|
Post by dorn on Apr 26, 2019 1:01:12 GMT -6
Meantime we are waiting for RTW2 which will bring period after WW1 including period of WW2 when we can see all the technology progress how actually works. I choose one man and one event in my national historiy before WW2 which was point when German Reich could be easily stopped. I will try to show you different points of views that you can see that during last 20 years from WW1 world changed but politics not and there are still making policy of 19th century. The key person is Edvard Beneš and key event is Munich agreement. We do not need forget about nation which was involved.
I will not do any conclusions I will just show you some information to overall picture which could be interested to study and than with excellent article about it.
I will start with person: Edvard BenešHe is quite controversional person even in our country. He was responsible or influenced 3 key events in our history. The first one is creation of Czechoslovakia as he helped to create it and he was main negotiator during conferences after the war and favourable borders was mainly his success. He was foreign minister of new goverment and remain in that function over decade until he was elected as president of Czechoslovakia after Masaryk abdicated due to illness. He was main person responsible for interwar foreign policy. He focus on cooperation with France as he had personally connection to France and believe that France as main continental and democratic power could guarantee peace in Europe. He was very intelligent, expert of sociology which help him become skilled diplomat and see real status of European policy during interwar period. He was president in cruicial times in 1938 and key person to decide Czechoslovakia surrenderred Sudetenland to German Reich. As war started in 1939 he started to organized exile government and fight to be recognized as legitime goverment of Czechoslovakia with borders before Munich agreement. This was not easy as Munich agreement was signed by UK and UK has not intention to completely cancel this agreement so it takes years up to 1942 when it was officially declared. However during pre-war times and wartimes take toll and his health starts deterioted. The reasons precedes 1938 influenced him a lot and he did a lot of decision to change political situation in Czechoslovakia. (note: political situation was quite different to eg. USA or UK as there was a lot of small parties and making cabinet means a lot of parties involded making strong government difficult. This is something natural even today) After the war with influence by Soviet Union things started to change as communists trying to take more power and expell any who oppose them. There was another crisis in 1948 and at the time democratic parties looked again on Edvard Beneš to solve the issue. However nobody realized that at this time Edvard Beneš was quite ill he was not in condition to fight. As there was nobody to take his role and organized movements against and he was not able to do it himself situation envolves into coup. He remains as president some time after trying to fight but cannot do anything significant later abdicated when he was ask to sign new communist constitution. He died several months after. In our country there is law which was passed for first President "Masaryk is a man of great merit for the state." and even for the Beneš "Beneš is a man of great merit for the state." This was most controversial because of her involvement in 1938 and 1948. There are still opinions that Czechoslovakia should not surrender in 1938 and that Beneš should fought communismus in 1948. My opinion is that he do his best in both occasion as in 1938 he fought against it a lot finally choosing to withdraw and fight for restoration of Czechoslovakia. His fight in 1948 was more limited by his health, he can abdicated but it would not solve anything as there was no person that could lead resistance to communist takeover of power. Czech nationI will speak mainly of Czech nation as it has long history as sovereign nation. Kingdom of Bohemia was established at end of 12th century and after officially recognized by Roman Emperor. Kingdom of Bohemia was powerhouse in middle ages as German nations were splitted to several entities and was part of Roman Empire. Later King of Bohemia get another privileges in Roman Empire making kingdom even more powerful and during reign of Charles IV King of Bohemia was Roman Emperor itself and Bohemia was center of culture in central Europe. However at start of 14th century several things changed with start of protestants hundred years before Luther reformation. This leads to Hussite wars when Bohemian armies were feared across Europe were not beated by foreign intervation. Hussite movement was stopped by disagreements between different fractions. However the situation of Bohemian kingdom has worsen as these times were bad for culture, cleverness. Later Kingdom of Bohemia was part of Hasburg monarchy and it takes 300 years to become sovereign nation again. It has quite an impact of thinking of people as soverign nation was