Adolf Hitler’s speech on 30 January 1939 and Lebensraum

[Gorque]

I seem to recall reading in DRZW V/I that A.H. put off formally annexing the French and Belgian areas until after the conclusion of hostilities, when a peace treaty would be signed and the areas would then be incorporated into the Reich.

One would imagine that after annexation de jure, the inhabitants of the regions would then also receive greater rights.

I'll respond later with what I find from this volume.

[ljadw]

Yes,there were plans for the colonization of French territories in the Nord ,on the border with Belgium ,and in the East (Medieval Bourgogne ),but the ''aborigines '' would be expelled .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Gorque,

That is pretty much my understanding too. There was only an Armistice with France. This allowed Germany to occupy strategically important coastal regions on the Atlantic coast and northern France and hold over a million POWs as effective hostages to prevent Vichy backsliding. A peace treaty would presumably have required the Germans to withdraw from some or most of these areas and return the POWs. This would have surrendered much of Germany's leverage over France, which was highly inadvisable while the war still raged.

As with most of Hitler's aims, it was flexible as to extent and timing. I doubt he ever much considered the practicality of annexing more than Alsace and Lorraine before the war delivered them into his hands. However, military success made even further extension of German annexations beyond them a practicable possibility, provided the war was won. Hitler was above all a tactical opportunist.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Gorque]

Hi Sid:

Good point regarding the return of the POW's. I never thought of that aspect of not having a peace treaty.

Yes,there were plans for the colonization of French territories in the Nord ,on the border with Belgium ,and in the East (Medieval Bourgogne ),but the ''aborigines '' would be expelled .

Hi ljadw:

I believe you're referring to the "Northeast Line" wherein refugees seeking to return to their homes were denied access.

[ljadw]

Yes .

[George L Gregory]

HI GLG,

I think the answer may be in the speech itself:

"The dilemma we shall then face can only be resolved in two ways:

1. through an increase in the import of foodstuffs which necessitates an increase in the export of German manufactured goods in due consideration of the fact that raw materials used in the production process have to be imported initially and hence only a fraction of profit remains for the purchase of foodstuffs, or

2. through an expansion of Lebensraum for our Volk, thereby establishing an economic circle to secure the production of sufficient foodstuffs for Germany domestically. Since the second approach is as yet [!] impossible to pursue due to the persistent delusions of the one-time victorious powers, we are forced to follow along the path of the first proposition. This means we must export in order to be able to purchase food from abroad. Since these exported goods use up raw materials which we ourselves do not possess, this means we must export yet more goods to secure these raw materials for our economy. We are compelled not by capitalist considerations, as this may be the case in other countries, but by dire necessity, the most excruciating which can befall a people, namely, concern for its daily bread."

The "The creation of the Greater German Reich" and the "expansion of Lebensraum for our Volk" were not the same thing but successive stages in a process.

Cheers,

Sid.

Well spotted Guttridge.

I remember the well known online Holocaust denier kazan188 on Stormfront who also uses the username been-there on similar types of forums, as regularly citing it as proof that Hitler didn’t really want Lebensraum because by the time the war started he had already got the territory he had wanted.

[Gorque]

From DRZW V/I Part 1,Chapter 3, Page 168:

The 'new order' which Hitler intended to impose on the European continent after the war was already being initiated in those territories whose incorporation in the Reich was beyond any question to him and to many of his compatriots. These also included Eupen, Malmédy, and Moresnet, which, however, represented a special case and will not be considered here. There was a fundamental difference between the formally annexed parts of western and northern Poland, as well as Luxemburg, on the one hand, and the territories severed from France, Yugoslavia, and the Soviet Union and annexed de facto ('annexation-occupied' territories) on the other. These latter territories, inhabited by German ethnic minorities or by predominately German-descended but reluctant populations, became in the course of their 'Germanization", the trial-grounds of a forcible ethnic and assimilation policy, which was intended no doubt also as a model for future procedures. The annexed countries or territories differed from the rest of the occupied territories not only by the special institutional solution chosen for their treatment but also by their progressive inclusion in the Reich. Over the course of the war they increasingly became the objects of German domestic policy.

...

Although the French government had been spared the cession of Alsace-Lorraine in the armistice treaty, Hitler, as Stuckart learnt from the Reich chancellery on 1 July, 1940, was firmly resolved to incorporate it into the Reich. Earlier declarations to the contrary, no doubt for purely tactical reasons, were no longer valid after the planning of the offensive against western Europe. Hitler toyed with the idea of proclaiming the incorporation at the nest meeting of the Reichstag, but later postponed the regulation of all claims against France, not yet worked out in detail, until the conclusion of a peace treaty - especially as there was nothing to prevent the Reich from starting at once on the 'veiled annexation' of this party of its booty. Moving the German customs line to the western frontier of Alsace-Lorraine on 24 July 1940 was the first step. French protests were, as a matter of principle, invariably ignored by the German Armistice Commission in Wiesbaden. ...

More to come, if interested, regarding Yugoslavia etc., but I think this settles it as to only Bohemia and Moravia being the areas annexed de facto.

[ljadw]

This does not prove that these areas were annexed de facto: it was and is not a choice between annexation de jure and annexation de facto .Between both there is a large gray zone .
There was a big difference between the situation in the Alsace and the situation in the north of France . You can't call them both as annexed de facto .

