 29 Jun 2002 06:38

deepthinker wrote: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.


Hmmm, by that logic Denmark didn't get invaded in 1940. Wonder why we needed to get liberated in '45, then.

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jun 2002 10:39

Birgitte Heuschkel wrote:
deepthinker wrote: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.

Hmmm, by that logic Denmark didn't get invaded in 1940. Wonder why we needed to get liberated in '45, then.

Munich left German hegemony over rump Czecho-Slovakia, with any implications of occupation later carried out and being called invasion. Denmark was simply occupied/invaded. There was no German hegemony to begin with and they certainly weren't invited. As far as "liberation," that is standard Allied fare. The Red Army liberated Berlin, for example. And getting raped by Allied troops meant to be liberated.
:)

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by AndyW » 29 Jun 2002 16:08

Scott Smith wrote: The Red Army liberated Berlin, for example. And getting raped by Allied troops meant to be liberated.
:)


And being thrown into the KZ for saying his opinion or just being somehow different, means "German governmental welfare work". :)

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jun 2002 16:56

AndyW wrote:
Scott Smith wrote: The Red Army liberated Berlin, for example. And getting raped by Allied troops meant to be liberated.
:)

And being thrown into the KZ for saying his opinion or just being somehow different, means "German governmental welfare work". :)

He he he. Ah, the joy of euphemism. :D

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

Post by Qvist » 29 Jun 2002 18:56

Scott -

My country was also liberated in may 1945. And I want to be very, very emphatic about this: There was nothing euphemistic about that phrase. Nothing whatsoever.

cheers

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

LIBERATION...

Post by Scott Smith » 29 Jun 2002 19:15

Qvist wrote:Scott -

My country was also liberated in may 1945. And I want to be very, very emphatic about this: There was nothing euphemistic about that phrase. Nothing whatsoever.

Yes, but of course that was after the war was over. So maybe, no declaration-of-war, no occupation in the first place.
:wink:

I wonder also if the Allied experience would have been so liberating if it had been a contested British invasion in 1940, or if it had been a Red Army liberation in 1944 just before Yalta. A Soviet presence on the North Sea would have been mighty tasty.
:wink:

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

Post by Qvist » 01 Jul 2002 08:11

Scott -

Actually, the only allied troops to enter Norwegian territory before the war ended were indeed Soviet, in the North. Which is still recalled fondly. Especially since they eventually left again.

cheers

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by Roberto » 01 Jul 2002 15:37

Scott Smith wrote:Munich left German hegemony over rump Czecho-Slovakia, with any implications of occupation later carried out and being called invasion.


Munich Pact September 29, 1938

Agreement concluded at Munich, September 29, 1938, between Germany, Great Britain, France and Italy

GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment:

(1) The evacuation will begin on 1st October.

(2) The United Kingdom, France and Italy agree that the evacuation of the territory shall be completed by the 10th October, without any existing installations having been destroyed, and that the Czechoslovak Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without damage to the said installations.

(3) The conditions governing the evacuation will be laid down in detail by an international commission composed of representatives of Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Czechoslovakia.

(4) The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1st October. The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order:

The territory marked No. I on the 1st and 2nd of October; the territory marked No. II on the 2nd and 3rd of October; the territory marked No. III on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of October; the territory marked No. IV on the 6th and 7th of October. The remaining territory of preponderantly German character will be ascertained by the aforesaid international commission forthwith and be occupied by German troops by the 10th of October.

(5) The international commission referred to in paragraph 3 will determine the territories in which a plebiscite is to be held. These territories will be occupied by international bodies until the plebiscite has been completed. The same commission will fix the conditions in which the plebiscite is to be held, taking as a basis the conditions of the Saar plebiscite. The commission will also fix a date, not later than the end of November, on which the plebiscite will be held.

(6) The final determination of the frontiers will be carried out by the international commission. The commission will also be entitled to recommend to the four Powers, Germany, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, in certain exceptional cases, minor modifications in the strictly ethnographical determination of the zones which are to be transferred without plebiscite.

(7) There will be a right of option into and out of the transferred territories, the option to be exercised within six months from the date of this agreement. A German-Czechoslovak commission shall determine the details of the option, consider ways of facilitating the transfer of population and settle questions of principle arising out of the said transfer.

(8 ) The Czechoslovak Government will within a period of four weeks from the date of this agreement release from their military and police forces any Sudeten Germans who may wish to be released, and the Czechoslovak Government will within the same period release Sudeten German prisoners who are serving terms of imprisonment for political offences.

Munich, September 29, 1938.
ADOLF HITLER,
NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN,
EDOUARD DALADIER,
BENITO MUSSOLINI.


Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich1.htm

Munich Pact : Annex to the Agreement

His MAJESTY's GOVERNMENT in the United Kingdom and the French Government have entered into the above agreement on the basis that they stand by the offer, contained in paragraph 6 of the Anglo-French proposals of the 19th September, relating to an international guarantee of the new boundaries of the Czechoslovak State against unprovoked aggression.

When the question of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia has been settled, Germany and Italy for their part will give a guarantee to Czechoslovakia.

Munich, September 29, 1938.
ADOLF HITLER,
NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN,
EDOUARD DALADIER,
BENITO MUSSOLINI.


Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich2.htm

Munich Pact : Declaration

THE HEADS of the Governments of the four Powers declare that the problems of the Polish and Hungarian minorities in Czechoslovakia, if not settled within three months by agreement between the respective Governments, shall form the subject of another meeting of the Heads of the Governments of the four Powers here present.

Munich, September 29, 1938.
ADOLF HITLER,
NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN,
EDOUARD DALADIER,
BENITO MUSSOLINI.


Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich3.htm

Munich Pact : Supplementary Declaration

ALL questions which may arise out of the transfer of the territory shall be considered as coming within the terms of reference to the International Commission

Munich, September 29, 1938.
ADOLF HITLER,
NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN,
EDOUARD DALADIER,
BENITO MUSSOLINI.


Source:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich4.htm

Munich Pact : Composition of the International Commission

THE four Heads of Governments here present agree that the international commission provided for in the agreement signed by them to-day shall consist of the Secretary of State in the German Foreign Office, the British, French and Italian Ambassadors accredited in Berlin, and a representative to be nominated by the Government of Czeckoslovakia.

Munich September 29, 1938.
ADOLF HITLER,
NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN,
EDOUARD DALADIER,
BENITO MUSSOLINI.


Source of quote:

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich5.htm

Could Mr. Smith please point out where in the above quoted documents - or in other documents not transcribed online, if existing - it is stated that Germany will have "hegemony over rump Czecho-Slovakia"?

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

Re: Reply to Richard Murphy.

Post by Scott Smith » 02 Jul 2002 02:20

Roberto wrote:Could Mr. Smith please point out where in the above quoted documents - or in other documents not transcribed online, if existing - it is stated that Germany will have "hegemony over rump Czecho-Slovakia"?

If it's not in one of Roberto's quotes it doesn't exist, right?

Could Mr. Roberto point out anywhere where the British, French, and Italians are authorized hegemony over Czecho-Slovakia in the first place? Anybody who doesn't think that Munich didn't place a rump Czecho-Slovkia into the German orbit is being rather naïve, IMHO.
:)

Return to “German Strategy & General German Military Discussion”