something precious that need to be defended at all costs. Munich agreementI will not write here as a lot of things was written but I will give you link to very interesting article written by historican Věra Olivová. It brings Munich agreement and defence of Czechoslovakia in large picture of international politics and I find it quite interesting. Especially in my country it should be readed as a simple question if Czechoslovakia should defend itself is usually limited to just military fight with Germany however decision was made by foreign powers. However international politics are very complex issue and Suddetenland issue should not be separated from international scene of events especially if we know that UK was already arming themselves quite a lot (see most ambitious Royal navy rearmament program in history even large than construction program of Royal Navy before WW1) Good reading. Article
|
|
|
Post by enrico69 on Apr 26, 2019 7:12:33 GMT -6
Always an interesting topic of discussion. I would say probably. The French were not able to properly estimate the crisis they were contributing to in the late 20's in Germany. The French could have the opportunity to prevent the Germans to re-use (for military purpose) the industrial western region of Germany, but they did nothing despite the warnings from their intelligence. The French intelligence also warned many times their successful governments (which changed so many times in that period) that Hitler was a real danger for peace. But with their political instability and their foreign "peace and love" policy - and their defensive military policy too, any intervention it was an utopia. Finally, you have also the "shared responsibility" between British and French. The British did nothing more than to French to prevent the war (don't mention Munich please ), and even were proactive in some way, like for the naval agreement. On top of that, you also have the outbreak of WWII, when allies had 90 divisions facing 30 German ones, in west Germany. I don't remember which one, but a German (general if I remember) said in Nuremberg that if the allies had attacked in the first weeks of the war while the Germans were in Poland, the things could have been different. A lot of if, still a lot of if, many scenarios possible. At the end it is always the same question: do you mean in theory or not? In theory, I my humble opinion, the answer is definitively a yes. But in reality, it was impossible for the many reasons mentioned above.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2019 8:49:03 GMT -6
If you are looking to stop the German's in World War 2 then go back to June 28, 1919 and the Palace of Versailles. The burden of war guilt was placed on Germany, harsh reparations and the creation of very unstable group of smaller nations that could easy be overcome by internal strife and external forces. The Treaty might not have made World War 2 aforgone conclusion but it did make Europe an unstable place. The blame for all this rests on the French and no one else. The Versailles Treaty has also been the blame for the Depression because of the harsh reparations. The rise of the National Socialist can be directly connected to the German economic woes, European inflation and destabilization of the Weimar Republic. Versailles made WW2 possible but not inevitable. but the seeds are in 1919.
The Munich Agreement was Neville Chamberlain's way of slowing down the inevitable march toward war. He did it to give the RAF time to fully deploy the Chain home high/low radar system with its integrated fighter direction and filter stations. It also gave them time to build spitfires and hurricanes, deploy them in squadrons and fully test the whole operation before the inevitable. June 1940 proved Chamberlain correct, the RAF was ready.
Now, this view is not necessarily the only view. Another treaty might have caused some other outcome. It is like making a meal, there are many ingredients, this is just one of them.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2019 9:21:09 GMT -6
Okay, let's try the "path not taken".
What if England, France and Soviet Union had sent a strong signal to Germany in the case of Czechoslovakia? Would that have stopped Hitler. What if instead of focusing on air defenses, the English had built up a serious land force capable of resisting the German invasion of France? What if England and France had resisted the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936? What if Chamberlin had signaled to the Germans that the British would defend Czechoslovakia if it was attacked? What if England had improved her finances after WW1 and overcome pacifism, would that have stopped Hitler?
Anyway, just a few "paths not taken" to consider. But the ultimate "path not taken" is for the German people to have risen up, eliminated the Nazis and asked for economic help to recover from the reparations and become a democratic nation. But they opted for a war, which destroyed their country and split their nation for sixty years or more. Sometimes that is what it takes, Japan and it people found that out also, so did the Italians.