[Gorque]

This does not prove that these areas were annexed de facto: it was and is not a choice between annexation de jure and annexation de facto .Between both there is a large gray zone .
There was a big difference between the situation in the Alsace and the situation in the north of France . You can't call them both as annexed de facto .

Hi ljadw:

I didn't, Hans Umbreit did and his pedigree is much more impressive than yours. I suggest you take up your differences of opinion with him and the Oxford University Press.

[ljadw]

The problem is that Umbreit and his colleagues are describing these events, not as people who experienced them,but as members of a next generation .And Umbreit is German, the Americans are worse .
Annexation de Jure and Annexation de Facto had another significance for the Germans ,French, etc who lived in WW 2 than for Germans, French, Anglo-Saxon historians who lived after WW 2 .
Take Böhmen and Moravia :there were two governments for these territories :
The one in Prague,controlled by the Germans and the one in exile in London .Who was the legal one (if there was such one ) ?
Take an inhabitant of Prague,who was for the government in exile still a Czech, but who had changed his nationality and volunteered for/was called up by the WM and was taken POW : was he a traitor and could he be hanged ?
And the opposite : could a member of the Czech brigade who became POW,be hanged by the government of Prague ?
The government in exile did not recognize the authority of the government of the Protectorate , thus was there an annexation de Jure, de facto, or no annexation ? Or only an occupation ?
For an annexation de Jure you need the signatures of 2 governments .
For an annexation de facto ,you need a government that recognizes a situation of annexation de facto .
Otherwise,you have only an occupation .

[Gorque]

Hi ljadw:

The problem is that Umbreit and his colleagues are describing these events, not as people who experienced them,but as members of a next generation .

And of what generation are you? Just asking.

And Umbreit is German, the Americans are worse .

And I was born near Lübeck and raised in the USA. I guess that makes me a hopeless case!

For an annexation de Jure you need the signatures of 2 governments .
For an annexation de facto ,you need a government that recognizes a situation of annexation de facto .
Otherwise,you have only an occupation .

I agree.

Best regards,

[ljadw]

I am born in 1949,but I try to '' define '',''describe '' the prewar and war situations,using the definitions that were prevailing in those days .Today historians use today definitions to condemn,praise what happened in the past .
American historians are even worse:they live in other world (sometimes I have the impression that America is inhabitated by Martians ),have mostly no historical perspective and think that they can use words in today's US encyclopedia to describe wartime situations in Europe .And most British historians are going in the same way . And US and British politicians are worse, much worse ..
Parts of Belgium, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Austria, Poland, etc,etc have been annexed and reannexed. No parts of the US/UK, have been annexed by other countries .
Thus,it is very difficult, almost impossible for a non European to discuss/understand these things .
About annexation de Jure :
1 The Sudetes : the annexation was proclaimed by Germany and admitted by the Czech government . Thus it was an annexation de Jure .
But during the war, the Czech government in exile no longer recognized the annexation of the Sudetes . What was than the situation : de jure, de facto,occupation or something else .?
2 West Prussia,Posen : a Führer decree proclaimed the annexation of these territories ,but the Polish government never accepted it . What was than the situation ?
3 The Baltics : a rigged plebiscite declared that they were parts of the USSR. The Baltic governments in exile did not accept it . What was the situation ?
4 The territories Finland lost in 1940 and 1945 .
5 The eastern part of Poland
6 Teschen : Polish, Czech , Polish again, German , Polish again
7 Slovakia
8 Hungary
9 Austria
10 Slovenia
11 : etc,etc
I forgot : today's Ukraine
All these situations are different from each other and changed ,and changed again.
And it is obvious that it is useless to consult American/British dictionaries about the significance of Annexation de jure, de facto ,because de jure and de facto had in Europe 80 years ago an other significance than they have today in US/UK dictionaries .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You post, "I try to '' define '',''describe '' the prewar and war situations,using the definitions that were prevailing in those days ." Why?

That is good for understanding motivations at the time, but we are discussing these matters today with the intellectual tools available now.

Cheers,

Sid.

[ljadw]

Hi ljadw,



That is good for understanding motivations at the time, but we are discussing these matters today with the intellectual tools available now.

Cheers,

Sid.

I disagree : you can't use the '' intellectual tools '' of today to discuss what happened 80 years ago in Europe .
There is an enormous difference between how were thinking and acting people 80 years ago and how are thinking and acting people today .
80 years ago people have other conceptions and we should accept them .For people 80 years ago,annexation de jure had not the same meaning as it has for people today .
The present should not condemn, judge the past,because the present also will become the past .

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi ljadw,

You say, "you can't use the '' intellectual tools '' of today to discuss what happened 80 years ago in Europe ." One can.

You say, "There is an enormous difference between how were thinking and acting people 80 years ago and how are thinking and acting people today ." Yup, that is why I posted, "That is good for understanding motivations at the time....."

However, there is no good reason for us to blindly accept today the self-evaluation of societies 80 years ago.

You post, "The present should not condemn, judge the past, because the present also will become the past." That sounds good as a sound bite, but it doesn't actually mean anything of substance when one analyzes it. The fact that we may be held to different standards tomorrow doesn't in any way disqualify us from applying our own metrics to yesterday. The important thing is that we are aware that people in the past may have been motivated differently from ourselves.

Cheerrs,

Sid.