|
|
|
Post by enrico69 on Apr 26, 2019 10:27:48 GMT -6
If you are looking to stop the German's in World War 2 then go back to June 28, 1919 and the Palace of Versailles. The burden of war guilt was placed on Germany, harsh reparations and the creation of very unstable group of smaller nations that could easy be overcome by internal strife and external forces. The Treaty might not have made World War 2 aforgone conclusion but it did make Europe an unstable place. [...] The Versailles Treaty has also been the blame for the Depression because of the harsh reparations. The rise of the National Socialist can be directly connected to the German economic woes, European inflation and destabilization of the Weimar Republic. Versailles made WW2 possible but not inevitable. but the seeds are in 1919. Totally agree on this point. But not on this one : The Versailles treaty was not only France vs the ashes of the German Empire. Of course the french are highly responsible of the outcome, but they were not alone. But at the end I globally agree with you: the incapacity, both in the summer 1914 and 1919, to get pragmatic people to be heard, led to catastrophic events. As mentioned in other topics, we were in the XXth century but still practicing policy from the previous one. An interesting point: today Western countries seems to still experience difficulties to understand this lesson.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2019 11:07:57 GMT -6
If you are looking to stop the German's in World War 2 then go back to June 28, 1919 and the Palace of Versailles. The burden of war guilt was placed on Germany, harsh reparations and the creation of very unstable group of smaller nations that could easy be overcome by internal strife and external forces. The Treaty might not have made World War 2 aforgone conclusion but it did make Europe an unstable place. [...] The Versailles Treaty has also been the blame for the Depression because of the harsh reparations. The rise of the National Socialist can be directly connected to the German economic woes, European inflation and destabilization of the Weimar Republic. Versailles made WW2 possible but not inevitable. but the seeds are in 1919. Totally agree on this point. But not on this one : The Versailles treaty was not only France vs the ashes of the German Empire. Of course the french are highly responsible of the outcome, but they were not alone. But at the end I globally agree with you: the incapacity, both in the summer 1914 and 1919, to get pragmatic people to be heard, led to catastrophic events. As mentioned in other topics, we were in the XXth century but still practicing policy from the previous one. An interesting point: today Western countries seems to still experience difficulties to understand this lesson. The French are the ones that wanted the extreme reparations, and all the other aspects that contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic and the rise of the Nazis. The French were trying to reduce the Germans to beggar nation that would never rise again. They were upset about the losses in the Franco-Prussian War where they lost a lot of territory. They wanted it back and more. However, that being said, the Weimar Constitution probably contributed to the fall of the Weimar Republic also, so that is a contributing factor. I don't feel one person was responsible in the Weimar Government, it was a group problem. I don't subscribe to the idea of one cause, there are always numerous causes for failures. This is no different. www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-21-3-b-the-german-weimar-republic-why-did-democracy-fail
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 26, 2019 13:22:46 GMT -6
I completely agree with you that rise of Nazis is because of the Versailles Treaty.
However ability to rearm and Germany and takover of several resources out of Germany was not because of the Versailles. At the time of Autumn 1938 German army has never been in significant powerful than Czechoslovakia army alone not mentioned French army. So argument of British that they need to finish their Chain Home radar system.
What if England, France and Soviet Union had sent a strong signal to Germany in the case of Czechoslovakia? Would that have stopped Hitler.
I think Hitler will not takover Sudetenland and if he orderered so he will be taken from power as German army was no much against French and Czechoslovakia army together.
What if instead of focusing on air defenses, the English had built up a serious land force capable of resisting the German invasion of France? I think it was not about how large the force was. Germany has completely outmaneuvered Allied forces.
What if England and France had resisted the remilitarization of the Rhineland in 1936? This is probably most difficult as it would limit Hitler however does not jeopardize his position in Germany.
What if Chamberlin had signaled to the Germans that the British would defend Czechoslovakia if it was attacked? I think this was key as France has treaty with Czechoslovakia and if backed by UK they would step into the war. In this case even if France were fighting phoney war withGermany would probably not have enough division to overcome Czechoslovak army. And in any case they are able to do it, Czechoslovakian army plans were that Czechoslovakian army will withdraw to Slovakia almost intact which put Germany in situation to have 1M army in east and French army in west, nothing that can be handled by Germany in 1938.
What if England had improved her finances after WW1 and overcome pacifism, would that have stopped Hitler? I think it was more about political will than UK strength. Germany army from Autumn 1938 to Autumn 1939 have increased about 3 times. No rearment program in France and UK can that increase.
Relating to Versailles treaty. All old powers (UK, France) wants everything come back as it was before WW1 - mainly system of power. And especially USA withdrawing from international politics was something they like a lot as it means they are still superpowers and can decide about the world. However world was changing and creation of all small countries in Europe needs different attitude. But even France did it in way of "colonialismus" not in way of mutual defence pacts. The second thing was that in France alliance with UK was view as important even more than system of alliances in continental Europe. It was pitty as this system would work if France would like to and it could even can increase prestige of France much more to France becoming policement of Europe. For that it was needed political will not actually strength as French army was powerful enough to handle any crisis especially with allies armies.
They are another thing we should take into considaration - Soviet Union. They feared Soviet Union and thing about Germany as reasonable border to defend "West" against communists. This is something that should not be forgotten.
Some notes about Czechoslovakian army. After return of Beneš from Geneva disarment conference in 1934, he stated that there would be international crisis in 1938 and that army should be ready for this. Czechoslovakia army think about potential defences against neibourghs and there were some conclusions. The Czechoslovakia is difficult to defend as their frontier is too long. They were most worried that enemy can take most favourbale defendeble terrain before Czechoslovakia army is mobilized. So the defence similar to Maginot line was choosen as Czechoslovkia cannot have enough men to defend whole border. It was not decision in unison as Czechoslokian officers has plenty of experience with mobile warfare during their experince in Czechoslovak legions in WW1 and during fights after February revolution in Soviet Union.
However they were several failures from the army as whole defences should be finished 50s even it was told by Beneš that key year would be 1938. It means that a lot of fortification was not ready in 1938.
Situation of fortifications in 1938.
They were not completely finished but light pilige boxes was almost ready and was better than French. Their main advantages was mutual protection meaning that every pillage box was defended by surrounding pillage boxes and faced enemy with only concrete thick wall. At that time there was no tactics to overcome this defences.
I found that quality of newer version was tensile strength (I hope I use good english term) 450-800 kg/cm2. (quality was tested by army during construction). After takeover of borders after Munich agreement, German army tested their plan in operation Unternehmen Freudenthal in line with their planned attack on fortification and it was mostly failure as conclusions were negative except general Choltitz (but it was general of that force so he probably would no make negative statements about his own soldiers).
One thing is certain, these statics defences show small vulue in history during WW2 but it was usually during war, not with 1938 technology and knowledge. Rochling shells were not available at that time.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2019 14:27:50 GMT -6
Let's take a look at resources to arm your nation. For Germany, her source of iron ore was from Scandinavia, specifically Sweden. She went after Norway, to get a port, Narvik, to transport the ore to Germany. Her textile industries depended on imported cotton and wool. She did have abundant amounts of coal. However, cars, trucks, and aircraft used oil. where did she get that from? Take a guess. What about bauxite for aluminum? She got that from Hungary and Yugoslavia. These are the three most important resources that she needed to rearm: petrol, rubber and iron ore. She had none of those so who gets the blame for selling those to her. Well, the Allied nations like France, US, Britain, and the Eastern European nations. Where did the German aircraft industry get the necessary patents for ethyl for increasing octane ratings of gasoline for their aircraft? Standard oil of Ohio who owned Ethyl Corporation sold them the patent rights for the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation to produce artificial oil and fertilizer. Germany's most important trading partner was the Soviet Union but she got trucks from France. She got tungsten from Spain and chrome from Turkey. The US also gave the German's the process for making synthetic rubber and Standard Oil of Ohio was refueling German U-boats in Hamburg until the declaration. The issue of German rearmament was everyone's problem.
Two books that you might consider are: 1. Merchants of Death, Hanighen and Engelbrecht. Dated 1934. Available on Internet Archive for Free. This is a study of the world armaments industry. Very illuminating.
Wages Of Destruction by Adam Tooze - This is a tome, so get some coffee.
One example from the first book. There was a company named Schneider-Creusot which according the book dominated French arms industry for over one hundred years. At the time, it controlled most of central Europe's arms factories. Some of Hitler's financial support then came from a company owned by a leading French industrialist and arms makers. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2019 15:09:53 GMT -6
Let’s put to rest in my mind, this idea that something other than focusing on the radar network and fighters would protect England stop the war. Churchill was a Francophile, he believed that the French Army would stop the Germans. Lord Dowding who was the overall command of the RAF knew differently. He knew that the Maginot Line and French Army would never stop the Germans. They were poorly trained, led and had poor morale. He also knew that the French Air Force had old aircraft, was also poorly trained, and had no radar or fighter direction. He also knew that the coordination between the French Air Force and the Army was almost non-existent. He also knew that the leaders of the French Army were fighting the war using WW1 tactics and operational control. In most cases, they sat in castles way behind the front giving orders, and not visiting the front.
Dowding was correct and that is why he pushed to finish the radar network and fighter direction organization. He also pushed to develop and field the Spitfire and Hurricane fighters. His fighters in France had no direction center and no adequate warning of the German aircraft were headed toward them. This was why he did not wish to send anymore of his valuable fighters to France.
|
|
|
Post by enrico69 on Apr 26, 2019 17:04:59 GMT -6
Lord Dowding [...] also knew that the French Air Force had old aircraft, was also poorly trained... On these two points however, he was wrong. But it is another topic
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 26, 2019 17:28:10 GMT -6
Lord Dowding [...] also knew that the French Air Force had old aircraft, was also poorly trained... On these two points however, he was wrong. But it is another topic The best fighter that the French fielded was the Dewoitine 520. But there was only eighty of them available. The French aircraft industry was a poorly maintained base and cracked under the stress of war. The French Air Force at the start of the Campaign in the West had 2402 fighters, 1160 bombers, 1464 reconnaissance aircraft for a total of 5026 aircraft. Now operational at the front, she had only 879 aircraft ready, 1410 near the front and 1687 in the rear areas. They lost 892 aircraft within six weeks. Why didn't they deploy more aircraft? Because they assumed the German's would attack like WW1, through the Low Countries and the campaign would be a long drawn out affair. So they held their aircraft in reserve. The Allies had 1453 bombers and fighters operational at the front on 10 May 1940, but the German's had 2589 bombers, fighters, dive bombers, ground attack aircraft etc. available. This is a complex story but the French air force was not ready for a blitzkrieg campaign and neither was the army. In September 1939, the month the war started, the French aircraft industry produced sixty aircraft. They still made aircraft by hand and had many investigations into corruption. Not a good way to start a war. By comparison, the British produced 7940 aircraft or 661 aircraft per month. The US produced over 2141 or 178 per month, the USSR produced 10,382 or 865 per month.
In October 1939, France did produce 254 aircraft, 296 in November, 314 in December and 358 in January, 279, 364, 330 and 434 in successive months until May 1940.
|
|
|
Post by dorn on Apr 29, 2019 0:25:04 GMT -6
Let's take a look at resources to arm your nation. For Germany, her source of iron ore was from Scandinavia, specifically Sweden. She went after Norway, to get a port, Narvik, to transport the ore to Germany. Her textile industries depended on imported cotton and wool. She did have abundant amounts of coal. However, cars, trucks, and aircraft used oil. where did she get that from? Take a guess. What about bauxite for aluminum? She got that from Hungary and Yugoslavia. These are the three most important resources that she needed to rearm: petrol, rubber and iron ore. She had none of those so who gets the blame for selling those to her. Well, the Allied nations like France, US, Britain, and the Eastern European nations. Where did the German aircraft industry get the necessary patents for ethyl for increasing octane ratings of gasoline for their aircraft? Standard oil of Ohio who owned Ethyl Corporation sold them the patent rights for the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation to produce artificial oil and fertilizer. Germany's most important trading partner was the Soviet Union but she got trucks from France. She got tungsten from Spain and chrome from Turkey. The US also gave the German's the process for making synthetic rubber and Standard Oil of Ohio was refueling German U-boats in Hamburg until the declaration. The issue of German rearmament was everyone's problem.
Two books that you might consider are: 1. Merchants of Death, Hanighen and Engelbrecht. Dated 1934. Available on Internet Archive for Free. This is a study of the world armaments industry. Very illuminating.
Wages Of Destruction by Adam Tooze - This is a tome, so get some coffee.
One example from the first book. There was a company named Schneider-Creusot which according the book dominated French arms industry for over one hundred years. At the time, it controlled most of central Europe's arms factories. Some of Hitler's financial support then came from a company owned by a leading French industrialist and arms makers. Interesting.
I think that it is linked with standard UK view on continental Europe as UK believe that there is need to balance power and thinks Germany as natural border from communismus from east. They completely miscalculated Hitler as a person. It is quite similar to Swiss envolvement in WW2 being Nazis main bank.
Another interesting "story" is that as Czechoslovakia was closed to clash with Germany, there was transfer of Czechoslovakian gold reserves to UK (Bank of International settlement account in Bank of England) to secure gold. After Czechoslovakia was taken over by Germany in March of 1939, Germany immediately went to Czechoslovakian national bank to order transfer of gold from Czechoslovakian account to Reichsbank account. And they did it for the first half of transfer, UK did not stop transfer helping Germany to finance the rearmament.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Apr 29, 2019 9:16:12 GMT -6
Let's take a look at resources to arm your nation. For Germany, her source of iron ore was from Scandinavia, specifically Sweden. She went after Norway, to get a port, Narvik, to transport the ore to Germany. Her textile industries depended on imported cotton and wool. She did have abundant amounts of coal. However, cars, trucks, and aircraft used oil. where did she get that from? Take a guess. What about bauxite for aluminum? She got that from Hungary and Yugoslavia. These are the three most important resources that she needed to rearm: petrol, rubber and iron ore. She had none of those so who gets the blame for selling those to her. Well, the Allied nations like France, US, Britain, and the Eastern European nations. Where did the German aircraft industry get the necessary patents for ethyl for increasing octane ratings of gasoline for their aircraft? Standard oil of Ohio who owned Ethyl Corporation sold them the patent rights for the Haber-Bosch process of nitrogen fixation to produce artificial oil and fertilizer. Germany's most important trading partner was the Soviet Union but she got trucks from France. She got tungsten from Spain and chrome from Turkey. The US also gave the German's the process for making synthetic rubber and Standard Oil of Ohio was refueling German U-boats in Hamburg until the declaration. The issue of German rearmament was everyone's problem.
Two books that you might consider are: 1. Merchants of Death, Hanighen and Engelbrecht. Dated 1934. Available on Internet Archive for Free. This is a study of the world armaments industry. Very illuminating.
Wages Of Destruction by Adam Tooze - This is a tome, so get some coffee.
One example from the first book. There was a company named Schneider-Creusot which according the book dominated French arms industry for over one hundred years. At the time, it controlled most of central Europe's arms factories. Some of Hitler's financial support then came from a company owned by a leading French industrialist and arms makers. Interesting.
I think that it is linked with standard UK view on continental Europe as UK believe that there is need to balance power and thinks Germany as natural border from communismus from east. They completely miscalculated Hitler as a person. It is quite similar to Swiss envolvement in WW2 being Nazis main bank.
Another interesting "story" is that as Czechoslovakia was closed to clash with Germany, there was transfer of Czechoslovakian gold reserves to UK (Bank of International settlement account in Bank of England) to secure gold. After Czechoslovakia was taken over by Germany in March of 1939, Germany immediately went to Czechoslovakian national bank to order transfer of gold from Czechoslovakian account to Reichsbank account. And they did it for the first half of transfer, UK did not stop transfer helping Germany to finance the rearmament.
It was easy after WW2 and the death of Adolf Hitler to put all the blame on him and his Nazis party. However, that is a simplistic view relieving all the other nations from responsibility. Finally after maybe twenty years, in the '60's a new view, not revisionist, but just a plain examination of the actual events using documentation that was available, came to the forefront. It finally dawned on everyone, that what happened in WW2 was nothing more than a continuation of WW1. It was just a confirmation that WW1 was a war that reconfigured Europe and WW2 just confirmed that reconfiguration. Hitler moved eastward, because he believed, incorrectly, that the British would not interfere with his plans and he would stay at peace with the western nations. He did not want a repeat of WW1. Eastern Europe had natural resources and land that he could use. He also planned to move the native peoples out of the area and occupy it with native German's. Russia was included in this plan. I can only assume that the western nations throughout the interwar period gave him that impression that they would not fight for eastern Europe. Misimpressions can lead to wars. My view is that with the rise of globalism, and breakup of the major empires, all the nations of Europe, Asia and North America had a stake in how the geopolitical situation operated or should have operated. We cannot and should not have isolated ourselves, hoping that the Nazi's and Hitler would go away. They did not and a new war was required. Hopefully we have learned the lesson. The German people have a stake in the beginning of WW2.
|
|
AiryW
Full Member
Posts: 183
|
Post by AiryW on Apr 30, 2019 12:09:45 GMT -6
If you are looking to stop the German's in World War 2 then go back to June 28, 1919 and the Palace of Versailles. The burden of war guilt was placed on Germany, harsh reparations Germany received more money under Versailles then it paid. The harsh Versailles reparations are one of those "everybody knows" myths akin to "they told Columbus he would sail off the edge". There was a net flow of capital **into** Germany due to forgiveness of debts unrelated to war guilt being larger then the very small amount of reparations Germany paid. Germany ran a budget and trade deficit every single year until the end of hyperinflation **before considering any capital transfers**. They didn't go broke because of the French. They went broke because they spent more then they taxed. The Versailles treaties were, like the treaty of Brest Litovsk, intended to be a temporary arrangement which would then be re-bargained in favor of a more permanent security arrangement. All the onerous conditions on Germany would be removed in exchange for Germany being part of the new world order. Unfortunately for the world, that more permanent arrangement never happened because of American disinterest. Without American cooperation the whole thing fell apart and the Germans simply never complied. In fact the majority of German reparation payments ended up going not the France but to Belgium just because the amount was so small that they never even repaid for the damage to Belgium let alone the damage to France. And it paled in comparison to the damage that Germany had deliberately done to those countries in order to retard their economic growth such as flooding the coal mines and destroying the railroads. Always an interesting topic of discussion. I would say probably. The French were not able to properly estimate the crisis they were contributing to in the late 20's in Germany. The French could have the opportunity to prevent the Germans to re-use (for military purpose) the industrial western region of Germany, but they did nothing despite the warnings from their intelligence. The French intelligence also warned many times their successful governments (which changed so many times in that period) that Hitler was a real danger for peace. But with their political instability and their foreign "peace and love" policy - and their defensive military policy too, any intervention it was an utopia. The French tried to do so many, many times. Basically every idea from the post-WWII settlement is something that Clemenceau proposed in the aftermath of WWI. The British support was tepid and Wilson had the explicit desire of curtailing France to the benefit of Germany. The American isolationism when Wilson left was actually an improvement in terms of European security. And then in the immediate period before the war their unilateral preperations suffered a series of reversals: the death of the Belgian king compromised their defensive alliances, the Soviets and British tripped over each other regarding Czechoslovakia, the Poles continued their policy of alienating every neighbor they had. The French are the last ones that could be accused of not being proactive about the danger of Germany. And this typically goes hand in hand with the statement that they were defensive. The great irony of this is that the French problem was that they attacked unwisely. Look at the location of Dunkirk, it's right on the border! They were forced to retreat *to* Dunkirk with the bulk of their forces. Their problem was not a defensive mentality! Their problem was a rash attack!
|
|
|
Post by enrico69 on Apr 30, 2019 17:08:33 GMT -6
And this typically goes hand in hand with the statement that they were defensive. The great irony of this is that the French problem was that they attacked unwisely. Look at the location of Dunkirk, it's right on the border! They were forced to retreat *to* Dunkirk with the bulk of their forces. Their problem was not a defensive mentality! Their problem was a rash attack! There were very defensive until... 1940. The " offensive de la Sarre" is a perfect example. The commander in chief of the french army (the catastrophic General Maurice Gamelin, a " notorious incompetent" according to De Gaulle) did " not believe in any offensive". The plan, from the Maginot Line to the defensive strategy of the army, was: - To prevent as much as possible any combat on the France mainland, because as you mentioned it, tremendous destructions were done, and a lot on purpose, by the german in 1914-1918. On top of the that, the most part on the industry, and of the coal mines, were in this part of the country
- Preserve the peace at almost any cost (the French were very reluctant to declare war), as the trauma of 14-18 was still present in the french society.
I mentioned the tiny fake offensive of september 1939, but the Armée de l'Air was in the same condition. Any offensive action was prohibited until the german attack. A lot of french bombers went however over Germany to... drop leaflet for propaganda ("...and the worst, is that pilots and crews died during these actions..." Saint-Exupéry).
The only army which was not in this strategy, was the marine. Often underestimated, even despite the huge amount of archive and documentation available today, the french navy was ready for combat, disciplined (with a few exception however...), even a little to much as we saw it at Mers-El-Kébir and Toulon. Some french admirals were even far too much optimistic, waiting for the entry of Italy in to the war, to begin this combat they have been preparing for almost 15 years ("... the french navy was, in fact, preparing a Jutland against the Regia Marina..." Masson).
As mentioned above, this defensive mentality changed (almost) completely when the german attacked. I say almost, because if the navy and the air army were given (too late) the green light for offensive (authorization for recurrent bombing of Italy, invasion of Sardinia...), the french army continued to fight in a 1914-1917 style : each time you're in difficulty, retreat to recreate a full frontline (until the panzer went through again).
But globally I agree with you, they tried to keep the peace possible, but they were blinded by this idea and did nothing to prevent the disaster to come.
|
|